This is the first part of the essay, I shall post other parts in time.


Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
_{Bob Marley, Redemption Song}


As long as the mind of the Nigerian remains untransformed, drives by the Nigeria Federal Government to promote the country’s image are doomed to failure and may remain nothing more than a waste of resources. The measure of a person is not in the noise the person makes, but in the person's actions. After all, an empty container makes the loudest noise, and the proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating.

But what is this Nigerian mind that needs changing?

The Nigerian mind is as metaphorically plain and uninspiring as the nation's aesthetically barren flag.

The flag exemplifies the lack of imagination and astuteness that plague the nation, which is magnified by the fact that the flag came about through a national competition, with the design selected as the best of the best! Before I am condemned for lack of patriotism, I should make my point:

What this analogy illustrates is the average mindedness and the lack of creativity that attend those that direct the affairs of the nation. The collective mind of the nation remains stunted and unenlightened. This is not an indictment on the educatedness of the Nigerian, no. Nigeria does have her own share of professors. The question is, how have they impacted the Nigerian society?

One can be in error concerning the distinction between enlightenment and educatedness (this last being simply book knowledge that fails to transform) and think that the Nigerian problem stems from an uneducated ruling elite. Simple evaluation, however, debunks the notion. One needs only to read the manifestos of newly elected or appointed officials to realize that the problem lies not in the lack of projective imagination (count the many visions so and so over the decades) but elsewhere.

Further, were this problem of education, we would at least see a measure of difference in the ministries and parastatals of professors appointed to governmental offices. The common denominator regarding these professors is that, in so far as they remain classroom teachers, they voice incessant criticism of the Nigerian system, but no sooner are they appointed to governmental positions than they out-thieve and out-graft the barely educated officials.

The vicious circle of corruption is so persistent, consistent, and pervasive that one wonders whether or not the Nigerian bent to corruption is not as inherent as his/her DNA.

Furthermore, the mind of the Nigerian is so warped that it seems incapable of planning for the future, beside the empty gestures of drawing manifestos not intended for execution in the first place. Similarly, this mind seems capable of singing only one song, and believe me, it is not the National Anthem. You hear it after every election cycle. It begins:

Now I may reap from the fields I've not sown,
Steal from the nation my greed to enthrone!
Now that I'm a kleptocratic elite,
Tell, how best may I embezzle and cheat?

But less we remain in the realm of high-flown abstraction, we should illustrate this point by concrete examples.

Let's examine an area that is surely dear to Nigerians: Football.

The World Cup debacle illustrates this seeming inherent bent to corruption. First, it was the thieving of not less than $200,000 dollars from the coffers of the NFF, meant for the Super Eagle’s Africa qualifier match against Mozambique; then there was the fiasco of the substandard hotel the NFF booked for the Eagles, which one can only assume was a ploy to save money on accommodation to be later siphoned into their own pockets; this was followed by the plane incident which resulted in the Eagles being stranded for 24 hours in London.

According to a report in Kick Off Magazine on-line (posted on 01-06-2010), the NFF had acted against the directives of the Sport Minister in chartering the ill-fated airline. The incident smacked of venality.

What becomes apparent very quickly is that what occupies the mind of the average Nigerian official is not how to advance the national agenda or how to find ways to help the citizenry but how to find ways to embezzle national funds. In fact, corruption is so entrenched in the system that public officials no longer steal by stealth.

The attempt by the NFF to send a 200-member "official" delegation to the World Cup, the institution of 14 committees for the tournament as if they were the host, the chartering of a plane by the members of the congress, that nearly crashed, on the pretense of going to South Africa to “support’ the president; all illustrate this corruptible mentality, which creates an appearance of duty but is however a ruse to divert money into private pockets.

All these are so glaring and apparent that Nigerians are no longer fooled by these pretenses. For instance, the very name "committee" is synonymous to embezzlement in the collective consciousness.

In examining the question of planning, the above-mentioned situations are good examples of the gross ineptitude of Nigerian leaders. Take the hotel incident. Common sense knows that in competitions, every advantage matters. It is baffling then that the NFF, which had stated its intent for the World Cup as winning it all, would book such a disadvantageous accommodation for the players.

The reappointment of coach Shuaibu Amodu after his disappointing run with the Super Eagles in 2002 is equally baffling, only outdone by his sack at the eve of the competition. Every turn the NFF made in the months leading to the tournament exposed a lack of basic planning, a fact that almost cost us a place in the competition.

Since such international competitions as this have a precise recurring calendar, one would imagine that this fact would afford an opportunity for those in charge of these affairs to make attendant concise and specific plans towards achieving the goal of winning said competitions, or at least, plan to make great impact at these competitions. Not so with Nigeria.

There is seldom any laid out plan, and if any, such plans exist in name only, hence the chaos that reign at the eve of every competition. Expect the frittering away to waste the four years we now have at our disposal to reboot for the next World Cup. What is sure is that there will be another sacking of a coach, the stealing of more money, and a return of disorder.

Watch out for Part II, and please leave comments

Our premier leagus should also be develop,we av lots companies who can sponsor our team,matches etc,i was at behind Teslim Balogun stadium one day,when NPA players arrived from training pitch and most of them begin to soak garri to drink that afternoon.This is bad.

That's exactly part of the problem which is a shame. The NFF is simply the face of the pervasive rot in sport administration in Nigeria.

One of my hopes is that some of our former football stars would get involved in sport administration, not necessarily at the national level as Okocha is trying to do, but at club level--become chairmen of domestic clubs or some such thing (however feasible that may be, though I know it is not impossible) . Perhaps being former players themselves, they'd be sympathetic to the plight of domestic players.

That is a great post from you. The era of instant gratification for Nigeria as a country in every aspect of our lives must stop. The only reason why people will lik the Amodu style of coaching is because of the backward thinking of instant gratification which will only give them a short term success. Football development is it and that is what it should be if we must achieve anything meaning and sustainable in the football circle. We should retain Largs for at least another 4years to develop our football because that is what we need. We could see the improvement in the super Eagles play in his short time but that is not enough we should allow him develop the team to an unbeatable state and to achieve that we need development programmes like the likes of brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, Holland and the rest of world football powers

Thank you. I sincerely believe that sacking Lagerback would be a mistake, and it would only begin the same cycle of hiring and firing anew. This is not to say that I'm an advocate of foreign coaches necessarily.

Were it Siasia or Keshi who had taken over from Amodu and had only a little less than three months to prepare the Eagles for the World Cup, I wouldn't blame our failure on them either. I would advocate the same thing: build a new team of home based players primarily. This will accomplish two things: It will afford us an opportunity to begin development anew, and it is a way to develop new players.

Some are using strawmen arguments to the tone that Lagerback did not qualify Sweden for the present World Cup and thus he is a bad coach.  The question is, how does this supposed failure fit into his record as a whole? World class coaches such as Guus Hiddiink, Luis Van Gaal, Aimé Jacquet, Felipe Scolari, et cetera have all had their set backs at one point or the other. That does not take away from their successes. Or should we say that since Siasia's under 23 team was a failure last year at the  world championship in Egypt he is therefore a bad coach?

