I’ve done my team of the tournament.  So here’s a few more.

Goal of the tournament

1) Quagliarella v Slovakia

2) van Bronckhorst v Uruguay

3) Forlán v Germany

Match of the tournament

1) Slovakia 3 – 2 Italy

2) Uruguay 1 – 1 Ghana

3) Germany 3 – 2 Uruguay

The award for writing themselves firmly into the history books as all-time greats

1) Xavi

2) Andrés Iniesta

3) Diego Forlán

Pundit of the Tournament

1) Clarence Seedorf

2) Roy Hodgson

3) Lee Dixon

The award for disputing that the Premier League is the only test of a footballer’s ability

1) Diego Forlán

2) Giovani dos Santos

3) Elano

Emerging talent of the tournament

1) Mesut Özil

2) Thomas Müller

3) Sami Khedira

The biggest let-down

1) Wayne Rooney

2) Yoann Gourcuff

3) Ángel di María

Coach of the tournament

1) Jogi Löw

2) Marcelo Bielsa

3) Óscar Tabárez

Those best set for 2014

1) Germany

2) Spain

3) Argentina

Blog of the tournament

1) Zonal Marking

2) Run of Play

3) The Equaliser

Because everyone else has done one.  I’m going for a loose 4-2-3-1 set up.

Goalkeeper: Manuel Neuer

This was not a tournament of excellent goalkeeping.  The free-wheeling Jabulani can bear some of the blame for this but there were too many unforced errors.  I could list the offenders but the kindest thing is to say that even Júlio César and Iker Casillas (a bizarre Golden Glove winner) did not come through unscathed. Neuer, though, was impressively error-free and commendably commanding of his penalty area. And at 24 this could be his first World Cup of many.

Right back: Philip Lahm

Lahm took on the German captaincy in the absence of Michael Ballack, and looked like he had been wearing the armband for years.  He combined the darts and incisions going forward, which we saw in previous tournaments, with a growing defensive awareness, an ability to pick his moment.  No Euro 2008  semi-final style slip-ups here.  Just assurance, intelligence and a fair bit of bite too.

Centre back: Diego Lugano

Part of the strong spine of surprise package Uruguay, and a key man in their success.  Lugano has flowing golden hair to match Kevin Costner and a cynical streak that would embarrass Ricardo Carvalho.  But for all the gamesmanship in a crowded penalty areas he is an excellent defender: brave in the air and smooth on the ground.

Centre back: Carles Puyol

He looks fairly incongruous in a team of airy, wispy tiki-taca elves but Puyol helps to make it all possible.  A roaring hairy beast of a man, he brings a touch of the pre-historic to Spain’s glimmering modern ‘ballet of frost.’ He defends with every fibre of his being, with heart and guts; he defends like John Terry does in his dreams.  It was his hurtling header in the semi final against Germany which set up Spain’s clash with Holland.  This may be his final tournament with Spain; what a perfect way to go out.

Left back: Carlos Salcido

One of a number of dynamic Latin American full-backs who impressed in South Africa.  Salcido gave Mexico width down the left, in a formation very dependant on him.  He was quick, brave, and able to test goalkeepers from distance.  Mexico played some of the best football of the early stages and Salcido, shuttling down the flank, was a key part of this.

Central midfield: Bastian Schweinsteiger

Probably the most improved player in world football over the last two years.  He has transformed himself from a fairly skittish wide player into a dominant and authoritative central midfielder.  His partnership with Sami Khedira was crucial to German success, shielding the back four and then unleashing those coiled-spring counter-attacks of theirs.  On or off the ball Schweinsteiger is powerful, aware and intelligent – think Michael Essien but with better knees.

Central midfield: Xavi

The lead playwright for Spain, just as he is for Barcelona.  He is the metronomic presence at the heart of this side, who broke all the records for passes attempted and completed at the World Cup.  He was perfect as ever in South Africa, making Spain dominate possession with his passing, movement and intuitive understanding of space.  If there were moments when he did not dazzle that is because we’re numb to him from the last few years.

Left wing: David Villa

The difference-maker for Spain.  He scored the only goals in the last sixteen win over Portugal and the quarter-final with Paraguay, as well as grabbing three in the group stages.  He started the tournament playing from the left hand side, before moving centrally when Fernando Torres was dropped.  Wherever he plays he is a threat, with pace, anticipation and razor-sharp finishing.

