Reflections on the World Cup: Africans aren't badly organized; you're just a racist.

A month of drinking beer and watching TV has come to an end, unfortunately... GOD was defeated by the Hitlerjugend, and the slow-starting spaniards won it in the end. The best moment? When Maradona's heel-kick got more cheers than when they scored a goal...

But one thing kept bugging me: when the african teams were discussed, they always stated that they were poorly organized at the back. What? African teams got at most three goals against them, on two occasions; the first was suffered by the poorest african team, South Africa, and the second was against Brazil. Meanwhile, teams like England got 4 goals against them, but where are the people saying that englishmen have no sense of organization? Korea also got 4 against them, and Japan got 3, but nobody's claiming that asians are incapable of proper organization. Sure, Cameroon did a lot of silly stuff in the match against Denmark, but by bloody hell, so did the danish defense!

Why do we then make such claims? Because Englishmen and Danes are superior whites, Asians are human calculators and black africans are stone age monkeys.

In fact, the true problem the african teams have faced in this world cup, is offensive cooperation. They haven't been able to create the really big scoring opportunities and has scored a lot less than you would expect from teams with so many good offensive players. Algerie, for example, only conceded two goals, but they failed to proceed because they failed to score any goals themselves.



Oh, and Suarez can burn.

Africans aren't poorly organised. Of course they aren't. Yet, it would be foolish not to note that in Africa they do things differently.

For example, in Europe or the US or any other "Western" country for that matter, watch the process of a highway being re-laid with tar. Two lanes are closed. Signs go up a kilometre before where the workers are. Speed limits are lowered. All for the safety of the worker. The outside lane(s) is(are) done first, progressing to the centre.

In Africa. The lane being worked on is closed, no signs go up, the speed limit stays the same. Cars whiz by as the workers relay the middle lane of a 6 lane highway, while the outside lanes remain untouched. The new tar well above the level of the old lanes, so as cars switch lanes it's as if they are mounting the curb.

Anyone who as spent time in Africa fells this vibe, this aura, it's intoxicating. You feel alive, at home, in touch with everything. It's truly astounding. And when you leave you miss it. The way they do things, the way they talk, the intangible beauty of the continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Africans aren't poorly organised. Of course they aren't. Yet, it would be foolish not to note that in Africa they do things differently.

For example, in Europe or the US or any other "Western" country for that matter, watch the process of a highway being re-laid with tar. Two lanes are closed. Signs go up a kilometre before where the workers are. Speed limits are lowered. All for the safety of the worker. The outside lane(s) is(are) done first, progressing to the centre.

In Africa. The lane being worked on is closed, no signs go up, the speed limit stays the same. Cars whiz by as the workers relay the middle lane of a 6 lane highway, while the outside lanes remain untouched. The new tar well above the level of the old lanes, so as cars switch lanes it's as if they are mounting the curb.

Anyone who as spent time in Africa fells this vibe, this aura, it's intoxicating. You feel alive, at home, in touch with everything. It's truly astounding. And when you leave you miss it. The way they do things, the way they talk, the intangible beauty of the continent.

---

This is about defensive organzation in football...........

Quote:

---

In fact, the true problem the african teams have faced in this world cup, is offensive cooperation.

---

Don't be racist, Africans can cooperate just as well as Europeans :whip:

That pitch in Port Elisebeth was a disgrace how's that for poor organisation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Algerie, for example, only conceded two goals, but they failed to proceed because they failed to score any goals themselves.

---

Poor example, Algeria didn't even try to score in the third game. They needed 2 goals to advance, but were content to draw 0-0 with the US and eliminate them out of spite.

The main problems with the African teams were their own federations.

There are a lot of stereotypes about how they play football in different parts of the world. In Northern Europe, play is much more direct, and it is a much more physical game in general. The Miditerranean countries are known for playing good passing football, usually at a much more relaxed pace (look how they are happy to pass the ball round the back for half an hour, in the northern countries the fans go mad if they don't push forward everytime they get possession).

Asians are known for being technically solid, especially at set pieces. Maybe I'm biased from seeing so much of Nakamura at Celtic, but look at those free kicks Japan scored against Denmark.

Those from Latin America are known for their flair, kind of similar to their roots back in Southern Europe.

African countries are probably best known for having an attacking bias, given the number of quality strikers they have produced (going back to the likes of George Weah etc), especially the stronger sort you can stick up front on their own, eg Drogba.

