Dutch complaints are way off target

For Dutch coach Bert van Marwijk to try and blame English World Cup final referee Howard Webb for his side's defeat is, frankly, pathetic. It is human nature to try and blame someone else, but he must know that his Dutch side were a distant second best to winners Spain. Instead of blaing the referee, some introspection is required, I feel.

The thirteen yellow cards and one red dished out by Webb were perhaps less than should have been - and that's the only real criticism that should be allowed.

The Dutch tactics of going hard and trying to stop the Spanish playing, coupled with some over-reactions (as usual) by both sides, ruined the chances of the final redeeming what has mostly been a turgid World Cup final tournament on the field of play.

Although the Spanish rarely reached their top form, and were sadly short of goals (only eight in seven games), at least they tried to play good football throughout. Let's hope their passing (now successful in the World Cup as well as the European championships) catches on. We've had enough of the destructuive tactics employed by so many for too many years.

One final point on dirty play. Mark van Bommel must have been the dirtiest player at the World Cup. Lucky not have been sent off in the final, he should also have been sent off in the two previous games (v. Brazil and Uruguay), yet somehow survived with only one booking (and that, not for a foul!). At 33, we've probably seen the last of him. Thank goodness.

Germany look set for future success

So we bid Germany farewell from the 2010 World Cup. As the tournament's highest scorers with 13 goals (although 12 of them were bagged in three of their six games), they will be missed.

Although they came into this competition not rated by many of their own compatriots, and certainly not by most of the blinkered British punditry, they will - I guarantee - be among the favourites for the 2012 European Championships and the 2014 World Cup. If they can keep this young team together they could easily emulate the German World Cup winners of 1954, 1974 and 1990, and European winners of 1972 1980 and 1996.

Amazing isn't it, the success Germany has had over the years?

Not really, because their league and national set-up is structured to bring success to the national team. When things went wrong in 2000 they went back to the drawing board and saw how to fix them. Now they have another good set of players, who might dominate the international scene for many years.

Will the same happen in England after the latest debacle? No, if past evidence is anything to go by. England have consistently failed since 1973 yet nothing has been done.

It will be interesting to see what happens when England play Hungary on 11 August. Will Wembley be full? Will Capello dispose of some of the serial failures? Will the crowd welcome the newcomers with cheers? Or greet the "tainted generation" with boos? I can't imagine there will be a "forgive and forget" feeling.

Yet three days later the Premier League starts, and England will be forgotten then.

It has to Holland ... doesn't it?

It seems so obvious that Holland will beat Uruguay in today's World Cup semi-final that you have to worry for them - the Dutch, that is. Boss Bert van Marwijk says his players must keep their feet on the ground and not get complacent.

The Dutch are favourites to go through, but Uruguay have proven to be very resilient, and beat Ghana on penalties in the quarter-final, despite conceding a possible match-deciding penalty in the last minute of normal time.

"Uruguay are a team of fighters," said Van Marwijk. "They battle and survive - it will be a very dangerous match. We must not underestimate them otherwise things will go wrong for us."

The Dutch have won all fice of their games to date: Denmark (2-0), Japan (1-0), Cameroon (2-1), Slovakia (2-1), Brazil (2-1).

Uruguay have won three and drawn two: France (0-0), South Africa (3-0), Mexico (1-0), South Korea (2-1), Ghana (1-1).

Both have had what might appear to be a relativelyeasy route to this stage - with the notable exception of Brazil, of course. But you can only beat what is put in front of you.

Logic tells us it has to be Holland, but since when did logic count for anything in football?

Don't write off the Germans!

It is fascinating that what was a South American dominated World Cup at the quarter final stage (they had four representatives) has suddenly become a European dominated World Cup in the semis (three out of the four teams). Could this be the World Cup where the Europeans finally win the tournament outside of their own continent?

Only Uruguay stand in their way. The Uruguayans did little to court popularity by nocking out the only African team (Ghana) left in the competition last Friday, especially as centre-forward Luis Suarez saved a certain goal in the last minute with his hand, and Gyan missed the Ghanaian penalty.

Although twice-winners (1930, 1950) Uruguay have shown admirable resistance throughout the last three weeks, conceding only two goals in five games, their route to the semi-finals has probably been the easiest of the four, and they will face a stern test against the Dutch on Tuesday night. Holland came into their best form to beat Brazil on Friday, and look firm favourites to reach their first final since 1978.