I still  maintain that Nigerians have a penchant for knee-jerk reaction to situations rather than using their heads. Employ Siasia, and let him have two a three defeats and the myopic nationalists would be calling for his head.

To add or support this write up,it took Westerhof 5years to perfect 1994 squad,because most of them have been playing for Nigeria before his arrival.
In light of this,this coach should be allowed to continue his job

Exactly right.

The Eagles of 1990, who would eventually become the Eagles of 1994 were 97% home based. They went abroad after they had been playing for Nigeria and at the peak of their careers. This is a big difference from what is happening today.

Much as Nigerian fans would like to scapegoat midfielder Sani Kaita for his hotheaded but daft kick out at Greece's Vassilis Torosidis in their Group B match at Bloemfontein, which resulted in his being sent off and ultimately to the shifting of momentum in favor of the Greek, the  disappointing run of the Super Eagles at the ongoing World Cup is not ultimately the fault of the hapless player.

One can cite many examples in which a team, reduced to ten men, reorganizes and weathers the setback. There are times, in fact, when the team at disadvantage goes on to win a match. Inter Milan against Chelsea in their Champions League match is a recent example.

Another example from the ongoing World Cup is the ten-man Australia that matched Ghana strength for strength, even dominating the game. And except for a momentary lapse in concentration which allowed a goal, ten-man Germany could have won or drawn their match against Serbia. They were certainly the most enterprising side even with ten men.

The Nigerians on the other hand completely fell apart after Kaita was sent off. Pressure on the ball when Greece had it was none existent. They played a peculiar marking style in which their middle four  would retreat to the final third of their halve, allowing Greece all the time to think on the ball and execute their passes and shots. Inevitably, some of those shots were bound to register, and they did.

This lack of pressure on their opponent was present in their first match against Argentina. Christian Chukwu a former coach of the team has noted this as reported in Kick Off magazine on-line.

In his words: “That is the major fault we have. We give a lot of space to our opponents to operate; we don't press them. We must press. And when we have the ball, we are not mobile. We don’t move into space to receive balls. So if they come out to play, they have to be mobile. They must all press at the same time to get the ball and go on the counter-attack.”

Diego Maradona, the coach of Argentina, had noted this, after their match with Nigeria, saying that Nigeria  "on this occasion,  let us off the hook." What is obvious is that the Nigerian Eagles are not playing well, and the cycle of blame has begun.

"Everybody thinks we have good players in Europe, and don't need to prepare,"  says Amos Adamu to the BBC's African sport programme "Fast Track".

He continues: "Even if you give us 10 years to prepare, it will be the same because up till now many of these countries don't recognise professionalism in their preparations; one of the problems we must get right here in Africa is that we need to plan ahead. Because if you don't plan ahead, you're planning to fail."

This is all well and good and addresses the main problem of African football, but what readers may not know is that Adamu  himself is part of the elites of African sport administration. He has been involved in Nigeria's sport administration for about a decade or more. One wonders then at whom this finger of blame points.

Some, like Martin Osaile, another Nigerian sport administrator, think the Eagles' bad spell is karma catching up for the sack of coach Shuaibu Amodu, just five months to the World Cup, after he had successfully qualified Nigeria for the tournament. He feels the Nigerian Football Federation should apologize to the coach to ensure a return of good fortune.

Former Nigerian football star, Austin "Jay-Jay" Okocha echoes the sentiments of Amos Adamu, blaming Nigeria's shoddy preparation for the finals and the ill-timed appointment of Swedish coach, Lars Lagerback, for the Eagles' unimpressive showing.

“All of us back home in Nigeria knew that this group of players would not get anywhere from the start," he is quoted as saying in PM News.  "Their preparations were nothing to write home about while the Swede manager was brought into the fold too late," he continues. "The performance of the Eagles in South Africa is disgraceful and not acceptable. I feel very sad that the majority of Nigerians are here watching the Eagles in this terrible condition.”

Nigeria Internet sites such as Nairaland and the Nigerian Village Square have become riveted with calls for the sack of Lagerback since Nigeria's loss to Greece. This is not surprising but typical of Nigeria's reactionary custom. A similar clamor for the sack of coach Amodu followed the Eagles disappointing run at the Africa Cup of Nation, which eventually prevailed.

If anything, this shows how short the attention span of Nigerian fans and administrators is. In 2002, the same Amodu in question was sacked from the Eagles' job at the eve of the Korea-Japan World Cup. Worse, the then Eagles were disbanded.  Nigeria's run at that tournament was disappointing as well. It is therefore déjà-vu all over again.

With the cycle of blame and reaction beginning all over again, it is obvious that Africa is a long way off from solving her administrative problems. One would think that the apparent thing to do is to mandate  coach Lars Lagerback to build a new team for Nigeria. But no: Nigerians know nothing beside shouting for the sack of coaches even when a particular problem is not a coaching problem.

This is not surprising. When one lacks innovative ideas what options has he or she but a knee-jerk reaction? At the risk of sounding tedious, let me, again, state the obvious. The way to go now for Nigeria is to mandate coach Lars Lagerback to build a new team rather than sacking him and beginning the cycle of interviews and appointment again, wasting valuable time that  an on-ground coach could use to scout for new players.

Very soon qualifying matches will begin for the next Africa Cup of Nation, which will take place two years from now. The sooner Nigeria begins building a new team, the better. Winning a the next AFCON is a good goal to set right away.

A word to Nigerian fans: stop this senseless clamor for the sack of  Lagerback and use your heads for once. A word to the wise, they say, is enough.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/408980-cycle-of-blame-begins-as-nigerias-eagles-disappoint

ESPN commentators went beyond acceptable language on air when commenting on the soccer match between the USA and Slovenia. They employed such terms as silly and slow to describe the Malian official, the first black referee so far in the competition.

Granted, the pro USA commentators would be annoyed about the disallowed goal, but the decision could have gone either ways. Both sides were pulling and tugging in the penalty box, it wasn't just  the Slovenians that were guilty.

Was Findley's handball intentional or not? Tough call. Referees do get such calls wrong but that hardly made referee Koman Coulibaly an exception.

According to ESPN commentators, most of referee Koman Coulibaly's calls in the game were wrong and horrible. But if you take a census of the major calls in the game beside the disallowed goal and the handball by Findley, most of those went against Slovenia who got four yellow cards to the USA's one. Were this commentators protesting those?
And why didn't they call the Spanish referee in the German-Serbian game silly or slow when he destroyed the match by an excessive use of yellow cards?

As an African sensitive to centuries-long racial terms such as these, which insinuate that blacks are silly and slow, I take exception to these terms being used on air to describe a referee who happens to be black.

Don't get me wrong. I do not protest objection against bad officiating, I object the use of vitriolic terms on air, terms that happen to have racial and stereotypical connotations.

I call on ESPN to caution its commentator

This is an objection I tend to lodge with ESPN, does anyone know where I might post this complain to ESPN?

This forum's protest against BBC regarding their profile on the Super Eagles, where they connected the team with 419, worked. Perhaps, I can get other forum members to join in lodging this complain?

Tell me that I'm not wrong on my assessment of this situation.

My goodness! You are indeed dumber than a sack full of hammers! ! !

