The first round of the qualification of the world cup is almost over, and with it came a lot of surprises challenging both FIFA ranking and some conventional wisdom about the world only global sporting event. Spain, for example, was one of the world cup favorite but yet suffered a defeat from Switzerland, a solid team notoriously lacking star power. The same can be said for England and Italy both unable to take the upper hand in their first round games.
There is a rule of thumbs, backed up by statistic, which is that the winner of the cup alternate between Europe and South America. In 2006, Italy won the cup against France in an all European derby. In 2010, we could be heading for a final opposing Argentina to Brazil. The South African brew of the world cup is, so far, tilted in favor of the South-Americans. And it is not only because of the brilliance displayed so far by Lionel Messi and his teammates, and the great strategic soundness of Brazil, but also because of the long awaited come back of Uruguay as an international football power and the spirited team of Chile.
The European countries who seem to be able to compete are The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Germany. The fate of England will be sealed tomorrow, and they could joined France and Greece into not passing the first round. Of the four European teams with a realistic shot at the title, The Netherlands is the only one which has shown great talent, consistency and joy to play the game.
Football is more than a sport; it is a chess game; it is an art form; it is a dance following the samba or the flamenco; and it is ultimately war. Most countries invest their national pride into the eleven men kicking a ball on the grass. If Greece, England and Italy have been humbled so far in this world cup, nothing compare with the destiny of France. The finalist of world cup 2006 is coming home completely humiliated, the laughing stock of the international press and facing the ire of just about everyone in France. We will not know who will be the winner until July, 11, but we are already fully aware of which team deserve the title of worst team of the world cup 2010: It is France.
It seems that the “big powers” of Europeans football need to go back to basic, and stop thinking that putting a bunch of star players together in a team guarantee a great team with a fighting spirit. French players can estimate themselves lucky, if France was taking its football as seriously as Colombia they would be greeted with loaded guns at the airport. Still the shame from the national team pathetic performance is deeply felt in France, and strangely echoes a much more serious historic disgrace: A bit more than 70 years ago, France capitulated to Germany.
However, a day later, on June 18, 1940; a “providential man” saved the honor of France by calling on the French to join him and fight the Germans. It was of course General De Gaulle. The French football is such in deep disarray that it needs a “savior” of some sort, just like De Gaulle was for France in 1940. One has being picked already to serve as coach and replace Domenech, it is Laurent Blanc who was part of the French winning squad in 1998. Some heads are likely to fall as well at the French Football Federation who deserves part of the blame for the national team shameful performance. But enough with the biggest looser of the cup, and lets consider who is likely to win.
Judging by the first round so far, Argentina has shown even more than Brazil both how to have fun, have a bullet proof defense, and score goals. And of course Argentina has the most gifted play maker of this generation in the person of Lionel Messi. For this reason, the “smart money” should be on Argentina, but again football is not a science, and in the world cup anything can happen.
Related Articles
Print This Post
I’m not sure where Gilbert Mercier gets his “conventional wisdom” from, but it’s certainly not from major international tournaments. Rule #1 of international tournaments is “Don’t judge teams based on the group phase”. First, except sometimes for the last game of group phase, winning isn’t necessarily mandatory. The classic example is the Italians in the 80s who drew three times in group phase and went on to win the tournament. The characteristics of the group phase leads to some teams not really focussing on winning the match at that stage.
Second, it’s a loooooong tournament. Teams who shoot their wad in the group phase have been known to quickly drop out in the knockout phase. Playing a marvelous match in the group phase more often than not is worth nothing towards the title.
Both factors come together in so-called tournament teams, like all too often the Germans (but the Italians have done it quite often, too), that is, teams that play better and better the longer the tournament goes on. They will often stumble through group phase but once every match counts, they start to focus better and better and play all the better the more they see the cup within reach.
It is especially telling that Gilbert Mercier mentions the Netherlands. The Netherlands were THE star of the group phase in the last UEFA Championship. Come the knock-out phase, they fizzled and went out. Conversely the Germans, runner-up in their group, went on to the finals. Likewise, his comments of the French speak of a lack of actual knowledge of the topic at hand. Rather, he abuses the World Cup for another jab at an alleged French tendency to surrender. Had he actually bothered to look at the last UEFA championship, there would have been precisely ZERO surprise at the French performance, it being the logical continuation of what happened there.
Unfortunately, there are few real surprises in the article, and a lot of testimony of talking about a topic one isn’t really familiar with…