Picking The Winner

Since 1930, when the Fifa World Cup was first introduced, the most important thing for each World Cup has of course been who will actually play in the finals tournament. This is, after all, what the World Cup is for. To see which nation can rise to the occasion and prove, once and for all (or at least for the next four years), that they are the champions of the world. This is the height of all soccer achievements. Winning the Premier League, the UEFA Champions League, and even beating Man U are nothing in comparison to winning the World Cup !

The journey to glory begins, for most countries, three or four years before the actual event. To acheive their goal teams have to pick the right coach and support staff not to mention picking the right players. And this is before qualifying has even started.

204 teams entered the qualifying process for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. The first qualifying match was in 2007, three years before the event!

Teams are separated into continental groups. As time progressed, teams got closer to qualification, or they fell apart, their World Cup dreams going with them. Finally, at the end of 2009, three years of qualifying had finished, and the 32 teams who had fought hardest (or cheated best, in the case of France) had achieved the first step to World Cup glory.

Now that the teams are decided, the next question is how will they do in the finals? This is a common topic at the dinner table. People love to talk about which teams will go far, and which teams, in their opinion, don’t have what it takes.

Being World Cup fanatics, this is exactly what we did one night.

When we first did this, qualification hadn’t finished, so we weren’t sure exactly which teams would be coming to South Africa. This didn’t stop us. We drew up a list each, naming the teams we thought would make the final 16 round. There were three of us. Me, my dad and my sister. Obviously we chose the regulars: Brazil, Italy, Spain, etc. The interesting part came when we had to choose the other teams. This was where our lists started to differ. We had different opinions on what teams would pass the group stages.

My round of 16 list :

South Africa - qualified

Ireland - didn’t qualify

Portugal - qualified

Brazil – qualified

Netherlands - qualified

Spain - qualified

England - qualified

France - qualified

Germany - qualified

Ivory Coast - qualified

Australia - qualified

Italy - qualified

USA - qualified

Argentina - qualified

Tunisia – didn’t qualify

Ghana - qualified

My dad’s round of 16 list:

South Africa- qualified

Ireland – didn’t qualify

Portugal - qualified

Brazil - qualified

Ghana - qualified

Spain - qualified

England - qualified

Ivory Coast – qualified

Italy - qualified

USA - qualified

Cameroon - qualified

Paraguay – qualified

Germany - qualified

Australia - qualified

Netherlands - qualified

France – qualified

My sister’s (Shea) round of 16 list:

South Africa - qualified

Ireland – didn’t qualify

Brazil - qualified

Spain - qualified

Italy - qualified

Argentina – qualified

Portugal - qualified

USA - qualified

Egypt – didn’t qualify

France - qualified

Netherlands - qualified

Germany - qualified

Ghana - qualified

Ivory Coast - qualified

England - qualified

Switzerland – qualified

Okay so our lists were pretty similar. Shea and I had 14 teams qualified, and my dad had 15. The next step was to predict the next rounds. One of the key factors we thought about was how would the African Teams do? We looked at our lists, and chose the 8 teams we thought would carry on from there.

My Quarter Final list:

Portugal

Brazil

Ghana

Netherlands

Spain

England

France

Germany

My dad’s Quarter Final list:

Portugal

Brazil

Ghana

Spain

England

Ivory Coast

Netherlands

USA

My Dad’s already got a problem here as Brazil, Portugal and Ivory Coast are in the same group and only 2 will qualify. No wonder they call Group G the Group of Death.

My sister’s Quarter Final list:

Brazil

Spain

Italy

Argentina

Portugal

USA

Egypt

France

None of us had listed South Africa or Ireland, our two home countries. We had listed African teams though. The question was would they get further?

My Semi Final list:

Brazil

Netherlands

Spain

England

My dad’s Semi Final list:

Brazil

Ghana

Spain

England

My sister’s Semi Final list:

Brazil

Spain

Italy

Argentina

So we had all listed Brazil and Spain. Not surprising, seeing as they are number 1 and 2 in the world. But would they live up to their ranking?

