World Cup 2018 and 2022: Reasonable or Ridiculous?

So FIFA’s executive committee have made their long-awaited decision on the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Russia needing only two rounds to beat off competition from England, Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium to host it in 2018, whilst Qatar were the unexpected choice in 2022, beating off the USA, Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Whilst I am very disappointed that England were unsuccessful, I can see the argument for the decision to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia. However, the decision to take the 2022 World Cup to Qatar is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

Indeed, the decision raises questions on quite how FIFA see their role in the world. They are supposed to be concerning with promoting football and looking after the state of football. Instead, they seem to have an over-inflated opinion of their own power and regard themselves as single-handedly capable of solving all the world’s socio-economic problems simply by giving them the World Cup to host.

2018 – Russia

Russia has been the favourites to win the 2018 vote almost since the prospective hosts were announced. It has never hosted a World Cup before, which automatically makes it an appealing prospect to the people at FIFA, who love their idea of creating a legacy by bringing football to new countries. It also has the full-backing of the powerful Russian government, despite Putin’s decision not to attend the ceremony in Zurich. Combined with the almost bottomless pit of money that they could throw at the event, it was a very strong bid.


Clearly though, it does have its weaknesses. Security always has been, and remains, a major concern in Russia. Murders and kidnappings are commonplace in Russian cities and crime is something that must be addressed ahead of the World Cup. However, similar concerns were raised over South Africa, and the concerns turned out to have no real foundation – virtually no problems with crime affected the fans that travelled out there.

The other major concern is the distance between stadia, transport between them and issues with time-zones. Russia is a vast country, and despite the fact that matches will be restricted to the European part of the country, transport between cities will still be difficult. Given the state airline has one of the worst safety records of any airline, there are potential concerns here.

Finally, the issue of corruption looms large over this decision. The recent WikiLeaks revelations suggest that Russia is virtually a ‘mafia state’, where politicians and the secret service have close links with organised crime. Given the recent allegations against FIFA, one might suggest that the two corrupt entities are a perfect match for each other.

The failure of the English bid is another curious case. According to FIFA’s own delegation, the English bid was rated as the best financially, the best technically and the safest of all the bids, both for 2018 and for 2022. It was the only bid expected to turn a profit. Yet, England gained only two votes out of the 22 possible and was eliminated in the first round.


So, according to the delegations, England had the best bid, yet for the self-obsessed executive committee, only two of them, one of which was Geoff Thompson, the former chairman of the FA, felt that England deserved the award. It will raise questions as to how damaging the Sunday Times and Panorama revelations were, but it raises more questions as to how exactly the executive committee make their decisions and what they really want from a bid.

2022 – Qatar

If the 2018 decision was understandable, the award of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar can only suggest that the executive committee, with an average age of over 63, has collectively turned senile.

As with the 2018 decision, it raises real questions as to whether the executive committee pay any attention whatsoever to what the actual bid includes and what their own delegations actually think about the bids.

Qatar was described by the technical delegation as a high risk option, with more potential negative points than any other bid for either of the two tournaments. Let us look through a few of the potential problems.

The first issue flagged up was that the country is simply too small. In area, Qatar is smaller than the Falkland Islands and is predominantly desert with a short coastline. It has a population of only 1.7m people. Whilst there is nothing eminently wrong with being a small country, it begs questions of how it intends to cope with the influx of visitors that the World Cup would bring.

In 2010, South Africa welcomed over one million visitors to the country for the World Cup, with many surrounding countries experiencing a dramatic increase during this period as well. Germany saw over two million visitors arrive for the World Cup. How can any country cope with almost doubling its population for a month? They currently welcome 400,000 visitors per year. They can expect at least double that in one month.


Temperatures in Qatar in the summer when the World Cup will be taking place average around 115 degrees Fahrenheit – over 46°C. FIFA regulations set out recommendations aimed at reducing heat risk to players, suggesting that at temperatures over 32.2°C, football should not be played for more than 30 minutes without a break. Qatar comfortably finds itself within the extreme risk category.

The Qatari bid has come up with the revolutionary idea of air conditioning the stadia. It uses revolutionary new technology to cool the pitch area, and to a certain extent, the spectator areas down to a temperature of around 23°C. In a test, the new system effectively achieved this, wowing the delegation from FIFA.

However, it has so far only been tested on five-a-side pitches and a test 500 seat stadium. For the World Cup itself, they intend to use it on a far larger scale in multiple stadia each holding at least 40,000 people. It is vital that they are successfully able to scale up the technology.

One other issue with this is wind. It would appear that if there is some wind, it creates an effect where it effectively scours out the cool air, replacing it with the hot desert air. Given that June and July averages the most wind of any months, and the strongest winds, this is something that needs sorting quickly.

For many fans from throughout the world, the World Cup is a time for celebration, where they come to experience new countries and new cultures. Whether one approves or disapproves, drinking is a vital ingredient to all of this. However, in Qatar, public drunkenness or even openly displaying alcohol in public is illegal. It is unlikely that alcohol would be allowed in grounds or fan areas.

