Olympic football draw hoped to stimulate ticket sales

Happily, and unlike previous Olympiads, most of the ticketed sporting events for London 2012 have sold out.  Many could have done so several times over.  For those of us who despaired at the phalanxes of seats which remained empty in Beijing, while the huddled masses pressed their noses against the ground-glass, this is a wonderful thing.

It is not true, perhaps predictably, of the football.  Organizers hope that yesterday’s draw at Wembley, fronted by Gary Lineker and shown live on BBC Two – albeit at not-exactly-prime-time 11 o’clock in the morning – will stoke the imaginations and, more importantly, debit cards of football fans.

Olympic football tournaments have been done very well and very badly.  Even in the modern era, the variation has been marked.  In 2004, Greece sold barely 12,500 tickets per match for the men’s tournament despite having just won the European Championship.  Four years later, the equivalent figure in China was over 43,000.

The Olympic football tournaments have a fine history – longer, it should be remembered, than the World Cup – and are taken seriously… in most countries.  That it is largely shunned in Britain has much to do with the fact that we don’t usually compete but there is more to it than that.  There are two forms of equal and opposite snobbery at work.

The first is the anti-football – and perhaps anti-professional-sport – feeling that still runs deep among some Olympic enthusiasts.  The Olympics, they argue, are not the pinnacle of football – this is the World Cup, of course – so it has no business being involved in the Games.  The same argument is often made about tennis and basketball.  It is piffle.

Football is an accessible and globally competitive sport.  Can that be said of show-jumping?  Of rowing?  Or of fencing?  What business do the Olympics, which involve synchronized swimming and dressage, have in denying the world’s most popular game its place at the Games?

And over in the blue corner, we have the anti-Olympics snobbery of many British football fans.  Let’s be blunt: we can be a parochial lot.  How many of us would get out of bed to see, say, Belarus vs Egypt at Hampden Park?  I would, but I’m not your typical football fan.  I bought tickets to two double headers at St James’ Park, as FIFA insist it will be called during the Games, and had no idea who would be playing but that was not the point.  It is a major international football tournament on my doorstep; that is why I’m going.

So, it should be remembered, will at least a million others.  Between British fans such as your humble servant who have bought ‘blind’ and the fans of the visiting men’s and women’s teams, almost a million tickets have already been sold.  That is more than any other sport but the venues are so much bigger and sessions so more numerous that football remains the sport most threatened by visions of masses of unoccupied plastic chairs.

For this reason, the pressure on Stuart Pearce to select David Beckham could become immense.  Beckham, though, has no rightful place in the 18-man Great Britain squad.  The three over-age berths ought to be taken by those players most unfortunate to be omitted from England’s Euro 2012 squad.  Nor should tokenism lead to the unmerited inclusion of players from Northern Ireland or Scotland – Wales is sure to be represented, quite properly, by the excellent Aaron Ramsey and the world class Gareth Bale – at the expense of more deserving cases.

A fondness for reason does give cause to sympathise with LOCOG.  As I discussed in a recent blog, the British public simply do not seem interested in attending women’s matches.  Great Britain’s opening clash with New Zealand is the first event in the whole Games, yet just 15,000 tickets have been sold in the 74,500 capacity Millennium Stadium.  LOCOG cannot be blamed for underselling the event and hopefully the draw will see sales pick up.

The women’s tournament, though, sees LOCOG bivouacked between a rock and a hard place.  The fear criticism for sparsely occupied stadia but may have been loath to allocate the women’s matches to the smaller venues for fear of being accused of treating it as the secondary football competition.

It is unreasonable to expect the huge football stadia to sell out for the Olympics but it is important that attendances are generally high.  That would indicate a change in attitude; both of British football fans to the Olympic competition and of Olympophiles to football.  The game belongs at the Games.

