Unak, I wasn't trying to be critical of African Football, just pointing out that these days in the World Cup there can be a fine line between success and failure.
Agreed,though considering the history of West African countries perpetually failing to produce creative players leads to my theory that the problem is more,how shall I say it?.... Innate than your reasons of why this is.
Nope, looks like you misunderstood what I was saying.I meant that if even the best African teams fail in the World Cup then you are clutching at straws by blaming the African Qualification progress on Africas poor showing in World Cups. I was particularly talking about the last World Cup.
The thing is that West Africa used to produce creative footballers. The Nigerian and Cameroonian teams of the 90's was incredibly creative and inventive. JJ Okocha was one of the most crafty ball wizards in the game. He's the reason I'm a PSG fan. Then you had Roger Milla, Abedi Pele, etc. The African game in the 90's was entirely different to what it is today. It was alot more creative in Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon. It's almost like comparing music today to music in the 90's. All you have to do is watch Nigeria vs Bulgaria and the 3-nil drubbing they gave to a team that eventually made the semis that year. Look at the give and goes, the thru balls, the dribbling, the first touches, the touch passes. It was a different game then. EVERYTHING was different about the West African game. Italy and Argentina can attest to this. Greece met Nigeria twice in the 90s and never came close to beating us then. Only in 2010 when Nigeria was a shadow of that team did Greece take it to us and that was only after a self-inflicted red card. Even Spain fell to Nigeria in the 90s. Granted there was an own goal, but Nigeria did well to force it but that team was also very disorganized yet still made it to the knockouts. So to take the game that African teams play today and ascribe it to what it once was is a bit short-sighted. I was around then. African football was much admired then for it's fluidity in attack. I was at that game btw. It was thought then that Africa simply lacked defensive organization. In the end we go a bit more of that and in the process neutered the attacking aspect indefinitely. That changed in the early aughts and I attribute it to the fact that the African player became more of a commodity but not in the right ways. Creative players could be found elsewhere or grown in Europe. From Africa, Europe only wanted what they felt that only Africa could provide. Size and athleticism. So African FA's dropped the ball and went for the money. They basically killed any identifiable markers of the previous generation of African football simply because they decided to produce only what they felt that they could sell and turned the more organic process of football in West Africa into an assembly line. Samuel Eto'o was possibly the most creative player on Cameroon and he's a striker, although I've always felt that he could almost be classified as a false 9 himself. He's not a Drogba-esque type. Drogba's my favorite, but Eto'o was the more complete player by far. Still, I do think that African football has a lot of quality. I don't think that CIV is as overrated as you might think. They're deep and talented. But they're also flawed. They have alot up front. A lot in the middle and up the spine, but alot of other players are forced to play roles that they're not used to because of massive overlaps. And they have no goalkeeper. They may as well be playing me there. But I think they make the knockouts in any other group other than the one that they were in. Swap them with South Africa and they would beat Mexico and even Uraguay. Swap them with the US and they're playing an equally flawed English team. CIV is not very creative, but then again, neither is England. Mexico lacks cutting edge. They always have. They're very excited over Chicharito, and why shouldn't they be, he's probably one of the best finishers they've ever produced and he even squanders chances. So I think Ghana and CIV probably should have advanced in the last two WCs. So I bristle when people seem to oversell Africa's failure at the world cup especially as it comes from confederations that have little claim to better football overall. None-the-less, I expected more from African football in the last decade and we haven't gotten it. The game has devolved from where it was and definitely where it should have gone. There are clear reasons for it. We allowed West Africa to be turned into a football factory for Europe and neglected to properly fund the more organic infrastructure of the game, failed to put faith in domestic coaches or funding to domestic leagues; North Africa crawled into it's shell and shut the door which limits their upper potential but keeps them efficient in continental play, and their creative players often either stay home for too long or play for other countries altogether; and Southern Africans... I can't really put my finger on their problem. They have the PSL, South Africa has committed real resources into developing their game and they started during a time when their team was still fairly good. One consistent that they had with West Africa was the inability to keep a coach for a complete cycle during the early aughts. Might have something to do with it. Even Chelsea is starting to feel the effects of instability. That's where you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't blame 2010 on any one thing. And that's especially so with this particular point. I simply said that the qualification process is a problem. And it is. But it's a chronic symptom, not an acute one. It's something that translates into a more long-term course correction not a short-term fix. It won't be something that's pointed to any particular WC cycle but it's effects might be seen 2 or 3 WCs down the line when a particular generation of players, coaches, and FA's have had an uninterrupted streak of appearances, during which tactics can be fine-tuned to maximize your strengths against the rest of the world. Nothing beats participation in WCs to breed maturity on the international stage. Ah, I get you. I did get a bit touchy about this subject and I apologize. It just pissed me off when I started listening to podcasts and CONCACAF supporters (of which I consider myself to be one) started circling the waters to pick off one of CAF's spots as though one good WC entitled them to it. And far too many people were behaving as though FIFA gifted Africa a 6th spot out of pity when they do that every time for a host confederation. Add that to the shitstorm during the runup about even hosting it in SA, which is a G-20 nation, and I get a little heated when I revisit it. Then again there was also a shitstorm in the runup to the last Euro in 2012 so maybe I shouldn't have taken it so personally.
