South Africa (National Football)

It started as soon as the 2006 World Cup in Germany ended; "The stadiums won't be ready, there's too much crime, it's too far away, they should be spending the money to alleviate poverty instead." Then the USSF stepped in and said they can host the Cup if South Africa couldn't get ready in time. 

The Los Angeles Times comments about 2010 became more and more negative and the British media, particularly the tabloids, printed one sensational negative story after another. The stadium issue was front and foremost—even though their own new Wembley Stadium was completed two years behind schedule. 

It became almost surreal when The Sun in Britain printed a story about how a variety of lethal snakes were lurking around the England base at South Africa, waiting to destroy England's World Cup dream. Perhaps the snakes were all supporting the U.S. team. 

The head of security for the German team was seriously considering armed guards and bulletproof vests for the players if they ventured beyond the confines of their hotel.

It's no wonder the amount of foreign visitors fell short of expectations. 

Despite this, South Africa has succeeded in no uncertain terms. The South African people have united as one—something unthinkable a mere two decades ago—and have welcomed the world with joy and open arms.

Yet the whining and negativity has continued.

While there have been some incidents of crime, there is not the anarchy some expected.  The press widely reported one incident concerning the theft of money from two Uruguayan players' hotel rooms, yet they failed to widely report that a police investigation revealed the guilty party was someone from their own delegation.

For some perspective, over 7,000 complaints were filed with the police during the 2006 cup in Germany. No issue of an abundance of crime was reported by the press then. 

There have also been complaints that empty seats at some games are marring the tournament. I've watched finals since 1970 and empty seats are an occurrence at every World Cup—especially since the tournament expanded to 32 games. Some of the games are a lot less alluring that others. 

The 1994 semifinal between Brazil and Sweden wasn't sold out and tickets could be bought at the stadium right up to kickoff. In 2002, some stadiums were only half filled.

The vuvuzelas have brought on the most complaints and while I admit to being irritated by them, they are not marring the entire tournament as some are saying. Banning them at this point will cause a landslide of resentment that would end up spoiling the games. 

South African fans are not the only ones blowing them. They are certainly not the first obnoxious instruments to have appeared at the World Cup.

It's time to sit back, and whether in South Africa or anywhere else, enjoy the spectacle. 

The action on the field can only get more exciting and a country that has moved from hatred, fear, anger, and isolation in such a short time deserves its place in the sun. 

It's a tribute to South Africans of all colors and creeds to overcome the past and show the world what can be done.

By now everyone should be fully aware of the vuvuzela—the plastic horn that anyone can buy in South Africa for just $3 US. However, more people closely associate the vuvuzela with the annoying sound that you hear every time you see a World Cup match on television.

There have been many complaints about the vuvuzelas, like how they drown out the voices of the announcers. In addition, popular players Lionel Messi (Argentina) and Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) have complained about the vuvuzelas, saying that they cannot hear the calls on the field and they cannot hear their own teammates.

This begs the question, should FIFA ban the use of vuvuzelas for the rest of the World Cup?

Well, there are always two sides to every argument, so let's look at the people who are in favor of the use of vuvuzelas.

Pro-vuvuzelas, if you will, argue that it is South Africa's World Cup and that it is in their culture to use the vuvuzelas. This is not some recent trend; South Africans have been using vuvuzelas for years. It is a matter of respect for one's culture.

Another country would not like it if they hosted the World Cup and their country's traditions could not be exercised for the world to see. Plus, not only do South Africans use it, other countries do also. Fans of other teams have bought into the South African culture.

FIFA President Sepp Blatter defended the use of the instruments on his Twitter page, saying, "I don't see banning the music traditions of fans in their own country. Would you want to see a ban on the fan traditions in your country?"

The argument of those who oppose the use of the vuvuzelas is that they are flat-out annoying.

It's like having 7,000,000 bees buzzing in your ear for 90 minutes. It is better to hear the chants and songs of all the countries rather than have the same atmosphere at essentially every World Cup game. 

Just allow the vuvuzelas to be used whenever an African nation is playing. But if an African nation is not playing, let the fans of the teams who are playing determine the atmosphere of the game. This might be the key argument those opposed to the use of the vuvuzelas have.