My Final 2:

Spain

Brazil

My dad’s final 2:

Brazil

England

My sister’s final 2:

Spain

Argentina

So the lists were slightly different now. Brazil and Spain made 2 lists, with England and Argentina making 1 each.

From the start, I always wanted Spain, Netherlands or England to win. I have always liked them, and I wouldn’t like to see Brazil win again. Unfortunately what I think doesn’t count. How good they are is what counts. So we had arrived at the toughest prediction yet…who would win the 2010 Fifa World Cup in South Africa, at Soccer City on the 11 July ?

My winner:

Brazil

My dad’s winner:

Brazil

My sister’s winner:

Spain

So once again, Brazil seems to have all the glory with world number 2, Spain, coming in as second choicet. I would like to have said Spain but, after seeing Brazil in the Confed cup, I have doubts as to whether Spain could beat Brazil on African soil.

We devised a point system to see who had chosen the best set of teams.

1 point for each Round of 16 team.

2 points for each Quarter Final team.

3 points for each Semi Final team

4 points for each Final team.

5 points for the winner.

Giving a maximum of 57 points.

No one knows who will win. The World Cup isn’t here yet and no one had ever witnessed one in Africa. We will continue to have the dinner time discussion on the topic, rating teams, dissing teams, and choosing a winner.

We'd love to hear other people's predictions so don't be shy and do send us a post.

This is all formalities of course.

We know South Africa will win.

Der Kaiser Chief Among SA 2010 Sceptics

In Munich the name of Franz Beckenbauer will forever be associated with three consecutive European Cups, numerous Bundesliga titles and two European Footballer of the Year awards. 'Der Kaiser' was the driving force behind Bayern Munich's ascent to the top of European club football in the 1970's. But for the rest of Germany, and the rest of the world, the name Franz Beckenbauer is synonymous with the World Cup.

Losing finalist in 1966, winning captain in 1974, and winning manager in 1990 was impressive enough but Beckenbauer wasn't finished, and in 2006 he chaired the organising committee for the 2006 World Cup held in Germany, having led the bid to secure the tournament in the first place.

The World Cup defined the legacy of Franz Beckenbauer and so one might assume that this tournament and its journey into Africa in 2010 could rely on his influential support.

Not so. Instead 'Der Kaiser' has criticised the cost of World Cup ticket prices and said fans in Germany are put off by the travel costs to South Africa as well as security risks in the Republic.

“Not only are there doubts by those thinking of travelling there, because of security, but the tickets are too expensive,” Beckenbauer, who is on FIFA’s executive committee, told German broadcaster Sky. (soccernews.com) “What normal person can afford 5,000 to 6,000 euros for one week?” he added without specifying how he reached the figure.

Beckenbauer seems to have since got back on the 2010 bus, being quoted yesterday as saying “It was totally correct to give the World Cup to South Africa, because they can do it.” (WORLD-TRACK Global)

Hosting any major global sports event is fraught with risk and Beckenbauer should know this better than most. He seems to have forgotten that, as captain of the victorious West German team, he lifted the World Cup in Munich in 1974, less than 2 years after 11 Israelis were killed at the 1972 Olympics, held in the very same city. 11 Jews murdered in Germany, less than 2 weeks after they had laid a wreath at Dachau. Now that was a monumental security disaster and it effectively ruined the Olympics for Germany. I don't know whether warnings were issued to fans about security for the 1974 World Cup, but I somehow doubt it.

These Germans do seem to be a forgetful lot. Uli Hoeness, a member of that 1974 World Cup winning West German team, and now president of Bayern Munich is "convinced that deep down Mr Blatter has realised that giving the World Cup to South Africa was one of the biggest wrong decisions he ever made." (Sport24.co.za) This follows the murder of 3 Togolese team members in an attack by a separatist group in Cabinda during the African Cup of Nations. Cabinda is some 3500 kms away from Johannesburg, which is slightly further than Munich Olympic Stadium was from the Olympic village in Munich.

Uli won't be travelling to South Africa in June. Shame.

I suppose you can almost forgive the Germans. Their World Cup was held nearly 4 years ago, and for them that's clearly a long time. They have nothing to lose by voicing concerns over security at SA 2010.