Unak why do you think their is a serious lack of consideration when it comes to appointing managers from the African continent? Not just for your national teams but in the big European leagues too. Not a trick question or malicious dig at African coaching etc,I genuinely don't know the situation over there when it comes to coaching. At the last World Cup I was quite mystified as to why 4 out of 5 African teams were managed by non African managers. Is it a case that their is a real lack of quality African managers with experience at a high level in the world game? Or is it just a simple case of your continents football governing bodies and the "FA's" of individual African nations, not trusting talented African managers and instead choosing the low risk option in appointing top European Coaches who have already made a name for themselves in the game? Thus there is not enough opportunity's for African managers or coaches to make a name for themselves and move to bigger coaching roles in Europe....Or a bit of both which would be my guess from the outside looking in on African football?
For once we agree on something... No. It shows first and foremost the lack of confidence of African FAs in local coaches. Nigeria had a local coach qualify them for the World Cup. He was unceremoniously thrown out several months prior to the World Cup at the first opportunity. Another example: A nigerian coach Stephen Keshi (current coach of the Nigerian national team... you know the one who won them the title) qualified Togo for the World Cup in 2006. After which he was dumped, because... the FA decided they need a non-African coach. We all know how that turned out. Another interesting fact: Out of the last 5 African Cup of Nations 4 were won by African coaches. Or from 4 semi-finalists in 2013 African Cup of Nations three teams were managed by African coaches. So hopefully the tide is turning... Good point, but absolutely misguided analysis. The problem isn't whether the coaches are good enough, but whether they will even get the chance to prove themselves...
Watch the game. It was a one-sided affair before Japan's freak goal. Zokora is a creative midfielder. Keita is very creative. Gervinho likewise, especially for Cote d'Ivoire. Neither are average. Drogba is not a normal striker. Doumbia likewise. Eboue and co - agreed. But whose fault was that? Fact is that whenever they meet a non-elite team from outside Europe they pretty easily dominate them.
True. But they also could have eliminated Germany and won the group had the referee not noticed a deliberate handball denying a goal (red + PK). All in all deservedly progressed.
Great question. But you sort of answered yourself. If a mix of both, but more of the second. The FAs don't trust local coaches (North Africa aside), ergo they don't get the chance to prove themselve. Fortunately lately a lot of top African teams seem to have been getting local coaches: Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire... Keshi has such a strong position now that he actually blackmailed the NFA. One great benefit from moving the African Cup of Nations is that their will no longer be excuses for last minute changes to coaches (vide 2010).
Perpetually? There were loads of creative players pre-2000. Right now the only teams loaded with creative players are Cote d'Ivoire and surprisingly Burkina Faso.
Man my previous post was loaded with grammatical errors, but I was tired when I wrote it. Apologies all around to anyone who read through it. As far as the coaching aspect goes, I take the same viewpoint that Zahzah did. When it comes to why domestic coaches don't get opportunities, it's mostly the latter. And really the only time African coaches are given opportunities by their FA's is on an interim basis while they look for the next coach. It doesn't help any that it's usually extremely difficult to keep a coaching job through and entire cycle so when you're a domestic coach, who they didn't want in the first place, there's very little time to prove yourself. Part of the reason, I believe, is corruption in the FAs. A high-priced European coach demands a big overlay in the budget from which money can be siphoned off. There definitely is that element. In Stephen Keshi's case it was clear that the Nigerian FA wasn't treating him like their coach, and so he actually ended up resigning after winning the ACoN before being talked into staying. It's a shame really because one of the most immediate benefits of having a domestic coach is that he's aware of domestic talent that aren't playing abroad. No foreign coach would have done that. Being a USMNT fan, I find it interesting that American fans complain about Klinnsman bringing in a few passport players, who are born American citizens btw, and not looking to MLS enough. But a large chunk of the team plays in MLS. Before Keshi almost no one from a domestic Nigerian club would ever see the pitch.
What exactly is the point of bringing Estonia (39th) best team in Europe into the discussion? The funny part is that they would probably qualify for the WC in Africa
Poland smoked your precious Ivory Coast 3-1 last time they played (2010) Please enlighten me on the similarities of Greek and Polish play style If Poland played in crappy Africa, they would never miss the WC. Instead they have to battle 40 legit football nations for only 13 spots. Africa should only have 3 qualification spots.
