Hub of Cricket Information

Such is the nature of knockout competition, especially in team sports, that the pre-tournament favorite rarely wins. Consider the NCAA basketball tournament. In the past thirty years, the school ranked top in the Associated Press's last pre-March Madness poll actually went on to become national champion on just four occasions (Duke did it in 1992 and 2001, UCLA in 1995 and North Carolina in 1982). Soccer is no different.

While the FIFA world ranking may be imperfect, it's the only measure we have of the relative strength of soccer nations. And, since its creation in 1992, FIFA's index—which, admittedly relies on statistical data rather than the subjective opinion of AP poll voters in college basketball—has proved to be an extraordinarily poor predictor of World Cup success. Four World Cups have been played since the FIFA ranking was introduced, and the top nation at the start of the tournament has never actually gone on to win it. In 2006, two of the pre-World Cup top-10 reached the semifinals, and in 2002 and in 1998, just one did. (The 1994 campaign was rather more successful, with three of the four semifinalists ranked in the top-10.)

But even prior to the FIFA ranking system, favorites have tended to underperform at the World Cup. In fact, you probably have to go back to West Germany in 1974 to find the last time a country was universally tipped for success and delivered the World Cup.

None of this bodes too well for Brazil and Spain, the top two teams in the FIFA index and most pundits' favorites. They may be the two best sides in the world, but there are enough speed bumps and pitfalls along the way that they probably won't win the tournament.

Under coach Carlos Dunga, himself a no-frills defensive midfielder, this Brazil is a far cry from the carefree, all-out attacking sides of yesteryear. (In fact, with the exception of the 2006 team—which flopped—Brazil hasn't lived up to its "joga bonito" stereotype since the 1980s.) Dunga's Brazil is predicated upon a watertight defense—marshalled by goalkeeper Júlio César and hulking centerback Lúcio—and a hard-working midfield. Of course, this is still Brazil, so there is still flair and technique aplenty. But playmaker Kaká—who is coming off a disappointing season but remains one of the best in the world—will have to work a bit harder to keep the goals rolling in at the offensive end of the pitch.

Spain, reigning European champion, has taken over Brazil's mantle as the most entertaining side around. The midfield is packed with smallish, creative passers—led by the magnificent Xavi—who weave intricate patterns and befuddle opponents and, up front, David Villa and Fernando Torres are two of the most prolific forwards in the world. The concern, perhaps, is that Spain's midfielders are all a bit too similar to each other and that, top to bottom, there is a certain lack of size and physicality, which could lead it to get bullied off the pitch by a more muscular opponent.

Nit-picking? Possibly. And it's true that most of the other nations have equally big nits to pick. Argentina is blessed with a boatload of talent up front—two out of Lionel Messi, Diego Milito, Gonzalo Higuaín, Sergio Agüero and Carlos Tévez will likely be on the bench, even though they would be starters for most other teams—and is solid throughout, but coach Diego Maradona is an unknown quantity whose tenure has been marked by erratic choices and volatile behavior (his foul-mouthed rant at reporters after qualifying earned him a suspension from FIFA). Mr. Maradona straddles the line between genius and folly: As a player he clearly leaned toward the genius side; as a coach the jury is most definitely still out.

England, inventor of the game, made Fabio Capello the highest-paid coach in the world in the hopes that his pedigree (nine league titles in 15 seasons) would exorcise the demons of underachievement that have plagued it in the past. Mr. Capello has restored confidence and single-mindedness, but giving the English a top-shelf goalkeeper or depth in attack is beyond even his considerable powers.

Holland was 8-for-8 in qualifying and boasts two of the best players in the Champions League in Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben, but the back four looks shaky and unremarkable. Italy, the defending world champion, is an aging team that is probably overreliant on the men who delivered the World Cup four years ago. Germany has been hit by an injury crisis in midfield, is stuck with uninspiring striking corps and 2010 may be too soon for some of its starlets (Mesut Özil, Thomas Müller) to fully shine. France advanced to the final in 2006, but coach Raymond Domenech, already at loggerheads with public opinion, is running out of miracles. Losing to China in a friendly Friday did little to change the widespread belief that Les Bleus are on the slide.

So much for the traditional powers. Portugal boasts the world's most expensive player in Cristiano Ronaldo, but struggled through qualifying and it remains to be seen whether he can carry the side. Mexico could turn a few heads, but lacks a cutting edge up front, despite the fact that striker Javier Hernández looks like the real deal.

The fact that the tournament is, for the first time, being held in Africa has raised expectations for African teams, particularly Ivory Coast, whose lineup boasts a string of star names, none more so than Didier Drogba. But Mr. Drogba broke his arm in a friendly on Friday and is doubtful and Ivory Coast—which has looked too much like 11 individuals rather than a team—is stuck in a very tough group with Brazil and Portugal. Nigeria and Ghana, traditional African powerhouses, have both lost their midfield generals—John Obi Mikel and Michael Essien, respectively—to injury, though the Ghanaians seem better equipped to deal with the loss. All told, the best African bet might be Cameroon, a team that has traditionally shattered negative stereotypes in terms of tactical nous and organization. It's unlikely to be Algeria or the host nation, South Africa, which, despite a stellar midfield combo in Teko Modise and Steven Pienaar, looks thin at the back and up front.

And the U.S.? A year ago, it shocked the world by upsetting Spain and playing Brazil close in the Confederations Cup. But those feats probably speak more to the fact that, in a one-off game, tactical nous and individual exploits can subvert conventional wisdom. Still, the U.S. has more than enough to advance to the knockout stage at which point, a shock result, like the one witnessed last year, wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

If history tells us anything, this is bound to be another unpredictable World Cup that neither of the two clear-cut favorites—Spain and Brazil—will win. But, like March Madness, that doesn't mean it will be any less entertaining.

Every four years FIFA introduces an official World Cup ball. And, like clockwork, players—usually goalkeepers—complain about it loudly. The Jabulani, designed and manufactured by Adidas, was described as "appalling" by Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas, while Júlio César said it was the kind of ball you might buy "in a supermarket." The main complaint is that the ball's trajectory once in flight is erratic and unpredictable, making life very difficult for goalkeepers.

Of course, there was the same doom-and-gloom mongering around previous World Cup balls, like the Teamgeist (2006) and the Fevernova (2002), but, once the tournament began it was largely forgotten. One would expect the same to happen this time around. After all, like its predecessors, Jabulani conforms to FIFA's specifications. And, even if it's flight is a bit screwy, it's worth remembering that nobody will have an advantage: After all, in any given match, both teams will be playing with the same ball.

Gabriele Marcotti is the world soccer columnist for The Times of London and a regular broadcaster for the BBC. His column normally appears on Sundays. Write to him at gabriele.marcotti@gmail.com.