Sure, the 2010 World Cup is Africa's World Cup, but the continent of Africa does not make up the whole world. Therefore, each country should be able to perform and exercise their own traditions.

The decision is ultimately FIFA's but that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion. As for me, I say get rid of the vuvuzelas.

I remember the 2006 World Cup in Germany and the atmosphere of every game was special because every game was different. That is what this World Cup lacks.

Much has been made of South Africa's current FIFA ranking of 83 being the lowest of any team in World Cup history. In fact, many wrote them off as having no hope of the ignominious tag of being the first host to fail to make it through to the second round based on their ranking. 

American sports fans and journalists are used to polls and rankings, especially in the college football and basketball arenas and apply that same reasoning to the FIFA rankings. 

They do this because they have little or no idea how the FIFA rankings are determined. 

College rankings are completely subjective, whether determined by writers or coaches; they reflect current form almost entirely.  FIFA rankings are completely objective and are based on a complex formula.  Moreover, FIFA takes results from the past four years into consideration.  The current year is worth 100 points then 50, 30, and 20, so the previous three years are equal to the current one year.  

FIFA rankings are important in one respect: they're used to determine seeding in qualifying tournaments, particularly in Europe where teams are divided into eight or nine groups.

Other factors are strength of opposition and the nature of the game.  Friendlies are weighted a lot less than meaningful games such as tournament qualifying games with tournament games such as Continental Cup's and above all the World Cup being valued far higher.

This obviously makes sense.

With this ranking system a big improvement or a big decline is reflected very gradually in the standings. 

The Top 10 remain relatively permanent and contain all the top powers who have their ups and downs, but even during down times still play well enough to beat most teams. Outside the top teams fortunes come and go far more frequently.

South Africa have been truly awful the past few years, more because of turmoil and coaching than from a lack of talent.  It was so bad that they didn't qualify for the African Cup of Nations, which was combined with World Cup qualifying. 

In the African Cup, 16 teams qualify and a couple of losses to mediocre teams were embarrassing. Since the appointment of Carlos Alberto Parreira as coach South Africa has turned it around and are unbeaten in their last 13 games.

The flip side of South Africa is Greece, which is currently ranked 13. 

Because of this, their loss to South Korea, ranked 47, was considered an upset.  Greece qualified out of the weakest group in Europe and a string of poor recent results suggested they had problems. 

Should the system be changed? 

A subjective poll would create headaches as to who gets to vote.  National bias would almost certainly skew results no matter how objective those voting try to be. 

Should the system be tweaked?  Most definitely.  Current year results should far outweigh previous years.

The bottom line is once you understand how the rankings work, you will pay far less attention to the value of rankings, especially outside the Top 10.

It was Jamie Carragher, not Sepp Blatter, who finally ended the predictable debate about the Vuvuzela’s role at what has so far been a near-perfect World Cup in South Africa.

Liverpool’s homegrown hero laughed: “Anybody who’s been to Anfield knows I make more noise than any African football horn!”

With calls for a ban coming thick and fast from foreign journalists, FIFA president Blatter twittered: “To answer all your messages re the Vuvuzelas. I have always said that Africa has a different rhythm, a different sound. I don’t see banning the music traditions of fans in their own country. Would you want to see a ban on the fan traditions in your country?”

Carragher added: "I’ve just replied to Blatter, saying: 'Too right, what would you rather hear, the coarse swearing from the fans at an everyday Premier League match in England?'"

But Carragher’s comments take the biscuit. The Vuvuzela thing is a side issue, a distraction...but a vital part of South Africa football culture over the past decade.

The plastic football horn, based on the traditional curled Kudu antelope horn used by rural Africans to summon their tribe, first came to prominence in the local PSL in 2001. My friend Kevin McCallum on the Johannesburg Star suggests the first Vuvuzela was a beer siphon, and who am I to argue.

Since then, marketing and fan campaigns have seen them grow to become an integral and affordable part of what South Africans do when they go to football.

At Polokwane yesterday, the puffing cheeks went quiet for the anthems. And though it was often difficult to chat to the two knowledgeable lads next to me in block 134 of the East Stand, they lent that African sound to a game between Algeria and Slovenia which, to be honest, lacked any real magic though 33,000 made the long trip to the far north.