Furthermore, this is a country where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by five years in prison. A UN report less than two years ago claimed that the Qatari government "does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so."

Now, whilst FIFA is not a political organisation, it must surely take into account aspects such as this. However, their history hardly suggests that this even crosses their minds, given their close relationship with the likes of the Gaddafis in Libya, the oppressive regime of Ben Ali in Tunisia or their ignorance in previous incidents in the likes of Nigeria.


However, for me, one of the biggest problems I have with Qatar winning the 2022 World Cup is that it is not really a footballing nation. The Qatari national football team have never qualified for a world cup. In qualifying for South Africa 2010, they were beaten by the likes of Uzbekistan and Bahrain – hardly footballing superpowers.

Since then, they have suffered friendly defeats in Qatar against the likes of Haiti and Iraq, as well as defeat away from home against Kuwait. If they struggle against teams of that calibre, I shudder to think how they will cope in the World Cup itself.

Similar concerns were raised about South Africa. However, they could call on the likes of Steven Pienaar, Aaron Mokoena and Kagisho Dikgacoi – all players who play in the Premiership. Qatar have only one player who even plays outside of Qatar – Hussein Yasser, who plays in Egypt.

Indeed, they have only made it out of the first round of the Asian Cup once, back in 2000, when they reached the quarter-final as one of the best third placed teams, despite not winning a single match at the tournament.

Finally, one major supposed attraction of their bid was that the stadia could be dissembled and sent to other developing countries to use there. However, given that one of the major things that FIFA supposedly look for in a bid is a lasting legacy in the host country, it seems as though Qatar fall down. How is taking down all of the stadia going to leave a lasting legacy? Indeed, are brand-new state-of-the-art stadia really going to help developing countries?

Conclusion

Now I know this seems fairly negative. I am not of the belief that only established footballing superpowers should be given the World Cup, although they are in the best positions to hold them. The 2002 edition in South Korea and Japan was an excellent tournament, as was the 2010 edition in South Africa.

However, each of these countries has qualified for world cups before. Each of them had achieved relative success on a continental level. It is difficult to see past the accusation that Qatar has won it purely because of money.

Much as I would have liked England to win the 2018 edition, I have no real problems with the Russians hosting it. They had an excellent bid throughout and I expect them to host an excellent tournament.

However, the Qatar decision is simply ludicrous for me. If FIFA are determined to take the World Cup to more developing countries, then that is their decision. But take it to countries with some form of history in football. The iconic stadiums are part of what makes a World Cup. The likes of Wembley, the Nou Camp, the Maracana. Truly iconic names. Qatar will be building virtually all the stadia from scratch. Admittedly South Africa did the same.


The Qatar World Cup may be an excellent tournament. I am not saying that it will be a disaster. But for me, it raises more questions about the real desires of FIFA.

If FIFA are determined to take it to developing countries regardless of the qualities of any other bids, then they should at least be honest about it. Countries such as the USA, Australia and England have all spent millions on putting a serious and competitive bid together. If they have no intention of awarding it to those countries, then why give them the hope that they might. I can probably guess the reason.

And finally, FIFA need to understand their real role in the world. Sepp Blatter has this mission where he is determined to solve global socio-economic problems by taking the World Cup and opening and developing football in new countries. He talks about how hosting the World Cup will improve the lives of poor people in developing countries.

But I would pose the question to Blatter. How exactly are the poorest people benefitting? The contracts and the money flows to the governments, to the existing rich. Have the poorest people in the poorest townships in South Africa found themselves any better off as a result of hosting the World Cup? Indeed, how many people really have benefitted?

I was out there for the tournament, and though it was a wonderful spectacle and occasion, a common question from the locals was what happens once everyone leaves? The brand new stadium in Cape Town is in the middle of the rich, white area of the city. The richer white people play rugby, so will not use the stadium. It is the poorer black population who play football. And they cannot afford to travel to the stadium and use it.

I heard similar concerns echoed in various other cities. It was amazing while the tournament was on, but that they would be burdened with multiple stadia and facilities that would not really be used. Can poorer countries afford this for a short boost? Can they afford to make the legal changes that FIFA demand? Does a World Cup really benefit developing countries?


Sepp Blatter and his executive committee can see their mission succeeding in the short term that they are around and care. But how much do they really care about the future? Blatter’s one-man crusade to solve the world of all its problems is probably good for his already over-inflated ego, but in the end, FIFA is only a football regulatory body. They cannot solve the world’s problems, and if they don’t really know what they are doing, they could hinder future development rather than helping it.

Makhaya Ntini - A Symbol of Hope

At a press conference on Tuesday, South African fast bowler, Makhaya Ntini announced his retirement from international cricket. He will make his final appearance against India at the Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban on the 9th January in what is sure to be an emotional match. Despite being one of the best fast bowlers in world cricket at his peak, Ntini means so much more to South African cricket than just a top player.


