The Australian National Dictionary selected "captain's pick" as its word (sic) of the month for January last year, following Julia Gillard's selection of Nova Peris and Kevin Rudd's of Peter Beattie as Labor Party candidates. Fortified by such splendid examples, Tony Abbott widened the ambit of "captain's picks" to embrace diverse policies, whims and fancies, and of course crowned by the knighthood for Sir Duke Prince King Whatsie.

What must not be allowed to stand is the horrible slander that has been thereby perpetrated upon sports. We are not to blame! This practice of a "captain's pick" is not standard, even if Michael Clarke wishes it were. The captain does not pick, but is humbly picked; a captain who thinks he is the picker is soon in trouble. As the dictionary points out, the term derives from golf, where in the Ryder and President's cups "most golfers are selected on the basis of performance, with some selected at the team captain's discretion". On gut feeling, special pleading, or merely on a sixth sense that a player might be a worthwhile inclusion for being a jolly good fellow to have around the group or out at night, the captain may choose his own portable Robert Allenby.

But the captain who does the picking in the Ryder and President's cups is a non-player. He's not really a captain at all; more of a No.1 ticket holder. So if you wanted to draw a correct analogy between captain's picks and politics, it would be if, say, the governor-general, as non-playing captain, decided on a hunch to pick someone as prime minister who hadn't earnt their place on the team. Not that that could ever happen.

Sport is, or tries to be, a sanctuary from the arbitrary mood swings of power politics. That's why it has scoreboards. That's why it would rather not have FIFA, a body that, through its own impenetrable devices, has managed to produce, provide and even moisten the wet blanket that the nay-sayers would like to throw on the AFC Asian Cup.

It's been almost impossible for them to find a sane criticism for a tournament that has been fabulously supported, smoothly organised, exhilaratingly contested, and, as Woody Allen would say, very well lit. The worst you could say about the Asian Cup is that it's going to be over too soon. Aside from proving Australia's competence at hosting such an event, it's proved multicultural Australia's credentials as a fit and proper host. The teams and their supporters have brought an abundance of personality, from Japan's fleet-footed but nervy blondies to the UAE's hair bear bunch to Palestine's waywardly optimistic long-shots. Who can blame them for living on hope.

Even the scuffles have been entertaining, taking place where they should, on the pitch. Orwell called football war minus the shooting, but when you saw Iraq upset Iran it was clear that this was not war or any proxy for it, but only football, played with passion of the highest order. And from a local point of view, Ange Postecoglou's Australians are emerging the way his club teams have done: steadily, patiently, and in good time revealing their own style and confidence. It's been a joy to watch them emerge from the chrysalis of inexperience, and they are winners whether or not they beat the Koreans tonight.

Yet, thanks to FIFA's arcane "rankings system", the scoffers have their sodden blankie at hand. An Australian win over South Korea would only condemn the cup to irrelevance, because FIFA says Australia are the 94^th best team in the world and South Korea are 66^th. Oh dear. Imagine if Germany (1) or Argentina (2) were relocated in Asia! Imagine if the might of Cape Verde Islands (33) were floated into the Asian confederation! Imagine if Asia Minor (Turkey, 46) were instead in Asia Major! Imagine if your aunty had gonads – you'd have to call her uncle! Hell's bells, how second-rate we Asians are!

This is the type of thinking that says the Western Sydney Wanderers didn't achieve much by winning the Asian Champions League because they didn't have to beat Barcelona. Or that Germany were a dodgy World Cup winner because they'd have had no hope against 2010 Spain or 1970 Brazil.

The truth is that games only exist in and of themselves, not in some imaginary contest against who is not there. FIFA's top-ranked team seldom if ever wins the World Cup. The point of the World Cup is to determine the top-ranked team, not the other way around. For all we know, we may, in South Korea and Australia, be watching two teams who are in the next World Cup's quarter-finals. Maybe not. Who cares? We are watching the best two teams in this competition, being played now, at the climax of an event that has been an unqualified success. It deserves to be judged for what it is, not what it isn't.

In the world of infinite comparisons, you can always find a wet blanket. It's just a shame that FIFA has supplied the material, in its usual arbitrary, authoritarian way. But then, how does the Australian National Dictionary define "captain's pick"? "Noun: 1. the selection of a political candidate directly by a party leader. 2. a decision made by the leader of a political party without consultation with their party." Sounds like a job for Sir Sepp Blatter.