Eight years ago, when this website started, it opened with a feature on the Iran games - what went wrong. It was a crushing, heartbreaking loss - something that went down in the chronicles of Australia's sporting disasters as the greatest. Five editorials alone were written about the event. Now, eight years on, we arrived at an event that rivals that of even our 1983 America's Cup win as Australia's greatest sporting moment. The dream became a reality in easily what was the most sustained amount of high drama and tension in the history of Australian sport. That fateful game against Iran in 1997 soon became known as "the Iran game", and it's conceivable that this game will become know simply as "the Uruguay game". It will remain an indelible mark on Australia's sporting timeline for literally centuries to come.
Back then, the establishment of what went wrong was that the playoff system and Australia's general World Cup qualification path had the primary impact. In my preview to these qualifiers against Uruguay, I again isolated the format itself as having the greatest impact. Not that we were more capable with it, but by its very nature, we were always a chance. This time, we finally got the breaks.
For all the preparation, the coach, the players, the tactics, the systems, the planning and the support, it all quite easily could have unravelled to nothing. Yes, that even goes for new coach Guus Hiddink. While we hail him as a genius, what if Recoba had scored early on in Sydney? What if Kewell actually connected with his shot and it was saved? What if Uruguay scored more in Montevideo as they should have? Most of all, what if Australia lost the shootout?
Suddenly this success becomes a failure, yet, nothing of significance has changed. Maybe nothing changed at all. Maybe in response to, say, that Recoba goal, Hiddink would change things, the respective teams' attitutudes change, and Australia goes on to score 3 goals and win the game. Or, they are repeatedly hit on the counter attack and lose by 5. That's all hypothetical as to the final result. But that shootout, being the last event of the game, if that doesn't go our way, nothing can be changed.
Did Australia win? Forgetting the shootout, the simple answer is that, yet again, Australia failed to do the job in the second leg when playing home last in a critical World Cup playoff. They even had an extra 30 minutes of time to do it. Again, what if Uruguay won that penalty shootout? We'd be talking right now (again) how Australia failed at home. So why should the fact that we won the shootout change anything?
I was staggered to read Graham Arnold's comments at the FFA's website where he claimed statistics showed that the home-last team has a 70% better chance of qualifying. What stats? In my observation it's the exact opposite. Of the four other World Cup playoffs played at this time, three were won by the home-first team. For Euro 2004, four of the five playoffs were won by home-first teams, including Latvia beating Turkey. For World Cup 2002, it was three of five. In club competitions, it's the same story. For Australia, it's even worse, with history actually showing a deplorable 90% disadvantage when playing home last. It was only as a result of some poor Uruguayan finishing that Australia did not concede a goal in this match, nor another in Montevideo. The 1-0 win was no better than the 1-0 win in Melbourne four years ago despite this supposed 70% advantage.
But what of the Uruguayan players tiring and cramping - like Recoba and Montera? Well, Recoba is no athlete and is often substituted early. Where any effect did come was the fortunate nature of Australia having a fully customised chartered flight arranged for itself, while Uruguay was consigned to normal economy class travel to Australia. But that doesn't give the home-last scenario and inherent advantage, it gives it one. Just like it helped Australia further four years by playing home-first because Uruguay had to make two trips across the Pacific in a matter of days.
Yes, it was fortunate too. Australia originally had plans for a commercial flight - until Uruguay started playing funny buggers with the kick-off times. Thinking that delaying the match would prevent Australia making their flight, it actually forced Australia into organising a charter flight of its own. To complete the double whammy, Uruguay's own charter flight fell through and they were suddenly stuck with the possible situation of not leaving Montevideo until the next morning unless they could move the kick-off time forward again. However, without having made reservations on any commercial flight, they were severely restricted with travel options, with the best being a charter flight to Santiago, Chile, to connect with the commercial flight that eventually took them to Sydney.
