Jonathan Wilson / Jonathan Wilson / 29 June 2009 / Leave a comment

Jonathan Wilson looks back over the Confederations Cup and assesses each team's chances in the next big international football tournament - the 2010 World Cup.

The end of Goal!, the official film of the 1966 World Cup, scripted by Brian Glanville, is strangely elegiac. Rather than focusing on England's celebrations, we see a cleaner slowly sweeping the terraces the morning after the final, pushing the tattered rosettes and discarded newspapers into a pile. This, it says, is the aftermath of glory, the grim low after the high, the sense, perhaps, that this great achievement after which you strived might not be worth all that much after all.

David Duval felt something similar after winning the Open in 2001, precipitating a slump from which he has never emerged - although his top-three finish at the US Open this year perhaps suggests he is on the rise again. He is [100.0] to win the Open which begins at Turnberry on July 16.

The same spirit haunts the end of tournaments, even for journalists.

You work at great intensity for the span of the tournament plus the preparation (maybe seven weeks in total for a World Cup; probably three weeks here), talking to and arguing with the same people, travelling vast distances, writing huge amounts and sleeping little (which is why the coffee is so necessary; come on Fifa, sort that out for next year). And then, suddenly, it's over.

There's no great party to mark the end, no climax, no closure. The final, in some ways, is your hardest day of work, what with match-reports, quotes pieces and general overviews to be written. And then, slowly, everybody drifts away from the press-centre. Perhaps you have a drink in the hotel bar, but the truth is that usually you're too tired to socialise. All you want is your bed, and then the flight home so you can get on with seeing your family, watching the bad TV, eating the cheese on toast, or whatever it is that makes your life feel comfortable.

Perhaps the most important lesson from this Confederations Cup is that that feeling is the same after a fortnight-long tournament as it is after a month-long one. Presumably, the adrenaline keeps you going, and the problem comes psychologically as you cross the finish line.

But what else have we learned? Well, Brazil, the champions, are rather better than their early results in qualifying might have suggested.

Dunga, unyielding in the face of criticism, has discovered a happy balance in midfield, and Luis Fabiano has proved himself an exceptional front-man, not merely in terms of his finishing, but his general play holding the ball up and leading the line. Their spirit, meanwhile, is exceptional: late goals and dramatic comebacks are an indication of great heart.

The USA are more of a puzzle. They have an issue with discipline that cost them the game against Italy, and that must be resolved. Then they were ragged against Brazil in the group, superb against Egypt, resilient and disciplined against Spain, and impressive again in the final. Inconsistent they may be, but they could be awkward opponents in the World Cup.

Spain ([5.8] to win the World Cup) are excellent but beatable, and while the absence of Andres Iniesta and Marcos Senna must be taken into account, both Iraq and USA showed they can be frustrated by teams who defend deep in midfield against them. The use of Albert Riera over David Silva perhaps suggests that Vicente del Bosque recognises that and is looking to include a crosser who can exploit Fernando Torres's aerial ability.

The world champions, Italy [14.5] , look stale (six of their players in the 3-0 defeat to Brazil were over 30), and need rejuvenation. Marcello Lippi, arch-pragmatist that he is, will presumably look to damage limitation early on in the World Cup, and try to build up momentum (but then, that has been the Italian way at almost every World cup).

Egypt [240.0] , who may not even make the World Cup, as they scrap for a single place with Algeria and Zambia, remains enigmatic, brilliant on their day, awful on others. New Zealand [1000.0], meanwhile, are desperately limited, and surely will not come through their qualification play-off against either Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.

The hosts, South Africa [120.0], meanwhile, have made points both on and off the pitch. Given the differing scales of the tournaments, it would be rash to draw too many conclusions about their capacity to host the World Cup based on the Confederations Cup but, one or two minor issues aside, this tournament has increased rather than decreased confidence.