The dust has settled on yet another failed World Cup campaign, and instead of the soul-searching of what went wrong after the Iran game, most are looking at the future in realisation that our qualifying path is unfair and must be changed. However, there have been criticisms of the campaign and things did go wrong - things that this site highlighted as the real reason for our demise four years ago. It went unheeded as the emotional fallout of what happened on the field during the Iran failure blinded the real issues. We then proceeded foolhardily into the subsequent World Cup campaign only to suffer elimination via the same consequences.
Simple answer, yes. The immediate realisation after the loss was that the team was simply not good enough. Many of the band-wagon media were suddenly now expert enough to label the Montevideo match, a thrashing. I've even seen media quotes of a "hiding" and an "utter thrashing". Did they truly watch the match or just look at the final score? Until that third Uruguayan goal just before injury time, one Australian goal would have seen us heading to Korea/Japan instead. But, the ignorant media have proceeded to dissect our team's players and belittled the clubs they play for. You know, Okon can't even get a game for an ordinary Premier League team; while Moore plays for one of the teams in the two-team Scottish League, Vidmar can't even get a game; Muscat maybe captain, but it is only England's second tier league; and, most of the rest of the team play for moderate clubs on the continent and other lower English divisions. Even our own Johnny Warren bemoaned the lack of a South American influence and general lack of quality. He even stated that we need eleven Harry Kewells! Hell, not even France has eleven players of that calibre.
While our players' clubs are no Juventus, it does not mean the team was not good enough to be at the World Cup. The World Cup is about the best teams in each Confederation, not the best teams overall, and certainly not about the best teams on Fifa's flawed rankings system. Speaking of rankings, on the more comprehensive and logical Elo Ratings (eloratings.net), Australia rated as high as seven after the Confederations Cup, and is still in the top 10. When you look at teams in the World Cup, about half of them Australia have beaten, or been very competitive against. We've had the edge over Concacaf's best - Mexico - the last two meetings, and they got three spots. The Asian teams are certainly no better than us, and in South America, we beat Uruguay at the Confederations Cup in 1997, and beat Brazil in 2001. While we've occasionally struggled against some African teams, we actually have a good record overall with wins over Tunisia, South Africa, Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria within the last decade or so. Then you look at Europe, and teams like Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, Turkey and Poland compare equally, and often less, favourably to our team when player's leagues and clubs are matched-up. Conversely, there are teams that did not make it that we'd struggle to beat - like Holland and Colombia. I suppose Holland were not good enough to play in the World Cup either?
There's also the argument that if we could not beat the fifth-best South American team, then we don't deserve to be there. Well, that does not wash either. Personally, if you can't finish in the top four in the 10-nation South America, then you don't deserve to be in the World Cup. And since when did Uruguay become the yard-stick for teams making the World Cup? Whilst we at least won a match off them, Brazil could only draw and lose to them in the South American qualifiers, yet they still qualified? And as for the teams mentioned above, most would also fail to beat Uruguay under the similar circumstances that we met them in. Even a superior team, like maybe England, I'd love to see how well they'd go if they had no serious matches in a four-year World Cup period, then had to face tiny teams like Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino in early World Cup qualifying before waiting 6 months to face a battle-hardened Uruguay the way we had to. Simply, we weren't good enough under the circumstances, on the day. But we were good enough.
And does the so-called lack of quality mean the team was not even good enough to beat Uruguay? No. Before the game, most people thought we had a great chance. Just because we failed, it does not suddenly make us not good enough. And what about the first leg? How quickly was that forgotten. We beat them there. I suppose if the legs were reversed whereby we lost 3-0 away first and won 1-0 at home last, the media line would reflect a tone more of bravery of not being able to overcome the stoic Uruguayan defence packing their trenches. You have to look at both matches in one context. Yes, they beat us overall, but only on the silly aggregate goal rule. People really need to watch both matches - especially the Montevideo one - again, as without emotional anxieties exaggerating key moments, the match was actually much closer than most fail to realise.