England vs Holland - player ratings

ENGLAND

Joe Hart (GK) - Could hardly be blamed for Holland's three goals but meanwhile made a couple of excellent saves and looks quite at home between the Wembley posts. 7/10

Micah Richards (RB) - Foolishly ostracised by Fabio Capello, clearly the best right back available, though Kyle Walker could displace him in time due to his extraordinary pace.  Was wasted at CB in the final half hour. 7/10

Chris Smalling (CB) - Was given a headache by Huntelaar in more ways than one but coped admirably with an ineffectual van Persie in the first half. 6/10

Gary Cahill (CB) - His Naples nightmare would appear to be behind him.  A commanding performance plus showed his goal threat at the other end.  Took his goal assuredly. 7/10

Leighton Baines (LB) - In better club form than Cole but lacks the explosive flair of the Chelsea full back.  Didn't have a chance to show the quality of his set pieces. 6/10

Scott Parker (DM) - A performance to vindicate Stuart Pearce's decision to make him captain, though he faded a little towards the end.  High quality tackling throughout. 7/10

Gareth Barry (CM) - Satisfactory but made to look better by Milner and Young who appeared uncomfortable in the second half formation. 6/10

Steven Gerrard (AM) - Looked totally off the pace and his withdrawal caused problems with England's tactics but not performance. 4/10

Adam Johnson (RW) - Gave Pieters a torrid time in the first half, England's brightest attacking and creative threat.  Has probably played his way back into the Euros squad. 7/10

Danny Welbeck (F) - Has pace and power but was too often isolated in the England attack.  Didn't have a chance to threaten Stekelenburg. 6/10

Ashley Young (LW) - A poor performance redeemed by his fine goal in the last minute.  Didn't provide service on the wing and looked a lost soul in central midfield in the second half. 6/10

Substitutes:

Daniel Sturridge (F) - England's best player, looked confident and ambitious.  Produced one classy drag-back and shot but fluffed his best chance. 8/10

James Milner (CM) - England's second half midfield lacked cohesion with Milner and Young in the middle but he lacks the pace needed on the wing at international level. 5/10

Stewart Downing (LW) - Capable but unspectacular.  Put simply, he is down the list when it comes to England's wide players. 5/10

Phil Jones (RB) - Should have played at CB when Smalling went off injured.  Nevertheless, looked lively, composed and produced a fine threaded pass for Young's goal. 7/10

Theo Walcott & Fraizer Campbell (F) - Came on too late to be fairly assessed, though Walcott had a touch in Young's goal.

HOLLAND

Maarten Stekelenburg (GK) - Produced one fine save from Sturridge but well beaten by Cahill and Young. 6/10

Khalid Boulahrouz (RB) - His performance would have been enjoyed by Gregory van der Wiel, who will surely start at the Euros if he is fit. 5/10

John Heitinga (CB) - Coped well with Welbeck but couldn't stem the England tide in the last few minutes. 7/10

Joris Mathijsen (CB) - A hugely underrated defender only beaten by Cahill's fine goal. 7/10

Erik Pieters (LB) - Was glad to see the back of Johnson.  A good young prospect but no Gio van Bronckhorst. 6/10

Nigel de Jong (DM) - Solid but unspectacular.  Dutch public want to see him dropped for the more attacking Rafael van der Vaart. 6/10

Mark van Bommel (DM) - Conservative and powerful but clumsy in the tackle.  Should have been booked in the first half. 5/10

Wesley Sneijder (AM) - A mixed bag.  Oozes class on the ball but spent long periods on the periphery, sitting too deep.  Not in a fine run of form.  5/10

Arjen Robben (F) - A class apart.  Two splendid goals, even if the second was deflected in off Cahill, capped a brilliant performance.  Won the game for Holland on his own. 9/10

Robin van Persie (F) - Subdued and in the back pockets of Smalling and Cahill.  Huntelaar led the line with more conviction, however brief his involvement. 4/10

Dirk Kuyt (F) - Not in the same bracket as the other main forwards in terms of quality but his cross for Huntelaar's goal was divine. 6/10

Substitutes:

Stijn Schaars (LB) - Normally a midfielder but filled in well after half time.  England's late threat came down the other flank. 6/10

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (F) - Shot wide, scored with a bullet header, cracked his head on Smalling's in the process, went off again.  A bizarre but productive cameo. 7/10

Luuk de Jong (F) - Anonymous replacement for Huntelaar.  A squad player at best this early in his international career. 4/10

Urby Emanuelson (AM) - Replaced Sneijder and got involved in the build-up for the winning goal.  Plagued by a jack-of-all-trades reputation. 6/10

Ron Vlaar (RB) - His introduction was swiftly followed by two England goals.  Holland's first choice back four is top quality but they lack depth. 5/10

Ireland frozen out as Italian hopes go for a Burton

England are two fifths of the way to a Grand Slam; or, more probably, two fifths of the way to winning two Six Nations matches out of five.  Saturday's win in the Roman snow showed a certain degree of character but little else.  When they meet a team better at scoring tries than Scotland – which is to say, anybody else – or with a better fly half than the Italians – see above – they might find themselves in a spot of bother.


