A worrying trend [Archive]

leg_breaker

14 Feb 2006, 07:11 AM

This will be the second world cup final in a row played in an athletic track stadium. Football games played in a stadium with a track lack atmosphere and intensity. An athletics track has no place in a football stadium, they're rarely even used anyway.

Such stadiums should be banned from being used in the World Cup.

PirateJohn

15 Feb 2006, 05:00 AM

Don't a rather lot of major Italian clubs have tracks around the pitch? It's all a matter of opinion.

tino11

15 Feb 2006, 05:19 AM

So is the third place play off at Stuttgart. A high percentage of German grounds have running tracks around them. I am going to see Stuttgart v's Middlesboro' tomorrow, and I don't think the track will make any difference to my enjoyment. To ban these stadiums in the world cup, would mean that there are few countries outside the UK that could feasibly host one without re-building, I guess.

AFCA

15 Feb 2006, 06:04 AM

This will be the second world cup final in a row played in an athletic track stadium. Football games played in a stadium with a track lack atmosphere and intensity. An athletics track has no place in a football stadium, they're rarely even used anyway.

Such stadiums should be banned from being used in the World Cup.

I agree somewhat... Ajax' old Olympic stadium had a biking-track around the field. It was a very atmospheric venue though.

Bruzza

15 Feb 2006, 06:09 AM

What is with peoples continual discomfort of a game being played with an Athletics track inbetween? Sure your not as close, but the atmosphere is not that far different. You generally find anyway, with an oval style pitch, the stadiums are larger.

leg_breaker

15 Feb 2006, 06:12 AM

Don't a rather lot of major Italian clubs have tracks around the pitch?

And no-one goes to Italian football games.

Natrium

15 Feb 2006, 06:53 AM

It's an Olympic Stadium, it obviously has to have running tracks.
Do you want to ban one of the biggest stadium in Germany in terms of capacity from the World Cup, just because there are tracks?
Lol, than others would rant about how they could pick lower capacity stadiums, when there are bigger ones available.
There is always someone who has to b.itch about something, that the nature of things.

PirateJohn

16 Feb 2006, 05:36 PM

And no-one goes to Italian football games.
Uh huh.

Lessee here, Inter is averaging 55,564 per game. AC is averaging 52,902. But nobody goes to those games. I guess that's why the league is too poor to afford some of the best players in the world in their league. I mean, guys like Buffon, Samuel, Nedved, or Toni wouldn't be caught dead in such a league, right?

Excape Goat

21 Feb 2006, 12:06 AM

It will depend where you sat in the stadium. I paid for the secod most expensive ticket during WC 2002. They put me next to the corner flag. I did not remember a single moment of the game when I left the stadium. I saw every game of WC 2002, except one match.... the one I sat in the stadium.

RichardL

21 Feb 2006, 08:26 AM

Uh huh.

Lessee here, Inter is averaging 55,564 per game. AC is averaging 52,902. But nobody goes to those games. I guess that's why the league is too poor to afford some of the best players in the world in their league. I mean, guys like Buffon, Samuel, Nedved, or Toni wouldn't be caught dead in such a league, right?
I guess those fans at the San Siro don't mind the running track there, huh?

leg_breaker

21 Feb 2006, 12:44 PM

Lessee here, Inter is averaging 55,564 per game. AC is averaging 52,902.

The Italian league has atrocious average attendances. Your two examples play in a stadium which DOESN'T have a track! Try looking at the crowds Juve get. They're actually getting a new ground with no track.

I guess that's why the league is too poor to afford some of the best players in the world in their league. I mean, guys like Buffon, Samuel, Nedved, or Toni wouldn't be caught dead in such a league, right?

Most of their money comes from TV deals. People don't want to actually go to the games because of the ultras.