In fact, I've watched the match three times before writing this editorial. And this is a big call, we probably should have qualified and were probably the more deserved team. Uruguay created nothing in Melbourne, and we created six great chances in Montevideo. As mentioned in the write-up of the match, we created as many chances as them and had more corners. In Melbourne, the chances and corners tally was way in our favour. Also, lets not forget that with the tie tied at 1-1, it was Australia that was dominating the second half when the second Uruguayan goal came against the run of play. All that happened in Montevideo was that we were tactically caught out early, and got run around a bit. Given that I was even watching the clock right from the whistle, it was quite a surprise to the team caught spare so much early on, and a pity we conceded so early. That feeling, however, was tempered on the subsequent viewing. But fact is, we only conceded one goal during that bad patch - a silly goal at that - that was only sufficient to level the tie anyway. The second goal was even more silly, unecessarily conceding that free kick. On paper, the 3-0 result does look bad, but it could quite easily have been 2-1 with Australia qualifying. The reality is, that up until Uruguay's third goal in the 89th minute, one Australian goal would have sent them to Korea/Japan. It really was that close. So one bad patch of play surely does not write off the entire team as not good enough. Uruguay had bad days in losing 5 and winning only 7 matches in their 18 match campaign. The difference is, they got extra chances to learn from their mistakes. We did not. That is where we lost out.
Our team is evolving all the time. In 1993, our top players were of the calibre of our squad players this time. In fact, most of the rest of the squad that year were locally based. In 1997, nearly the entire first eleven played overseas, but none (other than maybe Bosnich) were of genuine world class standard, high profile stars in their teams, or played in top teams. This time we had two of these players - Kewell and Leeds - plus the rest of the squad playing first-team football, often as star players, in various European leagues. Our stocks have never been higher, and no doubt the next squad will be even higher. However, and without denigrating the team's excellent performances recently, the team does lack a genuine world-class defender - one of the calibre of Kewell in offense. Montero stood out like a beacon for Uruguay, and someone with his level of skill and organisation is what Australia needs most urgently to further develop. Three of the four current players are around the 30-mark, and while Popovic is in the wings, it falls away after that. Hopefully people like Foxe and Colosimo can really come-on in the near future.
Seemingly based on one bad patch of play, the formation, and most notably, the lack of a sweeper system has been blamed by some as our failing. That's despite the fact we've traditionally played with sweepers in previous campaigns, yet still let in those critical away goals in our home games. This campaign, however, we achieved our best ever final-phase result, and kept a blank sheet in a non-Oceania playoff match for the first time probably since 1973. The current 4-4-2 formation was also good enough to keep Scotland, France and Brazil scoreless. It was not an issue then, so it should not be an issue now. In reality, the team's backline remained too static and they allowed Uruguay too much time on the ball in their own half. That may have been naivety, or simply just nerves getting the better of the team, but not the formation. Credit also goes to Uruguay's coaches whose tactical nous was the probably the main difference between the two teams. In hindsight, you may have made a slight midfield alteration to a diamond-type 4-4-2, or a 4-1-3-2, that ensured Okon played a "windscreen-wiper" position in front of the back four, but not a total formation change. It was too late to go fiddling things anyway, and potentially suicidal. Given the team's excellent recent defensive record, why would you? Just imagine if Farina had implemented a new formation and still lost. The critics would have been calling for his head in an instant. Part of the reason Farina implemented the 4-4-2 was that most players are familiar with it at their clubs. It just made the transition easier into the national team - something critical given Australia's preparation and abrupt campaign.
Speaking of preparation, it was not ideal. But under the circumstances, there was really nothing Farina could do about it. Ideally, you'd like at least a dozen qualifying matches that the rest of the world gets, which makes preparation matches almost redundant. Essentially the campaign itself becomes your learning tool. Oh for a best-of-three series against Uruguay rather than the aggregate goals rule and silly playoff whereby we had to fend for ourselves leading up to it. And despite Farina's best endeavours, playing in Europe regularly failed to materialise. We saw recently with the Latvian and Lithuanian games falling through that obtaining European matches is difficult. And setting up a permanent European base - as some media have proclaimed - is not the answer either. Predominantly because it further alienates the national team from the very people it represents, but also, it's concept is all wrong. Instead of trying to ensure the team is prepared sufficiently for our current-style World Cup qualifying campaigns, it is the design of these campaigns that has to be - and should have been - addressed in the first place.
