World Cup myths

Debunking some of the myths about this World Cup
It's an all-European semifinals, but that doesn't suggest a resurgence of Old World powers in the international game.
By Simon Bruty(Sports Illustrated)

Every time the World Cup rolls around, we look for the "Big Trend."

We lapse into the most facile kind of deductive reasoning and conclude that 64 games every four summers provide some kind of accurate assessment of the state of the game.

Usually these these theories come from people who don't follow the sport week in, week out, but rather drop in every so often to make bold, sweeping statements.

Four years ago, with Turkey and South Korea in the semifinals (and the likes of the U.S. and Senegal doing well), it was all about how soccer had become truly globalized, how the old powers -- Europe and South America -- were on the wane.

In 1998, it was all about how France -- drawing upon a multiethnic reserve of players -- represented some new multicultural paradigm where everybody gets along: a sweet, if moronic, conclusion in view of the rioting in the banlieus earlier this year.

Cameroon's run in '90 (and Nigeria's four years later) was all about the inevitable rise of African soccer, with an African team sure to win the World Cup by 2000, as Pelé predicted.

Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics will tell you that such conclusions are pure bunk: There are trends in the game, but you don't spot them in such a tiny and unrepresentative sample.

In light of all this, what should we make of the fact that all four '06 semifinalists hail from Europe? Does it signify a resurgence for the Old World?

The answer is probably not, because there was nothing from which to bounce back. This is merely a reaffirmation of the old order, a repeat of what we've seen so many times before: better teams going further than worse teams.

With the exception of Brazil and Argentina, no non-European side has ever reached the semifinals on European soil. Indeed, only one team -- apart from Brazil or Argentina -- has ever gone as far as the quarterfinals in a European World Cup: Cameroon in '90.

We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, to see European sides in the last four. Nor should we have been shocked if half of the final four had been South American. Argentina was not inferior to Germany and arguably deserved to go through. And while France was magnificent against Brazil, no sane person would suggest that the Seleção is not among the world's very best.

With this in mind, you're bound to hear all sorts of sweeping generalizations in the next few weeks. Here's one man's breakdowns of myths and truths.

1. Only one African team made it out of the group stage (Ghana), and it got pasted by Brazil. This shows that African football is clearly still far behind the rest of the world.

MYTH .Angola lost only once. Ivory Coast was in a very tough group. Tunisia got no help from the officials against Ukraine. More to the point, Africa's two strongest nations -- Cameroon and Nigeria -- narrowly missed out on qualifying. Make no mistake about it, and please, forget the silly stereotypes: African soccer is for real.

2. France, Italy and Portugal are among the oldest teams in this World Cup, which means experience matters.

TRUTH .Patrick Vieira and Zinedine Zidane , both of whom had been written off after lackluster seasons, are running around like spring chickens. Italy and Portugal overcame tense games and red cards thanks largely to the veterans. Over a season, old legs do become a factor. But in a World Cup, provided you're fit, age is less of an issue.

3. Ronaldo is fat and lazy, and he's the reason Brazil went out.

MYTH . Given his playing style, Ronaldo's weight has little to do with his performances -- which, incidentally, weren't as bad as some suggested. The real problem with Brazil was an unbalanced formation and some dubious selection choices by Carlos Alberto Parreira . Even then, it might not have mattered had we seen the real Ronaldinho on the pitch.

4. If Luiz Felipe Scolari isn't a genius, he's pretty darn close: 12 out of 12 in World Cup games.

TRUTH . I was skeptical at first, but the truth is that Scolari has something about him that others lack. The "Felipão" character and the waving and shouting on the sideline often overshadow the fact that he is not only a great motivator, he's an astute tactician who makes average players into good ones and good players into great ones.

5. Referees have ruined this World Cup. We need more officials from top European leagues and fewer from the soccer backwaters around the world.

MYTH . This is a very Euro-centric view, but the truth is that while there have been some egregious errors, few countries can genuinely argue that they were "robbed" by the referees. Graham Poll and Vladimir Ivanov were two of the most criticized, but, fortunately, their decisions did not affect the outcomes (Australia still got through against Croatia, and it's hard to argue that Ivanov's decisions cost Holland the Portugal game).

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, both Poll and Ivanov are European. As is Lubos Michel , for that matter. His decision not to give Maxi Rodriguez a penalty against Germany (he got a yellow card for diving instead) was perhaps one of the most contentious in this World Cup and one that would have impacted the outcome of the game and, perhaps, the competition. Yet it's far from a clear-cut error. Officials have made plenty of mistakes in this World Cup, probably more than is acceptable. Fortunately, few have affected the final outcome (unlike four years ago).

6. CONCACAF stinks.

TRUTH . The numbers are awful: One win in 12 games, eight losses. Statistically, the confederation is only marginally worse than Asia (which also managed only one victory but had one fewer defeat), but there are some key differences. Asia will be strengthened by Australia next time around and, between the Socceroos, Japan, South Korea and Iran, there are at least four teams that can plausibly hope to advance to the second round at most World Cups. These are all nations whose top players play in top leagues. All CONCACAF has to offer is Mexico (a perennial World Cup underachiever) and, potentially, the U.S.

Perhaps it's time to rethink things a bit. Maybe it's time to merge CONCACAF with South America so that the U.S., Mexico and others can get some regular competition against top teams. Of course, that won't happen. The men who run CONCACAF would much rather be big fish in their fetid little pond than take a bold step that would greatly help the game in their region.