Am I?

Don't you think you display here the worst in Nigerians? Silence the say is the best answer, but one last thing: I suggest you work on your manners, you'd benefit greatly!

I guess bumbling out unnecessary big words makes a good,logical and objective argument to you.Hmmm. . .if you know how pathetic you sound, you would feel sorry for yourself. I know your type though.They come a dime a dozen.

If you were confident in your ability to make clear and convincing arguments, there would be no need for you to resort to disrespectful language. From this brief exchange, who do you suppose will come off as a bumbling fool?

I love your report on the game but I will like to correct you on one point you raised : All Greece need to do now to qualify for the second round is to avoid a heavy defeat from Argentina and hope for a Nigerian victory over South Korea by a single goal.


This is wrong. Even a goal defeat for Greece will put them on 3 points and -2. And a goal victory for Nigeria will put us on 3 points and -1. TThen south korea will be on 3 points and -2. SO NIGERIA WILL QUALIFY

Fair enough, and thanks.

Do you think though that we deserve to qualify?

Please you went to school.

Look who is talking about school! I suggest you learn the rules of grammar and construction before you can even begin to challenge my objection. You obviously lack manners and ability to make constructive argument, hence your deplorable language. Typically Nigerian!

All of you that want to start a coaching war, and yes, that includes you, harakiri, only confirm what is wrong with Nigeria: Inability to think logically and objectively, and  a lack of clue as to the problem or solution of a particular matter or situation. That's why we are in the present mess. Meaning that you are no better than the football administrator we all criticize or  the players or the very coaches you want to crucify. Barely six months ago many of you (the same persons now baying for Lagerback's head) were clamoring for the sack of Amodu and for a new coach, and now you are doing the same again. Not everything is a coaching problem, and the solution of our present situation lies neither with a domestic or foreign coach necessarily.

I suggest that if someone does not have a constructive thing to say on a subject, he or she had better kept quite. Learn to analyze situations critically before posting vitriolic  threads.

There is no doubt that there are well-meaning football fans on this site, and I am sure that most are frustrated by the current state of our national football. What can be done about this situation? Please, read my analysis here: http://sinyoar..com/

I will keep posting this invitation to generate a reading so that as concerned Nigerian we may perchance do something about the situation. Be sure to leave your comments when you read the article. The title of the article is "Decline of Nigeria's Super Eagles: Reasons and Way to Recovery." Scroll to the end of the page to find it.

Let's have a lively and meaningful discussion about this and see what we can do about the situation.

spot on! what i saw today was heart attack football at its best

I should tell you, brother, that though I pride myself as usually in control of my emotions when watching a soccer game, I was breathing murder today as I watched the Eagles even when we were leading. What annoys me is the delusion that is blinding most fans, preventing them from seeing the sorry state of our football at present.

Actually, I am posting the whole review here. Let me hear your thoughts.

Find my preview of the match here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/407454-nigeria-vs-greece-a-preview

It will give a background for this review.

Nigeria 1, Greece 2


An upset it was in the end if you watched the match as a Nigerian. I do not think it was, really. I had expected Nigeria to start brightly, they however approached the game in the same manner they did against Argentina: lackadaisical in approach as though nothing was at stake. They got a lucky goal at the 16th minute through a spot kick by Kalu Uche, but it was a lead I didn't think would hold because of the absence of energy from the Nigerians.


I suspect people will point to the send off of Sani Kaita in the 33rd minute as the turning point of the game, which is probably true, but the Nigeria I saw from the opening whistle was not a team that I thought had anything to show in the competition. Their most ardent fans will still be hoping for the team's progress to the round of sixteenth if they are able to beat South Korea in their final group match on Tuesday. Nothing that I have seen in their two games so far points to this outcome.


In their match against Argentina, Nigeria played a peculiar defensive style in which they marked spaces rather than players. Peculiar because almost without fail the four midfielders preferred to bunch up in the second quarter of their own halve, allowing the Argentineans all the room they needed to think on the ball and execute their shots and passes. It was a similar case today. This led to the two goals Greece scored. True, the first goal was a deflection and the second a rebound, but in both cases, had the Super Eagles put pressure on the Greek, the shots that resulted into goals might not have been taken. Despite being brilliant in goal and making excellent saves as in the first match against Argentina, the one rebound from his save that led to the second goal is always going to be blamed on goalkeeper Vincent Enyeama. Otherwise, without doubt, it was again a man-of-the-match performance for him.


Greece were not fantastic, but their one man advantage for most of the match and Nigeria's reluctance to challenge players for the ball was enough to give them an edge; the got their equalizer through Dimitrios Salpingidis in 44th minute and the winner in the 71st minute through Vasileios Torosidis. All Greece need to do now to qualify for the second round is to avoid a heavy defeat from Argentina and hope for a Nigerian victory over South Korea by a single goal.


With this scrappy style of play, it is best at this point for Nigeria to be knocked out of the competition; they will only create heartache for their fans if they progress in the competition. Now Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana remain the two beacons of hope for Africa. It is turning out to be a dismal tournament for Africa, a tournament they had touted as holding a home advantage for them. Cote d’Ivoire would need a stellar performance against Brazil to progress and Ghana might just be the wild card for Africa.

Hi fellow fans,

Please read my review here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/407596-nigeria-versus-greece-review

Be sure to leave your comments. Thanks.

This was supposed to be an African world cup, our world cup but truth be told, its not been home sweet home for the African teams.

Lack of planning is the bane of African football. No country exemplifies this more than Nigeria. We had all of four years to get ready for this competition, with its home advantage, but if you look at the preparation of every African country, it's all a shoddy affair. Africans still have a village mindset and are far from ready to compete in the contemporary world.

Nigerians should be prepared for a possible disappointment tomorrow from the Eagles' match against Greece.

South Africa falls 0:3 to Uruguay , courtesy of two goals by Diego Forlan, one from a penalty kick, and Alvaro Pereira. To be fair to Bafana Bafana, they had a good first half if bested by Uruguay, with Diego Forlan marshalling events in the midfield. South Africa's nightmare began when Forlan's shot on goal at the 24th  minute was deflected by Aaron Mokoena,  giving it a needed dip towards goal, leaving goalkeeper  Itumelenge Khune in no man's land as the ball landed in the net.

With much of the first half still to play, and with all of the 45 minutes of the second half to look forward to, hope was still not lost. But on resumption, the superiority of Uruguay became apparent as they completely shut down the midfield, allowing South Africa no leeway. It was a very discipline defensive display by Uruguay, who played a 4-4-2 formation, in which the midfield four moved with precision, the eventual bane of South Africa.

The midfield of Uruguay was an effective answer for Bafana Bafana's style of play which favors individual movement on the ball with quick passes through the middle and out to the flank and then diagonally inward as they approach the last quarter of the opponent's halve. It didn't help matters that South Africa played with a lone striker in the middle. What they needed to have done were two things: a quicker touch on the ball with quick movement off the ball while building the attack from the back deliberately and patiently, and a  utilization of the flanks (rather than their diagonal movements) to stretch out the midfield four as well as the back four of Uruguay. A "V" attack build up from the back while the players on the flank moved off the ball could have drawn out the midfield four, affording South Africa an opportunity to get the ball into the first quarter of Uruguay's halve and out to the flank to be crossed into the goal area.