Attacking midfield: Wesley Sneijder

Holland’s gnomish talisman carried his treble-winning form for Inter into the World Cup.  He has a fantastic ability for moment-seizing, as best displayed by that transformative five minute spell in the quarter-final with Brazil.  Yes, two of his five goals were deflections but there comes a point when you realise that it can’t just be good luck when it keeps on happening to the same person.  And aside from the goals there is his ability to fire sixty yard through balls on the turn which is reminiscent of the best of Andrea Pirlo.  An unfortunate silver medalist.

Right midfield: Andrés Iniesta

Like Spain themselves, Iniesta played his way into the tournament.  Coming from a season interrupted by injuries, he started slowly.  But it was a pleasure to see him gradually reacquainted with that jazzy rhythm of his as Spain went on.  His touch, his imagination, his nuances all came back – he strummed home a delightful goal against Chile. He slid in David Villa – via Xavi’s heel – against Portugal, and it was his run against Paraguay that set up Pedro whose shot came back for Villa to score.  It felt very right, then, that his tournament should culminate with the decisive goal in the final, a cool but firm finish when he might have snatched at it.

Centre forward: Diego Forlán

The Golden Ball winner.  Forlán was the star of the surprise semi-finalists, impressing with a rare ability to tame the Jabulani, evidenced by a number of long-range strikes from both set-pieces and open play.  On top of this was perfect linkage with strike partners Edinson Cavani and Luis Suárez, whom he played around and behind.  His free-kick in the last seconds of the third/fourth place play-off was thrilling but frustrating for those of us supporting his push for the Golden Boot.

I do feel bad for leaving out Thomas Müller, who couldn’t really have done any more.  But I had to omit one of Müller, Sneijder, Iniesta, Villa and Forlán and it was the young German who missed out.  Obviously 4-2-3-1 is a bit constricting for these players.  If I was the boss (and for the purpose of this exercise I am), Villa and Forlán would take turns leading the line while the other played either off the left (Villa) or as a number 10 (Forlán.)  When Forlán was dropping off you might have to push Sneijder wide, and then you’ve always got the option of Iniesta coming inside as well.

Spain won the World Cup, and clearly they deserved it. They were playing football on another level to their competitors, to the point where, in terms of the spectacle, it actually became a problem; turning Spain into something of an anomaly.

Spain dominated every opponent, without thrashing any side. They controlled every game they played, but never scored more than two goals, and only managed that twice. They won all but two games by a single goal, yet weren’t involved in any heart-stoppingly exciting matches. They played unbelievable football but scored the least goals of any winner of the World Cup, and nine less than third place Germany. I don’t doubt they’re one of the greatest sides of all time, but I still felt a little underwhelmed by them.

Two caveats to this: one, that the Spanish clearly and rightfully don’t give two hoots about the points above, and two, that despite the critical tone of this piece, I thought it was a good World Cup. Popular opinion is that the Spanish nearly made it a great one, whereas in a roundabout way I’m arguing they prevented it from being such.

Spain are almost impossible to play against. You certainly can’t beat them without ultra-organisation and no shortage of luck. Switzerland achieved both these criteria, and, being a naturally pragmatic and unadventurous side, were probably best equipped to do so. They played for a draw but sneaked a win. Bonus. More creative and attacking sides, like Germany, were naturally more tempted to give Spain something of a game and look for ways to win the match. Through that they came dangerously close to taking Spain on at their own game.

This is virtually impossible. In deploring Holland’s admittedly dirty tactics, Messers Hansen and Shearer of the BBC failed to mention once that drastic and negative – even cynical – tactics are a team’s only chance of stopping Spain. Certainly you can’t simply copy what the Spanish are doing. The implication from the BBC pundits was that Holland should have tried. They can’t play that way. No one else can.

Despite their superiority, all Spain could muster for their four knockout matches was a succession of 1-0 wins. This wrankles. They may have been more in control than the scorelines suggested, but they came a couple of Arjen Robben fluffed lines away from leaving South Africa empty handed. In that sense, it was close. They may have shown the Germans and Dutch to be mortals, but in previous games those sides had demonstrated a potency on the counter attack that Spain could not.

The excitement factor is important in tournament football. Italy ‘06 were not a great side, but their involvement in exciting finishes (aided by fortune versus Australia and France in the final, and brilliance versus Germany in the semis) added to their sense of entitlement. Through no fault of their own, Spain’s games this year lacked that.