The disparity in travelling conditions did tell. The longer the game went, the more it suited Australia. Similar so the travel situation for the qualifiers in 2001 where Uruguay had to make those two trips across the Pacific in a matter of a few days - with the second trip even having most of their players forced into economy class. But ultimately, neither team took the advantage. If Brett Emerton had not conceded that free kick for Uruguay's second goal in 2001, no doubt Australia would have qualified. They were all over Uruguay by that stage of the match. Equally, had Recoba or Morales converted their chances in Sydney this time, Australia were gone.
Then there's the shootout - did having the crowd help? While you could argue that it gave the team confidence, equally you could say the burden of the home crowd pressure would have told. I mean, Viduka did miss, and Carini, Uruguay's goal-keeper, guessed wrong on three of the four other time. It's fair to say that he might have got one of those had he guessed right.
What the charter flight did was make playing home-last an advantage provided Australia did not concede early. But was it a stroke of genius? I think not. Did playing home-last help us qualify? Impossible to quantify. At the end of the day, it was a playoff, it finished 1-1 on aggregate and anything could have happened.
Of course, stating that the playoff system was our greatest ally pays a total disservice to the players on the pitch. Just like it would have done did for our recent teams. Despite their "failure", they were not ignored. Especially those against Iran and Argentina. Nor should the merits of this team. Because, put simply, had they been unable to compete, they'd have lost straight-out on the pitch. So of course you need a team to compete, to apply the pressure, and capable of winning. This team certainly ranks as one of our best, even had they failed in that shootout.
Obviously the big factor was Guus Hiddink - hired just four months prior to these playoffs. He moulded a team into one that could control a match and adapt to various situations. Gone was the bumbling defence, though, high scoring team as seen in the Confederations Cup, and in came a new disciplined and cohesive unit.
It was not all perfect, though. While able to control the game, the team actually created very few serious chances on goal over the two matches. Probably this came down to a lack of time to work with the players. Maybe the team needed Frank Farina to coach the away leg and get a 4-3 result like he did against Germany and then Hiddink to take the home leg for the 1-0 win? In contrast, Uruguay had many more - especially in the first leg. They had greater serious chances in the second leg too, though, those were mostly from free kicks, opportunism or Australian errors. On sheer ability, they created nothing.
The major change Hiddink made compared to the previous coaches was the planning. This is something I addressed as the most serious flaws from our last two campaigns, while for Iran, team selection was also an issue.
First, Hiddink got the selection spot on in the Uruguay games. He chose class and experience foremost, even at the expense of a couple of players not quite match fit or playing for their clubs. Especially with Popovic in defence, who was rarely even making the bench for his second level Crystal Palace team and only playing reserves football, it quite potentially have been suicidal to play a rookie. While in goal, all the speculation and groundswell for Kalac was totally dismissed for the incumbent Schwarzer, who while maybe not playing at the ultra highest level like Kalac was in Italy, he was at least playing each week for Middlesborough in the English Premier League, and was in form.
With the planning, it still bemuses me how Farina went to Montevideo saying Australia had to score a goal, when they already had the lead and only needed to sit back, control the ball, and wait for Uruguay to tire from chasing the game.
So they push up-field, leave the defence without cover, and are sucker-punched with a ball over the top to Silva, who's out one on one with Murphy, then bang. To make it worse, days earlier in the newspaper he described exactly Uruguay's tactics of sucking the opposition midfielders up-field only for the ball (usually by Montero) to be played over the top. That's exactly what happened.
Then Venables in 1997 failed to acknowledge the deceptive value of a second Australian goal given the away-goals rule. I can recall sitting in the stands chatting to a friend at half time that we need three. Two goals is a waste and that if one doesn't come soon after a second goal, time to close up shop. When it didn't, and players noticeable lost composure going forward, there was no change in the plany. The team kept attacking. This was barely 10 minutes after the second goal, or 15 minutes into the half, when things started changing.
