As the 2002 World Cup qualifying kicks off when the Australia tackles, Tonga, Samoa, American Samoa and Fiji in the Oceania Group A, the Australian public are again treated with disdain by having to put up with a shock qualifying system and shocking early matches that will be nothing more than training drills. As it stands, this first phase consists of each country playing each other only once instead of the traditional twice, which is totally ridiculous since qualifying should find the best team from the region to go to the finals. It also means that a loss to Fiji, whom are a real danger and have beaten Australia twice before, would spell an embarrassing doom. Adding to the absurdity of it all, expect cricket scores against the other the tiny nations who really have no right to be even playing teams like Australia or NZ. From this point on, the group winner then plays Group B winner in a sudden-death two-legged play-off - again ridiculous - in June, with the winner then going on to play the fifth best South American team in November in yet another two-legged cut-throat play-off.
The system of a one-off one-and-only opportunity to qualify via these play-offs has largely been responsible for Australia's demise in the past. The system needs streamlining whereby progression is by winning a group after a round-robin home and away league. Ideally Australia and NZ should have a bye to a final group league scenario which would be a group of 4. The other two teams being two of the other countries that have won the right to join the big boys in this final Oceania qualifying stage. This group would then play six matches per team, playing each opponent twice, with the group winner going forward to South America. This system has two advantages: it would be an end to those ridiculous 13-0 scorelines because only the strongest of the island nations would make it through, which in turn, would make for more competitive games; and, it would give the island nations something to strive for - another tier to reach - and a chance to actually qualify for the World Cup (if Oceania ever get direct entry). As it stands, reaching the final Oceania play-off is near impossible for them as they'd have to beat one of the big guns, Australia or NZ, on the way. Then to expect them to beat the other gun in the final Oceania play-off would be nigh on impossible. They still may have little chance in the proposed final group league, but at least they get to have a crack at it.
Of course, these matches should have been played long ago - early enough to allow for significant participation in the South American qualifying. Playing the fifth best in a play-off again - just like Iran in 1997 - is Russian Roulette whereby one indiscretion, refereeing error, whatever, can cost you your one and only shot at making the Cup finals. The South Americans are currently involved in a league system where each of the 10 countries plays each twice making for long-winded 18 game qualifying process. The top four go through to 2002, while the fifth plays Oceania winner. Now, this has been mentioned in an earlier editorial, but ideally, each of the two top Oceania teams (qualifying from the proposed final-four league) should have been placed in a South American group of five teams. They then play home and away, league style, with the top two teams from each group qualifying for 2002. Then, as a second chance opportunity, the two third placegetters from each group would then play-off, home and away, to decide the fifth and final place. This is the only way play-offs should be used: as second chance affairs, not primary chances. No where else in the world does a Confederation have to tolerate this.
The effects of this qualifying path have two distinct advantages. Firstly, the Oceania teams are not sent on a quest of winning fluky play-offs to progress. The league style rewards consistency, not opportunism, and invariably, the best teams qualify. The second, and probably more important aspect in terms of future development of the region is that the two Oceania teams get five meaningful home World Cup qualifiers, instead of just one Oceania team getting just one home game every four years (like Australia against Iran in 1997). And I am sure the South Americans would gladly prefer a shorter qualifying process, even if it might mean slightly less income (the main reason they are playing 18 games, though, big games against Australia would no doubt draw crowds as good as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia or Peru).
Final Oceania Group: Australia (bye), NZ (bye), Fiji (Prelim Group A winner), Tahiti
(Prelim Group B winner).
Australia and NZ qualify
South American Group A: Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Australia (Oceania
winner)
South American Group B: Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, NZ (Oceania
runner-up)
You can see that both the final Oceania Group would indeed be a full-on, competitive group. There would not easy matches there. You can also see that in the South American groups, the Oceania teams would still do well to finish third, but making it easier is not what it is all about; it's about making it fairer. Imagine the impact on the region and the respective countries by hosting teams like Brazil and Argentina. If you include a potential third-place-getter play-off, then Australia could potentially host six real, fair-dinkum World Cup matches, instead of the current one. That is six chances to physically support our team. Not only that, so would NZ fans get the chance to see their team in at least five meaningful games, instead of the current none. And for the smaller countries, the prospect playing these teams - by finishing first or second in the Oceania Final Group phase - would provide considerable impetus to develop the code in the region.
If Oceania fails to get direct qualification for 2006, then every attempt must be made to provide a fair qualification process. The utter contempt shown against Oceania by first, denying them direct qualification, and by second, denying them a fair process is a disgrace upon Fifa which they repeatedly fail to acknowledge. It does not matter which other Confederation Oceania has to go through next time, it must be insisted upon that it is done in a fair and proper manner. Do it for the good of the game, or at least for the good of Oceania.