- This topic has 34 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 15 hours ago by
.
- Posts
I boycotted the last World Cup and will do the same to the next one: no watching it on TV, no betting on the matches, no new England shirt, no promotional goods or services.
In case anyone here is unaware, the entire competition is a joke, as summarised here:
Brilliant as ever from Hyde.
Finding someone even worse than Blatter was always going to be a difficult task but it has to be said FIFA has exceeded all expectations there. It’s hard to bring an organisation like that into disrepute but Infantino may just have managed it.
I have the Netherlands at 22/1.
they are totally unreliable but are a class outfit and capable of beating any of themCharles Darwin to conquer the World
I spend a fair bit of time in Mexico for work, most Mexicans will not be able to afford to attend a single game. Ticket prices are into the thousands of dollars, and that US dollars, simply unaffordable for even ‘middle class’ Mexicans.
Prices for a lot of games in Mexico are higher than tickets in US venues.
When Trump receives his FIFA Peace Prize it will perhaps be the lowest point in sporting history.
I too have worked out there Blade, I suspect most would not be interested in any fixtures other than Mexico ones.
As for Norway, where im currently working, a mass exodus to USA is on the cards.
Bets..I always back England to win, just in case they actually do..Beer insurance policy.
Mexico should have a good run, very defensive but know how to win. Will back them nearer the time.I’m sure we’re all critical of the BBC to some extent but it can’t win sometimes. I’ve no issue whatsoever with them covering it largely from this country. I really don’t see why the licence fee payer should have to fork out for dozens of pundits and staff to jet around all over North America for five weeks. The Olympic gravy train in particular is nauseating, good on them reining it in I say.
Agree. I am not an admirer of the BBC. It has had a year to forget in many ways. But I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with this decision. It seems entirely reasonable.
Thinking back to the World Cups of my youth, the BBC and ITV had commentators in the host country but I am fairly sure the studio host and pundits were in Britain.
Given the ridiculous amount of games now, much of the tournament is going to be utterly dull anyway.
I haven’t really watched any world cups since Archie Gemmill’s goal against the Dutch
I do understand that commentators can do their job more easily if they are actually there but nobody is going to notice or care if the BBC’s eighth choice team are commentating on Uzbekistan v Haiti from TV pictures at 2am on a Tuesday.
It’ll be strange if them teams come out in the same group Richard. I might be saying “Fix”. Another thing I find strange is having the draw before we know the final teams
Mr Infantino is under strict instruction to make sure we get Australia, South Africa and Curacao
It is strange not knowing who some of the teams are, and from the lowest pot you could get a team ranked in the 80s or potentially Italy who, whilst they aren’t the team they used to be, are still a tough draw. Some potential groups of death out there. Norway in pot 3 are definitely ones to avoid.
It’s even more nauseating than I imagined.
They should have got someone to do a Graham Norton Eurovision-style commentary.
Trump is even doing the draw. A bit of a step up for him from when he drew the away teams for the quarter finals of the Rumbelows Cup on “Saint and Greavsie”.
Not much to get excited about in terms of England’s draw, Croatia again, Panama again, at least Ghana offers some interest. Would have been nice to get one of the ‘new’ teams at least. Such is the nature of being a top seed and the expanded format though.
As Cork noted, there will be a lot of uninspiring matches. A lot of the group games, and even some of the early knockout ones, will be forgone conclusions.
England should be reasonably happy. It could have been a lot worse.
Scotland might have got something easier but they must be reasonably optimistic about getting through the group, especially now that some third placed teams will qualify.
I remember Scotland playing Brazil in the 1982 tournament and going 1-0 up before losing 4-1.
It remains to be seen how it plays out but the group matches look like they will go on for far too long. 48 teams isn’t necessary, with some of them looking like merely making up the numbers.
Maybe stretching out the draw ceremony for so long was preparing us for it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.