Mexico coach Javier Aguirre has turned a chaotic squad, federation into a contender to win in South Africa. (MEXSPORT/OSVALDO AGUILAR Photo via Newscom)

View full size photo »

I'm trying not to be harsh about this.  While the analytics say that Group F is the weakest group, the reality on the ground is different.  

True: Group F has a struggling power (Italy) and possibly the weakest team in the tournament (New Zealand), but it also has a team that can beat anybody (Paraguay) and another that won the deepest group in Europe (Slovakia).

Group A has no team which won their group or confederation.  The seeded team did not even make the last round of regional qualifying.  Two nations are thought dangerous based on talent and history, though neither of those qualities augmented poor performances that left each as controversial playoff qualifiers.  While there is this group has one team that's a legitimate threat to win the tournament, it is a team that has only been in-form for nine months.

In the first of eight pieces on the 2010 World Cup groups, I present the Tribe of Life:  Group A.

Elo - Elo Rating; FIFA - FIFA World Ranking, December 2009; SPI - Soccer Power Index, Silver/Soccernet; SPA - Set Piece Analysts World Cup Power Poll; Avg. - Statistical mean of four measures

By the rankings, this is a strong group.  To have four teams average below a 16 ranking in tournament where that many teams advance?  That's strong.  Unfortunately, that is also a place where the rankings betray reality.

France - As you read the experts tell you how strong Les Blues are, read carefully.  There is a huge difference between these two phrases:  can be good and are good.  

France is demonstrably not good.  They barely won a playoff with an Irish side whose talent is not World Cup-quality (though their coaching and heart are).  They finished second in the weakest group in Europe (where Austria, a team whose inclusion in Euro 2008 caused people to question whether host invites are fair, finished third out of six).  They finished last, behind Romania, in their Euro 2008 group.  

When you look at the results, this team has not played well since before Zidane retired, which begs the question:  How long does a team have to play bad before they are bad?

In my mind, not long, and while you can speculate as to where France will be come June 2010, can we agree that - as of this moment - they are not good?  Because if we can, it makes it easier to talk about the probability of them recovering within the next seven months.

When assessing that, know this team does not like their coach, Raymond Domenech, and Domenech looks destined to be with France in South Africa.

The team underperformed in Germany 2006 before Zidane made the tournament his last hurrah, leading Les Blues to the final.  After Euro 2008's disappointment, Domenech was fired, only to have the French Football Federation rehire him rather than bring on current Marseille manager Didier Deschamps.  

During qualifying, they started slow amidst poor play at the back but turned their campaign around after Thierry Henry stepped-up his control of the squad.  That move led to confrontations between player and coach in each of the last two international breaks, with the press catching the first on tape.  During that disagreement, Henry was heard telling Domenech that the squad lacked any tactical direction in attack.

Is there any greater indictment a player can make of his coach?  Not "your tactics stink." Rather, Henry was saying "you have no tactics."

In the wake of L'Affaire Henry, the little support of a nation that tends to prefer rugby, tennis and cycling has faded, with many in France seeing the team's qualification as unfair.  With the embarrassment of missed qualification behind the players and with a long club season ahead, this team will be in no state for success come June's tournament, especially after 2-3 weeks of training alone with a coach they don't respect.

I hate to be this bold, but France looks destined for a near-repeat of 2002, where Les Blues finished last in their group, earning one point in three matches, famously losing to Senegal to open their tournament. 

Mexico - Despite winning this summer's CONCACAF Gold Cup and surging through the last half of qualifying, Mexico is vastly underrated, partially due to their struggles to start qualifying.  El Tri barely made the last round of regional qualifying, getting through over Jamaica on a tie-breaker.

Those were the dark days of the Sven-Göran Eriksson era.  The former England national team manager was a shock hire by the FMF, and he took the program to unique depths.  In an effort to diversify the program, Erikson "naturalized" a number of foreign players), a move that was wildly unpopular with supporters and undermined his credibility with Mexico's core players.