This time, for 2005, Hiddink had firm plans in mind for both legs. People were bemused at Kewell being selected to start in the first game (actually, most didn't even want him in their team) and why Bresciano didn't play. When Kewell didn't perform to his usual high standards, people were still asking questions. Hiddink then explains that he was protecting players from a yellow card and wanted to save them for the second match. Oh, now we see why.
Then comes the second game and Hiddink starts with one striker and three central defenders - and in contrast to the Uruguay game four years ago where Australia already had the lead, this time this is game where we are behind and must win. I still hear the cries against Eddie Thompson doing the same against Argentina and towards Farina for not playing Kewell wide with a another striker up front against Uruguay in 2001. First thing is that Australia could not afford to concede an away goal. Secondly, Hiddink needed to evaluate Uruguay's line-up. As he was quoted after the match, you cannot win a game in the opening minutes, but you can lose one. Once he saw the extra defender was wasted against their lone striker, Kewell comes on for Popovic, and presto, an extra player in midfield, more control of the game, more balance, and within minutes, a goal.
It was this fundamental planning that got Australia to the World Cup. Had Australia had such planning for 1997 and 2001, no doubt Australia would have qualified then too. At least for one of those occasions.
Emotion - it's an amazing entity. The biggest effect it has with watching football matches is that it skews the picture so badly. In 2001, I still read how Australia was "thrashed" by Uruguay in Montevideo, and yes, at the time, that is how it felt. Every single incursion they made into our penalty box felt like potential doomsday, while every incursion we made into theirs felt like they were impregnable. Truth of the matter is that other than a couple of dangerous moments early on, it was a very even game. In fact, Australia had more shots, more corners and more clear-cut chances. We also forget the first leg where quite easily could have gone to Montevideo with a 3-0 lead.
This time, the first 20 minutes of the game in Montevideo where we thought Australia played so well, they barely did anything with the ball. In the first 20 minutes in Sydney when we thought Australia was struggling, they actually weren't. It was very even, and Uruguay made no real chances for themselves. Then when we thought Australia was dominating the latter stages of the game, especially during the second half of extra time, it was Uruguay that seemed the most likely to score. So much for tired legs, as they showed tremendous character in trying to win it at such a late stage.
As is becoming the theme of this Uruguay series, football is about moments. With possibly two penalties missed and Morales missing a late attempt at close range, it could quite easily have been a 3-0 loss in Montevideo. Equally, it could have been a 1-0 win. In Sydney, Australia could have been gone as early as the third minute or won easily in regulation time. Judge for yourself.
* denotes goal chances
** denotes critical chances
*3:30, Uru: After Morales is fouled by Neill when contesting a header, Recoba's direct free kick bounces of Schwarzer's chest, clear of anyone else nearby to rebound it in.
*11:30, U: An inswinging Recoba free kick as a result of a Chipperfield foul from near the sideline is headed to safety by Popovic.
*11:50, U: The resultant corner skews just wide off a Lugano header.
*13:10, Aus: Vidmar long shot after a crossed ball is headed out of penalty box. Shot saved.
*15:50, A: Bresciano direct free kick after Chipperfield is fouled goes over the bar.
*18:00, A: Vidmar lovely long pass to Viduka. Holds it, plays Emerton out wide, who then cuts ball back for Culina to have shot from outside the box. Saved. A low cross by Emerton across the face off goal for two late runners might have been preferred.
**19:00, U: Recoba dashes onto a ball headed down from Morales after a goal-kick and blasts it wide with only Schwarzer to beat. Not as glaring a miss as many commentators say as Recoba had little time for his shot, and had to hit it hard given that Schwarzer had cut down the angle, which always means a more crucial demand on skill and accuracy.
27:00, A: Popovic swings an arm trying to block Recoba gathering a ball, accidentally connects high and slightly with an elbow to Recoba's face. Yellow card. Just moments earlier, Australia's Cahill copped a slap in the face, but no card given.
