Soccer: Good and bad from the finals

By FRED DE JONG

There has been good and bad at the World Cup.

A plus has been the real globalisation of the game and the way the lesser nations have helped to generate so much interest worldwide.

It is no longer the domain of teams from Europe and South America, even though Germany and Brazil played in the final.

The upsets, which started with Senegal's win over France in the opening game and continued virtually to the end, have meant there has been more interest from the non-footballing fan. These people got behind the underdogs.

In New Zealand, interest was higher than usual with more favourable kickoff times. This ensured more people watched the games, which in turn led to a higher turnover at the TAB and a healthy return to New Zealand Soccer. And an awareness money cannot buy.

On the other side of the coin, from a purist's perspective I feel the overall standard of play was average. I would rate it a six out of 10. Certainly, I was expecting better.

This World Cup, I am sure, though, will be a major catalyst for change. No longer will the so-called big nations be able to bulldoze their way through with the air of arrogance they have had in the past.

They must surely realise there is no team they will be able to underestimate in future.

The other minuses have been the standard of the officials and the ball.

Fifa must in future have a panel of officials made up of the very best in the world. No longer should the World Cup be seen as an opportunity for officials from all nations to have a chance to participate. It is a lovely idea, but it belongs in the Dark Ages.

It is crazy that the so-called best referees get to control just three games - in a month. A panel of 16, two per group, could easily do the job 36 referees did (for 64 games) this time.

The ball is a key piece of equipment, but to bring out a brand-new one just a few weeks before the world's biggest sporting event is a joke.

While we have to acknowledge the need to continually improve the balls, they should be available a year before the World Cup to give all players the chance to play with them.

It was not that the ball was no good, it was just that it reacted differently and led, I'm sure, to what was generally seen as poor finishing.

From a New Zealand point of view, it is again a case of planning for the future.

I still have reservations about giving Oceania direct entry to the tournament until we have a team consistently in Fifa's top 30.

It might be better to give Asia an extra place (at the finals) and let the top two Oceania sides play in their latter qualifying rounds.

That would give the teams - likely to be Australia and New Zealand - a better chance by playing home and away rather than the cut-throat, one-off contest we have at present.

It would mean the New Zealand public would get to see the All Whites pitted against top-class opposition on home soil.

But, before we even contemplate that, I would like to see programmes set up to identify the best 10, 11 and 12-year-olds in the country so we can start building with these youngsters.

And now, surely, is the best time to do that.

* Production schedules meant this column had to be written before the final.

nzherald.co.nz/fifaworldcup

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

Interactive graphics:
Groups and team profiles