The commentators, analysts and politicians all had it wrong. In the beginning, they all decried that the World Cup belonged to Africa.
Of the six African teams at the tournament, only one -- Ghana -- survived the group stage. So, Africa was out.
But wait!
South American teams performed unexpectedly well. In fact, all five South American teams advanced out of the group stage, and the only South American team not in the quarterfinals (Chile), was knocked out by Brazil, from, you guessed it, South America. Out goes Africa, in comes South America.
A supplementary story was also being written as the World Cup moved along, a sad tale chronicling the sudden decline of European football. Seven European teams were knocked out in the group stage and three more were added to the dustbin in the quarterfinals. Europe's place atop the football pyramid was very much in doubt.
But wait!
The fall of South American football was about as rapid as its rise. Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay were each booted out by European teams in the quarterfinals. Thus ended South America's short reign over the football kingdom.
Holland's semifinal victory over Uruguay sealed the deal. The elimination of the sole remaining non-European team guaranteed that a European side will win the World Cup. Come Sunday, the World Cup trophy will be lifted by Dutch, Spanish or German hands. Not bad for a continent lacking of any football talent.
So how did everyone get it so wrong?
For starters, everyone was far too concerned with trivial issues like continental origins and less concerned with the shape of teams heading into the World Cup. The teams that made it to the semifinals (and to a lesser extent, the quarterfinals) had something in common: they were all well organized and disciplined teams that did the little things necessary to win games.
Nothing has been more determinative of success at this World Cup quite like organization. So while you can point to Spain, Holland and Germany and notice that, yes, they are each from Europe, a close observer would also notice they have something else in common. The three teams still in the tournament all operate out of a 4-2-3-1 formation, which is marked by two defensive holding in central midfield, counter-attacking fullbacks, and a lone striker up front supported by a central attacking midfielder and two wingers. Maintaining possession and dominating the midfield are priorities, and the bulk of attacks are created in the outside areas of the attacking third.
While this brand of soccer can be hard on the eyes at times, its track record is hard to argue with. Of the sixteen games Germany, Holland and Spain played in so far at the World Cup, only two have been losses. Holland breezed past Slovakia in the round-of-16, squeezed by Brazil (who also operate a 4-2-3-1) in the quarterfinals, and survived a tight game against Uruguay in the semifinals. Spain and Germany each lost one game in the group stage, but rebounded and advanced to the semifinals. The winner of their game will face Holland in the finals.
One of the reasons the 4-2-3-1 works so well is that every player on the team is left with specific and easy to follow instructions. The center backs and defensive midfielders look to defend and rarely go forward, while the outside fullbacks advance up the pitch on overlapping or counterattacking situations. When the fullbacks do move forward, the wing midfielders are expected to track back and provide defensive cover. The central attacking midfielder has the most freedom on the pitch, and can support the midfielders in working the ball up the pitch or play off the central striker. The foundational idea, if there is one, is to limit your opponents scoring chances by denying them the ball.
This strategy was put on brilliant display during Germany's 4-0 trashing over Argentina. If talent alone wins soccer games, Argentina surely would have won. Their attacking combination of Gonzalo Hiquain, Lionel Messi and Carlos Tevez is one of the most potent collections of goal scorers in the world, and their midfield of Javier Mascherano, Angel Di Maria and Maxi Rodriguez isn't bad either.
But against Germany they might as well have all been replaced with circus clowns. Germany dominated possession, knocking the ball around the midfield seemingly at will. On defense they shut down Messi and Tevez, which left Hiquain isolated and very alone (did he ever touch the ball?). The game was a perfect example of how the tournament has gone so far. Organization trumps individual talent and the 4-2-3-1 is all but invincible.
So remember, it's not Europe's World Cup (or Africa's or South America's, for that matter), the tournament really belongs to the 4-2-3-1.
This goes for Europe and South America partisans. South America looked good on the strength of about 3-4 games, the group stage games and the round of 16. Europe looked good on the strength of three quarter-final performances and one semi, and three of the four were close games that could have easily gone either way with a little luck or a different offsides call. Only Germany-Argentina was a decisive blowout from a clearly superior team (whether you think it was organization or personnel).
Everyone proclaiming it was South America's or Europe's World Cup needed to chill out - there is no accepted definition of what constitutes "dominance," whether it is group games, quarter-finals or even the final (the only thing that most people remember anyway). Both continents did well depending on what metric you used. The one thing that is clear is that African teams certainly did not fulfill expectations, but perhaps these were not very realistic to begin with.
Case in point: Wayne Rooney. He may be spectacular when he plays for Man United - but when he plays for his club he is surrounded by the cream of international talent.
In the Germany-England game, all you had was Wayne Rooney, surrounded by 10 other Englishmen.
I would add two other factors 1): Injuries and fatigue from the long club season. The English Premier League is particularly troublesome. Of the major players left who play in England, Torres and van Persie have been sub-par or less than 100 percent fitness. Only Kuyt and Heitinga look good. It may be no coincidence that all the German players are in the Bundesliga and most of the Spanish players play in their home country.
2) Team chemistry. (This dovetails with your point about discipline and organization.) Even though national teams play sporadically throughout the year, they don't have the practice and playing time to get the players in sync with one another that club teams have. Plus you have the problems of egos and players used to being stars who have to take a lesser role. The fact that six of Spain's starters are with Barcelona -- and they play a Barca style -- no doubt has contributed to their success. The fact that Germany has so many young players who not yet superstars (yet appear to have superstar-level talent) no doubt has helped them, too.
Little things include handballs, diving and pretending goals by the other team didn't count. ;
Spain is the only team in the semis that never did any of this. Viva Spain!
The lesson of this Cup is that organization and discipline will always triumph over talent and passion.
And i would put it more broughtly, its not the thriumph of the 4-2-3-1 its the thriumph of tactical flexebility. Its no surprise that the top-"runners" in every Germany Game were Germans.