Carragher, a half-time substitute in England’s 1-1 draw with the USA on Saturday, adds: “I didn’t notice the Vuvuzelas too much when I came on but I think you notice it more when you are watching.

“I know you hear them on TV because my kids have been on the phone asking for them, so I’ve got two of them in my bag already to take home.”

It would be good to hear the fans from the 32 nations singing their traditional songs—in South Africa’s friendly against Denmark 10 days ago, the fans did stop at Atteridgeville’s Super Stadium to sing before the game, using the colourful plastic tubes as a visual rather than audio device, as they waved them in unison.

Perhaps we could have the big screens in the stadiums asking for a 10-minute Vuvuzela break to allow singing. But either way, it’s better than listening to the comments and oaths from football fans which so often upset the women and youngsters in the crowd.

South African goalkeeper Itumaleng Khune complained after their opening draw against Mexico at Soccer City: “There weren’t enough Vuvuzelas. We need more,” while Bafana Bafana captain Aaron Mokoena of Portsmouth told TalentNation.com’s Shout4 campaign: “Come and support South Africa and bring your Vuvuzela. Come on and support Bafana. You've seen me shouting for South Africa, now it's your turn and blow your Vuvuzelas.”

What should really be upsetting fans here is the Jabulani ball. England and Algeria both conceded bizarre goals in their opening games and nearly every free-kick and corner has flown long and high, particularly at altitude.

Apparently they were trialled successfully in Germany. But I know for a fact Gavin Hunt, South Africa’s most successful club coach with three consecutive PSL title at Supersport United, tried them for six months here. He complained to Gavin Cowley, the former rugby and cricketer in charge of the uniquely South Africa ball. Hunt told me: “They’re okay at sea level, but at altitude they fly around too much. We need the heavier Mitre ball because of the thin air up here on the Highveld.”

Sadly, it’s too late to change the ball. And far too late to silence the Vuvuzela. Not to mention morally reprehensible. Get ear-plugs.

If a light ball and loud horn are the only real problems so far, South Africa has done rather well for a nation they said couldn’t host a World Cup successfully.

The first three days saw six magnificent stadiums, six perfect pitches, six good crowds (four sell-outs) featuring seven games and 12 goals. The opening group games are always cautious. Nobody wants to lose that first outing.

But generally, South Africa should sit back and await an apology from those who said we would, by now, be sat in a blood bath being bitten by deadly snakes and mugged by terrible tsotsis. It hasn’t happened. There are still tickets. There are still flights. And very reasonable places to stay.

Get here now. You may sit in a bit of traffic after games, but have you ever tried getting out of Wembley after a big game?

What interests me is we’ve seen three red cards but no great debate on refereeing. I said the Vuvuzela would be the first big talking point. The refs are next.

Neal Collins (nealcol on Twitter) is in South Africa to promote his first novel A GAME APART . For more information see www.nealcollins.co.uk . And if you don’t want to see Steven Gerrard’s opening goal for England watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg_8y7ylc5Q . It’s hilarious! And they said Africa would mess things up at this World Cup.

Friday's opening World Cup clash in Johannesburg was a real cracker. After all the hype it was Soccer City that hosted the opener between South Africa and Mexico and it certainly didn't disappoint.

So often opening major tournament games are a damp squib with both teams eager not to start with a defeat, but the Group A tussle, which ended 1-1, was an impressive start to what should prove to be an exciting tournament.

The atmosphere was raucous and the South Africa fans, armed with their vuvuzelas, really did make it a noisy affair and after a tentative start from the hosts they eventually began to find their feet.

Bafana Bafana could well have been a couple of goals down and were indebted to goalkeeper Itumeleng Khune, who made two fine saved to keep a vibrant Mexican side at bay.

After a 12-match unbeaten run going into the tournament, the hosts grew in confidence and took the lead 10 minutes after the break. And what a goal it was to open the tournament. Midfielder Siphiwe Tshabalala thumped home a left-footed shot into the top corner after a fine pass from talisman Steven Pienaar.

It was a fitting strike to mark the first goal of the finals and was met by a wall of noise from the enthusiastic home crowd. Mexico, though, refused to go away and grabbed an equaliser from Rafael Marquez before South Africa clattered the post in the final minute.