If Italy had a fly half capable of playing at anything on speaking terms with international standard, they would have walloped England, who froze figuratively as well as quite literally on what passed for the pitch at the Stadio Olimpico.


At least England have a coach who can make effective substitutions.  After 51 minutes, Ben Morgan and Lee Dickson replaced Phil Dowson at Number 8 and Ben Youngs at scrum half to good effect.  Youngs, who looks like a scrum half who could do with being taken out of the limelight for a while, had looked a shadow of his former self.  The introduction of Dickson gave England a sort of purpose and organization in attack lacking in the first half; though again they were dependent on a charge-down try from fly-half Charlie Hodgson to seal a narrow victory.

Hodgson played well enough to give Toby Flood cause for concern that he will not cheerfully walk straight back into the team when he is up to Test match fitness.  He played flat, with discipline and a little vision; admittedly modest virtues, yet utterly beyond poor old Kristopher Burton.  Burton was born in Brisbane yet, had he remained in Australia, would have no more chance of being selected for the Wallabies as Libby Kennedy.

He was replaced at fly-half by Tobias Botes, whose Wikipedia article states that he normally plays as a scrum half.  He ought to stick to the day job as his kicking was worse than Burton's, and that was some achievement.  In the 2009 meeting at Twickenham, flanker Mauro Bergamasco was shoe-horned in at scrum-half and had a nightmare, gifting a first Test try to Riki Flutey and passing the ball with a level of inaccuracy which would shame a boy on the playing fields of Ampleforth College.  No longer are those forty minutes of misadventure the worst individual performance by an Italian in the Six Nations championship.

England, alas, cannot play Scotland's backs and Italy's half-backs every week.  Wales, who made light work of an ill-disciplined Scotland side at the Millennium Stadium, will be favourites to complete a Triple Crown at Twickenham on 25 February

There was only slightly less good rugby played at the Stade de France, and only because there was no rugby at all; not even of any kind.  Match referee Dave Pearson took the sensible decision to call off the match due to a dangerously frozen pitch.

All of which was very fine and proper, but the knowledge that many of the fans travelling from Ireland or the south of France will be neither able to afford nor inclined to return when the match in eventually staged – it is expected to be re-arranged for the weekend of 2-3 March – does give call to some pertinent questions.

Not least, why, having experienced the freezing Parisian weather every night of the last week, could the authorities not have foreseen such problems?  As the Stade de France has no under-soil heating (it is built on an old methane field, so it isn't just Twickenham that's built on old farts, &c. and so on…) it was never likely that the pitch would be playable for a kick-off at 9pm local time.  France must not be allowed to schedule a Six Nations match at the stadium so late in the evening again.

Could the kick-off time have been brought forward?  The details of the question are not known to your humble servant, so we will draw a veil over it – not that doing so to the St-Denis pitch did it any good.  If France are to win the Grand Slam, they will probably have to do so playing four Tests in four weeks.

Liverpool walk alone after day of shame

The most pernicious aspect of the fallout of the Luis Suárez-Patrice Evra race row is not Liverpool’s paranoia.  It is not the half-baked conspiracy theories, which propagate the theory that the FA’s independent panel was in hock with Sir Alex Ferguson.

It was not the crass error of those infernal tee-shirts worn before the match at Wigan Athletic; nor the refusal on Saturday of Suárez (culprit) to shake the hand of Evra (victim).  Nor is it the constant low-level hum of accusations that Evra is a liar with form – it was Mike Phelan, not Evra, that made the accusations against the member of Chelsea’s ground staff – or the absurd notion that because it is OK to call somebody a negro in Uruguay we must tolerate it here.  Uruguay, clearly, is not a country which ought to be used when setting our threshold of racial sensitivity.

Nor was it the preposterous apology for an interview given by Kenny Dalglish after Saturday’s match, in which Sky Sports interviewer Geoff Shreeves was said to be ‘bang out of order’ for suggesting the horrible atmosphere at the game might have had something to do with Suárez’s refusal of Evra’s hand.

