SportBoy321
04 Oct 2002, 03:35 AM
I am very curious as to how those 4 venues were chosen. St.Entienne has a rich football history but the folks there haven't seen a high level of football played in a long time. I don't think they should ve been picked. I don't think you need Paris AND St.Denis because their so close you need to spread things out a bit. If I was picking the cities and venues for this tournament I would have chosen St.Denis,Lyon,Bordeaux and Nantes to be home to the matches.
olafgb
04 Oct 2002, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Sachin
There is a third option and that is for countries to send players that otherwise would never see international play. If FIFA persists in continuing with this farcical cup, that's what will have to happen.
Who'd watch these games? This cup makes sense at least for one nation: the host of the next WC as test. That's what Germany is doing in 2005. But with empty stadiums you can't have a real test. Don't want to play the Eurosnob, but the American leagues are in the middle of their season in June and for them it's hardly a problem to have a two weeks break. The situations is just bad for those who are between two seasons. In 2005 Germany of course will take part - add Brazil, USA, Australia, Argentina, Japan, South Korea and Norway (play through summer) and this would be an excellent friendly tournament. I just don't see why Spain or France should be forced to take part if they don't want to.