There's nothing racist about these stereotypes, its more to do with the culture that surrounds football in these places. Plus the commentators didn't all hate on the African sides, I recall one commentating on how solid and well organised Ghana were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But one thing kept bugging me: when the african teams were discussed, they always stated that they were poorly organized at the back. What? African teams got at most three goals against them, on two occasions; the first was suffered by the poorest african team, South Africa, and the second was against Brazil. Meanwhile, teams like England got 4 goals against them, but where are the people saying that englishmen have no sense of organization? Korea also got 4 against them, and Japan got 3, but nobody's claiming that asians are incapable of proper organization. Sure, Cameroon did a lot of silly stuff in the match against Denmark, but by bloody hell, so did the danish defense!

Why do we then make such claims? Because Englishmen and Danes are superior whites, Asians are human calculators and black africans are stone age monkeys.

In fact, the true problem the african teams have faced in this world cup, is offensive cooperation. They haven't been able to create the really big scoring opportunities and has scored a lot less than you would expect from teams with so many good offensive players. Algerie, for example, only conceded two goals, but they failed to proceed because they failed to score any goals themselves.

---

Hmm. I didn't notice any of the ESPN announcers saying that. Maybe it's just the Norwegian announcers who are racist. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Oh, and Suarez can burn.

---

I agree with you completely HoreTore.

What really angered me was the ESPN announcers saying it was disgraceful for the fans to boo Suarez. :furious3:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

There's nothing racist about these stereotypes, its more to do with the culture that surrounds football in these places.

---

Indeed, I do not disagree with that statement.

HOWEVER, saying that african teams are disorganized at the back is still complete rubbish, and this world cup proved it. No, I still maintain my claim that the universal fault in the african teams was their lack of offensive cooperation, ie. getting their through balls to connect with the strikers, as well as their movement off the ball.

The African teams proved in this world cup that they are as tight at the back as a Jehovas Witness at the blue oyster club. Yet the disorganized african myth still lingers on, and I can't see many reasons for that except racism and the underdeveloped and stupid african myth.

On the subject of footballing cultures; I don't really believe that Africa has any. Why? Because they lack good leagues. Every good african is shipped off to europe at the age of 18, leaving the national league without any players capable of playing at the national team(kudos to SA on this one). Now, what does that mean? It means that developing a single culture and continuity becomes impossible. The English national team plays the way it does because that's the way the majority of english sides play, and have played for ages. The Netherlands are still playing(at least trying) the way Ajax started playing back in the 60's. Norway plays a physical, direct style that we've played for ages. In Africa, however, there is no league to lay the foundations of a culture. Their national teams have no common ground, it's a dizzying mix of English, French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch styles of fotball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Hmm. I didn't notice any of the ESPN announcers saying that.

---

In what alternate universe does a yank with football knowledge exist?

We import our announcers from overseas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

We import our announcers from overseas.

---

it was a joke.... I've never watched ESPN, so I have no knowledge of what's going on there...

I believe it was Ian Darke who was commentating the 3rd place match, defending Suarez (rightly so, I might add). For the knockout stages, it was mainly him paired with John Harkes, and Martin Tyler paired with Efan Ekoku alternating the games. Ally McCoist got sick or lost his voice at some point. At least we were spared Tommy Smyth. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

In Africa, however, there is no league to lay the foundations of a culture. Their national teams have no common ground, it's a dizzying mix of English, French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch styles of fotball.

---

So what you are saying is that they are disorganized? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

So what you are saying is that they are disorganized? ~;)

---

Whatever gave you that idea?

A common football ideology has nothing to do with how capable you are of organizing a sturdy defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

We import our announcers from overseas.

---

"Give us your tired, your poor, your soccer [sic] announcers who say 'nil' instead of 'zero' and 'level' instead of 'tied'..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

"Give us your tired, your poor, your soccer [sic] announcers who say 'nil' instead of 'zero' and 'level' instead of 'tied'..."

---

"the parugayan defense has been both miserly and obdurate"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Ally McCoist got sick or lost his voice at some point.

---

He was my favorite, it's a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Whatever gave you that idea?

A common football ideology has nothing to do with how capable you are of organizing a sturdy defense.

---

You are the one with the announcer problem. Disorganized defense by the African teams was not a topic over here. When excusing the failures of the CAF nations in the tournament, we had injuries (Drogba/IC), pre-tourney coaching changes (Cameroon, Nigeria), and just not being that good (South Africa). Algeria didn't even try to advance. I'm fairly certain when the topic of disorganized defense came up, they were talking about the US squad. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

He was my favorite, it's a shame.

