Sepp Blatter’s decision to re-open the file on goalline technology marks a stunning U-turn even by the standards of his undisputed mastery of football politics.
But before fans across the world get too carried away by the FIFA President bowing to global outrage following Frank Lampard’s “goal-that-wasn’t” for England, a little caution would be advisable.
England’s World Cup chances were doomed by their manager’s failure to understand or inspire his players, a state of affairs which meant that the team which took to the field had a subsconscious wish to punish him by failing to do their best.
And that ambivalence was strongest of all in the former captain, John Terry, whom Fabio Capello had stripped of his position and publicly rebuked during the group stages.
The line of questioning thrown at FIFA spokesman Nicolas Maingot the morning after the night before Frank Lampard’s already imfamous “goal-that-wasn’t” included the words laughing stock and embarrassment. You can understand why.
When football’s lawmakers ditched goal-line technology once and for all just over three months ago, FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said he hoped the decision did not come back to haunt the organisation at the World Cup.
By David Owen in Bloemfontein
June 27 – I need to make one thing clear at the outset: England were beaten today at Free State Stadium by a much better team: the 4-1 scoreline did not flatter Germany.
Hanover 1968 was where it all went wrong, as far as I was concerned.
To my mind, at that time, England were better than West Germany because they were the world champions. Which meant Charlton was better than Beckenbauer. Hurst was better than Seeler. Banks was better than Tilkowski. Moore was better than Schulz. It was all very simple.
.jpg)
On Wednesday night, as England qualified to meet Germany in the round of 16, with the USA topping England’s group and Australia doing Ghana a favour, the great and good of south African football returned to Sandton, the exclusive Johannesburg suburb which they have made their home during this World Cup, and their joy was unconfined.
The reason for the joy was not just on footballing grounds, although these are not insignificant.
They had a record six teams in the tournament but one by one they tumbled out, failing to live up to expectations, dashing the hopes of an entire continent.
The vuvezelas may still be screeching and organisers saying all the right things about the show going on but no-one can ignore the hugely disappointing performances of Africa’s teams at Africa’s World Cup.
Jabulani means “celebrate” in Zulu. But you would have to go a long way to find anyone, anywhere - player, coach or fan - remotely happy when it comes to the controversial ball being used in the World Cup.
After the vuvuzela, nothing has generated greater debate. Watch any game and watch freekicks flying over the bar, outfield players struggling with their control, passes being overhit and goalies fumbling.
If the BBC News channel had given Simon Meyerson just a little more time before England’s World Cup match against Algeria, he would have got round to the fundamental reason for the players’ collective under-performance, a reason that underlies their palpably stilted team ethic.
So when will USA withdraw its bid from the 2018 World Cup and concentrate on getting 2022 for the States?
On the day of the FIFA Congress, immediately after Australia withdrew from 2018, rumours swept Sandton, the once exclusive white suburb now dominated by the huge statute of Nelson Mandela where the good and great of football have gathered, that the USA was about to pull out.
.jpg)
Picture the scene.
It is Brazil’s first match at the 2010 World Cup; night has fallen; it is so cold that the Official Fan Shop has sold out of blankets at 400 Rand a throw.
And here I am on a corner looking for North Korea fans.
As I start to write this piece, England’s footballers are about to engage in their latest bid to end 30 years of hurt - sorry, make that 44 years, forgot to add the 14 since the European Championships ended with that penalty shoot-out at Wembley against let’s move on - and their prospects are as boundless as a blank page. Southgate. Why couldn’t he just blast it?
So we’re all at it again. Hoping.
Football World Cups are like political elections. Just as politicians promise the earth when they want power, so a World Cup is preceded by extravagant promises by the organisers that rarely materialise.
Will South Africa be any different?
It will and it will not.
They were the kind of images FIFA President Sepp Blatter and his right-hand man, South Africa 2010 organising committee chief Danny Jordaan, least wanted to witness.
“World sees our soccer shame,” trumpeted the front page of Johannesburg’s main newspaper above several gruesome images.
One a terrified child, another a blood-stained fan with one eye half-closed; a third a frightening melee of confused supporters trying to find their feet after crashing into a gate.
Which World Cup do England have the better chance of winning – 2010 or 2018?
For the bookies, the answer is clear.
A leading betting website on Saturday rated Fabio Capello’s men 8/1 fourth-favourites to triumph in South Africa, behind Spain (4/1), Brazil (9/2) and Argentina (13/2).