FIFA World Cup: 2010 Is the Year Africa Reaches the Semifinals

Predictions are tricky.

More times than not, the one doing the predicting ends up eating his or her words.  But there are moments in time when a person senses something, an intuition, an inexplicable augury in the air, if you will.

This seems to be such a moment, and Ghana is set to advance to the semi-final of the World Cup, the greatest feat an African team would have achieved to date. I believe Ghana will beat Uruguay to advance to the semi-final.

An African team has never advanced beyond the quarterfinal stage of the World Cup before. In fact, this is only the third time an African team has reached this stage: first, through Cameroon at Italia ’90, and then Senegal at Korea-Japan ’02, and now Ghana at this year’s edition.

If this seems like a moderate achievement by African teams, consider that as recent as 1990, Africa had only two slots at the World Cup, acutely limiting its options and opportunities.

To justify this limited option, someone might argue that Africa was, in fact, not ready to have many slots at the World Cup for lack of high quality teams to fill more slots.

This argument disregards the fact that many European or South American teams have performed woefully at the World Cup in almost every edition (El Salvador 1970, Yugoslavia 1974, Hungary and Mexico 1978, New Zealand, Chile and El Salvador 1982, etc.), yet FIFA still gave these continents a number of slots.

In the seventies, Africa was not ready for many slots at the World Cup. However, this cannot be said of the eighties. Countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Zaire, and Zambia, beside the North African countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria—had World Cup-worthy teams but the limited slots prevented them from showcasing their strength at the World Cup.

In the nineties, countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Zambia, and Zaire, besides the four North African countries mentioned above, all had World Cup-worthy teams.

With more slots, it is quite possible that Africa might have achieved a better record at the World Cup than the one at present.

Some have begun arguing that perhaps Africa does not deserve the five slots at the World Cup because of the failure of her teams to reach the second round of the competition at this year’s edition. (See here .)

It is true that owing to the rapid growth of soccer in the continent in the last two decades, Africa should have done better in South Africa. However, to construe it a miserable failure the inability of five of her teams to reach the second round of this year’s World Cup, is to fail to consider the situation from a broader perspective.

If, for instance, one considers the percentage of teams allocated for each continent, the biggest failure at this World Cup is Europe.

Of the sixteen teams knocked out at the end of the first round, seven of those were from Europe.

Europe had a total of 13 teams at the World Cup from 53 that entered the qualification round, compare with 53 countries from Africa that entered the qualification round, only 6 of which qualified for the finals. (Five actually, since the sixth slot was added because South Africa was hosting the competition.)

Someone has argued (here ) that Africa should have, at least, two more slots at the World Cup. There’s certainly a sense in that.

Consider also that had Africa been given more slots at the World Cup, Egypt would probably (if not certainly) have been at this World Cup.  Being arguably the best team in Africa at present, their absence at the World Cup only adds to the remarkable nature of the case being made here.

More slots at the World Cup would have afforded an opportunity for such countries as Angola, Tunisia, Zambia, and even Togo to compete with the rest of the World at the World Cup.

The failure of five of the African teams to go beyond the first round of the present edition of the World Cup, in my mind, goes beyond the issue of quality, by which I mean World Cup-worthy quality. Was the failure of Italy or France a result of  lack of such quality?

There were teams that qualified for the second round, such as England and the USA, by clawing their way through.  These countries were certainly not better than teams such as Cote d’Ivoire and Cameroon. Cote d’Ivoire and South Africa, by the way, only narrowly missed qualifying for the second round.

If Ghana does beat Uruguay, and I believe they will, then Africa will be more than justified in having more slots at the World Cup.

To say that Ghana will beat Uruguay is not to dismiss the latter team. Uruguay has proven so far to be a formidable team.

They have one of the best mid-fields, marshaled by Diego Forlan.  Moreover, they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to play defensively.

I have been personally impressed by the way their midfield moves as a four-man unit to assist in defending and in mounting an attack.

To beat Uruguay will not be an easy feat for Ghana, but they will do it.

Ghana has improved with every game. They displayed composure and purpose in their match against the unpredictable USA side. In fact, I was more tense going into the USA match than I am now.

The USA, in my opinion, were the most dangerous team to play against in the World Cup, mainly because of their unconventional way of playing. With them, you never knew what to expect, a tactical challenge.

Uruguay, on the other, has played in a consistent manner: strong in the midfield, cautious defensively, and opportunistic in attack. It is a team that is easier to read than the USA team.

They also lack the incisiveness of the Germans when it comes to attacking. And the latter, despite this incisiveness were unable to really trouble the Ghanaian defense, even though they did score a goal against Ghana.

Every match, of course, is different. Good teams adjust their style to their opponent and to the circumstance on the pitch. Judging by the way the Ghanaian team has adjusted to the games she has played so far, she should have no trouble doing so in her match against Uruguay.

One thing that should never be discounted in a game is luck. This, the Ghanaian team appears to possess.

She qualified virtually on penalty luck. And if she made her own destiny in the match against the USA, one may not discount good fortune as a factor.

It is always fortunate for a team to score first in a match.

If a team does score and has the ability to protect the goal (and the Ghanaian team possesses the ability), then it holds the cards of the game in its hand.

An ancient poet once wrote:

“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life.”

It was a profound confidence in the benevolence of providence. We may dare say that when fate agrees with one, none can disagree.

It appears that fate favors this Ghanaian team. If I’m wrong, then I will humbly eat my words and admit my mistake.

For now, my fingers are crossed.

But to all those rooting for Ghana, let’s continue hoping and believing.