---

He got paired with Tyler a few times as the color man. A great team. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

You are the one with the announcer problem. Disorganized defense by the African teams was not a topic over here. When excusing the failures of the CAF nations in the tournament, we had injuries (Drogba/IC), pre-tourney coaching changes (Cameroon, Nigeria), and just not being that good (South Africa). Algeria didn't even try to advance. I'm fairly certain when the topic of disorganized defense came up, they were talking about the US squad. :no:


He got paired with Tyler a few times as the color man. A great team. :yes:

---

Quick question; what's an "announcer"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Quick question; what's an "announcer"?

---

The guys on the tele spouting off about the games and supposedly being racist about the CAF teams. Sports analyst, broadcaster, whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Indeed, I do not disagree with that statement.

HOWEVER, saying that african teams are disorganized at the back is still complete rubbish, and this world cup proved it. No, I still maintain my claim that the universal fault in the african teams was their lack of offensive cooperation, ie. getting their through balls to connect with the strikers, as well as their movement off the ball.

The African teams proved in this world cup that they are as tight at the back as a Jehovas Witness at the blue oyster club. Yet the disorganized african myth still lingers on, and I can't see many reasons for that except racism and the underdeveloped and stupid african myth.

---

So disorganised at the front, then?

I never heard any of this "racist" rubbish, anyway. I remember a Norwegian telling me that you don't want to meet a Norwegian in Norway, meet him somewhere else, he seemed to think you were all xenophobes. Though he was just raised in Norway, he was actually an Anglo-Cypriot.

Norway is a country in Scandanavia known for it's long winters and austere beauty.

Norway has a good military for its size. And my commie hating father grudginly praises parts of norway. So something good must be there.

Though horetore your racist assertion is laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Africans aren't poorly organised. Of course they aren't. Yet, it would be foolish not to note that in Africa they do things differently.

For example, in Europe or the US or any other "Western" country for that matter, watch the process of a highway being re-laid with tar. Two lanes are closed. Signs go up a kilometre before where the workers are. Speed limits are lowered. All for the safety of the worker. The outside lane(s) is(are) done first, progressing to the centre.

In Africa. The lane being worked on is closed, no signs go up, the speed limit stays the same. Cars whiz by as the workers relay the middle lane of a 6 lane highway, while the outside lanes remain untouched. The new tar well above the level of the old lanes, so as cars switch lanes it's as if they are mounting the curb.

Anyone who as spent time in Africa fells this vibe, this aura, it's intoxicating. You feel alive, at home, in touch with everything. It's truly astounding. And when you leave you miss it. The way they do things, the way they talk, the intangible beauty of the continent.

---

.... Pathetic, man. That sounds insulting, I know, but this post is just... nonsense... on so many different levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

.... Pathetic, man. That sounds insulting, I know, but this post is just... nonsense... on so many different levels.

---

Does he know that by 2045 the first nations will be 1/3 the population of ramadamadingdong Canada? This may change his opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A month of drinking beer and watching TV has come to an end, unfortunately... GOD was defeated by the Hitlerjugend, and the slow-starting spaniards won it in the end. The best moment? When Maradona's heel-kick got more cheers than when they scored a goal...

But one thing kept bugging me: when the african teams were discussed, they always stated that they were poorly organized at the back. What? African teams got at most three goals against them, on two occasions; the first was suffered by the poorest african team, South Africa, and the second was against Brazil. Meanwhile, teams like England got 4 goals against them, but where are the people saying that englishmen have no sense of organization? Korea also got 4 against them, and Japan got 3, but nobody's claiming that asians are incapable of proper organization. Sure, Cameroon did a lot of silly stuff in the match against Denmark, but by bloody hell, so did the danish defense!

Why do we then make such claims? Because Englishmen and Danes are superior whites, Asians are human calculators and black africans are stone age monkeys.

In fact, the true problem the african teams have faced in this world cup, is offensive cooperation. They haven't been able to create the really big scoring opportunities and has scored a lot less than you would expect from teams with so many good offensive players. Algerie, for example, only conceded two goals, but they failed to proceed because they failed to score any goals themselves.



Oh, and Suarez can burn.

