Off the ball: Our cups runneth over in time of plenty

By DAVID LEGGAT

In the space of 18 months we will have three World Cups. How do they compare in terms of their impact on our sporting psyche? Should we compare them?

Apart from the obvious - ball shapes and sizes, numbers in the teams, clothing and method of celebration - how do they differ? And when we're sitting down for Christmas turkey next year, which will we remember with most affection?

The soccer version has eight days to run. Early next year, New Zealand will be off to South Africa for cricket's biggest extravaganza, and in October the All Blacks will begin their quest for the John O'Neill Trophy across the Tasman.

By any reasonable yardstick, soccer's show has been a belter.

There was hefty criticism of splitting the tournament between two hosts, who have had the odd disagreement over the years. There were expectations of trouble from the yobs who would penetrate the security ring. Instead it has worked a treat, on both counts.

The sight of Japanese and South Koreans wearing the colours of the visiting teams playing in their patch, chanting gaily, has no doubt helped to defuse any tension between, say, England and Argentina. There was every chance of a royal dust-up in Sapporo that night.

The standard of soccer has been, perhaps inevitably, mixed - which is to say heavyweights France and Argentina were distinctly average, while South Korea and Senegal have been stunning.

So why are many calling it the best World Cup ever? Simple - the element of surprise. Look no further than defending champions France, as well as Argentina, Portugal and Italy - strong chances all and gone before the quarter-finals.

We have seen the great equalisation of the global game, and if you have failed to enthuse over the skill and resilience of the lighter-weights, failed to be captured by the sheer joy of the efforts of the Senegalese and South Koreas, not to mention the good old US of A's, you have a problem.

In the first week of pool play the hits just kept on coming. Just when you thought the craziness had to end and the old order would be restored, along came the South Koreans to turn the lights out in Italy in the most stunning of all results over the past three weeks.

Maybe the biggest reason for its success is the timing. Let's face it, you would have to love your soccer to be up in the middle of the night for Paraguay against South Africa. This time it's there in our faces in perfect viewing time. No need for an alarm clock.

Soccer also wins hands down for the goal celebrations. Cricket's high fives are stale, while rugby has scarcely got past the head down trot back to halfway, "Aw shucks, full credit to the other boys" attitude.

What can we expect from the republic come cricket's World Cup? Cricket offers a different sort of thrill; a slow burner - seven-odd hours over 90 minutes - for starters. Then there's the time difference, meaning watching through the night. You need to love your cricket to do that.

What about the upset factor? Upsets are relatively rare - Kenya toppling the West Indies six years ago was a monty, as was Bangladesh tipping over Pakistan in England in 1999 - and unfortunately for the game tend to be associated with whispers of thick brown envelopes.

Interest back here? If New Zealand do well it will be a hit, otherwise, you suspect, strictly for the fans. And remember, starting in February and running through March it will clash with the Super 12, the countdown to the rugby World Cup.

The time zones are perfect for viewing, so no problems there. It is the national game, so buckets of interest as well.

As for the upset factor, forget it. Japan are not going to upset Australia - rugby's equivalent of the United States tipping out Portugal - nor Italy outclass the All Blacks. There will be cricket scores and much as I like my rugby, I won't be switching on for Spain against England. We know, more than a year out, no matter the vagaries of form, that the winner can come only from five countries: Australia, New Zealand, France, South Africa and England.

My suspicion is that as the turkey is being sliced, soccer will be remembered as the cup in which the tails wagged the dogs; cricket will have been largely set aside - barring a memorable effort from Stephen Fleming's men - while the gnashing of teeth at the shortcomings of the men in black will be the topic du jour.

So how do we compare them? Simple. You can't. It's all about different strokes.

* The Off the Ball column published last week - an A-Z about the World Cup - was from the website worldcuparchive.com. Due to a misunderstanding it was attributed to staff writer Richard Boock.

nzherald.co.nz/fifaworldcup

Groups and team lists
Stars
Schedule
Points tables
Previous winners and key statistics

Interactive graphics:
Groups and team profiles