Let me start by first saying that I enjoyed the remoteness of the locations, and the detail and uniqueness of some of the stories. I did find the book very interesting to read, as, like the other reviewers here I imagine, I have an almost anorak interest in stadia - and Inglis clearly knows his stuff.
But herein lies the problem for me. What I did not like, was the self-centred way in which Inglis approached this book. A comparison for me would be something like The Miracle of Castel di Sangro in which McGinness manages to view the proceedings surrounding him without too much emphasis upon his own role in the story.
I personally felt that Inglis took almost every opportunity possible to state how much of an expert and fanatic he was of stadia - ok, we kind of gathered that by his simple choosing to write such a book - we don't need to be told this repeatedly.
I don't know, maybe you guys did (this is only my opinion after all). I can see why one reviewer felt that it should have received more acclaim but I can very much understand why it hasn't - basically a very good idea for a book, but Inglis fails to make his subjects special in the way they deserve to be - how could they be seen in such a light when compared to the greatness of Inglis.
OK - maybe I've gone a tad over the top - but something about his style really grated with me by the time I finished the book.