it just isn't

you could say
"I think Australia would have done a better job than South Africa did

But you cannot use that construction when talking about a future event

how about

"I think Australia would have done a better job than the country to host the world cup in 2030 will do"

nothing could convince me this is correct

....

"I think Australia would do a better job than Qatar

is obviously completely fine

Qatar will be way better for global tv audiences than US and to a lesser extent, Australia. US has had it recently. Sure it was 28 years ago but none of the others had had it at all before. Qatar/the Middle East is a good potential growth area so I think it makes some sense from a financial point of view. I suspect Qatar will lead to a pretty poor World Cup atmosphere and play wise, just like Japan and Korea and South Africa did but hey, its the World Cup, not the European Cup.

I think the whole Qatar legacy of building stadia in Africa will have swung a few votes, people love token gestures that they can use to feel morally superior.

I was more surprised to see Russia win than Qatar, I thought it would be Spain/Portugal for sure. If England new how to play the game, I think they should have had a decent chance but I think their bid was, as usual, based on what would get the English vote, not what actually had a chance of winning the vote.

Definitely plenty of corruption involved. It was no secret that FIFA was corrupt to the core even before all of the recent publicity.

Also, current stadia generally have very little to do with whether you win or not. They have 12 years to build new stadia, which is also 12 years for current stadia to continue declining.

who cares where the WC is? Andynan and I will still make $$$ on the games amirite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN226...ayer_embedded#!


this is a fricking really good short about poker

FIFA and UEFA have repeatedly shown that they couldn't care less about this with Russia, Spain, Italy, Croatia and many more.

On the other hand, England and the Netherland's supposed 'hooligan reputations' probably did negatively affect their chances.

Sadly, FIFA doesn't care about what might actually be good for football.

Naturally, a country that practices Sharia is a much better choice . . .

At least put a U in there. That naked Q is just nasty.

No. U.

How about countries that don't force you to choose one religion and don't restrict freedom of speech?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_perfect

The action was in the future relative to the time frame in question. It's not in the future anymore because it's hypothetical and will never happen.

none of those examples fit

"Australia would have done had a better job (in the 2022 world cup) if fifa had not awarded it to Qatar!?!?"

nah

Its fine to compare Australia's hypothetical performance to Qater's hypothetical performance, just not in that manner

you could say
"Australia would do a better job in the 2022 world cup than Qater if it had been awarded it"
(still awkward but it works)
but you can't say would have done because you're comparing it to a performance that hasn't happened

I was pointing out the irony of complaining about racism of other countries and praising Qatar when it's not exactly a free country. If you don't care about that, fine, there's no requirement that a host nation be free (China did a good job with the 2008 Olympics, for example). But you can't criticize other countries of being racist while ignoring lack of freedom for another country.

it's pretty much impossible to remove politics from the decision - re the olympics nazi germany, japan italy after ww2, china recently, all had political implications to say nothing of the cold war.

pls don't become a grammar nazi dustin.

so you'd be cool with saudi arabia, where women need their husband/father/brother's permission in order to drive, having the WC?

you claimed you don't think how free by western standards somewhere is is relevant to their holding an international sporting event. I am giving an example of such which i think you might consider relevant.

The funny thing about this is that it lines up exactly with Spanish so I don't even understand where the confusion is coming from.


Si gano la loteria, voy/ire a Brasil.

Si ganara la loteria, iria a Brasil.

Si hubiera ganado la loteria, habria ido a Brasil.


If I win the lottery, I will go to Brasil.

If I won the lottery, I would go to Brasil.

If I had won the lottery, I would have gone to Brasil.


The difference between the first and second sentences is the perceived likelihood of winning the lottery. The first sentence is optimistic and speaks of the trip in the simple future. The second sentences is uncertain and uses the conditional. In the third sentence, the chance to win the lottery has already passed and the trip to Brasil will not happen. It uses the conditional perfect. The timing of the hypothetical trip to Brasil does not change in any of these sentences. You cannot say "If I had won the lottery I will go to Brasil" or "If I had won the lottery I would go to Brasil". The event is impossible but the conditional requires a possibility of occurrence.

Any comment about other cultures is racist, obv

Soah,

those examples that you wrote are fine because in none of those are you making a comparison

Try and construct example of that that uses 'que' to mean 'than'.

fwiw all itt, this **** is referring to me when he talking about the "racist" in the WC host thread.

1. i'm not racist and should not have to tell anyone that.

2. i'm ****ing annoyed that this **** is still posting the same crap today after being banned already.

i said why i would have preferred the WC in England, call me selfish if you want but def not racist.

the literal sentence in spanish is

"Australia habría hecho un mejor trabajo...que qatar(or katar...I think they just announced a spelling reform for that)

its just as ungrammatical in Spanish as it is in English

no but how many of the teams the US is currently invading might be

excuse me, no you're a mod you're not allow to hold any opinions, express sarcasm, or otherwise enter into debates

*checks mod rules*

*get distracted by noodz*

Nope, I can still have an opinion