Jump to content

WC so far good or bad experience?


wc so far good or bad?  

179 members have voted

  1. 1. wc so far good or bad?

    • good
      42
    • bad
      26
    • ok
      37
    • will get alot better
      74


Recommended Posts

It's been bad. Only the opener has been exciting for me. But I think most teams are hesitant in their first game, while the defeated teams will have to throw everything on the line for their next two games, so will probably be much more excitement to come

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patience.

We haven't seen Spain, Brazil, Holland, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Ivory Coast, Chile, etc yet.

Brazil certainly won't make this WC any more entertaining, and Brazil shouldn't anyway. They are there to win, not to entertain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been mostly bad so far. The quality of football has been somewhat disappointing. I think the new ball is partly responsible for this, as it seems to make it more difficult to complete long passes. It'll be interesting to see how it will affect someone like Xavi. The general atmosphere at the matches has also been poor, because the vuvuzelas drown out all the crowd noises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will get better as teams get used to the ball, England/USA and South Africa/Mexico is probably the pick of the games so far. Absolutely no idea why FIFA continue to change the ball for tournaments to be honest, it's only a marketing ploy to sell replicas and it usually ends up resulting in the first few matches being poor

although Podolski showing there how to shoot :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, shall we have a new thread every deay then to gage the change in public opinion?

why don't you relax ffs, i forgot the majority on the SI boards seem to believe a new thread creates clutter on their desktop system :cool:

don't like the thread ? nobody is forcing you to read or post in it

Link to post
Share on other sites

why don't you relax ffs, i forgot the majority on the SI boards seem to believe a new thread creates clutter on their desktop system :cool:

don't like the thread ? nobody is forcing you to read or post in it

I can't decide whether I find this thread good, bad or ok. I'll get back to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

clearly falling for adidas's lies then?

There is a set range that a football has to weigh up in (410-450g)

The ball has been used in the Bundesliga all season.

The teams all got the ball ages before the WC began.

All that's happened is a few players have had a play with the ball in the preparatory training (probably at altitude), said they they're over hitting it, been told it's lighter, and then whinged to the media, who have run with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only complaint so far has to be the vuvuzelas. They keep showing shots of happy Africans dancing in the stands...what are they dancing too?? It would be brilliant to be able to hear the bands that are in the crowd, the singing etc.

Otherwise i think it has been rather good. The quality of the games will pick up soon, then fall away again in the knockout rounds as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far its been the South Africa game and the England game i think.

Free State - 1400m

Greenpoint - 0m

Moses Mabhida - 0m

Ellis Park - 1753m

Soccer City - 1753m

Mbombela - 1741m

Nelson Mandela Bay - 0m

Peter Mokaba - 1312m

Loftus Verfeld - 1370m

Royal Bafokeng - 1500m

Alt = 7

Sea Level = 3

From http://www.2010capetown.com/sports/2010-world-cup-stadiums.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

Free State - 1400m

Greenpoint - 0m

Moses Mabhida - 0m

Ellis Park - 1753m

Soccer City - 1753m

Mbombela - 1741m

Nelson Mandela Bay - 0m

Peter Mokaba - 1312m

Loftus Verfeld - 1370m

Royal Bafokeng - 1500m

Alt = 7

Sea Level = 3

From http://www.2010capetown.com/sports/2010-world-cup-stadiums.php

Still dont think its the altitude,plenty of other games get played at altitude around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still dont think its the altitude,plenty of other games get played at altitude around the world.

And at much higher altitudes, ex: Bogotá in Colombia is about 2,600 m; Quito in Ecuador is 2,800; La Paz in Bolivia is 3,600.

The South African altitudes are pretty "light" really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The South African altitudes are pretty "light" really.

But they are still pretty high for the European teams and quite a few of the others. You'll never see a World Cup in Bolivia, Ecuador, or Colombia due to the altitudes involved.

The teams all got the ball ages before the WC began.