On the 19th March, 1998, Makhaya Ntini became the first black player to represent South Africa in international test cricket. For a country that had only recently emerged from the dark days of apartheid, it was a historic moment. However, the early part of his career was dogged by allegations of rape off-the-field. He protested his innocence repeatedly, and with the help and support of the United Cricket Board (UCB), was found not guilty.

Despite the problems in his early career, he went on to become one of the best fast bowlers in South African history. His 390 wickets in 101 test matches puts him second on the all time list of South Africans, and the 11th highest of all time. He also took 266 wickets in 173 one day internationals. He holds the best bowling figures from a South African in test cricket (13/132 against the West Indies in Trinidad in 2005), the best bowling figures from a South African in one day internationals (6/23 against Australia at Newlands in 2006), and the most 10 wickets hauls in test cricket (a total of 4 that he currently shares with Dale Steyn). He is also the only South African to have recorded a 10 wicket haul at the home of cricket, Lords.

For a generation of young black cricketers, Makhaya Ntini is a trailblazer – the man that made the idea of a black player representing South Africa a reality. However, he has not forgotten his roots. He has announced that he intends to try and give something back to cricket in South Africa.

The ‘Makhaya Ntini Cricket Academy’ has recently been launched in Mdantsane, a township outside East London. It will have some of the best coaching facilities in the country, as well as intentions of hosting coaching clinics from legends from countries such as the West Indies, India and England. It will also have a fully-integrated programme with local schools to provide education for the young players that come to the academy.


He has also said that he is in discussions with Cricket South Africa (CSA) to become involved in their ‘Tomorrow’ campaign and in their cricket development programmes. Ntini was initially discovered through one of these programmes, and as such, they hold a place close to his heart.

His words at an emotional press conference convey his journey of being the first black South African to represent his country. “It has been wonderful for me to represent my country. I have so many great memories, which I will carry with me for the rest of my life.” His place in South African cricketing history will almost certainly never be forgotten – not only as one of their best ever bowlers, but also as a symbol of hope.

Ian Dorward

French Fiasco - Is there hope for the future?

France’s humiliating World Cup finally came to an end yesterday afternoon, following an embarrassing defeat against the host nation, South Africa – a team ranked 74 places below them in the FIFA World Rankings. However, it was not simply the results that caused such outrage back home in France – it was the antics of the squad, and the almost soap-opera nature of the news emanating from the French camp.


France’s place in the tournament came about through the controversial Thierry Henry handball against the Republic of Ireland back in November, but having scraped into the tournament, France hoped for a strong showing. However, despite having a number of top quality players, public expectation was low, mainly due to a complete lack of faith in the coach, Raymond Domenech. It had been announced before the tournament even began that his record reign as national coach would end after the tournament, and that Laurent Blanc would be replacing him. Whether announcing this before the tournament was a smart move is questionable though, as it seriously undermined his authority in the squad.


Even before the tournament, France’s hopes suffered a blow as their warm-up was punctuated by underachievement and poor performances. A narrow 2-1 victory over Costa Rica was followed by a 1-1 draw with Tunisia and an abject 1-0 defeat to what was in reality, a second-string China side.

The tournament began with a dull 0-0 draw against a strong Uruguay side, which, despite the poor performance, wasn’t a hugely disappointing result. However, a 2-0 defeat against Mexico followed, which started the farce. Domenech was called a “son of a whore” by Nicholas Anelka during the Mexico game, and following Anelka’s refusal to apologise for the remark, he was sent home.


This action caused chaos, with the players making a stand and refusing to train. Domenech was forced to read out a statement from the players, criticising the decision to expel Anelka from the squad. However, Domenech stood firm on his position. When they finally restarted training, a fight between fitness coach, Robert Duverne, and captain Patrice Evra threw the squad back into chaos.

The President of the French Football Federation, Jean-Louis Valentin, resigned over the fiasco, whilst the national team have been dropped from a number of advertising campaigns back in France. Furthermore, they appear to have lost public support, with 81% of the population believing that they were incorrect in going on strike. A number of prominent sporting figures in France have also criticised the side – “It’s intolerable. It’s not at all professional,” said former midfielder Emmanuel Petit; “Nobody has any authority over the French team any longer, and that’s serious,” said Bixente Lizarazu. Most importantly, Zinedine Zidane slammed the decision of the side not to train. Zidane is still seen as an almost God-like figure in French football, so his verdict is damning for the side.


Defeat to South Africa followed, and the team fly home now, relegated to economy class, and facing an investigation back home, started by Sport Minister, Roselyne Bachelot. Patrice Evra has announced that the squad has no intention of accepting their bonuses from the tournament, in an attempt to help stem the public discontent. Raymond Domenech concludes his reign as coach under a cloud.

However, the French downfall has been brewing for many years. They reached the World Cup final back in 2006, but this has predominantly been attributed to the influence of Zinedine Zidane and other senior players, who supposedly called the shots. Since then, things have gone steadily downhill. They exited Euro 2008 at the group stages, and Domenech made a huge public relations error in proposing to his girlfriend live on national TV moments after France had been eliminated.