The other semi-final between Germany and Spain looks a mouth-watering affair. Germany have finally silenced their critics and shaken off their "average team" tag. This is a good team, as amply demonstrated by tearing Argentina apart on Saturday afternoon. Four-nil following the 4-1 demolition of England has given them 13 goals in their five games. Spain, by contrast, have yet to hit form and sneaked past Paraguay. The Spanish have managed only six goals and David Villa has five of them. Yet if they hit their best form and Fernandos Torres sparkes into life, it could be a Spain v Holland final which would give us the first new winner of the Cup since France won it in 1998.

Only a fool would write off Germany, however.

Dearth of goals as Total Football and Samba-style go missing

This World Cup has so far served up 123 goals in 56 matches at an average of 2.2 goals per game. This is a far cry from the incredible average of 5.385 goals per game served up in Switzerland in 1954. Ah, innocent days, when goal scoring really was the prime aim of the game.

Interestingly, the World Cup with the lowest average goals per game to date is Italy in 1990, with only 2.12, so this World Cup may not be the lowest. Other recent World Cups have hardly been "goal-fests" either with 2006 giving us 2.3 and 2002 serving up 2.52.

Although 2010 will end up being one of the lowest scoring World Cups, one can't deny it's been interesting. The odd results (Spain 0, Switzerland 1; Germany 0, Serbia 1 to name a couple), the failure of big European teams (France and Italy just beating England to that prize), the indisputable evidence that video technology is long overdue (England's "goal that never was" and Argentina's "goal that never should have been").

But the entertainment in many games has been sadly lacking. Games such as England v Algeria, Portugal v Brazil, Portugal v Ivory Coast, Japan v Cameroon (oh, the list is too long) have been dire. I didn;t see Parauguay v NewZealand or Switzerland v Honduras, but one can only imagine how bad these must have been.

The trouble is, as I said in an earlier piece, that FIFA do nothing to support attacking play. It would be nice to see a feast of attacking football for the rets of this World Cup. But as Dutch boss Bert Van Marwijk says ahead of today's Brazil v Holland quarter-final, the days of the Dutch Total Football and Brazil's traditional "samba" style are over.

"It was a long time ago, Total Football - if you play like that now it's very hard to win the Cup," said Van Marwijk.

FIFA need to address that.

Blatter apologises to England for goal that wasn't given

Breaking news is that Fifa president Sepp Blatter says that the debate on goal-line technology will be reopened when the International FA Board meets in July.

He has apologised to the Football Association over Frank Lampard's disallowed goal in England's World Cup defeat by Germany. The ball clearly crossed the line in the 4-1 loss when the score was 2-1. England might have been outplayed, but an equalising goal could have changed the whole pattern of the game.
 
It seems obvious to me that 21st Century technology should be used to ensure we get the right decisions in football. Technology is used in rugby, cricket, tennis, ice hockey, motor racing... Why should football remain in the 19th Century?
 
Fears of hold-ups in play can be allayed because two potential solutions ("Smart Ball" and "Hawkeye") can relay the information to the referee in less than a second. "Goal" or "Play-on" in an instant. and no arguments.
 
No, the use of technology cannot be repeated down to all levels of the game (one of FIFA's concerns), but they should not kid themselves that a park game is as important as a World Cup game. This is not something to start at the bottom. Start at the top with decisions on ball over the line for goals and see where it develops from there.
 
A final point of irony. Assistant referees are all too keen to raie their flags for a throw-in when the ball so much as touches the touchline (it should really be completely over it), but they seem reluctant to give a goal unless the ball actually hits the net!

Italy hit rock bottom

There have been some poor Italian teams in the World Cup before, but the team in South Africa 2010 took the biscuit.

In 1966 Italy lost to North Korea 1-0 in the group and went home early as a result.

In 1982 Italy won the World Cup, didn't win a single game in their group - drawing all three - but managed to hit form and dump Brazil out of the cup before going on to beat West Germany 3-1 in the final.

In 1994 they lost to Brazil in the final on penalties, but were hugely unimpressive in the group, qualifying only in third place at the expense of Norway on goals scored, with all four teams finishing with four points.

In 2002, Italy once again scraped out of the group with one win, one draw and one defeat, but then lost on a golden goal to South Korea.

This time they couldn't squeeze out of a truly poor group and finished bottom, behind Paraguay (who look reasonable, to be fair), Slovakia and New Zealand. Never at any stage in the past two weeks have Italy looked anything like a team who might threaten to come good. Some navel gazing is bound to follow.

It's a World Cup of immense interest, without hitting any particular heights of excellent football or a high goal count (an average of 2.16 goals per game in 44 games to date). France and Italy have fallen, and Spain today will probably have to beat Chile to progress. Meanwhile South American teams are making hay...

