posted May 14, 2007

Seattle - Interesting - I honestly didn't know that ranking system existed.

With regards to the American league - it has the size and population to make itself 2 or 3 full football leagues. I don't know where this idiot Forza is coming from

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 14, 2007

It's how UEFA calculates how many teams each country will have in CL and UEFA Cup.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 14, 2007

Do you know how it is actually calculated though?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 14, 2007

You can see the that on the link i think.


They give 2 points for victory and 1 for draw for each team, and then divide with the number of teams that each country started the season.

Example. Liverpool still has one game left. If they win England will get 2/8 points to add to that ranking.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 17, 2007

please read the following article.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=306573&area=/insight/insight__columnists/

Please can you explain how in 2007 we continue to treat Africa with such pessimism?lets try to be objective in our news reporting.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 20, 2007

I am going to be logical with all due respect to England here and I hope you all have enough sense to understand this. I really hope the World Cup is held in South Africa but I personally think they are moving too slow to do it. FIFA pointed out USA, England, Japan, Spain, and Mexico as candidates to host it. Let us run all od those down.

England: You guys have everything and anything to hold a World Cup now (very impressive new Wembley Stadium you got there). But FIFA will definetly not let England host it. Ever since Sweden '58 the World has been alternated to different continents to prevent boycots like the earlier editions and FIFA will not break that system down. Especially when there are other countries who could host the world cup in such short notice. Sorry but FIFA will not have 2 consecutive World Cups.

Spain: Same as England. Even more of a negative to Spain is the constant racism that still lurks there. Just ask Samuel E'to.

Mexico: I can't really see FIFA giving Mexico a 3rd World Cup. Especially with the situation in Mexico now.

Japan: Japan just co-hosted very recently a World Cup. This is a no-brainer

USA: It has everything and anything to host a wolrd cup like England and Spain. The only downfall is the relative low popularity in football which made no difference in USA '94 (World Record attendances). Not to mention, Beckam is coming to play here and combining it with a World Cup will make football even more popular. Look at the progress we have made since 1990. If the USA end up hosting it (which i highly believe so) England will have no competition for 2018.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 26, 2007

usa was a major headache las time....logistically sites ar to far apart n players suffer from jetlag wat wit the time differences....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 8, 2008

People always comment on how small U.S soccer is. You have to keep in mind we have double the number of options most other countries have in mainstream sports. Lets take England. What would you play there? Soccer, obviously, but what else. Cricket, rugby...oh yea there isn't that many options are there...(sure i may have missed one or two but you get the idea)

In the U.S there are plenty of options: Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, American Football, Hockey, Lacrosse, and these are only the Major League sports. In High School, students are "distracted" by Cross country, Track and Field and Rugby among high school levels of Soccer , Basketball, Baseball, American Football, Hockey, and Lacrosse. This reflective not of some ignorant style but of the various differences in culture across the U.S.

But lets say some of those sports such as basketball are pretty big in Europe than i imply, we still have a laundry list of winter sports that are mainstream such as Snowboarding and Skiing

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 9, 2008

"People always comment on how small U.S soccer is. You have to keep in mind we have double the number of options most other countries have in mainstream sports. Lets take England. What would you play there? Soccer, obviously, but what else. Cricket, rugby...oh yea there isn't that many options are there...(sure i may have missed one or two but you get the idea)

In the U.S there are plenty of options: Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, American Football, Hockey, Lacrosse, and these are only the Major League sports. In High School, students are "distracted" by Cross country, Track and Field and Rugby among high school levels of Soccer , Basketball, Baseball, American Football, Hockey, and Lacrosse. This reflective not of some ignorant style but of the various differences in culture across the U.S.

But lets say some of those sports such as basketball are pretty big in Europe than i imply, we still have a laundry list of winter sports that are mainstream such as Snowboarding and Skiing"

I am not quite sure what the point you are making is. IN England we have Football (that's the version where the foot is actually used the majority of the time to control the ball). Then we have Rugby League & Union which are immensely popular. Cricket is our summer sport along with tennis and then we also have basketball, ice hockey, field hockey,darts snooker and athletics (even fishing) as popular participation sports.

I think the point should be why should the US host the World Cup twice before England ?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 30, 2008

Please guys dont be listening to people like Moj1mar1 about South Africa's ability to host 2010. Moj2mar1 never had a problem when South Africa hosted the Rugby World Cup (2005) nor the Cricket World Cup. In fact he must have been 200% behind South Africa's bid for the 2011 Rugby World Cup but lost to New Zealand. For he belongs to a "special people" who ran SA pre 1994. South Africa will host 2010 and is ahead of schedule in fact. From a Commercial point of very the South African WC is going to be the most profitable. But dont take my word for it, investigate and take a look at FIFA's website and major sponsors websites like Coca-Cola,KIA and other sponsors websites. You dont spend the kind of money these guys are spend for a WC to be taken away. South Africa has enough stadiums already built but chose to build football specific staduim. And yes they are far better that most staduims in Europe. But people as I said investigate for your self, the real truth is out there. As for the crime comment that Moj1mar keeps on harping about, Yes, we do have a high crime rate BUT They will be safe come 2010 as they were for the Rugby and Cricket WC. Remember there wont be just South African Police available to protect people but Local police from each country will be invited to help with their citizens. But dont believe me investigate for yourselves. Sorry about the killjoys who keep harping on South Africa negatives, they are still sour about releasing Nelson Mandela.

add comment | complain about this comment