The qualifying campaign for 2010 was hardly an improvement. Finishing in 2nd behind Serbia in their group led to a playoff with the Republic of Ireland, where Thierry Henry’s controversial handball caused uproar. The rest is history.


However, there is a potentially bright future for French football. The appointment of Laurent Blanc is a good move – a young coach with a glittering CV. He has got the best out of his players at Bordeaux, breaking the Lyon domination of the French Ligue 1. His early performance as a manager has had people tipping him as Sir Alex Ferguson’s successor at Manchester United. However, he has a difficult job ahead of him. In the words of French World Cup winner Bixente Lizarazu, he comes in to pick up the pieces of a “four-year chainsaw massacre.”


However, he does have plenty of quality at his disposal. Despite his mistake against South Africa, Hugo Lloris is an exciting young keeper with a bright future. In Patrice Evra and Bakary Sagna, he has two of the best full-backs in the Premiership. However, the centre of his defence needs work. Eric Abidal is not a central defender, whilst William Gallas is arguably past his best. The forgotten Philippe Mexes should be brought back, whilst Julien Escudé and Sebastien Squillaci are decent squad members. The promising young defender, Michael Ciani, who Blanc has developed at Bordeaux, should be brought into the squad as part of the process of building for the future.

He has an abundance of talented holding midfielders – Lassana and Alou Diarra, as well as Jeremy Toulalan – whilst Franck Ribery and Yoann Gourcuff provide plenty of creativity. However, he needs to find a way to resolve the rift between the two. The respect that he should command from his players will help – a respect that Domenech never gained. Florent Malouda has refound his form this season for Chelsea, and scored France’s only goal in the competition.


The strikers are a problem for France, having failed to score in any of their 3 games. As magnificent a career as he has had, Thierry Henry is clearly past his best and should be jettisoned by Laurent Blanc as part of a fresh start. Nicholas Anelka should be forgiven and brought back into the fold, where the supremely talented, but unpredictable, Karim Benzema is likely to join him. Despite being unimpressive in the tournament, André-Pierre Gignac and Djibril Cissé have a decent case for retaining their spots, whilst young pair, Loic Remy and Kevin Gameiro, have impressed recently and will be pushing for call-ups.

With plenty of talent at their disposal, and a more reliable manager, who does not use astrology as a part of his selection process, France will be hopeful that they can put the fiasco of South Africa behind them, and look forward to a more successful tournament in 2012 in Poland and Ukraine.


However, the fallout from South Africa is not over yet. In the coming week, Patrice Evra intends to hold a press conference where he is expected to put his side of the argument across. He has already apologised to the French people, and his recent comments suggest that his relationship with Domenech is irreparably broken – “What hurts even more is that this apology should have been made yesterday, but my coach stopped me doing it as a captain, and that hurts even more. But it won’t change anything, now is not the time to settle scores.”

How England can win at penalties

As Woody Harrelson rolled his penalty into the net in the Socceraid match last night, once again, England had lost on penalties. The most unsuccessful major international side in history in shootouts, England have a 17% winning record, winning only 1 against Spain in 1996, whilst losing 5 since the heartbreaking defeat in Turin in 1990. So why are England so bad at penalties, and can they improve?

Critics often claim that the penalty shootout is a terrible method of determining matches – a complete lottery. However, can it really be a complete lottery? If it is, why do England seemingly lose every time, whilst the Germans seem to be masters at it. The reality is that it is anything but a random lottery. Research and game theory can be used to provide that all-important edge in the shootout, and whilst the pressure can affect even the best-laid plans, any advantage, no matter how small, could be vital.


The obvious first step would simply be to practice penalties in training before the tournament. However, as blindingly clear as this may be, Glenn Hoddle admitted following England’s defeat to Argentina on penalties in 1998, that they had not practised penalties at all beforehand. Frankly, this seems quite bizarre. Although you clearly cannot replicate the pressure in training sessions, it would surely provide the experience that may help. Following England U21 losing to Holland on penalties in 2007, Stuart Pearce had the team practising penalties in every training session for the two years ahead of the 2009 tournament. Not only did this provide the practise for the players, it meant that he knew exactly who the best penalty-takers were. Hence, Joe Hart stepped up to take the second penalty against Sweden in the semi-finals. England went on to win the shootout.

Next, it always seems to be the case that managers leave it up to the players to decide who is confident of taking a penalty kick. Whilst confidence in yourself is an admirable trait, it seems ridiculous that you may have players taking their first ever penalty as a professional in such a high-pressure, high-stakes environment. Both in 1998 and 2006, David Batty and Jamie Carragher respectively were taking their first ever penalties as a professional. They both missed. Come South Africa, England will have plenty of players that are regular penalty-takers for their clubs – Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard, James Milner, Wayne Rooney and Gareth Barry all take penalties on a regular basis. If we reach a shootout, the majority of those should be on the pitch, and you would expect them to be the first-choice takers. If we add Ashley Cole and, potentially Joe Hart, there are plenty of quality takers there to avoid the situation of inexperienced players taking penalties.