---

The Asians have mediocre players who managed reasonable results and solid teamplay. I think only Kawasaki of Japan and Park of South Korea play at Europe's best clubs.

The African teams featured an array of international stars who underperformed.


They were rubbish and disorganised. Each man for himself, every player up front thought himself a Maradona, seeking his own glory.




And Suárez is villain and hero alike. The two don't exclude the other. At any rate, I prefered what he did over the karate kicks of the Dutch and the free diving of the Spanish in the final.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Anyone who as spent time in Africa fells this vibe, this aura, it's intoxicating. You feel alive, at home, in touch with everything. It's truly astounding. And when you leave you miss it. The way they do things, the way they talk, the intangible beauty of the continent.

---

We are all Africans. Millions of years of Africa are in our genes. You feel it when you're there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The African teams featured an array of international stars who underperformed.

They were rubbish and disorganised. Each man for himself, every player up front thought himself a Maradona, seeking his own glory.

---

So... They were poorly disorganized defensively, and yet they managed to not concede many goals...?

EDIT: And what "reasonable" result did the asian teams accomplish, if I may ask? The biggest defeat in the cup? Conceding four goals against both Argentina and Germany? In fact, the Korean team conceded more goals than Nigeria did in the same group; yet we still blast the negroes for behaving like monkeys, while praising the discipline of the far east?

That doesn't add up.

The African matches were fun, but how can you call it anything other than disorganised. Give them some time to get their act together and I am sure they can be very dangerous, keep an eye on Nigeria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

EDIT: And what "reasonable" result did the asian teams accomplish, if I may ask? The biggest defeat in the cup? Conceding four goals against both Argentina and Germany? In fact, the Korean team conceded more goals than Nigeria did in the same group; yet we still blast the negroes for behaving like monkeys, while praising the discipline of the far east?

---

The Asians have mediocre players who managed reasonable results and solid teamplay.
The African teams featured an array of international stars who underperformed.

That is the difference. Notwithstanding that, most games played by Japan (less so for Korea) were interesting to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

The Asians have mediocre players who managed reasonable results and solid teamplay.
The African teams featured an array of international stars who underperformed.

That is the difference. Notwithstanding that, most games played by Japan (less so for Korea) were interesting to watch.

---

Nonsense! One of the problems with the African sides, is that the world-class players are paired with rubbish players. Take Ghana, for example, where Chelseas Michael Essien is in the same starting eleven as Wigan's third choice goalkeeper, Richard Kingson. It's like saying that Norway and Sweden should be a football super-power because we have Carew and Ibrahimovic.

And both Korea and Japan have solid national leagues, something none of the african teams have.

Every WC team has been analysed and criticised. I don't know about Norway, but in Belgium, each game was analysed by specialists explaining the good and the bad of each seperate team. So yeah, at a certain time, somebody will have said that some African team was badly organised when giving away a chance or so.

Which begs the question: what's the purpose of this thread?

That we admit that we are white and that being white is a synonym for being an evil racist after which we will collectively chastise ourselves for our sin?

Pass the flail Andres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

That we admit that we are white and that being white is a synonym for being an evil racist after which we will collectively chastise ourselves for our sin?

---

We are such alabastards. :shame:

Is saying that a certain football culture can be described as unorganized racist? Is saying Italy fielded players 'on their way out' or that the Netherlands used anti-football tactics in the finale racist?

Besides I believe that 'disorganised' actually means less effective. African football, as admitted by those players themselves, is more focused on the moves/actions/... than on winning. Hence the reason for lack of concentration at the back or to much dribbling, ... A lot of African teams even hire a European coach to drill in the 'organisation'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

Is saying that a certain football culture can be described as unorganized racist? Is saying Italy fielded players 'on their way out' or that the Netherlands used anti-football tactics in the finale racist?

Besides I believe that 'disorganised' actually means less effective. African football, as admitted by those players themselves, is more focused on the moves/actions/... than on winning. Hence the reason for lack of concentration at the back or to much dribbling, ... A lot of African teams even hire a European coach to drill in the 'organisation'.

---

....If it was actually true, then no, I would have absolutely no problem with it.

The problem is that it isn't true, and this world cup proved it. The african sides all kept tight at the back, in fact Ghana's team was built around a strong, organized defense.

oh, and organized in this context doesn't mean being effective, it means that the defenders are positioned correctly and do not allow opposing attackers to move about unchecked(like Podolski was time and again in the match against England)

England can't play as a team, they are too focused on individual merit. Then a team like Germany, who are not individually as good as our players, can however, play as a team, totally beat England backwards and forwards, while the overpaid wussies cry for mummy, as the Germans smite them.