Yes, some people, including former player Ray Richards, famed TV commentator Les Murray, and callers to radio, lambasted the decision of playing home-first. Even though Australia had no choice about it, they still queried Farina's endorsement of the decision. And as usual, none were able to provide suitable explanation of why home-last is better. Even Les Murray could only offer a wonderfully insightful description of "nuts" for any decision to play home-first. He went on to say that if we'd lost 2-0 in Uruguay first, then getting three goals in Melbourne was "gettable". Really? And is that more gettable than simply drawing, or not losing by more than one goal in the away leg that this campaign's scenario conjured up? I am not going to repeat the pros and cons from the Home And Away editorial, but I don't see how we could have scored three goals playing home-last when we could not score three goals playing at home first. Why would playing home-last be any easier? We could not do it against Iran. Uruguay - a far superior team defensively - would have packed their defence even more tightly if they had to protect a good lead. Australia got their best ever home-leg decision playing home-first, and that very fact alone - against respectable opposition, mind you - is endorsement enough that home-first was the right decision. But add to that, the home-first decision actually kept us in the game in Montevideo. We went there only needing a draw, and even when Uruguay scored their second goal, we still only needed one to go through. And with a bit more luck, we would have.
Was this a factor or not? While Australia seemed to be out-lasting Uruguay in Montevideo, that may have been more to do with the highly draining pressing game Uruguay played in the first half and the fact that they were playing their third game in nine days. Regardless of the travel factor, that sort of schedule is demanding in itself. And Uruguay certainly tried to reduce any form of induced fatigue by resting certain players like Reguerio (on the bench) and Silva (supposedly injured) for the first leg. The bottom line is we simply don't know what jet-lag influence there was, and there is no way you could place something tangible - like a goal - on it. Uruguay definitely sought to gain the tieing goal as early as possible, but from then on, it seemed they were more intent on playing the waiting game. If Australia had prevented Uruguay from scoring in the first half, then, with hindsight, you feel that they would have been there for the taking. Again, if only we'd had one more chance, which leads nicely to the core issue: why were the same mistakes made again?
As soon as the third Uruguayan goal went in, anger, then fury suddenly boiled within. Fury that, yet again, we'd been eliminated through an unfair system. Fury, that nothing was done about it four years ago. Fury, that after four years of build-up, the entire campaign was over in a matter of minutes. Part two of the "what went wrong" series of editorials after the Iran game detailed our flawed qualification process. This process was probably an asset in the past when, as underdogs, the increased randomness of playoffs helped us. While we never ever benefited from this, these days when the team is competitive enough to make the World Cup on it's own merits, the process has now hindered us twice running. When the fifth-place South American playoff was announced, most bemoaned the lack of a direct spot for Oceania as yet another raw deal. However, Oceania accepted it, supposedly in a deal with now current Fifa president Sepp Blatter that would guarantee a direct Oceania spot for 2006, and proceeded to let its champion team suffer the consequences in the playoff.
There were four playoff teams this qualifying series (Oceania winner, fifth South America, third Asia, ninth Europe) yet the pairing saw the two powerhouse confederations play the two weaker ones. Oceania (and Asia) really should have sought to play a mini-group with these four teams with the top two qualifying. That's six games each, with three big games at home. Failing that, why the hell were the pairings the way they were? If Fifa cared about the developing world and their "good for the game" mantra, Ireland would have played Uruguay and Australia played Iran.