However, there is plenty of research has been done on penalties by academics and people involved in the sport alike. Two recent examples suggest how effective prior research can be in influencing the outcome of shootouts. Firstly, there was Jens Lehmann for the Germans against Argentina in 2006. Ahead of each penalty, Lehmann would take a scrap of paper out of his sock, study it, then prepare to face the penalty. At the time, commentators suggested it was a poem or a prayer – instead, it was actually a list of instructions of where the Argentineans were going to put their penalty kicks. He had notes on 7 different Argentinean players’ penalty techniques. Whilst only 2 ended up taking the kicks, his notes were correct on each. Before the tournament, the Germans had built up a database of over 13,000 penalty kicks, providing invaluable information on each player.


His notes on Maxi Rodriguez suggested that the penalty would be hit to the left. He went that way, but unfortunately the penalty was hit too well. However, the notes on Ayala said ‘waits long time, long run-up, right’. After a long wait and run-up, Ayala hit the penalty right, and Lehmann saved it. Despite not having notes on Cambiasso, simply studying the scrap of paper intently gave him the psychological edge, and he saved it to send the Germans through.

The other example was the 2008 Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea. Ahead of the game, Chelsea were provided with information about the United penalty tactics. Edwin Van der Sar favoured diving toward the taker’s natural side. Therefore, right-footed Chelsea players would have a better chance of scoring if they shot to their unnatural side, i.e. to VDS’s left. Furthermore, they should either hit it low along the floor, or high, since the majority of VDS’s saves were at a height of between 1m and 1.5m. Finally, against Cristiano Ronaldo, it was crucial for Petr Cech not to move early, since Ronaldo would change his direction, and that if he pauses, he almost always goes to the keeper’s right.

Armed with this information, Chelsea went into the shootout. Michael Ballack’s penalty went high to VDS’s left, Juliano Belletti went low to VDS’s left. Both scored. Petr Cech remained dead-still during Ronaldo’s run-up, Ronaldo paused, then put his penalty to the right. Cech saved it. The next four penalties – Lampard, Cole, Terry and Kalou – all went to VDS’s left. Ashley Cole being left-footed, disregarded the advice, and his penalty was almost saved.


Then, ahead of Nicholas Anelka’s crucial penalty, Van der Sar seemed to have cottoned onto the tactic. However, he believed that they were all going left, rather than just the right-footed players. He pointed to his left-hand corner, trying to psyche-out Anelka. It succeeded. Anelka changed his mind, hitting the penalty at a mid-height to VDS’s right. It was saved and Manchester United had won the shootout. Clearly, the research cannot guarantee a victory, but it provides the extra tiny edge that can be the difference.

Various other statistics are interesting regarding penalty shootouts. If you have the option, going first is beneficial. The team going first wins around 60% of penalty shootouts, presumably due to the fact that there is less pressure on them. Attackers score the highest percentage of their penalties, followed by midfielders, then defenders. This makes sense, and although there are always going to be exceptions, the more attacking the player, the more likely they are to score their penalty. Thus, a team should avoid letting defenders take crucial penalties. Memories of key penalty misses in recent times, include the likes of Gareth Southgate, Jamie Carragher, John Terry, David Batty, etc.

Players that have been on the pitch for less than 30 minutes score on average 86.7% of successful penalties, compared with 81.9% for those who have played between 31 and 90 minutes, and 80% for those who have played more than 90 minutes. The fresher the player is, the more likely he is to score. Finally, the younger players tend to score more often. Players under 22 score 85.2% of penalties, compared with 77.6% for 23-28 year olds, and 78.1% of over 29 year olds. Whether the pressure gets to younger players less is debatable, but they do seem to score more regularly.


So, preparation is key when it comes to giving the side the best chance of winning a penalty shootout. So let us hope that Fabio Capello has had the team practising regularly, and they have done their research on potential opposition. However, a final statistic to give us hope – in the last 5 years, the keeper with the lowest percentage of penalties scored against him is Rob Green. Only 53% of penalties in that period have been scored against him.

World Cup Countdown - Part 1

The 32 nations that will compete in the World Cup in South Africa are almost ready to begin their challenge on the famous Jules Rimet trophy. This article is the first in a series that will take a brief look at the warm-up games for each of the sides in order to try and give an impression of how each side is looking less than 3 weeks before the tournament begins.

Australia 2 – 1 New Zealand


Australia were expected to put in a strong performance against their close neighbours in their first warm-up for the World Cup. However, they needed a last gasp winner from Brett Holman to spare their blushes. Despite missing six first-choice players, Australia were comprehensively outplayed by their less illustrious neighbours and can consider themselves lucky to have snatched the win.

Chris Killen gave the Kiwis the lead after only 15 minutes, latching onto Shane Smeltz’s flick to place his shot beyond Adam Federici. Australia’s frustration showed, and both Vince Grella and Tim Cahill were grateful to the referee for not showing them red cards, due to the fact that the game was a friendly. Grella’s challenge in particularly was shocking, and deserved a straight red.

