Worst World Cup of all time.

What was the change then? Was it that your onside if level with the second to last defender or give the benefit of doubt to the attacking player?

 

Right, both of them.

 

Both of them.

 

Read this thread and I'm perplexed on some things people have stated.

-Chile 1962. Of course the stadiums weren't in the best shape. The country had a devastating 9.5 earthquake. The Chilean president came to FIFA saying that after the earthquake his country had nothing, that's why they had to have the World Cup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_FIFA_World_Cup#Summary

-USA 1994. People have said that it didn't feel like a World Cup and that it was just any regular day outside of the stadium. The United States is a sports-mad country as any person that lives here can attest. Our society "stops" for maybe the Super Bowl and that's it for sporting events unless it is a local phenomenon (the state of Alabama stops to watch Alabama-Auburn, people in Maine don't care). The World Series, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, college games, Olympics, none of them make it so 100% of the population is ga-ga over the event. And in 1994, soccer in the United States was decidedly a minor league niche sport way below those sports and in many ways still is. That World Cup was entirely about opening up the sport to an American audience. Not to mention where I lived at the time was on the east coast and the closest venue was 300 miles away, so for what reason would my community be ga-ga over a niche sport taking nearest place 5-6 hours' drive away? If you want to have the entire city glued to their TV sets over a sports event, never have the World Cup leave Europe. Which probably suits Europeans fine considering not a single European nation has ever won a World Cup off European soil.

"It was hot and humid." Yes, it usually is in the summer. I kind of laugh at this statement though, it's a bit like complaining to a northerner that it's really cold here at 30 degrees and it may flurry. Look at the host areas: Los Angeles, Detroit, San Francisco, New York, Orlando, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, Washington. The only bad city heat/humidity-wise is Dallas and maybe Los Angeles. If a person thinks the rest of those cities are bad they should really try the South with no air conditioning.

"venues were streched out throught a large landmass and some teams had to cross several timezones to play one game to the next and other teams didnt." And? This is normal for NFL players by the way to have a few of these over a 4-month season. Interesting comment considering some Europeans get on Americans for MLS not having single-table and a balanced schedule. If Russia ever hosts a World Cup, I hope they make Vladivostok a venue.

Diana Ross missing a penalty. Who cares? If that ruins a tournament for you, I feel sorry for you.

For 2002, I think of it more fondly just due to the U.S. beating Portugal 3-2, beating Mexico 2-0, and then giving Germany a good fight. Of the U.S. modern era in World Cups (1990 onwards), it was easily the best we'd ever played not even considering the finish. For the rest of the tournament, whatever. The South Koreans struck me as snots because I remember them tying it against the U.S. they had four members of the team or so go into an imprompt speedskating demonstration because Apolo Anton Ohno won the gold at Salt Lake City after a South Korean skater was disqualified, apparently making that country the only ones who remembered or even cared about it 6 months later on. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YlU37w1ngM"]YouTube- 2002 World Cup: Ahn Jung-Hwan goal vs USA[/ame]

 

You seem to remember the skating celebration.

 

I remember the celebration because it was stupid. I didn't (and still don't) remember what happened in the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics short-track speedskating finals and neither did anyone else 6 months after the fact except the South Koreans apparently. If a person is going to be an ass with a celebration, at least make it so that's it not such an inside joke that it goes over the heads of 99.99% of the people watching that you intend to be an ass too. How many Americans that were watching that game cared about Apolo Anton Ohno and what happened in the short-track speedskating finals six months earlier?

 

I don't remember either.

There are still people that talk about Roy Jones Jr. as well.
We should let it go...It's in the past.

 

I agree with you in the respect that Americans, for the most part, don't know what was going on/remember/care.

However, you're looking at it from a one sided perspective.
It was really done, imho, in solidarity & support of the skater. Therefore for Korean fans.

I seriously doubt the goal scorer thought what could I do to rub it in the Americans' face. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. In that case, the snub did go over the head of most if not all Americans watching.

I knew about it but I didn't really care because I just don't really watch or care for the Winter Olympics.