*29:20, A: Emerton long shot after nice build-up. Went wide.
31:00, A: Popovic substituted for Kewell. With Uruguay only playing one striker, no need for three Australian central defenders. Australia moves to a back four with Chipperfield and Emerton taking the wider roles. Kewell moves to left midfield.
**33:30, A: Goal after Bresciano latches onto a Kewell mis-hit shot after a nice interplay between Chipperfield, Kewell, Cahill and Viduka after a quick throw in from Chipperfield.
*37:00, U: Viduka foul on Rugeiro, again near that dastardly sideline where Australia conceded in Montevideo. Recoba's free kick proved uneventful - going low to the near post and easily cleared.
*39:00, U: Vidmar yellow card after a clumsy foul on Rugeiro. Recoba's free kick over the bar.
*41:30, U: Grella fouls Garcia and Recoba's free kick easily handled by Schwarzer. He bounces the ball in the control, though, which almost gives Lugano a chance to pop it into the net.
44:30, U: Rugeiro yellow card after fouling Culina.
45:30, U: Diogo yellow card after fouling Kewell
*46: 30, A: After Lugano fouls Kewell, Bresciano's free almost met by Cahill and Chipperfield. Scrambled away.
**49:20, U: Morales totally free for a header on goal from a corner, but heads it straight into the ground for an easy catch by Schwarzer. Four Australians on the line, too, might have stopped it. Commentators say a linesman's flag went up, but no apparent reason was offered. Replays suggest maybe an arm/elbow push by a Uruguayan runner on his marker trying to evade him.
*52:30, A: Kewell jinks passed a man down the wink, crosses in for Cahill to make a snapshot on the turn. Montero on hand to defend well, though.
*55:10, A: Emerton put through down the wing, low cross, blocked by Montero.
*55:30, A: Resultant corner scrambled out, a dink back in headed down by Viduka for a snaphot by Bresciano just outside the box. Ball a bit hight and goes over the bar.
*56:40, A: Kewell turns opponent after a long pass by Neill, low cross is blocked.
58:00, U: Potentially dangerous back-pass situation for Australia. Schwarzer clears OK.
*58:50, A: Deep cross from Kewell almost connected by Cahill. Too close to the goalie.
*65:30, U: Morales fouled over the top by Vidmar going for a header. Recoba's lob from 50 metres falls short and easily headed out by Australian defence.
*68:15, U: Morales cross, after a poor clearance, headed out by Vidmar. Recoba's corner falls short. Rebounded cross lands straight to Schwarzer's feet for an easy low catch.
72:00, U: Recoba substituted for Zalayeta. Montero takes free kicks.
75:10, U: Garcia yellow card for foul on Cahill.
75:00, A: Viduka looks like he was dragged down by Lugano from a Bresciano kicked lobbed into the box. Mirrored the situation on Morales by Popovic early on in first leg in Montevideo.
*77:00, A: Cahill flying header off a Chipperfield cross. Went wide. Couldn't quite reach it to get the required power and accuracy.
78:00, U: Montero pulls hamstring. Comes off. Garcia takes free kicks.
**80:15, A: Kewell has similar effort to Recoba early on with a shot after a header down from Viduka. Though, Kewell's a bit wider and on unfavoured right foot. Shot saved.
81:00, U: Sosa comes on for Montero.
*84:30, A: Bresciano corner falls to Chipperfield, though, he's met by a wall of charging Uruguayans. Shot block. Resulting scramble is knocked back in, but is too long for Cahill, ending in a goal kick.
85:30, A: Kewell yellow card for diving when greeted by a Lugano challenge. Kewell seems to be tiring somewhat.
05:40, A: Bresciano substituted for Aloisi
*06:40, U: Varela shot just wide from outside the box after a quick free kicked taken by Zalayeta after he was adjudged to have been fouled by Neill. Seemed more that Zalayeta collapsed, but there was some slight contact.