The World Cup 2010 odds suggested South Africa would struggle to get out of their group, but they could spring a few surprises.

It was a terrific end-to-end encounter with some fine one-touch passing from both sides and both teams showed far more adventure than their group rivals France and Uruguay—who played out a tepid goalless draw later in the evening.

It leaves Group A on a knife edge and all four teams still have realistic designs on the knockout phase. World Cup group betting favourites France still look vulnerable and they will have to improve if Raymond Domenech is to sign off in style.

In my group preview before the first game was played I suggested any of the four teams in Group A could win the group while any of the four could equally finish last.  Nothing from the first round of games suggests any different. 

South Africa and Mexico have a slight edge in terms of goals scored but that will likely matter little when the group is done. 

First up on Wednesday is South Africa and Uruguay in Pretoria.  South Africa's performance surprised many but not those who had seen their last few warm up games or had been following the training camps.  Once they shook off their nerves in the opening half hour they showed they can easily match any team in the group and but for a criminally negligent defensive lapse could have walked away with all three points. 

There is talent aplenty on the team particularly in their strongest area, the midfield. They were full of running, a testament to coach Carlos Alberto Parreira's emphasis on fitness. Once they found their rhythm, the passing game was crisp and accurate while through balls creating headaches for the Mexican defense including Siphiwe Tshabalala's brilliant goal.  Tshabalala and Teko Modise showed off some skills, overemphasised in their domestic league, leaving defenders in their wake. 

On the minus side they created too few scoring opportunities which is an ongoing problem.  The defense was solid for the most but too negligent at times.  On reviewing Mexico's goal I saw that at least three defenders forgot the basics of defense that every schoolboy knows - mark your man.

Uruguay either played great defense or France were virtually impotent in their 0-0 draw.  I lean towards the latter although the Uruguayan defence held firm, made few mistakes and allowed France no clear cut scoring opportunities. 

How their defense will fare against South Africa is unclear. South Africa's speed and passing might not give their defensive stance that luxury if they cede the midfield.  This could create a dilemma for Uruguay's coach, Oscar Tabarez. 

Uruguay's biggest threat is Diego Forlan.  Containing him is difficult.  His technique and his nose for openings is such that he will create goalscoring opportunities against any defense and mistakes by South Africa will be punished.  Luiz Suarez, his forward partner had a quiet game belying his excellent credentials. No doubt Itumeleng Khune, the goalie will be called up to make some acrobatic saves.

The altitude (4,500 ft) and South Africa's fitness and energy could prove troublesome for Uruguay whose first game was at sea level.  The ball flies further in the lighter air and a few days practice might not be enough to master using a slightly lighter touch on lofted balls. 

Fan support and their newly found confidence should prevail as long as the defense can limit the opportunities they give Forlan.  Bafana for the win, made more comfortable by their fitness over the last 20 minutes of the game. 

Additional Note: Many wrote off South Africa's chances based on their low FIFA ranking.  FIFA rankings are determined by 4 years of results with the current year weighing as much as the three previous years combined.  Thus a rapid improvement or decline will not accurately be reflected in the ranking.  Witness Greece which is currently ranked 13th. 

France - Mexico to follow.

It came somewhat as a surprise as the Bafana Bafana put on a great display to earn a point against Mexico in the opening game of the 2010 World Cup.

Mexico dominated the opening exchanges as they carved open the South African defense at will. But by the second half, the home team were comfortably in control and deservedly went ahead after some fine interplay and a wonderful finish from Tshabalala.

Not much was expected of South Africa, who are the lowest ranking host nation ever to host a World Cup. But, Carlos Parreira's side will be desperate not to be the first host nation not to qualify for the second round—and if their performance against Mexico was any indication—they may well not become the first one.

Indeed, South Africa now look a good bet to qualify. With France and Uruguay drawing, the group is still wide open and anything can happen from now on.

The next test for South Africa will be Uruguay and this match is perhaps a slightly more difficult challenge than that presented by Mexico. However, having shown they can outplay a team such as El Tri, there is every reason why South Africa can do it again against Uruguay.

Added the home crowd support will be on their side and a positive result—even a win—against Uruguay is very much possible.