Well, it turns out that the Oceania/South America playoff was already locked in following the "deal", with the Asian third-placed scenario evolving only later when they complained bitterly about their lack of spots. Europe then interceded and converted its best second-placed team from a direct qualifier to one of a playoff with Asia, which Ireland became. Compound that with the Oceania "deal", then Fifa seems to be absolved of most blame... this time.
The blame is actually directed 100% towards Oceania for effectively selling-out Oceania for 2002 for a mysterious pot of gold at the end of a mysterious rainbow that a direct spot for Oceania supposedly is for 2006. For it remains to be seen whether Blatter upholds the deal, especially since he really has little power in such matters. Decisions like this must be ratified by the executive committee - comprised of a quota of members representing each confederation - and in the past, confederations hungry for spots have usurped many of Oceania's wishes.
Even the extra spot that's arisen with the announcement that the holder gets no automatic spot from now on, is likely to be highly clamoured by all. The power that Europe and South America holds in the executive committee has traditionally been insurmountable, even if all the other confederations vote en-block against them. Little Oceania has no chance - they will be the last confederation any of the others side with. While it's admirable that Oceania seek a direct spot, sacrificing the 2002 campaign in the process - especially in such a rubbery deal - is was silly. Oceania should have at least insisted the half spot be converted into a fair qualification campaign.
In some respects, the loss to Uruguay has finally opened up the world to the pitfalls and injustice of our campaign. It should have been realised post-Iran. If we'd qualified this occasion, then the realisation may not have come about until the next run of 20 years of World Cup failure. Suppose it's better late than never. All the talk immediately after the game - from Soccer Australia chairman Ian Knopp, coach Farina and Oceania chairman Basil Scarsella - has been towards Oceania obtaining a direct spot.
Now, that is something that has been spoken about since 1982 when the World Cup first went to 24 teams. New Zealand qualified for that Cup after beating China in a playoff, but the direct spot issue surfaced again after 1990 when the thought was that USA 94 would finally see Oceania get a direct spot. Instead, we got the ridiculous run of a playoff against a Concacaf team (Canada) then a South American team (Argentina). The bickering for spots only intensified for France 1998, so much so that Fifa increased the teams competing to 32 and announced Oceania would get one spot.
However, when it came to ratification by the executive, Oceania - as a partial confederation - received the fourth best Asian team in a playoff instead. Oceania was then told that it needed full confederation status to have any real chance of obtaining a spot. David Hill (Soccer Australia's chairman at the time), realising Australia lacked a future in Oceania, wanted none of that and sought to have Oceania disbanded and to be absorbed into Asia. His vote was the only one against obtaining full confederation status. The full confederation status meant nothing in the end, and even in contravention of Fifa's very own constitution that states all confederations must be represented at its sanctioned tournaments, Oceania's direct spot hopes were dashed again on the announcement that the fifth-placed South American team would be the final hurdle in a playoff.
(Footnote, 03/08/2002: The deal mentioned above regarding Oceania sacrificing a direct spot for WC2002 turned out to involve a condition placed on the confederation when gaining its full membership status. The condition was that Oceania would not protest and lean on its constitutional right for a World Cup spot (which all full confederations have) in the event that a direct spot was not awarded. For 2006 and beyond, there is in effect no need to complete the deal as Oceania's constitutional right will be exercised, ensuring guaranteed World Cup representation. Refer to news item of 03/08/2002 for more information.)
Part of this playoff merry-go-round problem lies within the fact that Fifa don't have a set World Cup spot allocation. They fiddle it each four year cycle depending on who is hosting and who's the holder. It really should be irrelevant. Those two spots should be set aside, with the remaining 30 spots remaining permanently allocated. Extra hosts would see their confederation lose a spot. The weird route in 1994 was due to USA being host Concacaf's traditional second spot then became a half-spot. South America wanted to retain their total of four teams that they had in Italy (Argentina were holders), so were given 3 and half spots. For 2002, Asia lost half a spot since they were hosting, whilst South America gained half a spot because their previous Cup holders (Brazil) now had to qualify. Unless Fifa settle on a set allocation, Oceania's playoff path will forever change. And despite the supposed deal, I would not be banking on a direct spot for 2006. There must be a fall-back plan of at least a fair qualifying process.
