What gives Latin America the edge?

AFTER the early shadow boxing it seems as though this could turn out to be the World Cup of upsets.

The European teams have been struggling to find their best form — or in some cases any form at all.

Italy and France have not just been beaten but humiliated in the first round. Never before have the previous champions and runners-up both finished bottom of their groups.

By contrast two Asian outsiders have both qualified and this could be the best World Cup ever for teams from South and Central America.

Everyone expects the Big Two sides from South America to be contenders. Seven of Inter’s Champions League winning side are from Brazil and Argentina, even if Diego Maradona left two of them out of his squad.

But it is unprecedented for six Latin American qualifiers to have such a big impact. Only Honduras have disappointed their fans.

By coincidence, it was the World Cup finals in Italy and France when five Latin American sides last made it through to the last 16, even though Argentina and Brazil finished up as beaten finalists on both occasions.

Mexico’s progress to the knock-out stage is not a shock.

Since the tournament was expanded in 1986 they have only failed to make the last 16 on one occasion. They also have a good group of young attacking players coming through — Giovanni Dos Santos, Carlos Vela and now Javier Hernandez are all with top Premier League clubs.

Previously they have underachieved. But with Sven Goran Eriksson replaced by Javier Aguirre, the tough Mexican who has managed in Spain, taking both Osasuna and Atletico Madrid into Europe, they have started to live up their billing.

Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile have surprised a lot of people. All three countries have experienced managers who have been given some time. But then so have their European rivals.

Two factors may be that the South Americans have a more demanding qualifying competition, and they are more used to the demands of playing at altitude.

On paper qualifying looks easier for the South Americans, and in one sense it is. They only have 10 nations, and there are four automatic qualifiers. Brazil and Argentina are virtually guaranteed a place in the finals.

But their qualifying tournament involves 18 matches and there are no minnows, so that for the remaining countries every match is a challenge. And the rivalry between countries such as Uruguay, Chile and Argentina or Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador means that players are under constant pressure to perform.

Paraguay’s success in the qualifiers – their best-ever performance – was partly down to Argentina’s disarray after Maradona took over the side. But the qualifying tournament has also become more difficult, and the outsiders have become more competitive. Ecuador were still in with a chance of qualifying on the final matchday while Paraguay, Brazil and Chile all dominated the competition at different stages. The big teams slipped up in Bolivia — perhaps the most difficult away game because of the altitude.

Familiarity with playing at altitude obviously helps Mexico. Fourteen of their squad play for Mexican clubs — far more than play for local clubs in the other countries — and thus are used to coping with altitudes of up to 7,500 feet, a lot higher than the venues in South Africa.

It may also help Paraguay that six of their squad are at clubs in Mexico, Ecuador and Colombia and are therefore used to playing matches where altitude is a factor.

Uruguay and Chile, like Mexico, also have relatively young squads. Eight of the Uruguayans are under 25, including their strikers Edinson Cavani and Luis Suarez. Chile also have seven youngsters in their squad, and the three young Mexican strikers might all still be playing at Under 21 level. Younger, tougher, and more used to the conditions — it’s a combination that helps account for the Latin American edge so far. How they cope with the knock out stage may be another matter.