I think this sums up Anglosaxon culture compared to European culture at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

England can't play as a team, they are too focused on individual merit. Then a team like Germany, who are not individually as good as our players, can however, play as a team, totally beat England backwards and forwards, while the overpaid wussies cry for mummy, as the Germans smite them.

I think this sums up Anglosaxon culture compared to European culture at large.

---

England is among the worlds 15 best nations. Qualifiyng for the quarter final is thus a very good achievement, and qualifying from the group stage is good. The problem is that every englishman believes that England is by far the best team on the planet....

Gerrard and Lampard better than Müller and Özil? Hah! Heskey better than Klose? Double hah! Nintendo James? ....no, I won't go there, I wouldn't be able to stop laughing......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

.... Pathetic, man. That sounds insulting, I know, but this post is just... nonsense... on so many different levels.

---

Actually, he's correct, in S. Africa especially they have a very odd attitude to roads, and telegraph poles. For a few years no maintainance was done on either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, he's correct, in S. Africa especially they have a very odd attitude to roads, and telegraph poles. For a few years no maintainance was done on either.

---

Sounds like how things are done here.... :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Gerrard and Lampard better than Müller and Özil? Hah! Heskey better than Klose? Double hah! Nintendo James? ....no, I won't go there, I wouldn't be able to stop laughing......

---

Gerrard and Lampard are better than Muller and Ozil, they just cannot play together at all. Plus, I notice you never said "Rooney is better than Klose?", because Klose is no where near Rooney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Gerrard and Lampard are better than Muller and Ozil, they just cannot play together at all. Plus, I notice you never said "Rooney is better than Klose?", because Klose is no where near Rooney.

---

Hmmm........ Miroslav Klose has 14 goals in the world cup.... Wayne Rooney has..... Oh, that's right, zero. Heck, even Norways old midfield anchorman Kjetil Rekdal have more world cup goals than Rooney. But I have to admit, he is a lot better than most at being a prick.


Just because you englishmen love to hype your players doesn't mean that what you say is actually true, ya know. Özil and Müller rocks Lampard and Gerrards boats, they're fit for the retirement home any day now.

What separates the truly great players from the wannabes is their ability to shine in the most important occasions. Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney all failed that test completely, while Klose, Müller and Özil showed their superiority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What separates the truly great players from the wannabes is their ability to shine in the most important occasions. Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney all failed that test completely, while Klose, Müller and Özil showed their superiority.

---

A lot of star players failed to shine at this WC, Ronaldo is probably the most obvious example. That doesn't mean they aren't the best in the world when they're playing for their club. Team organisation is what let a lot of the stars down, you can't blame it on them individually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

England can't play as a team, they are too focused on individual merit. Then a team like Germany, who are not individually as good as our players, can however, play as a team, totally beat England backwards and forwards, while the overpaid wussies cry for mummy, as the Germans smite them.

I think this sums up Anglosaxon culture compared to European culture at large.

---

Brazil? Italy? Both done exactly the same thing. Or are they joining us in the same culture? France won a few years ago, but got thrashed this time. Ah yes: they went on strike! Perhaps there is something in linking footie teams with their national mentality.

In any team, big names have a tenancy to be arrogant and more interested in personal glory / money than anything else. It's happened many times in the past and it'll happen again.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

A lot of star players failed to shine at this WC, Ronaldo is probably the most obvious example. That doesn't mean they aren't the best in the world when they're playing for their club. Team organisation is what let a lot of the stars down, you can't blame it on them individually.

---

.....And the ability to quickly adopt from one tactic to another isn't an individual skill...? Being able to switch between Louis van Gaal's total football and Löw's counter-attacking style isn't something that makes someone a better player in your eyes...?

Because that sounds like nonsense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

.....And the ability to quickly adopt from one tactic to another isn't an individual skill...? Being able to switch between Louis van Gaal's total football and Löw's counter-attacking style isn't something that makes someone a better player in your eyes...?

Because that sounds like nonsense to me.

---

Adaptability isn't the be all and end all, it is just one of many skills a player can have. Even the star players have a certain playing style and specific strengths which will only really show when the team plays a certain way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....If it was actually true, then no, I would have absolutely no problem with it.

