Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 165 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,751 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In my opinion, yes.

  • Home of football
(None of this Chinese boll0cks shit .. England created what footbal is today)

  • Hasnt hosted a WC since 1966 ... Amazing really.
  • No Euro since 1996.
  • Succesful team
  • Best stadiums around the world (Even our lower league stadiums are fit to hold WC matches - Leeds,Forest,Reading at a push)
  • Best league in the world (No debate about this one .. Attendances, players, clubs etc .. all beat every other league)

  • Best fans in the world(Apart from the odd idiot, were quality, we dont stab people at least)
  • Top economic country (all the infastructure involved with that)
  • Stable govt (Milliband will be in charge of the country by then)
  • Good spread of stadiums (Not all around 1 place and makes it easier for policing bad countries like Turkey)
  • [Good security (Can find the weapons of some countries scum/vermin (whatever - Look like vermin anyway) easily)

Seriously, it is criminal that England doesnt get to host more stuff like this. We should be given it automatically and I would say we host it every other tournament to make sure we remember who gave us this game)

I think its because whenever its hosted here, we do well (Winners in 66 , Semis in 96) and FIFA are scared of us doing well again .. Nevermind, get Moggi on board, he'll sort something out.
 

·
DAGOODS = RATINGS
Joined
·
22,495 Posts

America should host the WC every other tournament!
For obvious reasons...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,751 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Sorry have you seen the World rankings ?

Any team that reaches the QF and SFs of tournaments regulary is a succesful team.

Any team that wins the WC will always be a succesful team.

Maybe not Uruguay... they probably cheated. Poor mans Argentina them boys.
 

·
DAGOODS = RATINGS
Joined
·
22,495 Posts
You're twats and did a terrible job before ?

Sounds like a FIFA move to me.
We didn't cheat like you clowns did in 66....
Plus FIFA knows better. If they want to make soccer the number 1 sport in the world, the Americans must appove it or risk shareholder protest :happy::happy::happy:!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,491 Posts
You have nice stadiums, ill give you that. Other arguments are more or less the same as would be the arguments of Spain and Italy.

Anyways all candidates from Europe are strong ones with the safety of the fans and infrastructure on a higher level than elsewhere in the World. Bar a few countries maybe like Japan, the States, S. Korea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,397 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,995 Posts
Would be immense if England hosted the tournament.

  • Best fans in the world(Apart from the odd idiot, were quality, we dont stab people at least)
  • Good spread of stadiums (Not all around 1 place and makes it easier for policing bad countries like Turkey)
  • [Good security (Can find the weapons of some countries scum/vermin (whatever - Look like vermin anyway) easily)
Jesus la fad, I don't appreciate this bullshit you keep spewing out. Turkey has changed. Our league is now one of the best in the world in terms of safety policies, we have learned from our mistakes. Your points are not valid anymore so stop believing like they are...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,675 Posts
If the home advantage were eleminated (being favored by referees, easier group, no. of supporters in the stadiums... etc) i would love all tournaments to be in europe and particularly in England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,074 Posts
Sorry have you seen the World rankings ?

Any team that reaches the QF and SFs of tournaments regulary is a succesful team.
Bwahahahahaha :dielaugh: Euro 2008


I have nothing against England hosting; I think they'd do a great job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
i knew England had won WC just once, but never knew that was the only time they reached the finals....on top of that, no Euro cup, heck, not even a Euro finals!....i just checked out their international records the the 66' WC part was highlighted alongside some third place finish in euro and semis in 1 rare world cup....
and that IS A SUCCESSFUL NATION!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
I'd consider England to be a successful team on the basis that we've had hosts like Korea, Japan and South Africa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,675 Posts
seriously, the korea-japan world cup was a disaster in many aspects, no need to say how bad the 2010 is going to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,397 Posts
korea-japan should especially be remembered for the refereeing. Spain & Italy were treated like little whores.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,675 Posts
Also the fact that both Korea and Japan had easy groups making other groups too tough like Argentina and France's groups.

The problem is South Africa will probably be the weakest nation in the next world cup, I believe they will draw in such an easy group that nobody deserves to be in the next round.
Just look how did they draw for the Confederations cup and u will know how it will be in the WC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
Did you say Miliband? :howler:



What a joker..The guy gets FOs & :finger: whereever he goes, be it Russia or India..:howler:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,223 Posts
I wouldn't fully agree with infrastructure. Our public transport is pretty awful. Nowhere near the level of Germany, which was able to integrate their transport systems into match tickets and pack trams and trains full of fans. Can you honestly imagine that on the underground? Hopefully the Olympics will improve things but I generally think London will never improve its public transport, and thanks to the Olympics Manchester's transport system is almost non-existant save the buses.

Despite that I do think we deserve it. Our hosting of "neutral" friendlies, such as Brazil at the Emirates is an example, and we already have a large amount of stadia in place. Wembley, Old Trafford, the Emirates, Stadium of Light, City of Manchester Stadium, St. James' Park and Anfield are all brand new or well developed grounds and more could be made or expanded. It probably would not cost a great deal, and unlike Poland/Ukraine or South Africa they wouldn't need to build 8-10 new grounds in time, which has proved an obstacle in those countries.

The only unfortunate ruling is that only one stadium used per city, although Johannesburg will use two stadiums for 2010. If so selection would probably be:

London: Wembley, Emirates
Manchester: Old Trafford
Liverpool: Anfield/New Anfield
Sunderland: Stadium of Light
Newcastle: St. James' Park
Birmingham: Villa Park
Leeds: Elland Road
Reading: Madejski
Sheffield: Hillsbrough

Its a shame to see lesser stadiums used because of that ruling. Really England doesn't have as many major cities as Germany or other hosts, rather more smaller ones. Its a shame because lesser grounds may get used on account of their geography rather than quality.
 
1 - 20 of 165 Posts
Top