 |
One of the most asked questions of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa revolves around the host nations.
Yes, host nations because even though only South Africa is the official host, the other five African nations will have a piece of that home-field advantage.
So the question remains, just how good a showing will they put up and do any have a legitimate shot at advancing deep into the tournament.
Many have been touting the ascendancy of African soccer. With many players of African descent playing in the world’s top leagues (31 from the Premier League alone are playing in the African Cup of Nations), their national sides can’t help but get better. They have tremendous individual skill and pace.
The blossoming skill level and popularity of the sport is one of the reasons the World Cup was awarded to the continent
The Ivory Coast, with its individual superstars, has been mentioned as a team ready for an African breakthrough. There’s no doubt that what some are predicting as a tour de force by African nations, is also based on the traditional good showing by teams hosting the event.
Of the 18 World Cups, six have been won by the host team and six more have been won on the winning team’s continent. Many home teams have done remarkably well, even if they weren’t considered threats going in.
Africa will certainly provide an advantage for its teams. All of Africa will be cheering.
But what is reality and what is wishful thinking? Can an African nation win?
The feeling would have been a lot more positive before the recent African Cup of Nations than during.
What could have been a showcase for the world to see the calibre of soccer they can play was rarely seen. An opportunity for African nations to throw a scare into traditional powers was wasted.
The African Cup of Nations is a traditional avenue for quick-paced inventive soccer. Instead, it was disappointing, leaving more questions than answers for most of the teams that played.
The best team in the tournament is Egypt, which faces Ghana in the final. But Egypt did not qualify for the World Cup. And Ghana made it to the final with little of the flair associated with African soccer.
The Ivory Coast was eliminated early and Nigeria and Cameroon did not look good. Algeria started well but resorted to thuggish play in the semifinal.
What happened to African flair and joy in playing the game?
A frightening quote came from Ghana coach Milovan Rajevac.
“I’m not concerned about playing a beautiful game but playing for results. It is the result that counts, not possession. We came here to compete and not play entertaining football.”
And there goes the advantage African nations have over many others, their ability to play an attacking style. Can an African nation out-defend Germany for 90 minutes, or Italy or Spain? What they can do is put those nations under pressure and if they manage to take a lead, the game takes on the characteristics the Africans enjoy.
The African nations remain long shots, even with home field advantage. They need to ignore stories that predict unprecedented success because they begin to play so they don’t lose, rather than play to win.
Success will come by returning to the athletic, quick and entertaining soccer they have played in the past.
If any of the six can do that and get on a winning, emotional role, unprecedented success will be sure to follow.