Poor refereeing backed by ineffective FIFA

Not all referees are as god as Pierluigi Collina of Italy who was renowned as one of the best referees of his generation. However, while much of the refereeing at the 2010 South Africa World Cup has been reasonable, some of it has been quite poor.

It may be a FIFA directive, but the overreaction of referees to supposed 'use of the elbow' has become almost epidemic. The sending-off, for example, of Brazil's Kaka last Sunday was ridiculous. All he tried to do was prevent himself from getting hurt by an onrushing Ivory Coast player, who then crashed to the floor in death throes with something apparently akin to a smashed skull - when in reality his head wasn't touched at all.

The real culpable player was the Ivorian, not Kaka, yet Kaka is banned for one game and the Ivorian goes unpunished.

The failure of referees to inists on supposedly less critical rules followed leads to players questioning the 'bigger' decisions. Hardly any referees has insisted on throw-ins and free-kicks being taken from the right place, yet the rules are quite clear that a re-start should take place where the infringement took place. In this World Cup tht has been the point at which trowers can start their walk forward to where they run to take the throw, or where the free-kick taker chucks the ball forward forom where he'll take the free-kick.

Howard Webb's failure to book the player from the wall (Spanish, I think) who nearly beat the free-kick taker to the ball (thus being way less than 10 yards from the free-kick) was shameful.

Thus getting away with minor rule breaches, the players move on.

There has been far too much 'simulation' of injury in the World Cup, yet the guilty go unpunished. As for holding in the penalty box by defenders when there are free-kicks of corners, it is, frankly, laughable.

Rather like the players who go unpunished, FIFA need to get a grip.

Fear prevents the World Cup from catching fire

Let's talk about the lack of quality at South Africa 2010.

So far we have seen eight games and a paltry 13 goals. For me, only Germany have looked like a good team, with Argentina coming up behind as a fair team. The rest have been weak and uninspiring. Why is this?

Well, it could be exactly as it seems. From the FIFA rankings we have not yet seen the top five in the World (Brazil, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Italy) - they're all in the second half of the group draw. Germany (6) and Argentina (7) are the next best. England are eighth.

There could be some of the traditional 'fear' of losing your first match in a World Cup and being almost out straight away. If so, this is terrbly negative thinking, and it often blights England's campaigns. Look at the Germans. No fear, go for goals, win 4-0 - and THEY are now virtually qualified for the second round, and can coast through their remaining two group games, arriving fit, ready and in a good frame of mind for the knock-out challenge.

Contrast that with England who took the lead against the USA, but could not sustain it. Blaming Robert Green for the draw disguises the real problems. What if England were to go 1-0 up against a Germany or a Holland in the knock-out stages, and they equalise? What do England do: sit back, let them equalise and draw 1-1? We know what happens after that! Why didn't England, at 1-1, go forward and try and get a winner? Now, they're under pressure to secure a vital three points in the next game.

The same goes for all those others who have settled for draws in their opening games because 'it keeps them in the competition'. Yes, but it keeps them under pressure too.

Let's see if the real big guns in the tournament can set it alight in the next few days.

Who's going to win the World Cup?

And so, it's finally here. The four-year wait is over and the World Cup begins today. South Africa has the privilege of being the first African nation to host the tournament. For the next month The Beautiful Game will bring the world together for the greatest show on earth!

Yesterday I wrote off England's chances, but who will win it?

Let's look at the evidence.

The winners of the 18 tournaments have been: Brazil (5), Italy (4), Germany (3), Argentina (2), Uruguay (2), England (1), France (1).

The finalists in the last 6 cups (since 1986) have been: Brazil (3), Germany (3), Argentina (2), France (2), Italy (2).

FIFA's current top ten rankings are: 1. Brazil; 2. Spain; 3. Portugal; 4. Holland; 5. Italy; 6. Germany; 7. Argentina; 8. England; 9. France; (10. Croatia).

Note that the last six finals have been contested by only five countries. Could Spain, Portugal or Holland upset the continuum? Spain might just creep in, but their record in World Cups is worse than Engalnd's! In my opnion it is hard to see beyond these four: Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy.

It is also interesting to note that only South American teams have won the Cup on another continent.

Thus, though they may not contest the final, I suggest you look no further than Brazil or Argentina.

World Cup qualifiers to date

So far eight nations have qualified for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

South Africa were first - as host nation.

In June, Japan, Australia, South Korea joined them, as did the first European nation, Holland.

A few days later North Korea joined them - and the seeding committee is already working at keeping the two Korean nations apart!

At the weekend the first South American nation qualified - inevitably, Brazil. And so, too, did the first African nation, Ghana.

So, eight nations have qualified, and 24 will join them. This midweek's fixtures could see some more qualifiers, and many more nations see their hopes dashed.