The send off of goalkeeper Khune for fouling Suarez put paid to South Africa's hope of advancing from the group stage. It will require a fairy tale finish for them in their match against France to advance from the group and even then, France would need to lose to Mexico and Mexico to Uruguay.  All indications point to South Africa's exit in the group stage, which is a shame. The hosts needed to have progressed further in the competition for the sake of the fans at least. After the penalty kick, which resulted in a second goal for Uruguay, there was a mass exodus of South Africa's supporters from the stadium. It remains to be seen whether or not the locals would still attend matches if South Africa is knocked out.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/407215-no-invictus-for-bafana-bafana

Olympic football is a youth tournament. U-23. If its senior national teams then it would be Cameroon playing in the finals of the 2001 confederations cup, Senegal in the 2002 world cup, Ghana in the 2006 world cup and Egypt beating Italy at the last confederations cup

I'd think you are able to read between the lines. Part of a good discussion is representing an opposing argument correctly. Nobody is saying that an Olympic team is a senior team proper. I guess that was not apparent to you.

In any case, I believe I have made my point to wit: that the 2000s were not better years than the 90s for African football. There's no achievement attended by Africa in the former years that had not already been achieved in the latter.

As to my point on decline, you may find my opinion here: http://sinyoar..com/
I discuss this issue in-depth, if focusing mainly on Nigeria. Please, scroll down the page to find the essay. I invite you to read, and if you like leave your thoughts.

Our exchange here has been a constructive one, I believe. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

That we've not to been able to repeat winning the Olympic gold in football is not enough to say our football is on the decline.

Which is not my point if you read my comment on this carefully.

the rise of African football was a slow and steady movement that started even before the 90's.

Right. You'd surely then concede to my point, which is that African football in the past was not simply trash, where a few nations, namely, Cameroon and Nigeria or Egypt were the few shining beacons.

Ghana won the FIFA world youth championship in Egypt

The team which is now a part of the fabric of their current national team, which is as should be. Note that I didn't mention youth football in my last comments, part of Africa's success story. I focused mainly on the senior national teams, Olympic teams being  versions of some sort of these teams. If youth teams don't translate into successful senior national teams, what good does that do but an indication of under achievement and a basking into such deceptive glory thereof?

Nigeria made it to the finals at the Beijing olympics

And how has that translated into success for us?

Senegal in 2002 made it to the world cup quarter finals beating world champions France. Where were Senegal in the 90's.

I suspected you'd use examples like this. However you should consider the issue of turnovers, without which your argument would lack thrust. By this I mean, for example, that the Senegal team that played in the 2000 AFCON, that nearly knocked us out, is the same team, almost to the letter, that went to the 2002 World Cup. This team did not just spring up overnight, the roots of its rise are firmly rooted in the 90s. And, it is not true to say that Senegal didn't do well in the 1992 AFCON, where they reached the quarter final, only losing to Cameroon. Hosting a competition does not automatically translate to winning it; numerous examples are enthymematic.

In previous decades, it was harder for African countries to qualify for the World Cup because we had fewer slots. As recently as Italia 90, Africa had only two slots, increased to three in 94, due to Cameroon's convincing performance at the 90 edition, then to five, after Nigeria put up an impressive performance at the 94 edition. Had we five slots in the past (six this year, including South Africa, the host) decades, more African countries would have played at the World Cup. Accordingly, to judge the success of African countries in past decades based on their playing in the World Cup is a shaky and unconvincing premise. Nigeria was a good team in the 80s, yet it did not play in the World Cup because of the foregoing reason. Ghana, for instance, played in the final of the 94 AFCON (and had we more slots at the World Cup, they would have definitely featured in World Cup in the 90s) but in the 2000s Ghana never reached the final of the same competition.

Of course, we can't have flat plateaus of successes or lack of in any given decade, but I can confidently compare the 90s and the 2000s and say that Africa had stronger teams then. How about Zambia, for instance, that could have won the 94 AFCON, which would have been with a second eleven that they fielded in the competition due to the tragic loss of their first eleven in a plane crash few month before the competition? How about the winning of two Olympic soccer gold medals in this decade, back to back, after impressive performances in the World Cup? Show me what other achievements Africa pulled off in the 2000s that did not have their roots in the 1990s.

Instead of progressing, I actually think African football is regressing due to the brawn drain, resulting from a neglect of domestic leagues by the exodus of African players to the European leagues. Tell me that I'm wrong.

medjai:

you cant compare the level of African football two decades back to what it is today. True, there were some decent sides but they were very few. Today, almost every African side is good.

medjai,

Though I'm not sure that your response refers to my objection regarding African football in the 90s, but for the sake of constructive discussion let me respond.

I would agree with you if you could provide empirical or objective examples to prove your point. For instance, how many African countries are now better than they were a decade ago? South Africa? Nigeria? Senegal? Cote d'Ivorie? Egypt? Zambia? Zaire, which is  now the DRC? Cameroon? Tunisia? Algeria? Ghana? which country? None of the countries I have mentioned have achieved more success than the had in the 90s. Please, inform me if I'm wrong, or did I miss any country?

Another thing is the development of African football. When Westerhoff won the nations cup most of the other African teams were thrash. In 94 only 3 teams could represent Africa in the world cup unlike now when we have 6 teams in the world cup. Back then how many African players were playing in Europe? Now almost all African teams can field a foreign based starting XI. Football in Africa has really developed. There are no minnows any more. Westerhoff had 5 years to build that team that won the nations cup. Amodu did not have 5 years to build a team in a period where African football has become more competitive than Westerhoff's era. As for Onigbinde, na the same thing we dey talk. Our local coaches are good.

Wrong. The teams that played at the 94 AFCON were strong teams. Nigeria did not just waltz its way through that competition. In fact, the Eagles of the 90 AFCON and 92  AFCON were barely different from the cup winning one in 94, yet those teams struggled against African opposition. You are talking about the decade of African soccer renaissance: Cameroon's amazing run at the World Cup, Nigeria four years after, and yet these two teams had stiff opposition from sister African teams. Cameroon, for example, had a disgraceful run at the 90 AFCON, yet stunned the world only a few months later.

During this last stint, Amodu had all the time to build a new team, remember that qualifications started two years ago, yet he made the same mistake as that of his second stint in 2002.

For those who hail Onigbinde, pray, list his achievements.

I must disagree with your reasoning. First of all, I do not think objective and informed Nigerians would grudge a coach concerning tactical switches, be he Nigerian or otherwise. Having access to live feeds of European leagues has disposed them to seeing similar switches. Those who would make a bone about this are the sorts that are best disregarded.  On the other hand, it is part of soccer culture that fans and the media get to have their own say. Is it wrong to question a line-up or the rationale for a substitution in match? I do not think so. Objective analysts would offer their reason for criticism any way. This is call constructive criticism as opposed to mere angst or fruitless shouting.