Just after the break, Dario Vidosic found himself behind the defence and finished well to bring the Socceroos back level, and after Brad Jones saved well from Rory Fallon, Brett Holman struck in the 94th minute to grab the winner.

Australian manager, Pim Verbeek was very upset with his team’s performance, having been booed off at half time, and blasted the two tackles from Grella and Cahill in the first half.

Japan 0 – 2 South Korea


Japan went down to South Korea for the second time in the space of a few months, after goals from Park Ji-Sung and Park Chu-Young gave the Koreans a 2-0 victory.

South Korea started well with Park Ji-Sung scoring after only six minutes in Saitama. Japan controlled most of the first half, with the Koreans happy to sit back and hit them on the counter. Despite this, Japan never really threatened to create too much before the break. After half time, South Korea took the initiative more, moving the ball around nicely. However, chances were rare, and it wasn’t until stoppage time in the second half when Park Chu-Young was brought down in the area, and he picked himself up to settle the game.

South Korea are now unbeaten in four games, whilst Japan’s preparations have been thrown into turmoil by the news that manager Takeshi Okada has been in discussions with the Japanese Football Federation over whether he should continue in the job.

Portugal 0 – 0 Cape Verde Islands


Portugal’s preparation for the World Cup started poorly with a goalless draw against the African minnows. It was a strong Portugal side featuring the likes of Ronaldo, Nani, Deco and Ricardo Carvalho. They dominated the game but were unable to create many chances, with Ronaldo and Hugo Almeida missing the best chances.

Described as a performance lacking organisation or speed, and having few opportunities, the Portuguese will be looking for a dramatic improvement in their next warm-up game.

South Africa 1 – 1 Bulgaria


South Africa put in a bright performance against European opposition, but despite an impressive performance, they were unable to come away with the victory. Siyabonga Sangweni gave them the lead after 20 minutes, although they had forced a number of chances already by the time they scored. However, it was sloppy defending that led to the Bulgarian equaliser, with Valeri Bojinov finding himself unmarked in the box to score.

After half time, the game slowed and it was Bulgaria that looked the more likely to win, although there were to be no more goals in the game. South Africa have another warm-up game on Thursday and will be looking to build on an improved performance.

England 3 – 1 Mexico


England were without their Chelsea players for this warm-up at Wembley, giving a few of the squad players a chance to shine. Mexico were the better side in the first half, passing the ball around nicely and carving out a few decent chances. However, they found themselves 2 – 0 down after 35 minutes with goals from Ledley King and Peter Crouch, both from set pieces. However, Guillermo Franco pulled one back on the stroke of half time.

England improved in the second half, and finished the match as a contest only 2 minutes in, when Glen Johnson cut inside and curled a beautiful effort beyond Oscar Perez. They could have had more, but both Gerrard and Lennon were cynically fouled when through on goal.

England will be happy with the result, but looking for an improved performance against Japan at the weekend, whilst Mexico will be relatively happy with their performance overall.

Argentina 5 – 0 Canada


A virtually full-strength Argentina cruised past Canada, with goals from Maxi Rodriguez (2), Angel Di Maria, Carlos Tevez and Sergio Aguero. The Argentineans were rarely tested at the back, and they will have been satisfied with good performances from Juan Sebastian Veron’s understudy, Javier Pastore, Angel Di Maria and Carlos Tevez. Furthermore, Veron showed his class after coming on at half-time, not misplacing a single pass in the second half. A good confidence boost in their final warm-up game.

World Cup Antepost Betting Tips - Part 2

Part two of this World Cup preview looks at Groups C, D and E. England, Germany and Holland are the top seeds in these groups, but there are a number of other teams that will be hoping to spring a surprise here.

Group C

There is not much to say about this group that hasn’t already been said in the press – England will be strong favourites to qualify top of their group, and potentially go a long way in the tournament. After a strong showing at last year’s Confederation’s Cup, the USA will be looking to build on their victory over Spain and pushing Brazil in the final to reach the knock-out stages of the World Cup. Slovenia will be looking to go one better than their previous World Cup appearance, where they bowed out in the group stage, whilst Algeria came through a tricky playoff against African Nation’s Cup champions, Egypt to book their place in South Africa.

There are no obvious value bets in this group – England will almost certainly qualify, but the odds are ridiculously low, whilst it is difficult to find value in any of the other sides to qualify. Algeria could be worth an outside bet, but personally, I’d stay clear of the betting in this group.

Group D

Group D contains 3-time World Cup champions, Germany, four-time African champions, Ghana, European side Serbia, and Australia.

Germany name a strong squad, with all their players playing in the domestic German league. The loss of captain, Michael Ballack, will be a huge loss for them, and Thorsten Frings no longer commands a place in the international side. They have several strong creative midfielders in Bastian Schweinsteiger and Mesut Ozil, and whilst their strikers have been out of form domestically, they will be hoping to improve on the international stage. Miroslav Klose in particular has a good record at the World Cup, having won the 2006 Golden Boot and finished runner-up in 2002.