...yeah whatever. The point is that not every team in Europe is a top tier team. I'm sorry if my use of that example went over your head. ...yeah and CIV beat Germany in Germany,...do you think people in Munich gave a shit? I'm pretty sure that Mexico should rule CONMEBOL now that they've beaten Brazil. Oh wait, the US beat Italy in Italy, and whooped Scotland 5-1, we should join UEFA and run that shit. UEFA sucks! Do you see how stupid that is? Is that what we're doing here,... quoting dueling friendly results? OMG! I'm agnostic and you're making me say that. GTFO you fecking moron and welcome to my ignore list.
ROTFL. That was Cote d'Ivoire's only loss against such substandard opposition. Probably had a friendly off-day. Poland would suffer big time from home advantage and I doubt they would be anywhere near qualifying. More or less on the level of Burkina Faso... may surprise, but likely not... p.s. How was Poland's last outing at the World Cup?
You're absolutely right to think so. The fact that Africa has similar spots to South America (where with 3 teams they won 9 World Cups and the rest of the continent is world class. The fact that 1/6 African teams made it out of their own groups during their own WC in 2010 is disgraceful.
One of those 3 teams won it in the Stone Age. As for the rest: They are not world class and only Chile has ever made it to the semis (once) out of the other 7 CONMEBOL teams. Before any team can be deemed world class they have to advance that far at least once... Not to mention that African teams actually have an almost equal head to head over the remaining 8 CONMEBOL nations at the World Cup (minus Argentina and Brasil). 2 CAF wins, 5 draws, 3 CONMEBOL wins Not to mention that the 5 draws consist of Peru vs Cameroon 1982 (cheated from a win after a Milla dissallowed goal), Chile vs Cameroon (cheated from a win after a Omam Biyik dissallowed goal) and Uruguay vs Ghana (the famous Suarez handball), while the one CONMEBOL win was against Nigeria in 1998 after Nigeria had already topped the group and played with their reserve team, while another was against South Africa, a third tier African team (2010). If you factor the above than it should be (ergo minus cheating, preferential refereeing and removing meaningless games and games against subpar African teams): 5 CAF wins, 2 draws, 1 CONMEBOL win So much for CONMEBOL superiority...
Hey, since you are at it just take all the factors you want and make it CAF 8 wins over CONMEBOL 0 wins...
South America has 10 countries. By that basis, South America should be complaining about the fact that Europe has more spots than they do rather than doing a direct comparison to other confederations. Why aren't you looking at why Asia has almost as many spots as SA? CONCACAF will likely send 4 spots this WC. SA will send 6 this time around. Look elsewhere for your complaints. Noone here is comparing Africa to SA. Ridiculous. Or how about this? Let's just make the World Cup teams from Europe and SA. That way Africans don't have to watch. North Americans don't have to watch. Asians don't have to watch. That would be perfect right? WTF is the logic behind your argument? SA has 10 fvcking members. No other confederation gets 50% of their membership in the World Cup. SA already gets a better deal than CAF and just about every other confederation besides UEFA. You're just too stupid to realize it apparently. Apples to apples right?
If you want more spots, ask Europe for it. CONMEBOL has 10 members. Half of your contingent qualifies. CONCACAF, CAF and the AFC all have far more members. Zahzah seemed to only be responding to someone who wanted to make CAF vs CONMEBOL WC allocation an issue, for whatever reasons, that's becoming an issue. Maybe I've slipped into another dimention where fractions and percentages don't exist, but the last time I checked CONMEBOL qualified 50% of their membership. Why are we having complaints about how they're represented again? If CONMEBOL truly needed more spots, then CONMEBOL would likely eventually get more spots. FIFA would likely just expand the tournament again. But the fact of the matter is, as good as some of the teams SA leave's at home,... those teams probably aren't winning the WC either. They probably don't even make the semis. 8 teams have won the WC. Outside of those 8, it makes sense to spread the tournament around the world a bit. You know, grow the game, some of that shit... So I don't understand why this argument is coming up except for, perhaps, certain SA fan's need to rub everyone else's faces in the fact that 3 of their members have won world cups. Great. We're proud of you. Move on. This argument is pointless. This is more about the developing footballing confederations if we're talking about comparisons. Moreover it's about what Africa might be able to pull off in 2014. So I not one to drag this down the path of CAF vs CONMEBOL. Do I think there are factors which aid UEFA and CONMEBOL in the WC, yeah. But they're not significant enough that they need to even be mentioned. The rest of the world needs to get better. Being able to send the same teams consistently helps establish a hierarchy and when those teams at the top improve the rest of the confederation improves by proxy.
Great post. I unnecessarily responded to the CONMEBOL vs CAF punt. That said everything I wrote is still true...