Nor, even, is it the ghastly, brutal tribalism involved with Manchester United and Liverpool, which gives cause for sections of their support to give choral welcome to two of the most painful events in the history of English football: the Munich air crash and the Hillsborough tragedy.

It is the perpetuation of the belief by which schoolyard bullies maintain a vice-like grip over their prey; by which inner-city drugs gangs perpetuate their freedom to act with contempt for society; and by which, for many decades, footballers got away with racially abusing others players.  It is the reason why the Uruguayan press have turned their fire towards Evra, and why one dunderheaded corresponded sent a letter to the Sunday Times justifying the booing of Evra at Anfield in the recent FA Cup encounter because he ‘…has not acted like a man.’

It is, in short, the notion of the accursed Code of the Pitch.  The notion that whatever happens on the field should stay on the field, and that there is no creature lower in the social order than a ‘grass’.  The notion that, had it succeeded in bullying Evra out of maintaining his charge – fully and transparently proven, lest we forget – against Suárez, would have threatened to return us to the bad old days of a conspiracy of silence.

Could you blame a young black player – perhaps less established in the Premier League than Evra, who is, after all, the captain of Manchester United – for thinking that reporting any future racist language that might come their way might simply not be worth the hassle?

Let’s put it another way: do enough white people in Britain care enough about racism?  Are there still people for whom the battle against racially insensitive language is an encumbrance which must be tolerated, rather than a virtuous part of the evolution of our society?  Is that why Evra is being vilified by some for ‘making a fuss about’ being called a negro?  Is that why he was, with grotesque predictability, so loudly and crassly booed at Anfield in Juanuary?

Sunday’s apologies, from Dalglish and Suárez, at least present a kernel of progress.  It is the first time that Liverpool Football Club have, to any extent, acknowledged any wrongdoing on their part.  Yet there has still been no apology from Suárez for the incident that started the whole infernal affair.  He has still not told Evra that he regrets calling him a negro.

That this is the case maintains the worry that Suárez still believes he is the victim, both of a malicious accusation by Evra and of British ‘political correctness gone mad’.  But, in hoping that all who sail in her respect racial sensitivies, Britain has aped Ebeneezer Scrooge towards the end of A Christmas Carol.  “I haven’t taken leave of my senses, Cratchet.  I’ve come to them.”

Ireland and Wales serve feast after Calcutta Cup famine

Is there a single sight in sport more predictable than Scotland finding an ever-more ingenious way of not scoring a try?

Scotland dominated large spells of Saturday’s Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield yet, faced with a reasonably competent defensive display from England, they simply could not turn it into points on the board.  They could not even get penalties as England suddenly seemed to be a team on speaking terms with self-discipline.

Scotland have not scored a try in four Test matches, two of which were against Georgia and Argentina.  At Murrayfield, they went left and dropped the ball.  They went right and dropped the ball.  They went down the middle and dropped the ball.  For dropping the ball is what the Scotland rugby team do; at Murrayfield, it is almost endemic.

When they weren’t dropping the ball, they were giving away penalties inside the England 22, or turning over possession through being outnumbered in a ruck, or failing to find touch from a penalty.  Dan Parks, the starting Scotland fly-half, had one of those games that commentators are wont do describe as ‘not one for the scrapbook’.  His kicking game was poor.

At the start of the second half, one Parks kick did at least set up a try.  For England.  Charlie Hodgson’s charge-down score summed up the grotesque lack of finesse that the game suffered from start to finish.  Hodgson was excellent, as was England’s second-rower Moritz Botha.  That they stood out merely for looking like international footballers is the perfect condemnation of a dreadful match.

The following day, at Lansdowne Road, Ireland and Wales appeared to be playing a completely different sport.  Their encounter was everything you could ask of a sporting contest: high quality, high scoring and dramatic right to the end.

George North, superficially human, clattered through massed Irish defenders to set up the first try of the match for Jonathan Davies II, and clattered through massed Irish defenders to score the last.  The lead, by the end, had changed hands four times.

The main talking point was the referee, as indeed it usually in high profile rugby Tests.  It was in the World Cup semi final, when Sam Warburton was sent off for a clumsy but, ultimately, non-dangerous ‘tip tackle’; in the Final, when local desperation to see New Zealand crowned world champions evidently invaded the soul of Craig Joubert, the South African whose inept officiating cost France the tournament; and at Murrayfield, where replacement fly-half Greig Laidlaw was denied a try by the Television Match Official.

