Why does the British media have to drag other nations/continents down to make themselves feel better about their own failings and inadequacies?

A Guardian article was published on saturday lumping in the entire African continent with England , as so called "failures" who have failed to progress with the rest of the world in the international game.

What a bloody cheek! Admittedly, Cameroon had a shocker and are on their way home, but none of the African sides had yet to be eliminated from the competition, so an article like that was premature to say the least. The writer couldn't even be bothered to praise Ivory Coast, who did look the most likely African team to qualify. He said that Ivory Coast only only decent because Japan (a tough, well organised international side) and Greece (European Champions not more than 10 years ago) were crap.

How do the African nations respond to this guff. Ghana go toe to toe with overwhelming tournament favorites Germany, play them on the field as equals, and nearly win.

Nigeria, slated for a 0-0 draw with Iran (which didn't look anywhere as bad once you realised Argentina with a minute away from getting the exact same result against Iran) outplayed Bosnia Herzigoviana, and got a victory with puts them in a strong position to reach the knock-out stages.

Maybe the Guardian should have held off 24 hours before it wrote that ridiculous article. Ghana showed themselves to be a side far above England in terms of abilty, and frankly, Nigeria are a better team as well. Even if Ghana don't qualify from the Group Of Death, they can hold their heads up high after that performance.

Criticising the African nations in a "we aren't the only ones that suck" move to make themselves feel better has backfired spectacularly after those performances.

The main crux of the article seemed to be African sides capable of lighting the World Cup up are thinner on the ground than was the case 20 years ago. Which I don't think is an unfair comment.

Cameroon were a joke, Ivory Coast are up against a poor Japan and Greece, Ghana did lose to the USA and Nigeria vs Iran was one of the worst games I've ever seen. Ghana did draw with Germany who aren't the favourites never mind overwhelming favourites for the cup but it was a good result. Ghana still are only on 1 point though and a USA win means they are out. Nigeria got lucky that the linesman was blind last night.

Although I agree it was churlish to drag African nations into the argument, you have put a bit of a spin on things.

Japan ARE poor as are Greece - the fact a completely unrecognisable Greece side stoically battled their way to a trophy a decade ago is of very little relevance to today's Greece. I dare say England would have progressed in that group - if you want spin, we went out due to narrow defeats to the semi finalists of 2010 and the winners in 2006.

Nigeria's lack of ambition and motivation in their first game was unfathomable and citing Iran's subsequent performance against Argentina as an excuse is a bit feeble.

There's surely no doubt African nations haven't progressed as fast as Pele and many others predicted, especially given the number of excellent African players now playing in the major leagues. Divisions in squads and financial squabbles are too rife so that doesn't help sometimes.

It's a worthwhile debate to be had in its own right, irrespective of England's woes.

After Germany thrashed Portgugal 4-0, pretty much everyone had them in the final.They are massive favorites and were supposed to muller Ghana.

I think the article is still bollocks. An African team might be unlikely to win the world cup (though if Ghana can get out of that group and keep playing like that, they are surely dark horses), but they are performing a damnded sight better than England, with the exception of Cameroon.

If England were in a group with Greece and Japan, we'd be forever hearing how Greece won the European Championships, and how japan is a dangerous side with players good enough to play for Manchester united. You know this to be true

The problem with that ridiculous Guardian article is it's refusal to accept that the game has moved on. That there are almost no "easy" sides in international football. So being held to a draw by Iran isn't a sign that your team is crap (again, they nearly stymied Argentina, another tournament favorite).. And neither is losing by 1 goal to the USA, who are a very good team (most of the CONCAF sides have been highly imoressive. You can no longer write these teams off as an easy win). At this moment in time, USA are a better side than England, whatever FIFA rankings may claim. Let that sink in.

Names and reputations don't mean anything anymore. "Minnows" can play

Then why not wait until their next games to bring up this supposedly "worthwhile debate". Had Ghana and Nigeria been spanked in their second games and been on their way home, then fine....you couldn't really argue with the need for an "inquest".

But now the British media just look like churlish, embittered "Little Englanders", because they couldn't be arsed to wait another 24 hours to see if the African teams could improve from less impressive first games. And both did, rather spectacularly.

There was simply no need for that article. It's just a weak attempt to distract from England's failings.

I dont understand the comparison.

Until Africa has a league that is worth billions, and its stars are paid millions per month, then England has to face the shame of its early exit on its own.

Besides, I loved watching the Ghana effort v Germany...far more enjoyable, exciting than anything boring, tedious, predictable England served up

The multi-multi millionaire flops of Englands, and their attention seeking, useless celeb WAGs can do one...

I'm reminded about how Danny Murphy said before England played Uruguay that "Colombia and Ivory Coast would pose no problem to England should they progress to face them".

The arrogance of Murphy sums up the arrogance of the British media. Still looking down upon other teams that could probably thrash them.

