World Cup: boring or scores?

World Cup: boring or scores?

Bye, bye Pim, Hello Holger. With the pragmatic Dour /, with the beautiful game. Or so we thought, until last Friday's World Cup qualifier against Thailand, it is.
So the question arises, is it better to qualify by any means, or should aspire to imitate the "joga bonito" in Brazil.


Technically (Thais as good if not better), which are far from safe enough or competent authorities at this stage to throw caution.

Not only that, but in my opinion, the rating is the be all and end.There seems to be much more damaging to play like Wimbledon on steroids and come to Brazil in 2014.
The global reach of the final World Cup shows no sign of decreasing, as seen in this article by Les Murray.
Let's face it, the only time Australia had the game by the scruff of the neck mass is the World Cup every four years.
Anyone who does not believe that he must return to the 2002 World Cup and see the viewers in primetime for matches not involving the Socceroos.
So much better than the "Socceroos 32 years of" Soccerwhos "from 1974 to 2006.
If you do not feel the start value in 1997, when they were not eligible and petted the dog in 2005, instead of kicking, have not been on the rollercoaster of World Cup qualifying Australia for a long time.
There are still, however, the argument that competitive sports fans in Australia to qualify in a way that appeals to sports fans in general, we have to paint like Michelangelo.


For me it is nonsense. Australia competitive sport, where success can be measured across a wide range of sports, knows a thing.
To appear successful and earn respect at the international level, we must win. 

International sports (as opposed to the national championships) is limited to the beating of breasts, so to win.


Italian and Dutch fans questions, be interesting.
While not float like a butterfly, if you can sting like a bee.
Instead, as a laborer to dig and find a gold mine attached to a drainpipe.