They were a little too good. There’s no acceptable way of nullifying them. They’re nearly playing a different sport altogether. In Test cricket, if you’re on the wrong end of a large first innings deficit, you can accept the situation, dig in, show strength of character and determination and – if you have Paul Collingwood in the side – fight valiantly for the draw. Elite international football is less accepting. Each top nation has to look to beat its opponent. Against Spain, you can maybe stop them by defending (Switzerland) or physically attacking (Holland), but neither will be lauded.

At World Cup 2010 the Spanish achieved complete superiority, more so than any winner that I can remember. But I prefer the slightly blemished impression of dominance demonstrated by the French in 1998, the Brazilians in 2002 and even the Italians in 2006. Each of these champions took part in exciting games, found it easier to translate possession into goals and looked, to varying extents, beatable. They were playing the same game as their opponents, Spain were not.

Well, this was my dream final.  Two teams with a tradition of attacking football, and both still wearing the sheen of novelty having never won the World Cup before.  The world’s three most imaginative midfielders, Xavi, Andrés Iniesta and Wesley Sneijder all on the same pitch, trying to evade two of the world’s more entertainingly dastardly destructive midfielders: the masterful Mark van Bommel, and his protégé Sergio Busquets, who can foul, moan and ‘buy’ a free-kick just as well as the man who played his position for Barcelona four years ago.

But there is a slight sense of disappointment from some.  Holland, it is fairly argued, have yet to produce a performance of fluid attacking football we hoped for.  No one had reasonably expected them to reproduce the style of 1974 or 1978, but they did produce more dazzling moments in 2006 and 2008 than they have done thus far in South Africa.  And on the other hand Spain’s ball-hogging excellence has been so unique in the competition that – so the argument goes – it has produced a series of bland, frictionless contests as Spain patiently wait before striking late and decisively.

These two styles should produce a compelling contest on Sunday.  The match will surely be played in Dutch territory for the most part, with Mark van Bommel and a rested Nigel de Jong testing the patience of Howard Webb as they snap at the whirring feet of Xavi, Iniesta and Alonso. I trust that they will have good games but a bigger question concerns the Dutch back four, who have not looked too good thus far and are more likely to lose Pedro or David Villa than the Germans were on Wednesday night.  So an early Spanish goal is quite conceivable.

The thrilling prospect from a Dutch perspective, though, is that even with just crumbs of possession they pose a goal threat.  In fact, the Spanish style is almost ideally suited to their scoring.  With Spain playing as far up the pitch as they do there is necessarily gaping space behind the Spanish back four.  And while they are generally well-marshalled they are up against one of the finest counter-attacking combinations in football: the visionary quarter-back passing of Wesley Sneijder combined with the whippet wide-receiver pace of Arjen Robben.  One of those magical sixty yard balls of Sneijder’s, a foot race between Robben and a turning Joan Capdevila – and a surprise Dutch lead is quite conceivable.

And then we’d have the final so many were hoping for.

Like every other football fan I’ve spent the last few years in breathless awe of the Barcelona midfielders Xavi and Andrés Iniesta.  Since they passed and weaved their way to success in the 2008 European Championship they have won back to back La Liga titles, a Copa del Rey, a Champions League and a Club World Cup.  Those of us who have revelled in their brilliance have been keen that they repeat these feats in South Africa, that they make the final, firmest impression of themselves in the history books.

Before last night they had not quite been at that level.  Very good, of course, as Spain shrugged off an early defeat to Switzerland to march to the semis.  Iniesta had been growing into the tournament, with increasingly-frequent moments of grace and nuance.  His movement was more and more imaginative, his play more natural: a performance like his in the semi-final was predictable.  But Xavi had, at times, struggled for his preferred rhythm.  Proficient as ever but not quite inspired.

But last night they were both back to their very best.  Iniesta and Xavi moved the ball with subtle artistry, never giving Germany the slightest hold in the match.  As the game progressed they came closer to creating the chance that would unlock the match: Iniesta’s cross was just missed by a sliding David Villa, while Xavi’s exploratory balls forward were interrupted by Per Mertesacker the momentum built in the second half.  The goal came from the hurtling hairy head of Carles Puyol, as he connected with a perfectly directed Xavi corner.  Once ahead, Spain were in no danger of relinquishing their lead – possession football might be a good way of going ahead in a game but it is a peerless tactic for defending a lead.