Aside from Cameroon, I'd make any of the African sides favorites against England. Imgaine how Asomah Cygan would be treated if he was English (the man has 5 world cup goals to his name. If he was English, the british press would hype him up to be better than bloody Messi and Ronaldo).

English media, not British media.

Agreed, I think we would have definitely lost to Columbia, Ivory Coast would have been close.

I hardly think Germany beating 10 man Portugal in the first game installed them as overwhelming favourites. You are criticizing the Guardian for writing off African teams after one game and then you're saying Germany are massive favourites after one game when their game last night showed them to be fragile at the back against fast, rugged counter attacking teams. Brazil are still favourites with Germany and Argentina close behind.

USA aren't better than England either. The African teams do look to have stagnated a bit and Pele's prediction of a winner by the year 2000 looks woeful now. I don't think there will ever be an African winner of the World Cup.

Who gives a shit what Pele predicted? Great footballer, but has never struck me as a particularly wise or intelligent man. He should stick to selling his Viagra

Using Pele's "prediction" as a stick to beat African nations with every time they don't win the world cup is unfair and reeks of arrogant condescenscion. I see no reason why an African team can't win the world Cup, but it'll happen when it happens. And I can see it happening before England manage to win it again.

I don't think Ghana have stagnated. That team yesterday could beat any team in this compeition. They may have lost to the USA, but it was close, and they actually looked the better team against the USA. They've stepped it up a gear, and i can see them beating any team going forward. Should be interesting.

Well, well, well.... Algeria beat South Korea 4-2, and are in a decent position to qualify for the knockout stages. Another African team outperforming England.

Those Africans sure are having a terrible world cup

Engliish media needs to worry about the England team. This suddenm patronising concern for the well-being of African football was shockingly misjudged.

Why would anyone from any nation care what the news papers say about sport? (or anything for that matter)

If its not endless love for rooney, or the endless hate, after that 2 year cycle, its back to photoshopped pictures of Katie Price and what the cast of TOWIE think about the new stock in ASDA. Its drivel.

To be fair, the article I'm talking about in regards to the African teams didn't come from a tabloid rag like the Sun or The Mirror. No one would take them seriously. It came from The Guardian, which is a major, internationally read and respected publication. Something like The Guardian is taken seriously around the world, and it can alter international perception of African teams with negative articles like that.

Ivory Coast in particular are stuffed full of multi-millionaires.

I'm constantly astounded by the amount of berks who think that only English players earn a lot of money.

Pele was predicting great things for Africa and nothing has materialised, they have stagnated as a continent as the article suggested. I can't see an African team winning a World Cup and how you can seems to be based more on blind faith than anything logical or historical. Ghana played quite well but Germany were very poor and they still managed to squeeze out a draw. That's the key for the top teams.

The article said African teams weren't lighting up the World Cup for 20 years which is fair comment. Algeria beating a really crap South Korean side won't change that.

It just means that their journalists can write eloquently.

Doesn't mean that they are accurate in what they say

Francophone African teams such as Algeria and Senegal always seem to have a flow of French players who change nationality on the basis of parentage or even grandparentage. 16 of the 23 'Algerians' are actually French! Born and grew up - and received their football education - in France. It won't exactly be a shock if a basically French team goes through, so even this isn't really a victory for 'Africa'.

What about France? They certainly impressed me more than Argentina, who really struggled to beat Iran and Bosnia .
I don't think Brazil or Argentina will get to the final. I think it will be Germany, Holland, and France (obviously not all 3, but 2 out of these 3).

Brazil and Argentina have been quite underwhelming so far IMO.

Yet the so called "favorites" Brazil and Argentina struggling to wins/draws against supposedy mediocre opposition. They are hardly looking like world-beaters, but people like you and the English media will still suck up to them based on name and past achievements. They don't even look the best South American sides in the competition (Chile and Colombia look better). Ghana could easily beat Brazil or Argentina the way they are playing right now. Ivory Coast, Nigreria and Algeria would stand a chance as well. Where the op-ed articles slating the "big guns" for their average performances?

France and maybe Holland are the only established football "superpower" looking like worldbeaters at the moment.

Singling out the African nations was a tacky move designed to gloss over England's failings (why else would England be part of the article). Really glad it's backfired, and the African teams are looking strong now.

I agree

Cameroon are out and Ghana are as good as out. If Ivory Coast get through they will probably play Costa Rica, that should be a good match, but I would put my money on Costa Rica. If Algeria get through they will probably play Germany and almost certainly be eliminated.
It's a slight improvement on four years ago when 5 out of 6 went out in the first round, but not much.
I forgot about Nigeria, if they get through they'll play France and also probably lose.

what an ignorant post

Brazil are favouriites at 10/3, Germany and Argentina at 4/1 with France at 8/1 and Holland at 11/1. France might be worth a punt at those odds.