Despite Germany’s obvious pedigree, most were pessimistic about their chances of doing anything in ‘06. That fact that they celebrated making the semis is proof of that. And it’s no co-incidence that nations like France and England (and Uruguay if you go back to 1930) won their first (and so far only) World Cups as host nations.

Even in ‘94, it was a huge achievement for a USA team with no full-time professional domestic league to even get out of the group.

The concept that host nations often do better than form would suggest isn’t really debatable. And it’s not too much of a jump to suggest that though South Africa are the hosts, African nations as a whole can hope for a boost from the tournament being on the African continent.

Erm… Germany had won two world cups abroad before (as well as the ‘74 WC in Germany), had been four times runners-up (including in the ‘02 WC just before they were hosts in 2006), and had made the Quarter-finals every time since 1982… France had already been third twice and fourth once, despite missing out on the WCs 1990 and 1994.

South Korea is a better example, since South Africa have yet to get out of the groups in a WC. However, if the 2002 WC was good for the Japanese and Korean hosts, it wasn’t memorable for other Asian countries as China and Saudi Arabia both scored 0 goals and lost all their matches. Even Japan’s “good” WC only consisted of making the 1st Round…

In 1994, North American sides didn’t get past the first round, and by the quarter-finals there were 7 European sides and Brazil… So whilst Korea rode the wave in 2002, it’s far from being the “norm” that the hosts get far or that teams from the same continent do well.

Africa’s best chance lies with Ivory Coast come 2010.