07:30, U: Rugeiro substituted for Estoyanoff
*08:20, U: After Estoyanoff's jink down the wing and cross is headed out, Rodriguez has uncontested header in front of goal from corner. Ball goes over the bar. Possibly a touch too high for him.
*10:20, A: Chipperfield free kick lands too close to goalie for any chance of Australian header.
**10:30, U: Appalling attempt to meet the ball by Grella sees it bounce over his head from the resultant goal kick of previous Australian free kick. Neill pokes the ball off Estoyanoff trying to round him for a shot on goal, but picked up by Zalayeta, whose low cross is prodded out by Vidmar standing near the goal-line after the ball passes Estoyanoff and Schwarzer. The ball rebounds to Sosa, whose shot is blocked by despairing body tackles at the ball. The resultant corner is then cleared.
*12:20, A: Emerton long shot goes way over.
*15:00, A: Chipperfield has a shot on the volley after a corner rebounds to him. Blocked by a thousand Uruguayans - and the goalie.
*17:10, A: Nice long pass for Aloisi to chase, but gathered by goalie. Just a tad too hard.
19:40, U: Morales yellow card, seemingly for dissension towards the referee. That's what you get when you ask for Spanish speaking referees who can understand you.
19:50, A: Emerton substituted for Skoko after cramping.
*22:00, A: Skoko free kick - again too close to the goalie. Ineffective.
*24:20, A: Viduka snapshot on the turn off a Skoko low drive/cross, but Lugano marking tightly and easily blocked. Viduka might have done better to dummy it - letting it run past to someone more free.
*25:30, A: Skoko long shot after Carini punches out a deep cross. Looked a chance, but always wide.
**26:40, U: Morales has shot after receiving a ball popped back into the box and bouncing off contested header towards him. Goes just wide, though, goalie possibly had it covered.
**28:30, U: Zalayeta has a header after a very deep free kick is headed on. Dribbles across the face of goal for Schwarzer to gather. Tightly marked, but free header, and should have done better.
A, Harry Kewell hits left, goalie goes right. 1-0
U, Dario Rodriguez stutters run-up, hits weak to right, saved. 1-0
A, Lucas Neill, from two steps, hits left, goalie goes right. 2-0
U, Gustavo Varela hits low to the right, goes under goalie's body. 2-1
A, Tony Vidmar goes low to the left, goalie goes right again. 3-1
U, Fabian Estoyanoff hits hard and high to right, Schwarzer goes wrong way anyway. 3-2
A, Mark Viduka stutters run-up, misses to left, goalie went left too. 3-2
U, Marcelo Zalayeta hits sweetly high, but not wide enough towards the right, goalie prods out palm, saved. 3-2
A, John Aloisi hits high to the right corner, goalie gets fingers to it, but shot too hard and hits back of the net. 4-2
Australia qualifies for the World Cup
So there you have it. I count five critical chances for Uruguay to Australia's two - one of which is the goal. Of the other chances, it's way in Australia's favour, 19 to 10. In Montevideo, critical chances and other chances were both in Uruguay's favour.
What does it mean? It means the team with more possession will naturally have more chances, but can be caught out. For all of Uruguay's critical chances in Sydney, all were opportunistic - relying on set pieces and strength, and also the odd Australian defensive error. Their goal in Montevideo was of the same nature too.
Nothing wrong with that. It's playing to your strengths. Uruguay know they'll have a certain number of free kicks and corners per game, and probability deems that they will score seemingly at least every two games.
Where Australia's play served them so well was that they were able to repel Uruguay through all other avenues. Eventually the free kicks did dry up too, and Uruguay were largely a spent force.
It's just a pity Australia could not wrap it up in normal time, especially that second half of normal time when Uruguay basically did nothing. But that's the nature of the game, and thankfully it balanced out in the latter stages of extra time when Australia began to tire and Uruguay started gaining chances.