It was a nadir for a program that has traditionally been the CONCACAF power, and when the Federacíon brought Javier Aguirre back to clean up Eriksson's mess, Mexico reaffirmed their preeminence.  Aguirre had just been (surprisingly) dismissed from Atlético Madrid, where he had guided the colchoneros into UEFA Champions League.  Thus ended an eight-year run in Spain that started with Osasuna, ended after a return to the continent's preeminent tournament, leaving him as one of the more respected coaching names in the league.

In that sense, Mexico got lucky to regain the coach that guided them to the 2002 World Cup (as well as the final of the 2001 Copa América).  With his revitalization of Mexico's spirit and ambition along with his dancing tactical circles around his counterparts throughout the region, Mexico rose from the middle to top of the CONCACAF hexagonal, qualifying for South Africa before the last round of matches, doing it without their best player, with Barcelona's Rafa Marquez out with a knee injury throughout the last part of qualifying.

Ironically, Eriksson's failures, it's been a foreign flare that's taken El Tri to the next level.  In a year that's seen him sold by the world's best club to an English side (that then loaned him to a second division club), Giovanni dos Santos has become a major fixture on the international stage and arguably the best player in his region.  

Aguirre has found a position for him on the wing (most of the time, the right) and has made him dangerous by allowing him to jump into the weak side of attack or crafting space in which he can work.  Since Aguirre came in, the Brazilian-Mexican dos Santos (whose father, Gerardo, was a fixture in Mexican futbol) has scored all five of his international goals.

(Note:  The article originally reported dos Santos as Brazilian-born.  He is not.  Dos Santos was born in Monterrey, and his mother is Mexican.  -rf)

Mexico's style embodies a combination of talent, technical skill, daring and passion that can exploit any flawed side.  Both France and Uruguay are highly flawed, and it will be no surprise to anybody who watched the end of CONCACAF qualifying that Mexico - a team familiar with the rigors of playing at altitude - is a threat to go deep in World Cup 2010.  A nation that has gotten out of its group in each of the last four finals, Mexico could be poised to make history.

Uruguay - There are three reasons people like Uruguay, but they do not overshadow results that make them the most inconsistent team in this tournament.

First, history.  Uruguay has won a World Cup.  In fact, they've won two.  In 1930, Uruguay won the inaugural tournament as a host country that welcomed a group of nations weakened by some European powers' unwillingness to make the long boat trip for an un-established event.  The 1950 event, Uruguay's other win, was the first final held after World War II, where many countries (Germany) were still banned, and there was no final match (instead, there was a final, four team group).  In short: Uruguay's historical success, while a point of pride for the program, is not a reason to think Uruguay strong (topic for another time:  it actually could be seen to work against them).

Second, South American mystique.  You will notice this as people analyze Paraguay and Chile, squads which are mostly unfamiliar to even devoted followers of international soccer.  Despite that relative ignorance, you rarely read or hear analysts questioning the quality of these sides.  That may be because analysts feel these sides are actually good (but if that were the case, we would hear more about them), but I read it as analysts not wanting to doubt a representative from the planet's most talented contintent.

Third, is that talent, but only as it concerns La Celeste.  "Chicks love the long ball" in your American baseball (say those words with a scorning Russian accent, it's fun), but babes love goals, which is why Diego Forlán and Luis Suárez are two of the most attractive footballers on the globe.  Last season, Forlán won the Pichichi in Spain as La Liga's leading scorer.  This season,  Suárez is rating at over a goal-per-match in Holland's Eredivisie.  They are arguably the best striking tandem in the international game, but they overshadow a squad that has some question marks at the back and in midfield.  True, they have players like Diego Lugano and Sebastián Eguren - both quality performers at the club and national team level - but while this squad is talented, they are not as exquisitely talented as their two headlining strikers (and their continent's other powers) portray.