In fact, such tactical switches say much about the ability of a coach in accessing the pontentials of his players and using them to  advantage. When Daniel Amokachi played for Rancher's Bees, for instance, he played as the main striker, but when Westerhof called him up for the national team, he played him as an attacking midfielder. Amokachi was so successful in this role that the media nicknamed him "the engine room." Eto'o had a similar change of role at Inter Milan this season, being used mostly on the outside right flank. In fact, one of Amodu's problems, as I see it, is that he failed to consider this issue of role, often using players in one role even though they prove to be ineffective in such roles. Nor is it only Amodu who has failed to understand this. Many Nigerians and other Africans, even Brazilians, are wont to accuse the players of lack of a similar commitment and work rate for country as that given their club sides. I believe this is an error.

Take Yakubu Ayegbeni as an example. At Everton he plays an attacking role proper, rarely falling back to help the midfield, effectively free to make runs at the opposing goal. For the Eagles however, because we've lacked a holding midfield since we lost the crust of Oliseh, Okocha and Amokachi, strikers have been force to fight for balls deeper in the field rather than being free to trouble the opposing defense. This freedom to be an attacker proper was responsible for the effectiveness of Rashidi Yekini. I could cite the cases of Eto'o and Drogba in their recent national teams as further examples, where they've been forced to take on more responsibility rather than being free in the manner referred to above. Predictably, their effectiveness as goal scorers has nose-dived as a result.

As to your call for the sack of Lagerback after the World Cup, I do not see how this would benefit the country. It would only perpetuate the culture of hiring and firing that has been the history of the Nigerian Football Federation. Lagerback has barely had time  for any constructive impact. There is some indication that he might turn out to be a good coach: He insisted on appointing his own assistants, one of which is a scout, which leaves me to suppose that he plans on rebuilding the team by scouting the domestic league. This, by the way, is the way to go, I believe.

Is Amodu a world class coach? Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I, for one, do not think he is. The Eagles have played in their worst form in his two tenures. Under him, the Eagles played very badly at the 2002 Africa Cup of Nation, only managing scrappy wins. Of course, the disgust of Nigerians at this scrappy manner of play, Oliseh's vocal criticism of the NFF, coupled with Onigbinde's conniving bad-mouthing of Amodu and Keshi led to the disbandment of the team and the sack of the coaching crew. During Chukwu’s tenure, not long after, the Eagle's playing style was barely an improvement on Amodu's style (though there was definitely an improvement) yet Nigerians hailed the team's performance at the 2004 AFCON, where we beat Cameroon in the quarter-final, though we only managed a third place finish, the same as Amodu's finish at the previous edition. My point is that, Nigerians don't mind losing so far as the team plays well.

I wouldn't say that the Eagles played well against Argentina, in fact, I think they didn't. Nigerians are only happy that they were not disgraced in the match (which says a lot about their ideology). To some extent, I can understand this mind set.

The opportunities I see for Nigerian coaches outside the country can only be within Africa. Racial bias, I believe, is a strong mitigating factor for any hope for them of coaching in Europe. They would, in any case, first have to prove themselves as being among the world’s best. Presently, I haven’t seen any evidence of that, Siasia, perhaps, but he still needs to prove that he can be consistent in success.

Everything about Cameroon was off in their Group E match against Japan. Cameroon were the favorite to win going into this match. Some analysts had even rated the Cameroonian team as the most likely African team to progress farther in the competition, but the Cameroon on display today was not the Cameroon most expected.

A physically strong looking side, a quality that should have given them an added advantage over Japan, besides being the more experienced side, the Indomitable Lions, as they are known, were mostly toothless in this match. It was a side that looked old and out of sorts. Their physicality translated into a flat-footed performance, which was also true technically, where for 80 percent of the match, they played in the middle of the field, resulting in congested affair that thwarted cogent movement and attack. This suited the Japanese naturally, who exploited the congested midfield to advantage and then sneaked in a goal towards the end of the first half of the match and thereafter resorted to a defensive game.

Rather than change their tactics in the second half, Cameroon played much of the same congested game on resumption. The goalkeeper launched the ball to the middle, time after time, even though each time this did not benefit his side. Samuel Eto'o, besides being effectively caged by the Japanese defense, bore the weight of his side on his shoulders, playing wider on the right flank and often much deeper in his own half, even taking throw-ins himself. All these means he wasn't free to play a portent attacking role. (I foresee that the same fate will befall Cote d'Ivorie's Didier Drogba if he eventually plays.) Cameroon essentially lacked a play maker. It wasn't until Geremi and Idrissou were introduced into the game in the last quarter of the game that Cameroon began to look more alive.

With this loss, the Cameroonian coach may be headed for a sack. It is unlikely that his contract will be renewed by the Cameroon Football Federation if his side crashes out of the competition at this stage. Now his decision to bench the side's veteran goalkeeper, Idriss Kamenin, and the in-form Alexander Song raises more questions and he may live to regret it. It is now more likely than not that Cameroon are going to be eliminated at the group stage. The Danish side that lost to the Netherlands are not a push over at all. They are more likely to beat Cameroon than not, and the most Cameroon can expect from their meeting with the Netherlands is a draw; but then one should never say never.

One last thing that was off with Cameroon in this match was their jersey. While the top looked good and form fitting, emphasizing as always their physicality, the shorts looked terribly out of fashion, a hark back to the 80s and 90s style that didn't quite come off. The oversized cleaning instruction tag only added to the sorry look of the shorts by hanging out, making the hapless players look as though they had little tails in their behinds. All said, this was a bad day for Cameroon.


See my other analysis at http://sinyoar..com/ especially my analysis of the Super Eagle's State of Decline. While there, please leave comments.

On a positive note, this wasn't a bad performance but for the conceded goal. Let me explain: If the purpose of this match was to stifle the spaces of the last third of the Nigerian halve of the field, then it worked, notwithstanding the occasions that Messi and company managed to breach the defense. Had we not conceded the goal, I believe we would be commending this performance. This is not to say that the Eagles played well.

A few players gave a positive performance. Vincent Enyeama was, of course, brilliant in goal. But for him, we would have lost the match by a wider margin. Ogbuke was the one outstanding player in the first halve, but because he played on the left wing and was unable use the "cut-back" technique, which would have enabled him to shoot with the right foot instead of his weaker left, his final shots were inaccurate. The few promising moves Nigeria made were more potent from the left flank, first with Ogbuke in the first halve of the match and then with Odemwingie in the second (although Kalu Uche, when played on the right flank seemed to impact the match and create some good moves). One thing Odemwingie did well was being in position whenever a long pass was executed from the right wing to the left in the last quarter of the Argentinean halve. Things always looked promising whenever he collected these passes, though his final crosses were weak.

Kalu Uche, beside being occasionally out of position and loosing possession more than necessary, was one player that engaged the opponent on occasion; others were Ogbuke, Odemwingie, and Martins, and to some degree Kaita. This not withstanding, engagement was virtually lacking from the Eagles' game.

