The World Cup form book was thrown out the window as established teams fell to previous nobodies. Alaa Abdel-Ghani reviews an egalitarian event If it's any comfort to purists, who dubbed it the Third World Cup, a familiar name won the tournament. Brazil, which gave us Pele, canary yellow jerseys and Copacabana blondes as a supporting cast, erased the nightmare of four years ago to capture an unprecedented fifth title. On the losing end was Germany, another favourite son of the old school. Ironically then, in a World Cup remembered for upsets, the two most successful teams in the history of the competition met in the final. But the finalists were modest imitations of the many fine Brazilian and German teams of old. Both toiled to qualify and this rendez-vous in the final was considered a long shot a month ago. Germany rarely entertained, was ponderous and unimaginative, and preached football values using one of the German language's favourite words: ordnung, or order. Brazil arrived in Asia without a prayer, led by a philistine who tried to persuade his players that kicking, smothering and even punching opponents was the modern way to success. It appeared that the 'beautiful game', on which Brazil took out a patent long ago, was about to turn ugly. But coach Luiz Felipe Scolari soon relented, dumping his free-for-all philosophy of success at any cost while Germany's football without frills ultimately proved good enough to see it take a methodical place in the final. In other years this would have been a predictable meeting of the two most accomplished nations in football. In 2002, though, it was a confrontation between two lacklustre teams who were lucky to qualify and, once they got to Korea and Japan, were luckier still as the underdogs cleared the way for them. Senegal was not supposed to beat France, South Korea was not supposed to beat Italy and Spain, and the US was not supposed to beat Portugal. This World Cup constantly defied logic. Who would have thought France and Argentina would not leave the starters' gate? Who could have predicted Turkey and Korea, both of whom had never won a game in a World Cup, would come within one match of the final? The teams that flourished relied on teamwork and athleticism rather than flair. They had astonishing stamina, running like men possessed. Semi- finalists Korea and Turkey outran and outhustled rather than outplayed their opponents, ultimately outlasting every reasonable expectation. Millionaires, many over-30, many complacent and cozy, were left in the dust. Their sub-par performances were the biggest disappointment of the tournament. Whether it was injury, weariness or overconfidence the big names -- Zidane, Figo, Veron, Totti -- never surfaced. Their colleagues constantly waited for one of them to resolve the game single- handedly but the interventions never came. Losers cried conspiracy, claiming they were cheated out of victory by referees over generous to the co- hosts, and to South Korea in particular. Claims of corruption are the natural response of losers. No one, save the whiners, seriously suggested that officials conspired to ensure that Korea -- why Korea and not Japan? -- progressed. Referees did err, some of the decisions were outrageous, but if the referees made mistakes so, too, did the strikers in front of the goal. The uproar over refereeing failed to change FIFA's mind that this is a game for humans, not machines. But in a World Cup hampered by errors FIFA badly needed an authoritative performance for the end game and got it from Italian referee Pierluigi Collina, who gave a faultless display. FIFA also had the solace of a brilliantly staged World Cup, the first to be co-hosted and the first in Asia. Japan and South Korea, colonial oppressor and oppressed, smiled long enough for the cameras to manage an impression of a virtually problem-free tournament. Hooligans never reached their shores. Whether the prohibitive cost of long-distance travel kept troublemakers away or efficient police work stopped them from coming in, no shops were gutted, no cars were overturned, no family had to lock up its daughters and nobody had to run for the hills. In this feel-good cup, most people were concerned with cleaning up rather than tearing down their cities. This was not the most aesthetically pleasing World Cup. There were a few good games but not many great ones. Ronaldo laid the ghost of France '98 to rest and goalkeeper Oliver Kahn was voted the tournament's best player, but there were no real stars. This was a World Cup about teams, how the sum is greater than parts, how the stellar runs of some owed everything to old- fashioned teamwork, how preparation and persistence still count. Only 2006 will tell whether such teams were a flash in the pan or will be back for more. This has been a defining World Cup. Never again will any of the established football powers be able to presume victory. From now on they will have to work for it.
