Start with the hosts. It's the normal proceedure. In South Africa's case it is also convenient, as there are great doubts as to whether Bafana Bafana's chances will actually get a mention at any point beyond the opening game.
South Africa suffered greatly in recent years. While apartheid was undoubtedly a factor, I am not here to discuss things in great socio-political detail. Rather, South Africa retained a sense of regality, maintaining the belief that they were amongst the continent's elite in spite of strong evidence to the contrary in every African Cup of Nations since 2000. South Africans felt that they were a powerhouse by virtue of the fact that they had won the 1996 tournament, and reached beyond the quarter finals in 1998 and 2000; in basic terms, they had won something, no-one else nearby had, and so they were a dominant local force. Completely ignored was the fact that local rivals include Mozambique, Lesotho and Namibia.
This mindset ensured that South Africa's potential talent was never properly marshalled. The country seemed content with its exported players; indeed, they remain a talented group. The home-grown aspect, those players left behind, was though, completely neglected.
When the Rainbow Nation was awarded the World Cup, people seemed to be more keen on soul-searching. What they found was a nation desperately unable to meet its unfounded lofty expectations. People were not so keen to actually do something about the problems they found.
So to the present. The experienced Carlos Alberto Parriera has returned as coach after a farcical disagreement between the Federation and previous Brazilian tactician Joel Santana, a man unqualified to hold down the job to begin with. Santana presided over a run of 8 losses in 9, which led to his sacking, and failed utterly to show meaningful progress towards being able to achieve anything of significance at their own World Cup.
Certainly, Parriera cannot be deemed a knight in shining armour, as his previous tenure in late 2007 was little better. However, he remains a far superior and astute manager than any other realistic candidate for the job.
Parriera has been accused of negative, old fashioned tactics, indeed this ousted him from the Brazil job. Given the squad he now has to work with though, these tactics are probably of benefit.
South Africa will operate with a tight 4-4-2 system, utilising the two central midfielders mainly to apply defensive pressure. The defence lacks in pace, and plays deep and tight; in doing so, they are a reasonably solid team dealing with the high ball- 6'6" Matt Booth (pictured left) in particular.
South Africa suffered greatly in recent years. While apartheid was undoubtedly a factor, I am not here to discuss things in great socio-political detail. Rather, South Africa retained a sense of regality, maintaining the belief that they were amongst the continent's elite in spite of strong evidence to the contrary in every African Cup of Nations since 2000. South Africans felt that they were a powerhouse by virtue of the fact that they had won the 1996 tournament, and reached beyond the quarter finals in 1998 and 2000; in basic terms, they had won something, no-one else nearby had, and so they were a dominant local force. Completely ignored was the fact that local rivals include Mozambique, Lesotho and Namibia.
This mindset ensured that South Africa's potential talent was never properly marshalled. The country seemed content with its exported players; indeed, they remain a talented group. The home-grown aspect, those players left behind, was though, completely neglected.
When the Rainbow Nation was awarded the World Cup, people seemed to be more keen on soul-searching. What they found was a nation desperately unable to meet its unfounded lofty expectations. People were not so keen to actually do something about the problems they found.
So to the present. The experienced Carlos Alberto Parriera has returned as coach after a farcical disagreement between the Federation and previous Brazilian tactician Joel Santana, a man unqualified to hold down the job to begin with. Santana presided over a run of 8 losses in 9, which led to his sacking, and failed utterly to show meaningful progress towards being able to achieve anything of significance at their own World Cup.
Certainly, Parriera cannot be deemed a knight in shining armour, as his previous tenure in late 2007 was little better. However, he remains a far superior and astute manager than any other realistic candidate for the job.
Parriera has been accused of negative, old fashioned tactics, indeed this ousted him from the Brazil job. Given the squad he now has to work with though, these tactics are probably of benefit.
South Africa will operate with a tight 4-4-2 system, utilising the two central midfielders mainly to apply defensive pressure. The defence lacks in pace, and plays deep and tight; in doing so, they are a reasonably solid team dealing with the high ball- 6'6" Matt Booth (pictured left) in particular.
The midfield, at the end of the day, is relying on such salutory talents as Aaron Mokoena, Elerio Van Heerden and Lance Davids. At least in Stephen Pienaar, Bernard Parker and Bryce Moon, some youngish talent exists. Sorely lacking though, is a goal threat of any real distinction, suitable backup cover in any position, reliable goalkeeping and creative outlets (Siphiwe Tshabalala is talented, but frail and too tiny to take a game by the scruff of its neck).
I always feel that the effect of being a host will come into play at every tournament. Even if, such as Austria, the nation fails to reach the knockout stages, they will at least do well enough to avoid disgrace. Will South Africa be an exception? No, not in my book. I just cannot see a group of players with a competent manager and playing for their nation allowing themselves to be humiliated.
And I feel that their group oppostion, Mexico, Uruguay and France are not in any real position to go out and humiliate South Africa anyway. The France game will be lost, and it will be lost in the dull, generally lifeless manner that France tend to deliver to international competitions. Uruguay's spoiling style could pose a problem, but equally they are an easy team to play football against provided one grasps the game quickly, sets the pace to a high level and keeps it there. Mexico should be too strong in a footballing sense to let the South Africans beat them using an offensive minded gameplan; a tighter, one goal to win it style of game could get South Africa a result.
At the end of the day, South Africa remain on paper one of the weakest host nations in memory, and I do not feel they will progress from the group stages. But, at least, I feel they will not disgrace themselves as many predict, and may even be able to set themselves up for progression in the competion.
I always feel that the effect of being a host will come into play at every tournament. Even if, such as Austria, the nation fails to reach the knockout stages, they will at least do well enough to avoid disgrace. Will South Africa be an exception? No, not in my book. I just cannot see a group of players with a competent manager and playing for their nation allowing themselves to be humiliated.
And I feel that their group oppostion, Mexico, Uruguay and France are not in any real position to go out and humiliate South Africa anyway. The France game will be lost, and it will be lost in the dull, generally lifeless manner that France tend to deliver to international competitions. Uruguay's spoiling style could pose a problem, but equally they are an easy team to play football against provided one grasps the game quickly, sets the pace to a high level and keeps it there. Mexico should be too strong in a footballing sense to let the South Africans beat them using an offensive minded gameplan; a tighter, one goal to win it style of game could get South Africa a result.
At the end of the day, South Africa remain on paper one of the weakest host nations in memory, and I do not feel they will progress from the group stages. But, at least, I feel they will not disgrace themselves as many predict, and may even be able to set themselves up for progression in the competion.
If they were a medical condition - HIV/AIDS. Woah there, don't go rushing to complain about un-PC and all that. We are merely talking about the hosts being compromised by lack of quality, much as a sufferer of HIV are immunosuppressed - host compromised, get it?
GM
No comments:
Post a Comment