Overall, commendation aside, this was an awful performance for Nigeria. Virtually all my observations regarding the match against North Korea (see my posting: Nigeria vs North Korea: Thoughts) resurfaced. I had mentioned the lack of midfield in the team in that post,  and observed that this caused the attackers to play deep as though they were midfielders. This was the case today as well (although I understand that this might have been part of the game plan). Having conceded the midfield to Argentina, one would have expected a better ability to hold on to the ball by the attackers whenever Nigeria regained possession. But like the North Korea match, the Eagles were too quickly dispossessed, were frantic on the ball (I had said in the forementioned post that this resulted from want of confidence by the players, this, I believe, is true), lost every battle for loose balls, and  failed to challenge the opponents for the ball—compare this failure with how Barcelona and Spain use what I call a “triangular system” to cage-in a ball-possessing player. One other thing I mentioned last week is the unbelievable lack of ability from the Eagles to string together accurate passes. This was true today.  Half of the passes were to the opponent. Beside the preceding, the team also lacks basic attacking verve. There seems to be a deliberate lackadaisical approach to playing that makes the team look slow and ponderous when going forward. All in all, this is still Amodu's Eagles. I have noticed no change in its style.

I always allow coaches the benefit of a doubt, and like to think that they know the game better than the average armchair commentator or analyst, but I must confess that some team selection for a match and substitutions often leave me baffled. I question why Martins is being used as a substitute. This a player who is always sharp on the attack  if played solely as an attacker without the need to double back as a midfielder.

Here is the kind of formation I would expect Lagerback to field: Drop Yakubu deeper in the middle to play as an attacking midfielder (this is what he has been forced to play anyway by the team's lack of form); field Martins as the main attacker, meaning that he would have Yakubu just behind him for support; play Obguke on the right flank (Obinna could then come on for him when there is need for substitution), Odemwingie would play on the left wing, much like he is doing at the moment. Playing deeper, Yakubu would be able to partner with Lukman Haruna, allowing Kaita to play in a more defensive position.

Though we lost today, and though it is my belief that this team is not good (in fact, this is the weakest team we have had in a long while), hope is not yet lost. We might be able to beat South Korea (though they looked technically solid, composed and purposeful today) and Greece. If we do, we could still qualify for the round of sixteen.

Adios.

For the next world cup the Nigerian Football Federation needs an overhaul. There needs to be a system that should be put in place to start producing more technically gifted players

I had suggested earlier this week that we should start a campaign to sack the NFF (See my "Sack the NFF Drive" and expected an enthusiastic response from this forum but I was mistaken. It seems that all folks are interested in is empty complain rather than engaging in a concrete action to make  a difference.

The NFF has shown itself to be highly corrupt and incompetent. If this current officials continue to be in office, the future of our football is doomed. Whatever the outcome of the World Cup for Nigeria, the current officials do not deserve to remain in office. Let us, as concern citizens, begin a drive for the sack of the NFF, the whole lot of them.

Here are few ideas:

1. Start a website for the drive
2. Collect signatures for the drive
3. Write an open letter in one of Nigeria's leading newpapers to the Sport minister demanding the sack

These are only three of the things we can do. Please, contribute your voice.

They say that when good people remain silent, evil prospers. It is time for the common citizenry to impact the affairs of the nation. Please, let's begin this drive and rid Nigeria of corrupt sport officials. Please, submit your suggestions.

A major reason why Nigeria has been unable to produce star players in the last ten years is because players today leave Nigeria too soon for professional career abroad. This contrasts with the 90s where players, who left the domestic league, were already developed. They were at the peak of their game and were  regulars in the National Team even as home based (The 1990 AFCON Eagles was 97% home based).  As a result, they easily broke into the first eleven in their European clubs.  Being already at the top of their game meant that their confidence level was high, making it more likely for them to succeed in Europe. Also, being more matured, they were able to deal better with cultural issues in Europe than they would have otherwise.

Another reason, of course, is that the domestic league was much stronger in the 90s, even though nobody called it the "Premier League" then. Okocha, Amokachi, Kanu, Finidi George, Sunday Oliseh, Tijani Babangida, Celestine Babayaro, name them, they were all developed players before they transited  to Europe. Today, players have no sooner cut their teeth than they'd jump on the first Europe-bound boat (call it whatever you will), resulting in many wasted talents.  Nigerian players of today find it difficult to succeed, or only achieve moderate and average success because of this.  Players that did a similar thing in the late 80s and the 90s had their careers ruined  similarly.  You'd remember players like Fatai Atare, Philip Osondu, Oladimeji Lawel, Chris Ohenhen, Chris Nwosu and the like. These players had great promise but frittered it away through ill-timed move to European clubs.

Please, discuss.

This is an analysis of the decline of the Nigeria Super Eagles. Because it is in depth, I shall post it parts. This is Part I, and because it sets the pace, it is a bit long. I beg for your indulgence. I hope it will generate meaningful discourse. Please, leave your comments.

The current state of decline of the Super Eagles of Nigeria, as evidenced by the team's mediocre performances and its meagre achievements in recent times, is not a recent phenomenon but a situation that has developed gradually. At its zenith, the team, through its extremely talented players and its meteoric rise in the 1990s, exemplified to the world the depth, the richness, and the dynamism of African football. This caused Pele to predict that an African team would win the world cup before or by the turn of the century. The team’s achievements in the 1990s led Nigerians to dub it the giant of Africa, a metaphor that expressed their pride in the team and perhaps alluded to the latent greatness of the nation. But owing to this present state of decline, only the delusional would persist in thinking that this moniker is still an apt metaphor for the team. In the following, I will argue that, in fact, a level of delusion afflicts and clouds the judgment of Nigerians (be they administrators, coaches, players or fans), leading to a failure to come to terms with this state of decline. In analyzing this decline, I hope to expose what we did wrong as a nation, leading to the squandering of our potential, vis-a-vis what we did right to cause our rapid rise in the 1990s. This should show us what to avoid in the present and in the future if we are to progress, and what to emulate if we are to replicate or surpass our past success.

Black Power Rises

Pele's prediction, which he has since retracted, was not based on the Super Eagles' success alone. Four years earlier, at the Italia '90 World cup, Cameroon had shocked the world by reaching the quarter final of the competition. They defeated the defending champions, Argentina in the process, and gave England a stiff fight in the quarter final. It was a good decade for African football. Teams like Zaire and Zambia were no longer minors. In terms of the abundance of talents in the continent, Zambia presents a case in point. Having lost her entire first team in the months leading to the 1994 Cup of Nations, Zambia was able to rebound, assembling quickly a new team, which would defy the odds and reach the final of the 1994 Cup of Nations. Her fellow southern African neighbour, South Africa, having been admitted into African Football, after the abolishment of apartheid, was set to challenge any country for dominance in Africa. South Africa showed her seriousness by winning the 1996 Cup of Nations and by placing second in the next edition. At the youth level, Africa was not doing badly either: just before the turn of the decade, the Nigeria under 20 team had confounded the world, at the 1989 competition in Saudi Arabia, by coming from four goals down to beat the USSR, in what Nigerians would call the Dammam Miracle. She would eventually play in the final, losing to Portugal, the great team that produced the likes of Luís Figo. Ghana, in turn, would emulate Nigeria four years later by reaching the final of the same competition. Indeed in 1996, Nigeria would become the first African country to win an Olympic gold medal in football. At the under 17 level, Africa won the competition twice in the decade: Ghana in 1991 and Nigeria in 1993, playing the former in the final. The future looked bright, and Africa seemed set to dominate world football in the next century, and with her success in the 1994 World Cup and her 1996 Olympic victory, no country was better poised than Nigeria to lead Africa into this new frontier. All, indeed, looked good, or so it seemed.