Even a positive result against France is not unattainable for the Bafana Bafana. France are not in good shape, Thierry Henry is a shadow of his former best, whilst in Raymond Domenech they have one of the most incompetent coaches at the World Cup.

If South Africa can improve on their opening day performance, then under the guidance of their experienced and extremely competent coach, Carlos Parreira, the host nation can cause problems for France in their final game. 

After the first day of the World Cup, things are looking up for the Rainbow Nation and their football team. The first day was deemed a success off the pitch, whilst on the pitch the home team showed much promise.

The dream South Africa have to qualify for the next round is very much alive. Given the performances of France and Uruguay, South Africa can now be confident of realising this dream.

Expect to see the Bafana Bafana qualify.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup began where it will come to an end in a month, at Soccer City Stadium in Johannesburg, South Africa. The vuvuzelas were in full effect for the emotional and momentous opener between World Cup hosts South Africa and Mexico.

 

But unfortunately for South Africa, historical figure Nelson Mandela couldn't be present for one of the most important moments in the nation's history, due to the tragic death of his great-granddaughter.

 

SOUTH AFRICA (Tshabalala 55) 1-1 MEXICO (Marquez 79)

 

Mexico dominated possession early on, throwing a few scares in the South African area.

But nothing came of it.

The Mexicans dominated the ball throughout the scoreless first half, getting the better and majority of the half chances, including a disallowed goal in which Carlos Vela was offside.

Many may have doubted the offside call, but few are aware that the goalie wasn’t behind the ball. It was the correct call and a spectacular job by the linesman.

 

Giovani Dos Santos was very active and alive in attack and Guillermo Franco was certainly disappointed with his failure to finish on his multiple opportunities in the half.

 

The South African goalkeeper Itumeleng Khune may have been caught recklessly out of position on a few occasions, but he also made a few aggressive stops. Siphiwe Tshabalala was South Africa’s most dangerous player in the rare occasion that they were in attack.

 

In the second half, a much more lively South African side took the pitch and produced the World Cup opening score. The goal came in thundering fashion in the 55^th minute from Siphiwe Tshabalala.

South Africa took possession in their own end and began the counterattack. They strung three quick passes together and Kagisho Dikgacoi did well to spread a through ball wide to a sprinting Tshabalala down the left wing.

Tshabalala outran his defender and unleashed an unstoppable blast top corner far post to give South Africa a 1-0 lead.

 

After the score, the match seemed to open up immediately.

South Africa looked more confident, but Mexico displayed the next real opportunity when Dos Santos forced a hefty save from a leaping Khune at his nearpost.

 

Dos Santos continued with his threatening penetrating dribbling runs, but the Mexicans were struggling in the finishing department.

 

In the 70^th Minute Teko Modise had a dangerous scoring opportunity when he was sent in on goal by an excellent pass, only for his off balanced effort to be denied by the keeper and a strong physical play by Mexican defender Francisco Rodriguez.

 

With twenty minutes to play, Mexico used all three of their subs to strengthen up an attack to equalize the score line. And in the 79^th minute, the plan came to fruition.

Off a botched corner play, Andres Guardado sent in a perfect ball far post to an awaiting onside Rafael Marquez, who was in on the keeper and blasted a close range effort into the back of the net to tie the match 1-1.

 

With Mexico pushing up for the winner, South Africa almost snatched a goal of their own via another counterattack in the dieing minutes. Katlego Mphela sidefooted an effort off a fast paced bouncing ball that beat a stranded keeper but slapped off the post in agonizing fashion.

 

The match came to a conclusion at 1-1 with both nations salvaging a point. South Africa was clearly the more satisfied of the sides. Bafana Bafana will be pleased with their counterattack, but know they must do a better job in possession, and marking in their own area, in future matches.

 

Mexico will rue not capitalizing on their first half dominance, but they will also accept a point because they were playing the hosts and they did overcome a deficit.

El tri must also improve greatly at defending or preventing such free flowing dangerous counterattacks.

 

Men of the Match- 

South Africa- Siphiwe Tshbalala

Mexico- Giovani Dos Santos

 

 

FRANCE 0-0 URUGUAY

 

France and Uruguay took the pitch at Green Point Stadium in Cape Town. Both sides looked to take an early stranglehold on the group and claim a full three points after a South Africa-Mexico draw.

