For each failure at each tournament blames were quickly found. But the Ghanaian game has not been requested in general yet. Let's make an attempt: 
 One reason why Ghana can not win any major tournaments recently: They looked organised and individually strong, a class ahead in one-against-one situations. Although those two properties are considered as fundamental pillars of the game, they merely are the only major components for teams and events with short preperation time and considerable player fluctuation, they do not cover the entire art of the game. 
 The recent teams of Ghana at all levels have lacked a cooperational vision in attack. It can be often seen, a player has possession of the ball then he starts to dribble with it. Most others watch him, hardly moving, staying in their positions. The player, extremely skillful indeed goes by a defender or two, then sees he has to pass the ball on and looks around. Because there is no coordination he does seldom find free space created to pass the ball to and has to give the ball to another player already in a pressured situation or in a situation with the way to the goal blocked who then has to set up another one-against-one situation.
 When visionary passing players already know where they will pass before they even have received the ball, and the visionary receivers anticipate this as well even before even he (the passer) receives the ball, Ghanaian players look like they want to control the ball first (what they are able to because of their individual strength) and see then how to continue.  
 Example for the other approach are the Netherlands who have reached a high level in cooperational attacking game. During long tournaments with considerable preperation time some teams can reach higher levels of cooperation during the process of a tournament (think of notorious slow starters like Italy and Germany). 
 Ghana sometimes looks like a Jazz band competing with popmusic factories, the second achieve an impact sound with the coordination of simple skills. Most listeners may admire skills of the first, they will dance to the tunes of the second. 

 Not convinced? Well, consider this:  
 You will probably not object to the thesis that Ghana is rather an attacking team than has a defensive counter approach.  
1994-1998 Ghana played 13 matches in the final tournaments, reached once semi-finals, once quarter-finals.  
Their goal average: 1.0:0.8 (13-10 goals)  
In the same period Côte d'Ivoire had the same achievements (once final, once semi, once quarter).  
Côte d'Ivoire's goal average: 1.9:1.3 (23-16 goals in 12 matches)  
The last time Ghana has scored more than 2 goals in a final tournaments match was 1982 in semi-finals extra-time. The year they won the last of their four Nations Cups.  
 What this shows? Though Ghana dominates the matches they find it hard to score. Often the matches become fragmented into one-against-one challenges which can be defended against by smart defense shifting. While their counterparts in youth games are not as far developed tactically as they become later, Ghana still work their way with almost the same methods. To win the tournament Ghana must reach a higher level in team production attackingwise. Maybe the new coach has worked on this We will see.  

 BUT: Ghana are co-favorites nevertheless. First of all the team has such a huge quality. Second of all the 2000 edition of the Black Stars consists of European based players who now all have key roles in clubs of European top leagues. This might have fixed the 'bug' in their game. 
 If Ghana reaches Lagos, they will have become a more sophisticated unit for sure. In the first round they will play West African counterparts with more or less similar strengths and weaknesses. The possible quarter-finals and semi-finals ill be a hard task anyway. The final will take place at Lagos which co-hosts Nigeria are favorites to reach. Should Nigeria do, they will be strong enough, too. This constellation makes Ghana left as favorites number two of the tournament.