But really, credit to both teams. The high measure of tension and drama shown during the match is solely testament to the courage and unwavering commitment and will power to succeed. I don't believe either put a foot wrong anywhere. It just came down to the fact that Australia got it in the end.
It's sad that Australia, joining the Asian Football Confederation as of Jan 1 2006, will rarely, if ever, play Uruguay again. It would be lovely if a home and away commemorative two match series could be arranged every four years or something.
For Australia, Neill and Vidmar especially were my heroes. Their reading of defensive situations was sublime. If that wasn't enough, both created chances with superb long passing from the back. It just topped it off that they made successful penalties too. Kewell was the other superstar. How fans and media can turn on him so quickly astounds me. Money doesn't buy that sort of class. Viduka did well despite being tightly marked. Obviously Schwarzer. The rest were serviceable. Grella, for all his good, could easily have become my newest number one villain. As Hiddink says, it's all about detail. That horrendous misjudgment in trying to meet that goal kick that almost gave a Uruguay a killer goal is huge detail. He was also closet man to Rodgriguez for his goal in Montevideo yet allowed him a free header. That's why I'll never forgive Steve Horvat his role in both games against Iran, nor really Brett Emerton for that second goal in Montevideo four years ago.
I still cannot understand what has happened to Brett Emerton. Not just his role in conceding that goal to Uruguay in 2001, but since then, he's totally lost the plot. It's either trying to do the impossible taking on three defenders at once, messing about with the ball and then passing it to someone under equal pressure, dilly-dallying so long that he loses possession himself, or taking preposterous long shots on goal. It seems born out of total arrogance, which seems further vindicated with a smug interview after the game when saying he was always confident Australia would qualify.
For Uruguay, Lugano in defence was all class. Garcia in midfield was terrific too. Estoyanoff seems to have reserves of potential.
It must be remembered that for all their so-called "divine right", Uruguay are a shadow of the team they can ever purport to be. Since 1974, they've only qualified for 1986, 1990, thanks mostly to the legendry Enzo Francescoli, then came the long gap to 2002, where they were first round losers. It's nothing special.
On the night, I felt they were far too finicky and inconsistent. While a couple of things were missed, on reflection after watching again, they were excellent. Yes, they were strict, but they were fair and consistent and kept good control of the match. It's a much better scenario than to have loose ones - as Australia suffered for the Iran game, where Iran escaped almost with blue murder.
Most of all, it was the best refereed penalty shootout I've ever seen. The referee made it clear to both goalies at the start that no forward movement would be tolerated.
Even through the TV box, it was a phenomenal atmosphere and a highly educated crowd. I was worried it be fully of hoons or corporates and be quite banal. It would have been nice to be there, but I felt that staying at home in Melbourne and watching with a couple of friends that were also at the Iran and Uruguay games in 1997 and 2001 respectively was not only about "completing the journey", but it just might also bring a change of luck. When it got dark, I didn't put the main light on, but instead the light to my globe of the world. I soon thought that with this globe being the only focus in the room other than the TV, it might be a symbol of our destiny. I didn't tell my friends of course.
Great, of course. Only grievance was of Craig Foster's over-zealous barracking. None of us appreciated his inane thoughts in our minds - especially when he was almost "coaching" the game. Don't know how many times we yelled at him to shut the hell up. Someone off camera really should have nudged him. The low point, of course, came when Forsatti, Uruguay's coach, threw the ball at Culina during a throw-in. Other than the cameras conveniently switching away just as the even about to take place, Foster's billowing admonishment was excruciating and childish.
I was a little surprised at the time, but didn't concern me much. Maybe that's because I boo our own stupid one and refuse to even acknowledge our ridiculous flag. I could be mischievous and say the display that night was "typical Sydney crowd", but the booing of Uruguay's anthem would have happened anywhere considering some of Uruguay's taunts, especially Recoba's "divine right (that Uruguay should be in the World Cup)" comments. I'd be more concerned if it's repeated. It certainly didn't warrant a full castigating editorial by Greg Baum in Melbourne's Age newspaper. Get a life.