Their talent yields some amazing results, like their win at altitude in Ecuador late in qualifying, putting them on track for the automatic qualification that looked theirs (before Brazil gutted them in Montevideo).  But coach Oscar Tabárez's inability to get that talent to perform to its level also leads to poor results:  losing a win-and-in match in Montevideo against a bad Argentine side.  Within the resulting playoff, Uruguay's talent got them in win in San Juan over Costa Rica, but their inconsistency almost gave the tie away at home.

On talent alone, this team may not be above third, but with their inability to string together consistent performances, they are only slightly better off than the French.  At least, they have their good moments.

South Africa - South Africa did not make the final round of African World Cup Qualifying, a tournament that also serves as the qualification stage for the African Cup of Nations (starts in January).  Sixteen teams make the continental championship.  Twenty teams make the final round of qualifying.  South Africa was not amongst them, getting only seven points from six matches in a Round 2 group that included Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Equatorial Guinea.

Think about that for a minute.  They were no better than the 21st-best finisher in African qualifying.  In fact, per the procedures that sent eight, second-place finishers in the Round 2 groups on to the final qualifying round, South Africa finished last.  They were no better than the 24th best team in qualifying, with their home form including a loss to Nigeria and a draw with Sierra Leone.

In this summer's Confederations Cup, South Africa seemed to redeem themselves: getting out of their group, eventually finishing in fourth place.  Their quartet, however, included Spain, New Zealand, and Iraq, and the Bafana Bafana couldn't beat Iraq.  While the team played well in subsequent matches against Brazil and Spain, they still lost, giving them a 1-1-3 record for the tournament.

Since, South Africa has fired Joel Santana and rehired Carlos Alberto Parreira, their former coach and the boss of the Brazilian national team during Germany 2006.  With a long and distinguished history of club coaching in Brazil (where has has spent time running almost every major club), Parreira will be coaching in his sixth World Cup, having previously guided Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.  With the Saudis in 1998, Parreira was fired after two matches, having lost 4-0 to a France team that had yet to win their first World Cup.

One improvement Parreira should immediately make is bringing Benni McCarthy back into the team.  Excluded during Santana's reign, McCarthy is by far the squad's leading international scorer (and is within reach of becoming the program's leading scorer ever).  With Blackburn in the English Premier League, he is one of a handful of talents consistently playing at the elite levels of the club game, a list with includes Steven Pinnear (Everton, England), captain Aaron Monoeka (Portsmouth, England), and Bernard Parker (FC Twente, Netherlands).

While South Africa got out of their group in both 1998 and 2002, this is one of the least talented sides in the draw and the weakest seed of the modern (32-team) era.  Yet, because of the group's composition, their seasonal and elevation advantages, and their re cent history in this tournament, South Africa is a decent bet to move on.  

In South America, we see the trouble the sea-level sides have when going to altitude, leading to crazy results like Brazil losing to Bolivia.  South Africa may not be a good side in a vacuum, but in this tournament there are augmenting factors.

Worthless Predictions

June 11, Johannesburg:  South Africa 2, Mexico 2 - I wonder how a player like Gio dos Santos plays in his first World Cup match, and I wonder how a very good Mexican team adjusts to the South African winter.

June 11, Cape Town:  Uruguay 1, France 1 - When the talents in attack out-weigh abilities at the back, only lack of organization and ambition keep this score down.

June 16, Pretoria:  South Africa 1, Uruguay 0 - Uruguay's draw with France keeps their ambition at arm's length.  South Africa is able to keep them off the scoresheet and use some of their aforementioned advantages to create the winning goal.

June 17, Polkwane:  France 1, Mexico 3 - And it isn't that close.  Mexico takes control of the group and finds an ironic path to global attention: embarrassing a revered side that is not that good.

June 22, Rustenburg:  Mexico 2, Uruguay 0 - Mexico will need at least a point to guarantee advancing.  They come out strong, get their first goal, and control an outclassed Uruguayan side.

June 22, Bloemfontein:  France, 0, South Africa 0 - We have seen France have terrible times breaking down bunkered-in sides, and with South Africa on four points coming into this match, the Bafana Bafana will be able to bunker.  France lacks the tactics, precision, or will to break-down an organized and determined side.