Wales lock Bradley Davies’ tackle on Donnacha Ryan was, without question, a much worse offense than Warburton’s in Auckland.  In the words of the touch judge Dave Pearson, he ‘picked him up, turned him upside down and dropped him on his head’; the very definition of a spear tackle.  So why only a yellow card was recommended, and why referee Wayne Barnes failed to instantly enquire as to Dave Pearson mental wellbeing and show a red card, only they know.  To make matters worse for Ireland, they lost the game to a borderline penalty, when Stephen Ferris clumsily but safely mis-tackled Ian Evans.  Ferris, ludicrously, was sin-binned for the remaining seconds of the match.

Yet all of this merely added to the excitement.  Scotland v England was a great advert for the 6 Nations; immersive, tense and committed.  This, though, was the great advert for rugby union football.  Wales showed class to add to the quality of character that, on its own, was enough for England to achieve their victory.  Against Ireland, Wales needed something extra.  So will England.

England must strip captaincy of unwarranted prestige

"You know, Lewis, Morse is a bloody good copper.  But sometimes he's more trouble that he's worth."  Chief Supt. Strange, 'Masonic Mysteries'

May we, before we start, agree on one thing?  I do not know whether John Terry is guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand, or he was merely rebutting an accusation made by the QPR defender.  Nor do you.  Nor do the Football Association.  Nor even – even! – Simon Barnes, Oliver Kay, James Lawson or the rest of the Fleet Street sport ensemble.

The following is a summation of the press release that, in a more level-headed world, the Football Association ought to have issued upon learning that John Terry’s trial would not take place until a week after the end of the European Championship:

“The Football Association are disappointed that the issue concerning John Terry and Anton Ferdinand will not be settled until after the Euro 2012 tournament.  However, we accept the primacy of the British justice system and will respond accordingly.

In appreciation of the seriousness of the allegations made against Mr Terry, and in accordance with our strong stance against racism, in all of its forms, in the game, we have informed Mr Terry that, should he be convicted, he will not be selected to play for England again.

However, we understand that Mr Terry denies the charges in the strongest possible terms and until such a time as the case may be judged, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ must apply and Mr Terry will remain as captain of the England team.

In response to suggestions that Mr Terry’s presence in the England dressing room may produce a ‘toxic’ atmosphere, we remind all players and supporters that the matter is sub judice and Mr Terry is entitled to the benefit of the doubt unless/until he is convicted.  All England players should behave in a professional manner and avoid assuming rôles of judge or jurer that are not theirs to assume.  No further comment on this issue will be made by anybody connected with the England team until the end of Mr Terry’s trial and questions from the media relating to this issue will not be welcomed.”

In the absence of such sound reason, we are left to ponder, once again, who the England captain should be.  Worryingly, suitable candidates do not abound.  Rio Ferdinand is rarely fit and, with Terry set to remain England’s principal central defender, may regret wasting a good opportunity to keep quiet should Terry be acquitted.

The FA, though, have an opportunity of their own; specifically, not to appoint anybody as full time England captain.  The rôle, which in football is purely ceremonial, should be awarded on a match-by-match basis.  This is not to say there is a lack of suitable candidates but to argue that a change in culture must be induced in English football.

The Roy-of-the-Rovers culture, that of individual hero-worship, has dominated English football for longer than your humble servant has been alive.  As long ago as 1982, we obsessed over the fitness of Kevin Keegan and Trevor Brooking, ignoring the fact that England had other players who were indeed good enough to beat France 3-1 in their first match in Bilbao.

Since then, intolerable pressure has been placed on certain players to be the man who brings the trophy home for England: Paul Gascoigne in 1996, Michael Owen in 1998, David Beckham in 2002, Wayne Rooney since Euro 2004.  Already, we are seeing disproportionate attention given to the state of Jack Wilshere’s health, even though it is only February.

Capello, who for two pins would now award the captaincy on a match-by-match basis, must be at his wits end.  Yet the whole situation would have been avoided had certain players respected the court case and not made inferred assumptions of Terry’s guilt before a single witness has been called.  There is no reason for a dressing room split and Capello should not be blamed for the fact that some players have manufactured one.

