Wide Open indeed

It was a very good and entertaining World Cup. Certainly one of the better ones. And, as I predicted (it wasn't hard!) it was wide open for one of a number of teams, including England for St George's sake, to win (Wide open? 16 June).

I said that, while Brazil were the favourites, I wasn't convinced they had improved that much since they got smashed by Germany in their own back yard last time round. They hadn't.

I said Germany felt beatable. Tick. I said Spain's change of manager could be good or bad for their morale, but they could be ok. They weren't. But they did feature in one of the games of the tournament, against Ronaldo and ten others.

I said that France had a lot of big name players, but I had my doubts. Pogba turned up some of the time - when he does he looks unplayable - but also spent some time, as I predicted, strutting around like a spoiled rich kid but not actually doing anything. In my youth that was called "poncing about" but I guess you're not allowed to say that now. Maybe not, but Pogba shows doing it hasn't been banned. I said I had never been particularly impressed with Griezmann and I'm still not. There are occasional rumours about him coming to the Premier League, but I would be surprised. Even if he wanted to I couldn't see any takers, at least not now Arsenal's manager's name doesn't begin with "Arse".  I wondered whether Mbappe was the real deal - obviously we can all now see that he is, the first teenager to score in a World Cup final since Pele 60 years ago. Because Kante and Matuidi more than covered for Pogba, and Varane and Umtiti defended well, France were able to use their devastating pace (when Pogba decides to move he's fast as well as Mbappe) to look even more dangerous than Belgium on the break. They deserved to win but arguably weren't tested by the highest quality opposition.

I said Belgium could go well. They did and will probably be a bit disappointed at falling short. Undoubtedly they will not be as pleased as England to have got to the semis.

Although I hadn't been holding my breath in anticipation, England delighted the nation, even if their expected limitations, in particular a painful shortage of creativity, were plain to see. Naturally I was delighted that Jordan Pickford did well. Personally I thought he deserved the Golden Glove award. As a 6ft 1in midget he clearly, inch for inch, outperformed beanstalk Thibaut Cortouis, all of 5 inches taller. At least if Courtois does move overseas as is being mooted I won't have to go to Chelsea's game at Goodison next year just to shout abuse at him for his risible comments about Pickford failing to save Januzaj's shot in the first Belgium game and being too small. (Those who know me best know I'm not joking!) Lee Dixon's comments about him trying to save it with the wrong hand were even dafter, even if it had been fed to him by David Seaman: they clearly forgot Pickford is left handed, at least until he made the vital penalty save in the shoot out against  Colombia.  I wonder if England's renewed popularity with the public will survive being in a "group of death" in the new UEFA Nations League with Spain and Croatia (them again, maybe Modric will have been jailed for perjury) in the autumn.

Croatia were the surprise package and they very nearly came through like Greece in Euro 2004, as I said someone might. While England showed football is still a team game, Croatia added grit and bottle to teamwork, coming from behind against both Denmark and Russia before winning both on penalties. Oh and having two top class midfielders helped a bit as well.

The other team I commented on were "perennial underperformers" Argentina, who I said I found unconvincing. "After all, can you win the World Cup with Willy Caballero in goal?" I asked. Rhetorical question, I know - Caballero was soon dropped after attempting to chip the ball over on onrushing Croatian forward, a mistake that I can't separate from Hugo Lloris's pratfall in the final as both were equally brainless. I also said that, for Leo Messi to be ranked the best player ever - as many experts have said he is - he would need to turn in a really good performance in what was likely to be his last World Cup "rather than looking like an imposter most of the time".  The imposter continued to turn up. Now I of course accept that Messi is a great player. But I am fairly sure I am in a minority (I certainly am with my two sons) in saying that, given the choice between them, I would go for Cristiano Ronaldo every time. I see this through the eyes of a lightweight teenage winger and an only slightly more filled out adult centre back. If your team is under the cosh and holding on through an Alamo like siege, you want a player up front who you know you only need to get the right ball to once and he will score a solo goal that will turn the game, even if he hasn't had the scent of a chance all game. For me that's Ronaldo not Messi. Rod Liddle, writing on the heroes and villains of the World Cup in last weekend's Sunday Times, said

Leo Messi. You remember! Long face, lugubrious expression, dodgy tax returns. Never scored a goal in a knockout game in any World Cup. Almost a bystander as Argentina were beaten by France. So good they built the team round him - mistake. So enigmatic he effectively ceased to exist. But such a wonderful club player, which is how he will be remembered - among the second echelon.

Even I think that's a tad harsh, Rod. But the fact is Messi has appeared in four World Cups and, despite mystifyingly winning the Golden Ball best player award in 2014, has never remotely reproduced his club form on that stage. Some players, like George Best, never get the chance to perform in a major tournament for their country. So I accept you can't only take international performances as the main benchmark. But Messi has had more than enough chance to prove himself on that stage and has conspicuously failed. Whereas Ronaldo didn't just draw with Spain with limited help, he dragged Portugal to a European Championships win. I rest my case, boys!

As well as plenty of good football, the tournament seemed well organised and had a good atmosphere. I don't particularly welcome the good publicity for Putin, but he presumably had the advantage of being able to bang up all the Russian hooligans or at least issue some heavy and believable threats as to the consequences if they showed their faces in any of the cities hosting the matches.

We can now turn our attention to an appetising cricket series with India and the Open golf. In passing I note that the Football Association chiefs are now introducing themselves abroad as being from the "English FA" in order not to appear arrogant. I doubt that approach will commend itself to golf's Royal and Ancient....

For my routine bet on the Open (small stake, no cash!) I am picking between Dustin Johnson, whose swing I have always admired and has a natural fade which suits Carnoustie; Tommy Fleetwood who holds the course record there and finally managed to play ok at an Open last time at Birkdale, though after a ropey start; Rickie Fowler who has an outstanding record at golf's majors and must surely win one eventually, though his form has blown hot and cold this year; and Henrik Stenson, a past winner who did well at the last major, the US Open. Stenson hasn't played since - maybe he has been saving himself.

I left Justin Rose off my shortlist. Although he is perhaps the world's most consistent player over the last year or two he hasn't performed at his best in an Open in a long time. But I'd be delighted if he proved me wrong and won.

Picking winners in such a competitive sport is, of course, a mug's game. But the player who would write the biggest story if he won is, of course, Tiger Woods. Woods has a good record at the Open, winning it three times and he plays links golf strategically, unlike many of the pros who turn up with only minor modifications to their normal game. Woods finished in the top 12 in the last Carnoustie Opens, in 1999 and 2007. There is a stellar list of previous winners, including Tom Watson, Gary Player and Henry Cotton. But one other stellar winner's name seizes the imagination: Ben Hogan. Hogan was just short of his 42nd birthday when he came to Carnoustie and won in 1953, his body rebuilt after a serious car accident. Tiger Woods is 42 and has got back into the top 100 in the world golf rankings after major back surgery, following on from a serious knee injury. Oh and a car crash of a private life of course. Could he do it? Well he clearly could. Will he? I'm not betting on it, but what drama that would be.