Giant Deflated

Signs that things were not as they seemed began to surface in Nigeria's build up to the 1998 World Cup. She lost all of the three friendly matches she played before the competition. Her lost to Germany in the first friendly match by a slim margin of one goal appeared to be the normal result of football; a team cannot win at all times was the common wisdom. Comments by the German manager, Berti Vogts (Nigeria’s future coach), after the match were revealing. In essence he contrasted the team-approach of his country with the individualistic mind set of the Nigerian team, which, though dazzling, was not sufficient for victory as the outcome of the match denoted. In any case, Nigerians were unfazed by this defeat, although hope had been high for a Super Eagles victory. Concern surfaced, however, after a second defeat by a wider margin (3:0), about a month later, at the hand of Yugoslavia. The concern turned to dismay, and then to consternation and outrage, when the Super Eagles were trashed, 5:1, by Holland in the third friendly match. The poignancy of the situation was made more acute in the light of the fact that only a few months earlier, Nigeria had celebrated the appointment of a "world class" coach, in the person of Bora Milutinović, who had been appointed after the departure of Philippe Troussier. With the employment of this "world class" coach, Nigeria seemed set to surpass the success of the 1994 World Cup. It was understandable then that Nigerians would be concerned about this string of loses just before the World Cup.
Reports surfaced of cliques and rancour in the team. Analysts supposed these three defeats to be a result of this fact. What else could be responsible, when we had by all accounts world class players and a "world class" manager? Berti Vogts’ prognosis, referenced above, did not seem to have caught the attention of anyone, certainly not the attention of the coach himself, or of the football administrators. And when Nigeria shocked Spain in their opening match at the Stade de la Beaujoire in Nantes, France, at the World Cup, all seemed well. This was confirmed by the Eagles’ second victory over Bulgaria, a one-nil defeat of the later. If we would eventually lose the third match against Paraguay by a 1:3 margin, it was attributed to our having fielded the second eleven for the match. But the disease that had been eating quietly away at the team, which had caused the three defeats before the World cup, would resurface to deliver a devastating blow to the nation's ambition of surpassing its achievement at the 1994 World Cup: The Eagles were trashed 4:1 by Denmark. This was the beginning of the team’s decline.
But this decline would not be apparent until eight years later. Our performance in the 2000 Cup of Nations seemed to indicate that all was well. At this time, we still had players who were at the top of their game, although some of them were arguably at the beginning of their twilight. Johannes Bonfere displayed his technical insight in the match against South Africa by fielding Tijani Babangida on the left wing instead of his customary right wing position, disorganizing the South Africans’ expectation. Two first-half goals by Babangida, one in the first minute of the game, justified this decision and silenced the boast of South Africa once and for all. They had claimed to be the new giant of African football not Nigeria. This claim was naturally the result of their previous four-year success at the Cup of Nations, two editions from which Nigeria had been absent.
In a broader perspective, these two absences from the Cup of Nations, owing to Abacha's politics, contributed to the decline of the Super Eagles. In the first place, we had fewer chances to compete. Whereas had we participated in the two competitions, we would have had the opportunity to maintain competition fitness, plug loopholes where discerned, and perhaps try new players. In the second place, it cost us two opportunities to stamp our dominance on African football, giving South Africa the room to challenge our superiority, and allowing Cameroon to later surpass our achievement. The foregoing, I believe resulted in our having a collection of top players, who could not however cohere as a team, hence the 1998 debacle.

The first real indication of our decline surfaced in the 2002 Cup of Nations, where the Super Eagles struggled, to be eventually toppled by the Teranga Lions of Senegal in the semi final, a team that had almost done the same to us two years previously in Lagos at the quarter final stage of the competition. The 2002 dismal performance resulted in the sack of coach Amodu, who had taken over from Berti Vogts and had secured our qualification for the Korea-Japan World Cup, who was however unable to instill any sense of purpose in the team's style of play. The situation was little better at the 2004 edition. But since we managed to beat Cameroon in the quarter final, Nigerians accepted that as victory. By now, President Obasanjo's attitude towards the team had changed. Previously, his attitude of indifference towards the Eagles had been palpable. He seemed to consider the players spoiled brats. This time, however, he celebrated the team's underachievement with a state dinner. Nigerians resigned themselves to what they had. After all, the team's style of play had improved under Chukwu, notwithstanding the fact that her level of play was a ghost of her former style.

Two quick lessons may be drawn from the above. First: Nigeria cannot rise above the interest of its leaders. As abhorrent and regrettable as the military regimes were, it cannot be denied that Nigeria had her highest achievements in football during these years. For example, Anthony Ikazoboh, arguably the best NFA chairman ever and Samson Emeka Omeruah, another successful sport administrator, were both military officers. Whatever they did seemed to have worked. Second: The gradual decline in the Super Eagles’ level of play led Nigerian to lower their expectation of the team, with the sad result that they celebrated the team’s underachievement at the 2004 Cup of Nations and persisted in the belief that Nigeria was still the giant of African football, even though the situation showed the contrary. This sad situation culminated in our inability to qualify for the 2006 World Cup. The mystique of the giant had been shattered at last.

I shall be posting Part II of the essay in a day or two.

This is an analysis of the decline of the Nigeria Super Eagles. Because it is in depth, I shall be posting it in parts. Part I itself is somewhat long. I beg for your indulgence.  I hope for a meaningful discourse from the forum.



The current state of decline of the Super Eagles of Nigeria, as evidenced by the team's mediocre performances and its meagre achievements in recent times, is not a recent phenomenon but a situation that has developed gradually. At its zenith, the team, through its extremely talented players and its meteoric rise in the 1990s, exemplified to the world the depth, the richness, and the dynamism of African football. This caused Pele to predict that an African team would win the world cup before or by the turn of the century. The team’s achievements in the 1990s led Nigerians to dub it the giant of Africa, a metaphor that expressed their pride in the team and perhaps alluded to the latent greatness of the nation. But owing to this present state of decline, only the delusional would persist in thinking that this moniker is still an apt metaphor for the team. In the following, I will argue that, in fact, a level of delusion afflicts and clouds the judgment of Nigerians (be they administrators, coaches, players or fans), leading to a failure to come to terms with this state of decline. In analyzing this decline, I hope to expose what we did wrong as a nation, leading to the squandering of our potential, vis-a-vis what we did right to cause our rapid rise in the 1990s. This should show us what to avoid in the present and in the future if we are to progress, and what to emulate if we are to replicate or surpass our past success.