 

France produced the first opportunity of the match in the seventh minute. A fast and fortunate run by Franck Ribery led him down the left wing, where he grounded a cross through the area. Govou touched his on running effort wide of the farpost.

 

Uruguay then settled into a rather defensive formation, with seven to eight men behind the ball at all times, when France entered their half of the pitch.

 

In the 16^th minute, Uruguay got their first real scoring chance when Diego Forlan cut into the area and stung the French goalkeeper Hugo Lloris’. With a routine save, Lloris gloved the attempt away.

 

France threatened back in the 18^th minute when Yoann Gourcuff sent a brave attempt on goal from an impossible angle on a set piece, forcing a quick and alert save from Fernando Muslera at the near post.

 

As the first half progressed, Uruguay showed more aggression up the field in attack. But they were repeatedly drawn offside just before entering the scoring area. It was commonplace to find Forlan at the heart of the majority of the Uruguayan attacks.

 

Abou Diaby was France’s top performer in the first half, as he was physical and a step ahead of his opponents in the midfield winning balls and linking up to the attack. Ribery was a threat early on, but the Uruguayan defense shadowed him as the half progressed decreasing his involvement in the action. Striker Nicolas Anelka missed on his two half chance headers sending them wide of the target.

 

The Second half started in a rather uneventful fashion as the nations began to feel each other out all over again with Uruguay soaking up most of France’s attack and the French failing to produce that special moment of creativity or brilliance in the scoring area.

 

Uruguay had the first golden opportunity in the 73^rd minute when the ball was flicked onto a still Forlan in the scoring area where he went on to onetime a smash with the outside of his boot wide of the target. Surely a chance that the highly acclaimed striker regrets missing.

 

Uruguay’s 63^rd minute substitute Nicolas Lodeiro provided further action in the quiet second half. In the 81^st minute, he was shown his second yellow card of the match after a dangerous studs up tackle to Bacary Sagna's ankle.

 

The red card left Uruguay playing a man down for the final 10 or so minutes. That’s when France began to threaten Uruguay’s penalty area, but to no avail.

No one on France could provide the breakthrough. The final whistle blew, ending the match in a 0-0 draw.

 

Uruguay proved to be a tough defensive squad, as they stifled the French attack throughout the match. They had their chances through their best player Diego Forlan. But in the end, they will be satisfied with the point, and a four-way tie atop Group A, after playing the group favourites.

 

France will be frustrated with the lack of opportunities in what they will call a negative performance against Uruguay. But they will take the point and move on.

Even second half substitutes Thierry Henry and Florent Malouda couldn't create goals for France when they had the man advantage.

But look for France to alter their starting eleven for their crucial next match against Mexico.

 

Men of the Match- 

France- Abou Diaby

Uruguay- Diego Godin

 

 

 

 

  DAY 1

 

GOAL OF THE DAY - Siphiwe Tshbalala’s 55^th minute rocket in the top corner of the farpost gave South Africa a 1-0 lead and opened the scoring for the FIFA 2010 World Cup.

 

CELEBRATION OF THE DAY - No contest here as this one easily goes to Siphiwe Tshbalala and the gang, who broke into a staged and unified Macarena-Bus driver like celebration in the corner that entertained the masses.

 

MATCH OF THE DAY - South Africa 1-1 Mexico

 

BEST CALL OF THE DAY - The linesman who made the rare occasion look routine when he properly flagged Mexico’s Carlos Vela offside with a charging goalie ahead of the ball, leaving only one defender on the post. Hats off to this linesman. Let's hope this is a sign of things to come and we get a greatly officiated tournament.

 

CONCLUSION- This exciting first day of the FIFA 2010 World Cup in South Africa supplied us with plenty of memories despite the fact we didn’t see a winner. Tshbalala’s smashing tournament opener supplied us with another beauty to start off the competition, ala Phillip Lahm’s from 2006 for Germany.

 

Group A has a four-way tie, with all nations earning a point, further proving the theory that anyone from this group can move on to the second round.

 

Group A

South Africa    1

Mexico            1

Uruguay          1

France             1