In addition to my "repressive regimes" theory I've noticed another pattern.
It's based around who has been the aggressor in armed conflict in recent history. The most recent aggressor wins. The theory plays out like this...
Germany versus almost anyone - Germany win.
Germany versus Serbia - Serbia win owing to Serbia's role in the mid nineties balkan conflict and Germany's peace keeping operations in same.
England and USA should both be strong on account of Iraq and, accordingly, they cancel each other out for a draw.
Algeria, Englands opponents tonight are, interestingly, one of only three teams (the others Being Egypt -on account of Suez - and Vietnam) who you would back France against according to this system. Otherwise with the French it's a case of early and humiliating surrender amongst much hand-wringing and bickering. South Africa's victory can be put down to their violent incursions into Namibia during the 70s and 80s.
Argentina - the last war it fought was as the aggressor hence they are a powerful football nation and always beat us until 2002 when we re-found our balls and started invading people again.
Spain's international underacheivement until recently can be put down to the fact that the last war they faught was against themselves... until under Aznar they joined the glorious coalition of the willing and sent troops to Iraq. Suddenly they're European champions.
I can't understand why Russia aren't doing better given their recent history. Perhaps the gods of football regard conflicts taking place within the borders of the Old (and better) Soviet Union as purely internal matters and they are being punished accordingly?
I've spent a lot of time on my own recently.
|