The England team weren't using it ages it ago. They have a kit deal which meant they had to use the sponsors balls not the Adidas ones. I would imagine some of the other teams had similar deals and so their first real experience of the ball is when they arrived in South Africa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they are still pretty high for the European teams and quite a few of the others. You'll never see a World Cup in Bolivia, Ecuador, or Colombia due to the altitudes involved.

The altitude of Mexico City is 2,240 and they have hosted the WC twice.

Colombia IIRC will try to host the WC in 2030, but Ecuador and Bolivia are too small to host it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The England team weren't using it ages it ago. They have a kit deal which meant they had to use the sponsors balls not the Adidas ones. I would imagine some of the other teams had similar deals and so their first real experience of the ball is when they arrived in South Africa.

That's not Adidas's fault though is it. It's the FA's for signing a deal that could decrease the nations chances.

They have had to opportunity to use the ball for ages, and have in effect, chosen not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The altitude of Mexico City is 2,240 and they have hosted the WC twice.

Colombia IIRC will try to host the WC in 2030, but Ecuador and Bolivia are too small to host it.

Mexico is higher then I thought ;). Looks like 4-5 of the cities were higher then South Africa, but the main complaints about the Mexican WCs, from the Europeans, was it was too hot. I think that FIFA have become a bit more sensitive to the conditions tournaments are played in, didn't they stop Bolivia or Ecuador playing their matches at really ridiculous altitudes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico is higher then I thought ;). Looks like 4-5 of the cities were higher then South Africa, but the main complaints about the Mexican WCs, from the Europeans, was it was too hot. I think that FIFA have become a bit more sensitive to the conditions tournaments are played in, didn't they stop Bolivia or Ecuador playing their matches at really ridiculous altitudes?

They tried to stop them from playing at high altitudes, then the whole SA but Brazil (shameful behavior by Brazil here) complained and FIFA changed their mind and allowed the games to take place in high altitude places.

Potosí, at around 4,000 m is at even higher altitude than La Paz, by the way. Some Brazilian clubs had to play there in Copa Libertadores and complained a lot about it. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not Adidas's fault though is it. It's the FA's for signing a deal that could decrease the nations chances.

They have had to opportunity to use the ball for ages, and have in effect, chosen not to.

Most likely signed ages before the offical ball was announced and released. They haven't chosen not to they offically can't use the ball.

It's stupid using a new ball for the WC finals. At least use it in the qualifying stage as well, but that would cut down the money FIFA recieve. Adidas should of made more effort to get the ball more widely used before the tournament, it makes them look bad some of the top players constantly complaining about the ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely signed ages before the offical ball was announced and released. They haven't chosen not to they offically can't use the ball.

It's stupid using a new ball for the WC finals. At least use it in the qualifying stage as well, but that would cut down the money FIFA recieve. Adidas should of made more effort to get the ball more widely used before the tournament, it makes them look bad some of the top players constantly complaining about the ball.

Why is it up to adidas to do that? They'll have been approached by FIFA to make the ball / allow it to be used for the tournament. They make the ball, job done. It is up to FIFA to time it's release, to use it, and to provide it in time to all the national teams.

The national teams know that new balls come out and are sanctioned specifically for WCs. It is their choice to sign any deal which prohibits them from using it before the tournament (hence my "effectively"), in the full knowledge that there could be a new ball that they will want to try.

The Jabulani fills all the requirements for an international football. In fact, I've just found this which shows that the ball weighs 440g (10g off the maximum for FIFA approved footballs - 450g) so hopefully this argument can finally be put to rest.

Perhaps it's that the players are now getting a more improved connection with their passes and shots which is leading to the increased flight.

Or perhaps, as I've said over and over, it's to do with the altitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone for good. Enjoyed the opening game and also South Korea were entertaining. But tonight Germany have really impressed me. Around where I live people tend to always dismiss the Germans (2002 notable for this) but i've always said they'd make at least the quarter finals. But this time they've added flair and that is ominous.

Hopefully be good tomorrow Holland v Denmark could be a belter :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...