The 2010 World Cup good for Africa or good for football?

The 2010 World cup has now gone through the first round of the group stages, where every team has at least played once. Sadly I think we can all agree it has not been thus far a very memorable tournament in terms of the football that has been played.

Many teams have been so worried about getting beat that they have played the game very defensively. The strikers that were billed as the protagonists on this football set have failed to live up to their names. Rooney, Messi, Villa, Drogba, Ronaldo, Kaka, Torres have all failed to get on the score sheet, and it has been left for the supporting cast, such as midfielders and defenders to punch in the goals.

It is good for South Africa

A lot of talk has been about the symbolic nature of where this tournament is set. The world is watching South Africa as they are the first country in Africa to host this event. The media attention and tourism brought to the nation and continent will surely have a longer lasting effect than the football on display. From the footage on T.V you can really see the positive impact the tournament as a whole is having on the nation and the continent. It is good for the world. But with tired players, boring tactics, a wobbly ball, the tournament has not been good for football.

Love or hate the buzzing sound of the vuvezelas, they certainly will be remembered, partly due to the fact that the football at the moment sadly will not. Only Germany look organised and have staked their claim and look "up for it". Messi and the likes have talked of burnout by playing 60 games for their clubs, but at the end of the day this is a World cup folks, start getting motivated!

Some say it is the unpredictable flight of the adidas Jubilani ball. It actually does look like a cheap plastic ball, and apparently it flies like one too. Several goal keepers have made absolute howlers, but is that really the ball moving at the last moment or the fact players feel under such pressure and make mistakes? I've watched nearly every game and to be honest the most "spherical" ball ever was meant to create more goals, yet I have not seen anything unpredictable.

It's the players not the ball

Something has backfired because we have seen far less goals (just 25) in the first round than previous tournaments (39, 46, 37 in the last four World Cups). Sadly football is a sport where the goals are the main talking point. Sure the odd save, or last ditch tackle might make a headline or two, but it is the goals that the fans crave. There have of course been less shots too, and as much as teams and managers are blaming the ball, it is really down to the teams and players to get the world watching again. The tournament needs a couple of really good games to get the neutral back involved, but if teams are not willing to take the plunge for the benefit of the whole tournament, who is going to sacrifice themselves?

Everyone will watch their own team, and in the past the so called "entertainers", such as Brazil, Spain and Argentina; although even those attacking teams have been stunted. Argentina looked wobbly and only just beat Nigeria. Spain, for all their fluid movement and passing could not convert possession into goals and got beat, while Brazil, under Dunga, play a much more defensive and disciplined based game. If Brazil have no flair then who is going to light up this tournament? They better find someone quick because before we know it, we will be seeing more pockets of empty seats and people tuning off. Then what will I watch? Dreaded big brother? Come on footballers! Stop me from switching over!

Written by Adam Goldstein