Re: WC'2014 host cities
- From: Clément <lcmello.listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 04:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 2, 12:11 am, Lleo wrote:
On 1 jun, 10:11, Jesus Petry wrote:
For me, the big blow was Belém missing out. Even having crap teams
they have huge attendances.
Remo even held the top average attendance of the three national
divisions a few seasons ago... Ironically, the two "green" hosts are
the weakest ones, based on footballing tradition.
JP makes a good point. Manaus over Belém only makes sense if you
consider the first a stronger representative of the Amazon region.
Which it is.
Thinking in these terms, isn't it funny that Cuiabá trumped Campo
Grande as the Pantanal representative. The biggest part of Pantanal is
in Mato Grosso do Sul state [of which Campo Grande is the capital
city], and Cuiabá is an Amazon region city more than anything else.
What do you think of this "green" concept? I tend to think it's mostly
marketing, but it does give the WC more diversity. OTOH, it did "hurt"
cities who support football better than them (I'm thinking here the
two cities you guys mentioned, Goiânia and Belém).
I'd rather have technical criteria deciding those things, although
I'll admit to being overly objective about this stuff. Probably
there's a solid point in including more regions and displaying the
country's diversity to the world. Here's hoping all the host cities do
a great job.
In terms of climate, European teams will wish they don't play in
Manaus or Cuiabá, too hot and humid throughout the year. Porto Alegre
and Curitiba, since it will be winter time, would be the ideal venues
for teams from colder places.
Indeed. How do they choose this? You first decide where a group will
be based, then you draw them, right? Could we have, due to "luck" of
draw, for instance Germany in Manaus? :-)
I guess the draw defined this for 2002 and 2006? Except for the hosts,
maybe?
Now what I'm wondering is how the games, first round and elimination
ones will be distributed around the host cities. Of course it's too
early, but we can always play guess :-)
We'll have 48 first round matches, if evenly distributed that gives 4
games per city (I wonder if there's any chance of that happening,
though). As for the elimination games, how would you distribute them?
Quarters and eightfinals give us 12 games, which in theory could be
one per city (again, I wonder how likely is that).
I don't see that happening. I believe 4 cities will be done after
round 1, and the remaining 8 will keep the top-seeded teams from the
1st stage. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me that a team will win
their group just to be "awarded" a likely long trip.
I'd put Curitiba,
São Paulo, Brasilia and one from the northeast (Recife?) in the QFs.
With BH, Brasilia and São Paulo fighting to have the opener, the other
two of them will probably get the semifinals, though I think one of
them should be in Porto Alegre (let SP have the opener, BH the other
semi and Brasilia the 3rd place playoff!).
Good point. It's very possible that the two losers of the opener
choice will get the semis. And that sounds fair. São Paulo and BH for
the tradition, Brasília for being the capital and for their shining
new National Stadium. Despite Brasília's so-so football, I don't
begrudge it a prominent status in this mix. It's the capital, it's a
very remarkable city in its own way.
[Sports journalist] Juca Kfouri commented yesterday that the opener
choice will have a lot to do with who's [opposition party] PSDB's
candidate for presidency in 2010 - which arguably will have at least a
50% chance of actually being the president at World Cup time. As you
know, one of the favorites is from São Paulo and the other one from
Minas Gerais [of which BH is the capital city].
That would give us four cities with 6 games and eight with 5. If
scheduled sensibly, no major, or even minor, traveling concerns (the
big if, but in theory it can be done!). And everyone, even
"weaker" (no offense intended) hosts getting important games.
What do you think? How would you do it?
I would some competition criteria into it. As I mentioned above,
giving "home field advantage" to 1st stage top-seeded teams is a
sensible policy in my book. Obviously, that could trump any idea of
equally distributing games among hosts, but I don't think minor cities
are counting on it anyway.
Unless you make some of the minor cities a top-seed "home" for the 1st
stage.
For the quarters, I would appoint Porto Alegre, Curitiba, Salvador and
Recife, although this is somewhat unbalanced geographically speaking.
The semifinals could be in the 2 losers of the opener choice.
The match 3rd place could be in the same city as the opener. Or maybe
in a minor host, provided it doesn't mean a long travel for a match
teams are not that motivated for to begin with.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
.
- References:
- WC'2014 host cities
- From: Lleo
- Re: WC'2014 host cities
- From: Lleo
- Re: WC'2014 host cities
- From: Clément
- Re: WC'2014 host cities
- From: Lleo
- Re: WC'2014 host cities
- From: Jesus Petry
- Re: WC'2014 host cities
- From: Lleo
- WC'2014 host cities
- Prev by Date: Re: The 84 best players in Europe, 2008-09
- Next by Date: wie werde ich nichtraucher , rauchen aufhören spritze , endlich rauchfrei , hypnose raucherentwöhnung , rauchen kampagne , zum aufhören , rauchen aufhören video , raucher , rauchen aufhören nicht zunehmen , zum nichtraucher ,
- Previous by thread: Re: WC'2014 host cities
- Next by thread: Re: WC'2014 host cities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|