World Cup 2010 / Matthew Walton / 31 March 2009 / Leave a comment

The World Cup is more than a year away but there's already a pretty active market on Betfair as to who will win it, says "Magical" Matthew Walton. And a few interesting questions on the back of it, such as why are England so short in the betting and the likes of the Ivory Coast so big?

Picking the winner of the World Cup. How hard can that be? Just look at the form.

In 18 tournaments since 1930, there have only been 7 different winners - Brazil (5), Italy (4), Germany (3), Argentina & Uruguay (2), England & France (1).

Furthermore, there have only been 9 different countries that have finished as runners-up in the world's biggest soccer competition - Germany (4), Brazil, Italy, Argentina, Holland, Czechoslovakia & Hungary (2), France & Sweden (1).

Allowing for duplicates, that's a list of 11 countries who have contested a World Cup final - and one of doesn't even exist any more! Taken from the list of FIFA world rankings, which details the position of some 207 nations, that's a miniscule 5.3% of the field who have competed in every single edition of the tournament.

Omit the likes of Hungary and Uruguay on the grounds of form, Czechoslovakia on the basis of their disappearance from the map, and it's little more than a roll of the dice as to who lifts the trophy in Johnnesburg's Soccer City Stadium on July 11th of next year.

But as with all matters betting-related, it's one thing finding the winner ... it's quite another to find the value. Hence, we set about the Betfair World Cup - Winner 2010 market with a view to locating the best value nations in the tournament which we soccer purists would still prefer to call 'the greatest show on turf'.

What we've done is taken the countries in the zones in which they qualify for SA2010.

In the case of Africa, who will provide 6 of the 32 teams, qualifying suggests their main hopes are the Ivory Coast ([44.0]), Nigeria ([80.0]), Cameroon ([90.0]), Ghana ([100.0]), the hosts South Africa ([140.0]) and Egypt ([160.0]), the winners of the last two African Cup of Nations.

The prediction of Pele that a side from Africa would win the World Cup before the turn of the century has proven wide of the mark, and it still might be more than a little fanciful to expect any one of these nations to win this time around, but trading opportunities - or back to lays in Betfair parlance - could very well present themselves.

Think back to South Korea's exploits in 2002 on home soil. It proved that good experience of the conditions and home support may result in achieving better results than stats and the quality of your squad may suggest. With this in mind, it's not inconceivable that an African side could go far.

With the likes of Eto'o (Cameroon), Drogba (Ivory Coast) and Essien (Ghana) they possess some of the world's leading talent and there's no doubt that one, and probably more, will play in the knock-out phase of the tournament when anything can happen.

It's asking a lot for South Africa to follow France, Germany, England, Italy and Uruguay and win their own hosted tournament but the Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Egypt all deserve respect.

How much sides from Asia can achieve is open to conjecture. However, Australia ([90.0]) - newly re-configured into this section - Japan ([170.0]) and South Korea ([250.0)] have all made it to the knockout rounds in recent tournaments and all look set to qualify again for next year. Altogether, Asia will send 5 teams to the finals and all remain potentially troublesome opponents in the group stages, and possibly beyond.

The fact remains that no European side has ever won the World Cup outside of Europe. Mind you, of the eight competitions staged in the Americas and Far East since 1930, a European side has made the final on six occasions - 1962, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1994 & 2002 ... the last six times the event has been staged in such climes.

Simply put, world travel and the globalisation of the game have diminished the effect of this phenomenon and, whilst some will base their whole betting strategy upon this statistic, to blindly oppose all of the 13 European countries who make it to South Africa sides simply because of this 'continental theory' could prove costly. It's surely well past its sell-by date.

Don't forget as well, this tournament is being played in July. In South Africa this is the Winter and the coolest time of the year. It'll be warm but it'll be far from unbearable for the Europeans.

Hence, it would be foolish to ignore the world's No.1 ranked team, Spain ([8.0]), purely on this basis. Better to swerve them on account of their shocking World Cup record. The European champions might be unbeaten in 30 matches but their best finish was 4th ... in 1950!

In fact, four of the top ten sides in the world are European and all have never made a world final - Spain ([8.0]), Portugal ([30.0]), Russia ([32.0]) & Croatia ([75.0)] - and, of those, Portugal, Russia and Croatia are hardly setting their qualifying groups alight and may all need the play-offs to progress.

Of the rest, England ([9.6]) have made just three QF's and one SF in the last generation. Patriotic support keeps their price short but what logical, factual or historical reasoning makes England value at a shorter price than, say, Italy ([14.0]), Germany ([14.5]) and France ([22.0])? Even Holland ([16.5]) have a more plausible chance, and they're nearly double the price!

France, it's true, are no shoo-ins to make the finals after a slow start to qualifying but each of Italy, Germany and Holland have the talent and tradition to go well. Each has to offer better value than England, certainly, and Spain, arguably.

Elsewhere in the world, nothing positive can be said about North, Central America & Caribbean along with Oceania. Between them they will send 3 teams to South Africa with only Sven's Mexico ([90.0]) and the USA ([160.0]) making any appeal - much the same as the Asian sides.

No, the main competition for Europe has to come from South America who should send 5 teams to the finals. The continent has provided the winners of half the World Cups to date (9/18) and in Brazil ([6.4]) and Argentina ([6.8]) is home of the two market leaders.

The worry for Argentine supporters is that the golden period of their nation, 1978-1990, has fast faded from memory. The team has made just two QF's in the last four competitions. Moreover, although their gifted side should qualify, talent alone doesn't guarantee success and the installation of Diego Maradona as the team boss will surely go down as one of the best or one of the worst decisions ever.

Furthermore, like Brazil, the notion of the 'team' always seems just a little fragile and prone to collapse. Also, great attacking play will get you qualified from a modest South American section but poor defending will be found out by better forwards than Bolivia and Venezuela can boast.

Are these sides value? As for Brazil, five times winners and twice runners-up, there's a certain logic to their price but to see Argentina trade at almost the same mark is a little baffling. Their recent World Cup record, surely, should see them priced up at twice the price and they look far too short on current form.

Overall, what comes across in studying the World Cup is that whilst certain countries do dominate, given the knockout format, there's the potential for others to progress to the QF's and beyond - think of Portugal, Korea, Turkey and Bulgaria all making SF's since 1994.

On the face of it the worst of the value does appear to be near the top of the market. Each of Argentina ([6.8]), Spain ([8.0]) and England ([9.6]) appearing 'skinny' at best. All offer definite laying possibilities. Of the rest, a host of 'back to lay' options abound with sides from Africa (Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana, Egypt) as well as the seasoned European campaigners (notably Germany, Italy and Holland) looking the best value in the draw.