And so Xavi and Iniesta are through to the final, where they have the chance to eclipse their European Championship of 2008 and their European Cup of 2009, with the World Cup of 2010; defining themselves as the best pair of passers their country has ever produced.

Insofar as Holland’s reaching the World Cup final has been attributed to any individual that man has been Wesley Sneijder.  And understandably so.  The world’s best attacking midfielder (sorry Andrés) has been crucial to Holland’s success with five goals at game-defining junctures.

But he hasn’t been the only excellent Dutch midfielder.  Mark van Bommel, stationed in front of a back four that is ropier than it looks, has been fundamental to their success.  And all of this while on the receiving end of what is known in some circles as ‘player hate.’  His thunderclap tackles, his haranguing referees and his competent passing are all good.

But the genius of van Bommel lies in his diving.  People tend to presume that simulation is a forward’s trick, aimed to win penalties and threatening free-kicks.  To some extent it is.  But it’s also a wonderfully useful ploy for defensive midfielders, allowing them to stop attacks and breakaways just before they pose danger.  For some reason referees haven’t woken up to this: I’ve never seen Sergio Busquets, Thiago Motta, Javier Mascherano or even Gareth Barry booked for simulation despite the fact that they do it three or four times every game.

It’s an art and one of the main reasons the one-paced Dutch back four isn’t as exposed as it might be.  But it is one of the many reasons that van Bommel is not competing with Sneijder for the praise of neutral admirers of Holland.  Against Uruguay he committed at least two tackles that could have seen him dismissed, as well as three or four bookable offences.  But he survived without punishment until one yellow card late on.  It betrays a remarkable confidence in the man.  Like Kilgore from Apocalypse Now, he knows that fate is on his side and he can do as he pleases without fear of the consequences that would befall other men in his position.  He was just the same against Brazil in the quarters.

You can’t celebrate Sneijder and Arjen Robben while condemning van Bommel.  He enables the others.  He might not play the game like Roy of the Rovers but he’s a multi-faceted footballer and a bit of a pantomime villain to boot.  What’s not to love?

While some are willing to bemoan Holland’s style of play, it feels a bit off to wish that a Dutch team that has reached a major final was more like recent sides that did not.  Especially when Holland are so very good at playing the game they have decided to play.  They won again last night – their sixth win in their sixth match – largely thanks to their ability to seize key moments.

This was the genius of their overturning Brazil in the quarters.  Lucky to be only one goal down at half-time, they equalised early in the second half when Wesley Sneijder’s cross was glanced in by Júlio César.  With Brazil reeling, Holland capitalised on the momentum reversal, as Sneijder nodded in corner.  Brazil never recovered and when Felipe Melo’s frustrated anguish manifested itself in a stamp on Arjen Robben the win was almost inevitable.  It was perfect example of Holland noticing a hinge juncture in the match and imposing themselves upon it.  Central to these defining events was Sneijder, who revels in meaningful passages of meaningful matches, as he demonstrated in last season’s Serie A and Champions League campaigns.

Last night was similar.  Holland went ahead before Uruguay equalised.  Uruguay had the better of most of the second half, as the Dutch struggled for tempo.  But with twenty minutes left, the ball fell to Sneijder on the edge of the box, and his shot deflected in off Maxi Pereira.  A game changing deflected goal in a quarter final could be put down to luck, but a game changing deflected goal in the following semi-final as well demonstrates what an influential footballer Sneijder is when it matters most.  The win was sealed when Dirk Kuyt’s cross was headed in by Arjen Robben, demonstrating an aerial ability I didn’t know he possessed.

Despite Maxi Pereira’s late goal Holland closed out the win with some assurance.  The game met the pattern of previous Dutch matches: patience and caution, seizing the crucial moment with some Sneijder-inspired event and then seeing it through.  Doing this in the final might be harder.  Whichever side they face will surely be favourites.  But if Holland can beat Brazil they must be confident against Spain or Germany.

For England fans, the feeling of disappointment was depressingly familiar. We all knew what to expect really, didn’t we? Certainly anyone who’s read Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper’s excellent book, Why England Lose, did.

In it the pair detail the “ancient ritual” that is England failing to win the World Cup on foreign soil every four years. I really should have recommended this book before the tournament, as the only faith in the Three Lions it encourages is the blind variety.

