I've pretty much watched all (or part of all) of the World Cup so far. I've either seen every match to this point or at least seen large portions of each match in between getting ready for work in the morning. Yesterday, after having viewed enough games, I realized that this tournament (as far the level of sport being played on the field) so far hasn't really been that great. There haven't been many goals, and the overall quality of what I'm seeing isn't the best. However, the coverage by ESPN has been outstanding - dare I say "world class". We are finally getting a dedicated effort by a broadcaster in this country.
There are many reasons you could explain the level of the competition so far. Many of the reasons are valid. First, the teams are cautious as this is their first game. Second, the much publicized ball. Third, some of the games are being played at altitude - some approaching the level of Denver but most about half that and some at sea level. Fourth, those amazingly annoying vuvuzelas that drown out even the communication between players and players with their managers.
The WFD podcast today interviewed Martin Tyler (you may have heard him commentate a few games). Besides confirming what I've said above about the goals scored and the level of play on the field, he made an interesting point about the World Cup. Top to bottom, the 32 teams in the Champions League are probably better then the 32 teams in the World Cup. He is exactly right...I've just never thought of it that way before. Growing up I always thought that the World Cup was supposed to represent the best of the sport. In reality, it's not. Compare this to the NBA and Olympic basketball. It's the exact same. The NBA is where the best play basketball and where the best basketball is played. Every four years, each player leaves his team to represent his country. Top to bottom, Olympic basketball (and every other team sport in the Olympics) is not as strong as the NBA. The competition isn't as good and the teams aren't as good. Just as in the Olympics, these countries get limited time together to develop a chemistry despite the each being a very talented player individually.
This is not to say that the World Cup should be overlooked. It's just different. I'm not sure that many people here realize that when they watch a World Cup game they are still not watching the sport at its best or highest level. However, just like the Olympics, there is something more pure about a competition where professional athletes pause to represent their country. Attempting to bring glory to their country goes much farther and is more important then how well the game is played. It's respectable, it's noble, it's more pure, it's not necessarily about watching the game at the very highest level. Add in the fact that this is a global spectacle, and the World Cup takes on a different level of importance despite what happens on the field.
I know that in later rounds when the better teams play each other the quality will vastly improve and some games may even be played at the highest level. I just never realized until now (since I now have seen the sport played at the highest level in Europe) that the World Cup isn't the pinnacle when it comes to quality performances on the pitch. It is the pinnacle, however, on a national scale (like the Olympics)...and that's what makes it worth watching. Entire countries stop when their team takes the field. Some are just happy to be there. Some want a good showing. Some want to win it all. Regardless, there are many other things besides the game being played that make this world tournament for the world's game special.