 

Dallas is the South, and that was where one particular game (Germany - South Korea) went to almost 130º. Regardless it had more to do with playing at mid-day so European audiences could watch the game comfortably at dinnertime. Thankfully that was scratched eight years later.

 

Some people think the 2010 world cup in south africa might be the worst.

I quite frankly, think it is going to be the best, could not get ticket for the Brazil match in durban though

Oh, for those looking for accommodation, or interested in exploring africa, while you are do for the world, check out this website, it has some cool packages, I am saving for the vics falls travel deal

http://www.worldcup2010-accommodation.com/

 

Almost, it was over 120º. The Koreans had trained for the humidity (while the Germans hadn´t) and managed 2 goals in the second half. Temperatures like that are ridiculous and put the players´ safety at risk.

 

I seem to remember Mexico Ireland being played in an almost white heat.

 

Yes. It´s also been proven players are much more likely to loose their cool in extreme heat.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSJVL74OlQk"]John Aldridge & Jack Charlton Lose it at World Cup 1994[/ame]

 

You can't. That game totally f'd up the Germans and they were done and dusted after...playing in the middle of the afternoon in Dallas in summer is just nuts.....ask anyone who's done it.....like me.

 

No question 2006 was by far the worst.

 

1990 was the last WC that I did not go to but never really felt it was a very poor tournement. I remember the veteran ITV commentator Brian Moore saying he felt it was the best he had covered. When I read comments on here and recently in the 4-4-2 magazine I am amazed how people it is regarded. Even criticising Germany and Italy who were clearly teh two best sides. There was the best African side ever to play in a WC, fantastic stadia. I would never defend it but I had no idea about the strength of feeling about it.

 

Without the slightest shadow of doubt.

 

for me every single world cup which brazil have not won is the worse cup
because i mad for my team and i never want them to lose a single match so the world cup is a much big thing..i've planned to go to watch live match in the stadium this world cup when my team will face portugal in group G.
infact i've already booked my Masters Tickets for the same

 

2002

 

Since i saw all the matches from 1986 onwards i can decide only these world cup (my father's generation says that 1970 was the best of them all but i wasn't there to have an opinion about).

IMHO:
1) Mexico 1986. Lot of high quality matches and classic matches. Big dramas, a great final match (since 1990 the final is always disappointing and you end without the so-expected climax) and the genius of Maradona at his peak.

2) USA 1994. Some huge matches, a lot of fun on the pitch with teams like Romania, Sweden, Nigeria. Also being in Italy i remember watching matches at 3 'o clock in the morning (good memories of those nights with friends and girls )

3) Germany 2006. It started very well, the group stage was probably the best ever in terms of football quality. The knouckout matches were not so impressive but we have good and tough games, and i like rough matches like Portugal-Netherlands. Then of course, Italy won the big prize

4) Italy 1990. Well, it was in my country and that counts for me but it wasn't a great quality world cup even if there was of dramas here and there. Shame on the final and to the Olimpico whistles at Argentina's anthem. That was a shame.

5) France 1998. A well deserved win for France, but with few great moments (David Beckam's red card apart). The final should have been France vs Netherlands as Brazil was completely surclassed in that match.

6) Japan-Korea 2002. Awful. Too many bad decisions by referees (we all know the history). A crap team like Korea in the semis depriving us of better teams like Italy or Spain. France and Argentina's early exit deprived us of great players in later stages. And football in the morning is something so unusual for me, i fight to be awake to see England vs Brazil at 8 am... Not a single match to remember!

 

Supporting Aberdeen must be a really horrible experience for you then.

 

For me 2002 was so ho hum - I didn't think the quality of football did any favors to the world cup. The most disappointing (but the best quality) was 2006.

 

Best quality, where? ...

 

There were around a dozen uncalled penalties in the first round.

France very nearly lost to Italy and Paraguay, and struggled to beat both Denmark and Croatia. Holland, England, or Argentina could have given them a far better fight in the final than a Brazil playing very strangely. As far as Brazil in the final, Zidane was unmarked on both corners when he scored. The Brazilians had the ball almost the entire second half (and hit the post) before the French countered in the 90th minute.