As for Australia's national anthem, I still think the rendition by Jane Scali at the Iran game is still easily the benchmark. Mostly because not as many in the crowd sung it, which means it's not drowned out and doesn't sound like a drag with that annoying drawl sound. It's rare that our national anthem does anything for me, but Scali really captured the moment - and the crowd - with her energy and emotion. It was truly a stirring performance.
First stop en route to the World Cup is the draw on December 10. For the previous World Cup, Fifa placed teams in pots according to top seeds and geography, so that top seeds were kept apart and that no team would face one from the same region (with the exception of Europe, which has so many teams qualified). It certainly would have seen Australia take Uruguay's place in the pot for 2002 with South America and Asia occupying the same pot.
Had geography been retained for 2006, no doubt Asia and Conacaf would share a pot for totalling exactly 8 teams. Then there would be a pot for the non-seeded Europeans, and a pot for the rest. That would certainly have allowed for my dream match-up to eventuate: Iran. It would be ultimate revenge for 8 years ago.
However, reports are that all pots will be seeded with pots of teams number one to four. Again teams from same regions will be kept apart. No doubt Australia will be a fourth seeded team, and should see itself in a pot with all the debutant qualifiers like Trinidad & Tobago, Togo, Angola, Ghana and maybe even the Ivory Coast. Saudi Arabia's dismal display four years ago should see it there too, while Costa Rica could only beat China after qualifying for the first time since 1990, and should see itself there too. Being an Oceania team should see (I say "should" because Fifa is known to do weird things and might assume, for the case of the draw, that Australia be Asian) Australia have the potential to face teams from any other region.
Fifa decides these seedings on previous World Cup performances and current rankings, and with so many debutantes, Iran really should escape being seeded four and therefore a chance to meet Australia. When they qualified in 1997, they did beat the USA and ran Yugoslavia very close for a 1-0 loss. Failing that, chances are one in four that an Asia team would be an opponent with Japan and Korea likely be third seed teams.
Top seeds are almost certainly to be Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Holland, Spain/Portugal and France. Any of the latter four would satisfy in terms of interest, with obviously Holland being the most interesting as Hiddink's homeland.
The second seeds could be England, Sweden, Mexico, Poland, Croatia, Portugal/Spain, Serbia&M, Paraguay
We'll presume Iran making the third seeds and say Switzerland, Ukraine, Korea, Japan, Iran, USA, Tunisia, Ecuador
Which leaves the fourth seeds of Australia, Trinidad & Tobago, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Togo.
So how does a group of Holland, England, Iran and Australia sound?
Croatia would be an interesting match-up considering that team features a number of expatriates, while the Portugal or Spain prospect would be a challenge to avoid. It really is difficult to decide between those two as to which makes the top seeds.
There'd be no team in the third seeds that Australia should fear. Most of the second seeds too.
The most rewarding aspect of such a seeding scenario is that Australia will avoid the black Africa teams - teams that Australia traditional perform poorly against. But even then, you'd be happy with any.
Ultimately, though, just being on the world stage will be enough. If the Australian public thought they saw everything that this game can produce on the night of Wednesday the 16th of November, they have seen nothing yet.
Just the day after the match, walking back home after purchasing the newspaper, I was actually accosted by an elderly women in the street who just started talking about the match. She'd seen Australia do well in so many other sports, but had seen nothing like this. She spoke how she heard cheering from nearby houses. Funny thing is, that when we were going berserk at home, I opened the balcony door to see if I could hear the same thing! Then as I moved along, she accosted another passer-by.
If mere qualification can bring this sort of behaviour out in people, just imagine what would happen if Australia won the World Cup itself. Actually, I'd rather not.