In part one, I alluded to two "off the pitch areas" that were significant in the downfall of Australia. Namely the choice of playing at home last, and the qualification process.
Home or Away first?
Quite simply, Australia stuffed up - they should have played at Home first. Now this goes against what most people feel is right, but if people really look at the home and away situation, playing at home first is an advantage. And with Iran playing Japan the previous week, there was more a cause for playing at home first.
First the actual Iran situation. Most people saw Iran playing at home first a disadvantage for them due to the plane travel. One week they were at home, the next to Malaysia for the playoff, then back home for the first leg, and finally back across the world to Australia for the last game. With all this travel and time changes to inhibit them, surely they would be ripe for the pickings? Wrong. If anyone saw the Iran/Japan game they would have seen two leg-weary, heavily fatigued teams almost going through the motions. Both teams knew that this was their last chance as beating a fresh Australia would be near impossible. Instead we saw a revitalised Iran at home with a huge optimistic crowd to cheer them on; and playing 1000% better with restored confidence gained from support and encouragement received throughout the week.
Ideally, Australia should have got them here immediately in a hostile environment, intimidated them, and pounded them in the first game whilst they were in the state they were after the Malaysia game. If Australia had scored early in the first home game the Iranians would have simply fallen apart and copped a hiding
Facing their own hostile fans a week later after turning certain qualification a few weeks earlier to now certain doom, they would have crumbled. Compounded with the additional pressure of having to perform in the last game - at home - and having to win, they would have virtually no chance.
But what about in normal situations? Why play at home first? Well simply, less pressure. The last game of a playoff obviously has more pressure than the first. And playing at home last, the pressure amplifies. Throughout the history of playoffs, whenever there have been upsets, it is usually when the favoured team has played at home last. You only have to look at Australia's own World Cup campaigns for examples. Iran in 1978 and Australia vs NZ in 1982 where they got rolled 2-0 at home after scoring 3-3 away. Against Scotland in 1986 when they dominated play, but kept squandering chances. 1990 saw Israel eliminate them. Australia have just not been able to win at home when playing last. Granted some of the teams were better than Australia, but in games they should have won, they did not. Of course we now go to 1998 and Iran. Some can point to Australia beating Canada 5-0 to qualify for Atlanta, but really, Canada was a very ordinary team.
Now look at the successes. When Australia made it, they played Iran at home first, won 3-0, and lost 0-2 away to go through. The Barcelona Olympics, they eliminated Holland - one of the pre-tournament favourites. In fact, Australian teams seem to perform better away. Look at that Olympic team, as well as the 1988 team, and also the Confederations Cup last year.
What about Argentina for USA 94? Yeah, but what about the struggle to beat a lowly Canada before that when Australia played at home last? But lets get real. Argentina were a super team and the thinking behind Eddie Thompson's reasons for playing at home first was the pressure situation. When Argentina played Colombia they lost 5-0 and all Eddie saw was one hell of a nervous team. The idea was to repeat the dose. Indeed, in Argentina's home leg, they were nervous, and just scraped through. People forget that once Australia's opponent was known at the time there were predictions of 5-0 thrashings, yet for the defensive mistake leading to Argentina's goal in Australia, it may have been 1-1 on aggregate and anything could have happened. This tie could have gone either way with a bit of luck, which if anything, Argentina received. Arnold was pulled down after beating the last man, yet the referee did nothing. Then there was the deflected cross in Argentina and the inch-perfect goal by Balbo after Australia inadvertently lost possession at home.
But the most telling example of the home and away debate is this. If you discount the deflected cross that resulted in the Argentine goal in Argentina, Australia, with a much better team, a much better coach, and playing against much weaker opposition, still got eliminated on the away goals rule to Iran. The only difference? They played at home last. Quite simply, Australia must be prepared to play away last, and more importantly, actively seek it. Playing at home last has never been an advantage and never will.