The question nowadays is whether pursuing direct qualification is even worthwhile. Not in the sense of finally procuring it, but of how much good it will do for the region. The very concept of Oceania is now in question. For what exactly would a team from Oceania playing in the World Cup really do for Oceania? How would football in the Cook Islands benefit. Would the Cook Islanders even embrace, say, Australia in the World Cup?
Once the fifth placed South American playoff was announced, the Socceroo Realm proposed that this spot be given to South America in exchange for Oceania's top two teams playing each in a pool of six with five South American teams. The top two would then qualify from each group with the two third placed teams playing off. This suggestion was emailed to both Fifa and Oceania for not only did it mean for a fair campaign, it had tangible benefits for football in the region. Even if both teams failed to qualify, having 10 teams including the likes of Brazil and Argentina visiting the region would do far more than having Oceania's best team qualify via a playoff to merely play a minimum of three World Cup games in a far-off foreign country. Not only that, it gave incentive for the minor nations in the region to improve themselves as they could reach smaller milestones along the way. For beating New Zealand, Australia, then, on this occasion, Uruguay, to make the World Cup was nigh on impossible, so too even reaching the playoff against Uruguay. But simply making the top two was at least gettable. If they failed that objective, they had the fallback of following closely their region's two best teams with regular big games played within the region. We've seen the benefit the MCG games against Iran and Uruguay had on the media and public in this country, so it stands to reason that you want more of these type of games in more areas in the region to really promote the sport.
If Oceania received a direct spot, then the region would be devoid of any of these MCG-type games basically ever again. The four year period between World Cups would consist of meaningless friendlies at home - most likely using home-based players - and some in Europe, with the foreign based players. We never saw our first eleven play in Australia between the Iran and Uruguay games, so without even that playoff, we'd probably never see them live ever again. Direct qualification is a wonderful achievement politically for the region, but it's doubtful it would provide any tangible significant benefits. Teams like the Cook Islands will still be obliterated each quadrennium, whilst the better teams like Fiji and Tahiti will prove no more than nuisance value, even to New Zealand. As for the Kiwis, if their reaction to losing to Australia this campaign is any guide, they'll be even further resigned to being Australia's icing on their quadrennial qualifying cake.
While Oceania is in existence, they actually do deserve a direct spot. It's totally ludicrous that a full confederation is not represented at a tournament supposedly representing the world. The sole argument against Oceania's direct spot is that it would give Australia a free spot every World Cup. Whilst true, perennial qualifying teams having it easy is a consistent problem that most regions face, so why should Oceania be any different. South America's four guaranteed spots basically ensures Argentina and Brazil always qualify. The same could be said for Mexico - and lately the USA - in Concacaf. Cameroon has not missed out for eons, and in Europe, Italy and Germany always seem to benefit from only having to beat one or two moderate teams in their groups. Holland missing out this time was a surprise, but they were up against Euro-2000 third-placegetters Portugal, and had one bad result against a respectable Ireland. Yes, upsets can occur, and no doubt one day Australia would be upset. But if there was no direct spot, then that team would not benefit as they would have to perform yet another upset, this time in the subsequent playoff against whomever. That's the only positive for direct qualification.
But in reality, the best thing for the region is to have Oceania's full confederation stripped and for the region to be inextricably linked to Asia for the World Cup and the various Asian Cups for both countries and clubs. Under the ideal World Cup allocation, 5 spots would go to the Asia/Oceania group, 5 to Africa, 13 to Europe, 7 to Concacaf/South America (2.5 and 4.5 spots respectively), and one each to the hosts and holders. Stripping the holders of automatic qualification seems harsh - maybe the decision should rest with them? If they chose to qualify, that spot should go to their confederation. Failing that, the extra spot should probably go to Europe. The past two campaigns have seen the ten top Asian teams go into two groups of five who play round-robin, home and away. The top team have qualified from each group, with the two second placed teams playing off. With Oceania in the mix, along with its spot, you'd have two groups of six with one Oceania team in each. The top two from each group would qualify, with the two third placed teams playing off for the fifth spot. That would give the two Oceania teams ten big matches, five at home.