Revisiting this section of the book in the wake of Sunday’s game, it’s clear that Szymanski and Kuper won’t be hurrying through an amended and updated version any time soon – after all, the outcome was the same as ever, and they offer some intelligent reasons why this might be.

However, this being England’s fifteenth failure of its kind, I do detect a slight difference in the public’s reaction to a second round exit not marred by sendings-off or penalty shootouts.

Here is the pattern outlined by the authors, with a few words on how closely Capello’s England followed the script.

Phase One: Pre-tournament certainty that England will win the World Cup. There was a fair bit of this. For England fans it was a case of balancing the domestic performances of Rooney, Lampard et al. with a few dissenting media voices warning us that we’re only a ‘quarter-final team’ at best. Who wants to listen to those guys? We’re gonna win the World Cup!

Phase Two: During the tournament England meet a former wartime enemy. Always likely, and achieved courtesy of the US and Germany.

Phase Three: The English conclude that the game turned on one freakish piece of bad luck that could happen only to them. Here’s where we veer off script a little. I doubt Szymanski and Kuper could believe their luck when Lampard scored that goal that he didn’t score. It was far more of a travesty than Beckham’s sending-off in ‘98, either of Sol Campbell’s disallowed goals, Ronaldinho’s ‘mishit’ free-kick etc… But despite the fact that the match genuinely could have swung had it counted, the shambolic first-half performance and the realisation that England would have been extremely fortunate to get to half-time at 2-2, has vastly diminished the weight of the disallowed goal as an excuse.

Phase Four: Moreover, everyone else cheated. Again, little sign of this. Referee Jorge Larrionda will not be given the Urs Meier treatment by England fans who realise that their team’s problems extend beyond one incident of poor officiating.

Phase Five: England are knocked out without getting anywhere near lifting the cup. Bingo.

Phase Six: The day after elimination, normal life resumes. Kind of, but the point this section is getting at, is that phases three and four enable people to carry on safe in the knowledge that they were wronged, and that but for the bad luck the FA would be planning an open-top bus parade and a trip to Downing Street.

Phase Seven: A scapegoat is found. The only prize which England players did manage to hotly contest. Rob Green, John Terry, Wayne Rooney, Fabio Capello, Jorge Larrionda and Sepp Blatter all auditioned for the role. The most encouraging thing – indeed only encouraging thing – to come out of this World Cup for England? That few people are strongly blaming one of these characters for an early exit. The problems run deeper than that. Finally people are beginning to realise.

Three of the four quarter-finals are settled.  And while there is a lot of interest in Argentina v Germany – a re-match of the 1986 and 1990 finals – my current fascination is with Holland v Brazil.

This is tie between the two traditional entertainers of the world game, the two sides with the noblest traditions of imaginative and creative football.  Yet so far this World Cup both sides have been berated for failing to live up to the standards set by their predecessors.  Both sides have adopted 4-2-3-1 systems, each anchored by a pair of uncompromising guard-dogs: Felipe Melo and Gilberto Silva on one side, Mark van Bommel and Nigel de Jong.

In front of those two ferocious manifestations of the doble pivot sit two creative midfielders – Wesley Sneijder and Kaká – who found San Siro to be a better platform for their talents than Santiago Bernabéu.  Neither can expect too much space given the destructive players they will confront.  So the imaginative burden will shift out wide, primarily to Arjen Robben and Robinho – different types of wingers but with the same responsibility to spark something somehow.  Up front Luís Fabiano has set the standard for all-round mastery, while Robin van Persie has yet to quite realise that combination of touch and intelligence that makes him such an elegant striker.

The biggest of differences, though, comes at the back.  While Brazil and Holland have conceded two goals each, Brazil have conceded fewer chances, while the Dutch have been bailed out by some patchy finishing and some crucial Maarten Stekelenberg interventions.  Moreover, North Korea, Portugal, Ivory Coast and Chile represent more threatening opposition than Denmark, Japan, Cameroon and Slovakia.  Not only is Holland’s defence more prone to errors, and could well struggle with Fabiano and Robinho, but Gio van Bronckhorst and Gregory van der Wiel are not in the same class as Michel Bastos and Maicon.  With the midfield likely to be that congested, more than usual will ride on these players.  And Brazil have the certain advantage.

That’s not to say that Holland can’t do it.  But if they are going to conquer Brazil and make the semis they will need both to tighten up defensively and get more out of Robin van Persie and Arjen Robben than they have seen so far.  They might just do one.  But both?