Now, in reality, we all know it was poor finishing, poor refereeing, panic defending, poor tactics with substations, and luck that got Australia eliminated. The tension and/or excitement of the occasion got to the Australians which was only heightened by playing at home last. Of course it is all hypothetical, but when you think that basically everything went against the Aussies, yet they lost so narrowly, playing at home first might of made all the difference. We will never know.
The Qualification Process
What we do know is that Australia had only one chance to qualify - Iran had three. For all the domination Australia exhibited that night, they fell due to the sudden death, Russian Roulette of the playoff situation. They fell to the magic of the game - where anything can happen, and where one error can mean life or death. With the missed offside call by the referee and the stupid offside play, two errors came and Australia had no recourse. Every other team in the World has their first chance of qualification via a pool situation where winning it means you go through. Then, for the losers, there are extra chances via the playoffs. Iran had this, in fact two playoff chances. First they had the initial pool games where they crumbled at the end after look likely qualifyers. Then the playoff with Japan, and then the playoff against Australia. Australia had only the playoff. Not fair.
Herein lies the problem: the playoff. Playoffs are meant to be second chance options for those teams who failed, or for other losers. Not for first and final, and only chance at qualifying. Even the playoff to decide Oceania's representative is wrong. What hope would say NZ have? They have to get lucky to beat Australia then do the same against another team. It should be a league situation.
In the past, Australia has had not much reason to grumble as they have played better teams than themselves and were expected to lose. Of course, it was completely unfair for them to be playing these teams in the first place. But in fact they had the advantage then that Iran had this time in the chance of getting lucky. After all, they nearly knocked out Argentina and did knock out Holland from the 1982 Olympics. This time, the boot was on the other foot and they suffered the most unjust exit.
Also, there was the huge gap between qualifying games. Australia played NZ in July and waited 5 months for Iran; whom they had no idea of playing until 1 week before the tie. Yet Iran benefited from nearly a year of hard and frequent qualifiers and came into the tie hardened. Australia played one friendly against Tunisia one month earlier as their only build-up. This is wrong.
The most telling tale is this: Iran did not win any of their last six games, and lost three, whilst Australia went through undefeated.
What should have happened? The two final Asian groups should have been increased to six teams with a member from Oceania in each. Australia and NZ (winners of their respective preliminary pools) should have each been included in them. The league situation would apply with the top two teams going through. No playoffs required. And Fifa should put their put down and force this despite the rumblings from the Asians. Alternatively, Oceania should of had a direct spot (the Fifa constitution does state that each confederation must be represented in their tournaments) and the fourth Asian team should have played the third placed CONCAF team (Iran vs Jamaica). With the poor performances of teams from these areas in France, this would only seem to be right.
Failing that, Fifa should revert back to their previous system for playoff games, especially for primary qualification ties. That system was a three game series where the third game was played in a neutral country should the tie be level after two games. In this system there were no away-goals rules, no aggregate goals and no extra time either. Only the actual game result counts. Extra time and penalties were used at the end of the third game if the series was still tied. This was how Australia qualified in 1974 when the serie against Korea was level after two games. The third game, played in Hong Kong, was won 1-0 by the Aussies in the last minutes of the game. This method would at least reduce the Russian Roulette aspect of the current series and allow for teams that only get one shot at qualifying, a decent chance.
In Future Oceania must insist that they get the chance of direct qualifying through the pool situation for the Champion (and maybe runner up), or at least the 2-out-of-3 playoff system. Not only would this be fairer, it would also give credence to the Fifa directive of having the best possible teams from the regions at the World Cups, and more importantly for the fans, give Australia more big games. We only had one this time. In a pool situation we would get 5 or 6. Early talk seems to indicate Oceania will indeed go through a pool via Asia (and the Asians are not grumbling), so lets hope Australia/Oceania gets a good chance of qualification next time. If anything positive can come out of the loss to Iran, it is in fact this. Surely Fifa must now be aware of the unfairness of the playoff situation and will expedite a fairer qualification process for Oceania.