Ghana have named a very different squad from that which finished runners-up at the African Nation’s Cup. They welcome back a number of more established players, and have a strong squad for this tournament. Despite a lack of match practice, Michael Essien will be a key member of the side, alongside captain Stephen Appiah, and Inter Milan’s Sulley Muntari. Young AC Milan striker Dominic Adiyiah will be looking to make the step-up after being named MVP at the U20 World Cup last year.

Serbia qualified top of their group ahead of France to reach South Africa, conceding only 8 goals in 10 games, and scoring 22. They have a strong defence consisting of Nemanja Vidic and Branislav Ivanovic, alongside promising youngsters, Nevan Subotic and Aleksandar Lukovic. Ahead of that, they have the hugely experienced Dejan Stankovic for support, and the exciting attacking trio of Milan Jovanovic, Milos Krasic, and Zoran Tosic. Giant Nikola Zigic provides the threat up front. Serbia were widely mocked for conceding 10 goals in their 3 games in 2006, but they have more experience, and a classy line-up this time and could surprise a few people.

Australia were unfortunate to be knocked out by the eventual winners, Italy, in 2006. A controversial penalty was the difference that day, and they will be hoping to put in a similarly good performance this time. They have 11 English-based players in their preliminary squad, as well as Harry Kewell, who is well-known to English supporters. Fulham keeper, Mark Schwarzer, has had a good season domestically, reaching the Europa League final, and Tim Cahill continues to grab vital goals for Everton. They will battle hard as Australian teams always do, and hope they have enough quality to get out of the group.

Germany will fancy their chances of qualifying for the knock-out stages, as they invariably seem to do in the big tournaments. Personally, I believe that Serbia will be tough opposition, and should tip themselves to do well in this tournament. A strong defence is always a crucial attribute for teams hoping to go well, and Serbia have one of the best in the tournament in my opinion.

Bet: Serbia to qualify @ 2.1
Bet: Serbia to win group @ 4.5

Group E

Group E contains Holland, top-ranked African side, Cameroon, former European champions, Denmark, and Japan.

Holland qualified with consummate ease, winning 8 out of 8, scoring 17 and conceding just 2. Whilst their defence may prevent them going all the way, they have plenty of threats in an attacking sense, with Wesley Sneijder, Arjen Robben, Rafael van der Vaart and Robin van Persie all having good seasons for their respective clubs. They have the experienced Mark van Bommel and Nigel de Jong to anchor the midfield. They should be hoping to qualify from this group with relative ease.

Cameroon are led by former 3-time African player of the year, Samuel Eto’o, who can always be relied on to provide a threat up front. He will be joined by English contingent, Alex Song, Sebastian Bassong and Benoit Assou-Ekotto. The appointment of Paul Le Guen turned around a stuttering qualifying campaign, but they were disappointing in the 2010 African Nation’s Cup, losing to Gabon, before going out in the quarter-finals to eventual winners Egypt.

Denmark impressed to qualify ahead of Portugal for this tournament, including a 3-2 win in Portugal. Led by highly-experienced striker, Jon Dahl Tomasson, they have named an experienced squad for the World Cup, with six players having over 50 caps. They have an injury concern over first-choice keeper, Thomas Sorensen, but have named him, along with other English-based players, Daniel Agger, Lars Jacobsen and Nicklas Bendtner, in the squad. They failed to qualify in 2006, but on each of the three occasions that they have reached the finals, they have made it out of the group.

Japan are the underdogs in this group. They were expected to qualify easily, but they struggled with too many draws. They have a strong midfield with the likes of Shunsuke Nakamura, Junichi Inamoto, Makoto Hasebe and Keisuke Honda, but they have a major weakness up front. They have not been in great form this year either, winning only 3 of their 7 games, including a comfortable 3-0 defeat against Serbia last time out. Their victories have come against Yemen, Bahrain and Hong Kong, and while you can only beat the teams you play, these results are hardly likely to worry the bigger sides in this group.

Holland should qualify with ease from this group, and the second qualification spot will be contested between Cameroon and Denmark. I suspect Denmark may be the side to get through, but either way, I simply cannot see Japan making any impact on this group with the squad of players that they have at their disposal.

Bet: Holland to win group @ 1.67
Bet: Japan to finish bottom @ 2.1

World Cup Antepost Betting Tips - Part 1

With the World Cup just over three weeks ago, there are bound to be some decent opportunities to make a bit of money. This is the first of four posts analysing each of the eight groups, looking for the best value bets in each.

Group A

Group A contains 2006 beaten finalists, France, the host nation, South Africa, Central America superpower Mexico and the winners of the inaugural tournament, Uruguay.