Black Power Rises

Pele's prediction, which he has since retracted, was not based on the Super Eagles' success alone. Four years earlier, at the Italia '90 World cup, Cameroon had shocked the world by reaching the quarter final of the competition. They defeated the defending champions, Argentina in the process, and gave England a stiff fight in the quarter final. It was a good decade for African football. Teams like Zaire and Zambia were no longer minors. In terms of the abundance of talents in the continent, Zambia presents a case in point. Having lost her entire first team in the months leading to the 1994 Cup of Nations, Zambia was able to rebound, assembling quickly a new team, which would defy the odds and reach the final of the 1994 Cup of Nations. Her fellow southern African neighbour, South Africa, having been admitted into African Football, after the abolishment of apartheid, was set to challenge any country for dominance in Africa. South Africa showed her seriousness by winning the 1996 Cup of Nations and by placing second in the next edition. At the youth level, Africa was not doing badly either: just before the turn of the decade, the Nigeria under 20 team had confounded the world, at the 1989 competition in Saudi Arabia,  by coming from four goals down to beat the USSR, in what Nigerians would call the Dammam Miracle. She would eventually play in the final, losing to Portugal, the great team that produced the likes of Luís Figo. Ghana, in turn, would emulate Nigeria four years later by reaching the final of the same competition. Indeed in 1996, Nigeria would become the first African country to win an Olympic gold medal in football. At the under 17 level, Africa won the competition twice in the decade: Ghana in 1991 and Nigeria in 1993, playing the former in the final. The future looked bright, and Africa seemed set to dominate world football in the next century, and with her success in the 1994 World Cup and her 1996 Olympic victory, no country was better poised than Nigeria to lead Africa into this new frontier.  All, indeed, looked good, or so it seemed.

Giant Deflated

Signs that things were not as they seemed began to surface in Nigeria's build up to the 1998 World Cup. She lost all of the three friendly matches she played before the competition. Her lost to Germany in the first friendly match by a slim margin of one goal appeared to be the normal result of football; a team cannot win at all times was the common wisdom. Comments by the German manager, Berti Vogts (Nigeria’s future coach), after the match were revealing. In essence he contrasted the team-approach of his country with the individualistic mind set of the Nigerian team, which, though dazzling, was not sufficient for victory as the outcome of the match denoted. In any case, Nigerians were unfazed by this defeat, although hope had been high for a Super Eagles victory.  Concern surfaced, however, after a second defeat by a wider margin (3:0), about a month later, at the hand of Yugoslavia. The concern turned to dismay, and then to consternation and outrage, when the Super Eagles were trashed, 5:1, by Holland in the third friendly match. The poignancy of the situation was made more acute in the light of the fact that only a few months earlier, Nigeria had celebrated the appointment of a "world class" coach, in the person of Bora Milutinović, who had been appointed after the departure of Philippe Troussier. With the employment of this "world class" coach, Nigeria seemed set to surpass the success of the 1994 World Cup. It was understandable then that Nigerians would be concerned about this string of loses just before the World Cup.

Reports surfaced of cliques and rancour in the team. Analysts supposed these three defeats to be a result of this fact. What else could be responsible, when we had by all accounts world class players and a "world class" manager? Berti Vogts’ prognosis, referenced above, did not seem to have caught the attention of anyone, certainly not the attention of the coach himself, or of the football administrators. And when Nigeria shocked Spain in their opening match at the Stade de la Beaujoire in Nantes, France, at the World Cup, all seemed well. This was confirmed by the Eagles’ second victory over Bulgaria, a one-nil defeat of the later. If we would eventually lose the third match against Paraguay by a 1:3 margin, it was attributed to our having fielded the second eleven for the match. But the disease that had been eating quietly away at the team, which had caused the three defeats before the World cup, would resurface to deliver a devastating blow to the nation's ambition of surpassing its achievement at the 1994 World Cup: The Eagles were trashed 4:1 by Denmark. This was the beginning of the team’s decline.

But this decline would not be apparent until eight years later. Our performance in the 2000 Cup of Nations seemed to indicate that all was well. At this time, we still had players who were at the top of their game, although some of them were arguably at the beginning of their twilight. Johannes Bonfere displayed his technical insight in the match against South Africa by fielding Tijani Babangida on the left wing instead of his customary right wing position, disorganizing the South Africans’ expectation. Two first-half goals by Babangida, one in the first minute of the game, justified this decision and silenced the boast of South Africa once and for all. They had claimed to be the new giant of African football not Nigeria. This claim was naturally the result of their previous four-year success at the Cup of Nations, two editions from which Nigeria had been absent.
In a broader perspective, these two absences from the Cup of Nations, owing to Abacha's politics, contributed to the decline of the Super Eagles. In the first place, we had fewer chances to compete. Whereas had we participated in the two competitions, we would have had the opportunity to maintain competition fitness, plug loopholes where discerned, and perhaps try new players. In the second place, it cost us two opportunities to stamp our dominance on African football, giving South Africa the room to challenge our superiority, and allowing Cameroon to later surpass our achievement. The foregoing, I believe resulted in our having a collection of top players, who could not however cohere as a team, hence the 1998 debacle.

The first real indication of our decline surfaced in the 2002 Cup of Nations, where the Super Eagles struggled, to be eventually toppled by the Teranga Lions of Senegal in the semi final, a team that had almost done the same to us two years previously in Lagos at the quarter final stage of the competition. The 2002 dismal performance resulted in the sack of coach Amodu, who had taken over from Berti Vogts and had secured our qualification for the Korea-Japan World Cup, who was however unable to instill any sense of purpose in the team's style of play. The situation was little better at the 2004 edition. But since we managed to beat Cameroon in the quarter final, Nigerians accepted that as victory. By now, President Obasanjo's attitude towards the team had changed. Previously, his attitude of indifference towards the Eagles had been palpable. He seemed to consider the players spoiled brats.  This time, however, he celebrated the team's underachievement with a state dinner. Nigerians resigned themselves to what they had. After all, the team's style of play had improved under Chukwu, notwithstanding the fact that her level of play was a ghost of her former style.

Two quick lessons may be drawn from the above. First: Nigeria cannot rise above the interest of its leaders. As abhorrent and regrettable as the military regimes were, it cannot be denied that Nigeria had her highest achievements in football during these years. For example, Anthony Ikazoboh, arguably the best NFA chairman ever and Samson Emeka Omeruah, another successful sport administrator, were both military officers. Whatever they did seemed to have worked. Second: The gradual decline in the Super Eagles’ level of play led Nigerian to lower their expectation of the team, with the sad result that they celebrated the team’s underachievement at the 2004 Cup of Nations and persisted in the belief that Nigeria was still the giant of African football, even though the situation showed the contrary. This sad situation culminated in our inability to qualify for the 2006 World Cup. The mystique of the giant had been shattered at last.

I shall be posting Part II of the essay in a day or two. Please, leave your comments.

Sincerely, I believe that only teams with good preparations and the desire to win coupled with discipline and prayers would go very far. Nevertheless, this is what I would be talking about and maybe at the end of this post, you may either agree or disagree on how far the team can go.

Let's go back in time and see how far the team has come.

I have done an in depth analysis of the decline of Nigerian Football elsewhere. I shall be posting bits of it on this forum, in hope of generating meaningful discourse. See my take on this present team under the topic: Nigeria vs North Korea: Thoughts.

I agree with your thoughts here, by the way.

Nigeria participated in her first World cup at the USA '94' finals. They qualified as runners up to Argentina,

Nigeria won the group, actually.