Terry is now left in a situation where, for his own sanity as much as anything else, he ought to retire from international football.  Terry has been one of Chelsea's best players this season and remains the best centre-back available to Capello.  Yet has it all become more trouble that it's worth, for team or player?  Should Terry be found guilty, it is his own fault; but if he is acquitted, how could he have any faith in the FA or those of his senior international colleagues who have already conducted the trial in their own heads?

The Myth of the Africa Cup of Nations

You, like me, are probably looking forward to a top notch international football championship.  You, like me, are probably eagerly anticipating excellent football, lively atmospheres and wall-to-wall television coverage.  Alas, I speak of Euro 2012, coming in June, not of the Africa Cup of Nations, which begins on Saturday when Equatorial Guinea take on Libya, live on British EuroSport.

I say Equatorial Guinea.  What I actually mean is a bunch of mercenaries masquerading as a national football team for which many have only the most spurious claim to be entitled to play.  The Confederation of African Football (CAF) have for years turned a blind eye to eligibility issues.  Perhaps we should hope that Equatorial Guinea do well, leading to protests from opponents which may finally force CAF to act.

The Equatoguineans, such as they are, are only in the tournament because the tournament is in Equatorial Guinea, who co-host with Gabon.  At least Gabon have a halfway competent side.

Equatorial Guinea should have no business hosting the championship.  Though the richest country in continental Africa, its wealth is distributed with grotesque iniquity; 70% of the population live under the UN Poverty Threshold of $2 per day.  It is also listed by Freedom House as having one of the worst national human rights records in the world.

Usually around this time, the BBC wheel out a pundit – often Mark Bright – to talk about the ‘colour and vibrancy’ of the tournament.  Codswallop.  If you want colour and atmosphere at an international tournament, get hold of a DVD of the Holland-Italy match in Bern at Euro 2008.  If you want matches played in mostly empty stadia unless the home team are playing, with irritating bands playing continuously regardless of what happens on the pitch – they don’t even stop for a goal – and barely interested fans wandering idly into the stadium twenty minutes after kick-off, watch the Cup of Nations.

It is often little better on the pitch.  Some tournaments at least make up with drama what they lack in quality: the 2008 tournament in Ghana averaged well over three goals per match; the 2010 semi final between Egypt and Algeria was unforgettable, albeit for mostly the wrong reasons.

But generally it is thin gruel.  The last three Finals, and four of the last five, have been dismal.  The first tournament I followed in depth, in Mali in 2002, was wretched: barely 1.5 goals per game; atrocious pitches, often dangerously so; and lamentable football by most teams.

In Angola two years ago, the tournament started with a bang and the best match of 2010.  In the 74th minute, a Manucho penalty put the hosts 4-0 up over Mali in a delirious Estádio 11 de Novembro in Luanda.  A Seydou Keita goal seemed to be only a consolation but Mali scored again in the 88th minute, then in the 93rd and finally equalized in the 94th.  It was surely the most extraordinary opening match to any major international football tournament in history.

That, though, was a false dawn.  Take Jonathan Wilson’s word for it: “The football in Angola two years ago was rubbish.”  Overshadowed by the terrorist on the Togo team bus – evidence that this was yet another tournament misguidedly taken to an inappropriate country – the football did little to warm the blood.  Algeria and the hosts almost certainly conspired to draw 0-0 in their final group fixture, thus guaranteeing progress for both at the expense of the more adventurous but utterly incohesive Malians.

The refereeing was weak and conspired to help cynical teams.  The attendances  for matches not involving Angola were pitiful, yet our intelligence was insulted by preposterously inflated ‘official’ crowd figures which bring to mind a Carling Cup tie at the Emirates Stadium.

But this is a tournament which comes with complimentary codswallop by the bucket load.  Wilson also wrote, in a recent Guardian article, of the editor of another organ rejecting a column for being ‘too negative’ about the tournament.

The appeal of the tournament remains that it is a fascination.  But it was a fascination twenty years ago; that is not progress.  Yet the tournament is bizarrely covered much more by the BBC than the significantly superior Copa América or even the Asian Cup, and that is even after they have lost the rights to ITV.

Africa has been overtaken by Asia as the continent most likely to be the third, after South America and Europe, to produce a World Cup winning nation, or even Finalist.  Japan, or even South Korea, would probably walk this tournament.  That is its greatest condemnation.