The downside to this format is the suggestion that obtaining releases from European clubs will be difficult, but that's bunk. So too that the cost of travel would send the game broke. Nearly all of these matches would be played during designated international periods, and besides, the clubs simply have no choice. They are World Cup games, not friendlies that predominate the focus of club versus country tussles. Also, South America played 18 games, and had no trouble. And the cost of travel would be more than recovered through the gate. Given a crowd of 80,000, only $1 per ticket would go towards airfares. The real killer travel-wise is friendly games that not only don't generate sufficient gate takings, but often, the touring team's expenses have to covered.
The link to Asia should also include participation of Oceania's countries and clubs in Asia Cups and Club championships. There simply is no future in this concept in Oceania because it is so small with Australia too dominant. The participation with Asia and the huge corporations in the region is far more viable. It means more big matches and more exposure for our team, especially during the dormant non-World-Cup years. However, I'd also like to see a rival championship to the European one develop involving teams from each of the other five regions participating (Africa 4, South America 4, Asia 4, Concacaf 3, Oceania 1). Then maybe the winners from each championship could play a final to decide the Confederation Champion. That would absolve the need for the Confederations Cup itself.
Again, with it coinciding with the other continental championships of the time - especially under Fifa's soon to be implemented international calendar - there should be little country versus club issues. If there are, then the problems would run much deeper than clubs merely playing hard-ball on releasing players. A conglomeration of clubs - hints of which we saw during the dispute over the France friendly - would more likely reach such power that they'd be in a position to undermine the very fabric of international football. The only solution to appease them would be to replace the current intermittent international matches during the club season with a time-condensed club season of about 7-8 months followed by a two month dedicated international season. That way, all World Cups, Continental Cups, qualifiers and friendlies, would all be played during this time and not interfering with club commitments.
While the international calendar is one thing, Fifa's greater ideal of expanding the game worldwide is the more significant issue at hand. In fact, if they are really serious about their "good of the game" slogan, the 2006 World Cup allocation should see the developing nations get a better deal. The allocation should see Europe get 14 spots, Asia/Oceania 5, Africa 5, Concacaf 3 and South America 4. Obviously the hosts get the 32nd spot. However, while several media commentators have pre-empted most of what has been written in this editorial, there's one factor that must be considered as a solution to the impending bickering as confederations clamour for the holder's spot that has just become available. In order to appease them all, Fifa may just take the soft option and increase the number of teams in the World Cup to 40, playing in eight groups of five, with the top two progressing. The allocation would then be: Europe 16, Asia/Oceania 7, Africa 7, Concacaf 4 and South America 5. The increase to 32 teams for France 98 was brought about following similar circumstances. The extra round of matches will matter little, especially if they condense the the four first phase round robin matches into the current duration of two weeks or simply lengthen the tournament by a few days. Increasing playing squads by a few members would also help.
Regardless of whether we like it or not, Oceania will, by right, have a direct spot for 2006. The Blatter deal was documented in the minutes of a meeting of the Fifa executive committee at the time and Blatter himself has continually promoted the need for Oceania to gain a direct spot. The executive committee are obliged to ratify the move, especially as a returned favour created when Oceania president of the time Jack Dempsey's instrumental actions saw Europe obtain the 2006 Cup itself. Of course, there's no time for Oceania to rest on their laurels for nothing is really guaranteed with Fifa and it's executive committee. Not getting a direct spot won't be that bad anyway. At the very least, the promised direct spot will be a great bargaining chip to finally give some true impetus to the region with an integration into Asia. But whatever happens regarding the promised spot or the next World Cup allocation, Oceania must strive for a qualifying path that forsakes ease for something that is as fair and truly beneficial to the region as possible. I just don't want to be writing the same things again in four years time.