France only just scraped into the tournament following the infamous Thierry Henry handball against Ireland in the playoffs. They have plenty of talent in their squad, even with the exclusion of Karim Benzema and Samir Nasri – Hugo Lloris is one of the best young keepers in Europe, whilst the likes of Patrice Evra, Nicholas Anelka, Franck Ribery and Yoann Gourcuff are very talented players. However, the major problem for France is their coach, Raymond Domenech. He has been highly criticised in France in recent times for some controversial selections and lack of results.

South Africa will be hoping to put in a strong performance in front of their own fans. Traditionally, the host nation always does relatively well, although recent results suggest that South Africa may struggle a little. Draws with Namibia and North Korea were not great, but a draw with Paraguay and recent victories over Jamaica and Thailand are encouraging. They made it to the semi-finals of the Confederations Cup last year, but in a group containing Iraq and New Zealand, it wasn’t too tricky. Defeat to Brazil in the semi-final put an end to their tournament. They have several Premiership players – Aaron Mokoena, Steven Pienaar and Benni McCarthy – and they will be vital if South Africa are going to get anything out of the tournament.

The Mexicans are regulars at the World Cup, having qualified for 5 straight tournaments. They have reached the final 16 on each occasion, and will fancy their chances of making it again. Their defence is one of their strongest features, having conceded only 3 goals in their past 14 internationals, and they won the 2009 Gold Cup with a crushing 5-0 victory over the USA in the final. They have struggled for goals in recent games, but these were without some of their European stars, such as Guillermo Franco, Carlos Vela, Andres Guardado and Giovanni Dos Santos.

Uruguay clinched their place after a playoff with Costa Rica. They have a strong selection of strikers to choose from, with the likes of Diego Forlan, Luis Suarez and Edison Cavani. However, whether they have the midfield and defence to get results against France and Mexico is questionable, with quite a few South American based players. They got an impressive 3-1 victory over the Swiss in their last friendly match, so could be a decent bet to qualify from the group.

Despite the fact that the hosts have never failed to qualify, I simply do not think that the South Africans have the talent to make it out of the group. They are up against three talented sides, and home advantage can only get you so far. France have plenty of talent in their squad, and as long as Domenech does not spring any more surprises, should fancy themselves to make it out of this group. The second qualifying place will be between Mexico and Uruguay, and I fancy the solid defence of the Mexicans to be the difference.

Bet: South Africa not to qualify @ 1.45
Bet: South Africa to finish bottom @ 2.4

Group B

Group B contains Diego Maradona’s Argentina, former European champions, Greece, two-time African Nations champions, Nigeria, and South Korea.

Argentina have an abundance of talent in their side. Attacking options including Lionel Messi, Carlos Tevez, Gonzalo Higuain, Diego Milito and Sergio Aguero are backed up by experienced creative midfielder, Juan Sebastian Veron. However, the omission of Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso was a shock. Despite lining up against each other in the Champion’s League final, Walter Samuel and Martin Demichelis are likely to partner each other at the back, with Newcastle’s Jonas Gutierrez doing the running in midfield. However, Diego Maradona is the weak link in the Argentinean bid – his undoubted talent as a player does not seem to have transferred into the management arena, and they struggled to qualify for the tournament, needed a victory on the final day to scrape in.

The Greeks are still coached by Otto Rehhagel, who led them to the historic Euro 2004 triumph. There is a strong domestic bias to the squad, although Euro 2004 hero, Angelos Charisteas, and Liverpool defender, Sotiris Kyrgiakos are included in the squad. However, they failed to reach the last World Cup, and lost all three games at Euro 2008. They needed a playoff victory over Ukraine to reach the finals this time around, but they are unlikely to have the quality to qualify from this group.

Nigeria only just scraped into the tournament, needing a 92nd minute goal to beat Mozambique, and deny them a place at the World Cup. Despite defeat to Egypt in their opening game, they reached the semi-finals of the 2010 African Nations Cup, before succumbing to losing finalists, Ghana. The majority of their squad is European-based, and the likes of John Obi Mikel, Dickson Etuhu, Yakubu and Obafemi Martins mean they have quality in their side. Whether they are good enough to make it to the knock-out stages is a different matter though.

South Korea had a magnificent run to the semi-finals in the 2002 World Cup, and only missed out on qualification for the knock-out stage in 2006 after a controversial defeat to Switzerland. They were unbeaten in qualification for the 2010 World Cup and have impressed in recent friendly games, beating the Ivory Coast (3-1), Ecuador (2-0) and Japan (3-1). They have some classy players – Manchester United’s Park Ji-Sung, Bolton’s Lee Chung-Yong and Tomsk’s Kim Nam-Il are solid midfielders, while Monaco striker Park Chu-Young scored 8 goals this season in Ligue 1.

Despite Diego Maradona, Argentina have the talent to go far in this tournament, and should qualify from this group without too many difficulties. The other three sides are all of a relatively similar quality, but I fancy South Korea to take the other qualifying position. They have been in good form recently, and beat Ivory Coast, who are of a similar quality to Nigeria.

Bet: Argentina to win group @ 1.54
Bet: South Korea to qualify @ 3.75