You can't really say the same for Pele. According to the greatest soccer legend of them all, the attack on the Togo team at Cabinda "will have an effect on the World Cup organisation." (Yahoosports)

Pele's genius with his feet is clearly not matched by that of his mouth.

In the next 6 years Brazil will host not only the World Cup but also the Olympic games. The 2 biggest global sporting events in the space of 2 years. The world's image of Brazil can be summed up as follows; crime-ridden, beautiful country with a dodgy political history. Sound familiar?

The whole of Brazil, Pele included, should be wishing for a problem-free SA 2010. Anything less and they'll spend the next 6 years struggling to convince the world that Uli Hoeness didn't have a point. That developing countries should not be entrusted with the biggest sporting events.

If the hysterical views of Pele and Beckenbauer around SA 2010 gain any traction then it's going to be very difficult for any developing country, with their inherent social problems, to ever again host a major sporting event with the full confidence of the rest of the world.

As for the Germans, well, sorry, I've forgotten....what was the point again ?

Cabinda - South Africa's 10th Province ?

One of the recurring themes of politicians in this country is that of ‘Eurocentrism.’ It implies that your argument, whatever it might be, is flawed in an African context because it is subjective and based on a set of principles that were forged from a European perspective. This can be intensely irritating if you are of European origin because it tends to kill most debates before they even begin. But I'm beginning to think they might have a point.

The charge of ‘Eurocentrism’ implies that you have a disproportionate view of the world. Europe at the centre, the USA on the left, Russia and China on the right and Africa….. well, someplace Africa-ish. You assume that anything worth knowing originated in Europe and spread outwards in a broadcast-like concentric circle. As recently as the 1980’s many European-produced maps displayed the continent of Africa as disproportionately small. Similar in shape to the Indian subcontinent, just a bit more developed, like an older teenage sibling.

A more modern Eurocentrist view of Africa implies that, while you may have great sympathy, or even admiration for Africa and its people, you wouldn’t really trust them to organise the proverbial piss-up in a brewery.

So what the hell were FIFA doing giving the World Cup to South Africa to organise ?

Sure, they may have delivered 10 world-class stadiums on time and, sure, they may have organised two flawless draw ceremonies with 50 000 people celebrating peacefully in the street. But, come on, what about the crime, and the transport and, come on, what about Cabinda ?

Cabinda ? It’s a disputed area in northern Angola where, 3 weeks ago, the Togo national football team was attacked by separatist guerrillas and 3 members of the Togolese party were killed. They were on their way to play a match in the African Cup of Nations, being hosted for the first time by Angola, a country in Southern Africa.

Well there you go. If it can happen in Southern Africa it can happen in South Africa, I mean, come on !

Cabinda is roughly 3500 kms away from Johannesburg, a bit further than Istanbul is from London. That’s what 1980’s world maps do to your perception of geography. If a terrorist bomb goes off in Istanbul in February 2012 will that cause Europe's media to question the wisdom of holding the Olympics in London later that year ? Did the murder of 334 hostages at a school in Beslan, Russia in 2004 jeopardise Germany’s hosting of the 2006 World Cup ?

Stupid questions I know, but now you get a sense of the frustration South Africans feel when Europe's media question security around the World Cup because of something that happened 3500 kms away in Cabinda. Around a political issue that has not even the remotest connection to South Africa. I would wager that less than 1% of South Africans had even heard of Cabinda until 3 weeks ago.

I don’t even want to guess at what makes up the mindset of someone who makes the connection between Cabinda and South Africa, but I suspect the phrases ‘black Africans' and ‘what would you expect?’ would feature prominently in their reasoning.

Since democratic elections in 1994 South Africa has hosted a Rugby World Cup, a Cricket World Cup, 2 Lions tours and a host of other sporting events, all attracting thousands of visitors, without a single security scare. The only countries I can think of where terrorist attacks actually disrupted a major tournament are Germany and the USA. But nobody questions their ability to provide security at major events. Now that’s a good example of Eurocentric thinking.