The problem is that it isn't true, and this world cup proved it. The african sides all kept tight at the back, in fact Ghana's team was built around a strong, organized defense.

oh, and organized in this context doesn't mean being effective, it means that the defenders are positioned correctly and do not allow opposing attackers to move about unchecked(like Podolski was time and again in the match against England)

---

Wasn't the coach of Ghana a European?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Wasn't the coach of Ghana a European?

---

All African teams coaches are European, except South Africa(Brazilian) and Algerie(Algerian), and it has been that way for decades.

Were the African defenses organised? Sure they were, every defence nowadays is organised. Managers don't leave things to coincidence. However in what way a manager can translate his organisation and football idea's into practice is rather complex. Not only does it depend on the quality of the players but also on the understanding between the players and the manager and the players themselves. Spain, Germany and Holland had a good understanding with their coach, not just personally but in football as well. Spain and Germany had a lot of players who already knew each other well and understood each other well. Also the tactics of Van Gaal compared to Low aren't that different on certain points btw. Van Gaal isn't as attacking as he used to be and due to weak defence he even had to focus on attack more. We also have the fact that ideologies not only need to be understood, they also need to fit the players on their qualities, should have the best players as the essential fundaments and should fit the opponent as well. Not that you have to adapt tactics to the opponent everytime. But tactics do have to be fit to the situation of the team is in as well and have to be constantly adapted to fit it. Adaptability isn't the key factor here, but understanding, the luck of having the right players with the right qualities avaible,... Is rather a complex matter.

Were the africans unorganised? No, they're football at times was though. So was Englands and Argentina's though. Are they incapable no? But often the conditions weren't always right. Missing of keyplayers, coach changes, unfit tactics or wrong players, misfortune (Ghana), situations and opponents that weren't favorable, lack of quality,... Organisation also has multiple meanings in football. It can be how solid a tactic is worked out, how effective it is, how it is structured, often ball possesion is also misnamed as organised, how coherent it plays,...

Also England really isn't that good. There are some good players in the team, true but it has to have a general supportable idea behind it, you have to have your talents spread out and being compatible,... Talented wise they didn't play that bad or had such bad results. Talentwise Spain, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Brazil, Argentina were much better. Some of the African countries like Ivory coast came close. Due to the fact the Premier league is overrated and the English contribution to the large teams are overrated as well, means the English teams are overrated. The only reason the Premier league has the level it has is the money and coaching. Yes it has succesful teams in Europe as well and especially the top are doing really well. But there's also a big gap between the big three (Arsenal, Chelsea and Man U, yes at the moment I don't put Liverpool with them) the subtop and then the rest which is quite close to each other. The comparisons with Gerrard and Müller are rediculous. However what about Gerrard and Sweinsteiger, as they are more a like in the roles they fullfill? Well Sweinsteiger is in my eyes the better player. He has attacking poweress, physical poweress, defensive skills, intelligence and creativity, the mentality and he is an incredibly complete player with the advantage of being underrated. Gerrard can perhaps follow up when it comes to defensice skills and intelligence. Probably beats Sweinsteiger in leardship and experience. But Sweinsteiger is the betterplayer with perhaps even a little bit of growth in him left? The best and most influential players have proven themselves I think, Xavi and iniesta who are almost one and the same mind with an incredible understanding and hence the reason they football the way they do together, Sweinsteiger, Lahm and Sneijder. Who's talent and qualtiy is not only at the top of the world but also determine the football of they're team. Ronaldo is a very good player who can make goals and actions out of nowhere but he can lead a team nor can he influence who has the upperhand in the game footballingwise (not scorewise), yet he was the keyman.

I think what we also saw this tournament that the teams who want to fight for it the most also got through. Germany was passionate, hard working combned with their great physique (which helps that a lot), talent and played make them come this far. It's the same reasons and effects the last three World Cups. Spain didn't have to as much but if you looked you saw the fighting as group as well especially in the final. Uruguay, Ghana, netherlands as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Wasn't the coach of Ghana a European?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

All African teams coaches are European, except South Africa(Brazilian) and Algerie(Algerian), and it has been that way for decades.

---

...as has the underperformance of African teams. I also don't know of any first rate coaches (White or Black) who have coached an African side.

As football federations in the west are pretty bad examples of efficient and productive organisations, its actually surprising that African football federations can actually be worse, but they are.

Witness Nigeria's presidential attempt to withdraw the international side from competition so that it can "get its house in order".