Sydney's 83,000-capacity Telstra Stadium has been chosen ahead of Melbourne's Telstra Dome and Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium to host the World Cup qualifer against the fifth best South American nation in Novemeber. The past two qualifers have been held at Melbourne's MCG, which produced mixed results of a draw against Iran and a win over Uruguay. That stadium is out of action due to pre-Commonwealth Games works. But even if it weren't, even as a Melbourne person that I am, it's time Sydney had a chance. It might even provide a change of luck after the disappointment of the Iran game. Especially if the home leg is last.
Date for the qualifer is either the 12th or 16th of November, with the away leg on the other date. Unlike the previous time when the South Americans petitioned successful for their home leg last, this time a draw of lots will be made, which will give coach Farina a 50/50 shot of gaining his desired home-leg last scenario. Fairer for sure, but lets not forget the stupidity of that belief. Playing home first is an advantage. You only need to check the results of the recent champions league play-offs if you want further proof.
Australia booked passage to the World Cup playoff with the fifth placed South American nation by defeating the Solomon Islands 7-0 in Sydney last Saturday week and 2-1 in Honiara in hot and humid conditions on Tuesday. These matches were the final matches Australia will play in Oceania before moving into Asia next year, with the second leg in Honiara being the actually 100th game. It was also new coach Guus Hiddink's first appearance with the team, which, unfortunately, not as encouraging as he hoped. Especially with the second leg where he made 5 changes from Sydney and switch to a 4-4-2 system from a 3-5-3, Hiddink expressed disappointed. The team failed to keep possession nor show much cohesion. In his words, if they play like that in November, qualifying will be mission impossible.
In truth, the Sydney match was far from impressive as well when you consider three of the goals were through appalling goal-keeping errors. The saving grace were two goals from Mark Viduka - one a spectacular bicycle kick - while the other came from Archie Thompson with a narrow angle volley after juggling passed a defender.
The team only has the friendly against Jamaica in October before the qualifiers, and it's looking damning by the day Football Federation Australia's decision to wait so long before replacing previous coach Frank Farina. If Australia fail, they will have full blood on their hands.
This event had two milestones present for Australia. The first was the official and ceremonial ratification of Australia's move into Asia, and the second was the draw for deciding the home and away legs against the fifth placed South American team to qualify in November for the World Cup. FFA chairman Frank Lowy drew out the ball mark with South America that would see them play at home first on Saturday the 12th while the return match in Sydney will be on Wednesday the 16th. Tickets have already been announced for the game, with A category $195, B category $95 and C category $65. Easy decision for me not to go since I am in Melbourne. Prices do seem high, even if it is the biggest and "once every four years" football match in Australia.
As anticipated, a mild euphoria greeted the news for it supposed gives Australia and advantage. Any long time reader of this website will know my disdain for such notion and detailed repeatedly the mythical nature of this advantage. There's even an entire feature editorial devoted to it all. Yet the SBS World Game TV show poll showed 86% belief in this advantage while panellist Craig Foster argued that the advantage was if the team need to score in the last 15-20 minutes, they had the crowd there to lift them. How spurious is that call. Not as if it helped against Iran either. That game actually showed the usual scenario of a home-last situation where the away team gets a second chance, can steal a goal, and suddenly wrests all the advantage. Playing home-last just belies every notion of what constitues an advantage.
Without repeating what's been said elsewhere, when you have advantage, you want to take that FIRST so as not to put yourself under pressure to "comeback". Tennis players serve first, AFL teams kick with the wind first and cricketers bat first. In football, it's even more critical because of the dopey away-goals rule that can increases pressure on the team not to concede because of the drastic effect away-goals can have on a game and the minimal effect the home team's goals have. In Montevideo four years ago, we actually saw the away-goal work in brutal force for us when at 2-0 down, we still only needed one goal to qualify. In contrast, against Iran, at 1-0 Iran need 2 goals to win. At 2-0, they still only need two to win.
If Australian history is not enough to convince you, just look at all history. In an "underdog" or even situation, statistically the home-first team wins. Just think back to the Euro 2004 play-off qualifiers where Latvia upset Turkey at home in the last leg. Happens all the time.
My main concern is that this decision gives the team a false sense of security. The only time home-last is an advantage is if you get a result in the first leg. Considering that this in the time the South American team will attack, hopefully Australia can take advantage and win score. Because one thing is certain: If the South American team comes to Sydney with a lead, it will be a monumental task to overcome them. Much harder that it would be to have qualify in Montevideo four years ago with our 1-0 lead.
A busy few of weeks has culminated in the knowledge that Uruguay will be Australia's opponents for the World Cup playoff next month. Uruguay, Colombia and Chile were all in the running since the weekend with Uruguay ahead by one point and the others separated by goal difference. With all three teams drawing their matches last Sunday morning, it came down to Uruguay needing to match the deeds of the other two teams to ensure their qualification. They had it tough hosting Argentina at home, but managed to win 1-0 after converting one of their chances from a dominant second half display.
Colombia will be the team to rue their chances the most. They won 1-0 away to Paraguay, but the home draw against Chile last Sunday was the wrecker. For Chile's worth, they could only draw at home to Ecuador this morning.
It is disappointing that it's Uruguay again. It just would have been more interesting had it been someone else. There's not even any real sentiment for revenge in this playoff. Mostly, it's just having to go through it all again. There's a bit of dread there. Not dread from losing, because Colombia probably would have been even tougher, but dread from the same old experience again.
The lack of fit players and some players not playing regularly for their club has posed the idea of resting some players from the away leg in the World Cup playoff and sending them straight to Australia to unleash on the South Americans in the return match in Sydney. It's a calculated idea, with Kewell, still recovering from that long-term groin injury, amongst those as prime candidates to be rested, and also to actually work a legitimate advantage into playing home-last.
It's just 3 days out from the World Cup playoff against Uruguay to qualify for the World Cup, and unlike four years where there was high expectation, this time there's a more circumspect air of "can we do it". Well, can we?
The simple answer is yes. But mostly this is simply because of the format, not any great pointer that can be found. However, it's interesting to view the differences between this time and last time, and it can be seen that this team theoretically stands more of chance. That's not so much a reflection on the strength of this team, but more a reflection on how weak the previous one was. In saying all that, the second Uruguay goal came in the 70th last time - at a stage when Australia was dominating and looking the likely winner. Just goes to show how fluky these playoffs are.
1 ) Playing home last
Despite what so many thing, not an advantage. As Rale Rasic said on TWG program when Les Murray posed the question, basically he said it was meaningless. National team coach Guus Hiddink echoed those thoughts when the draw was first revealed. In Rasic's time, then and now, he's not noted any advantage. Rasic even made the point that for the World Cup that Australia qualified, they drew 0-0 at home and were 2-0 down away to Korea before recovering 2-2 and then winning the decider in Hong Kong. It's a key example of the pressure on a home-last team to win or preserved their lead - and this was in a day with no away-goals rule. Later on when Murray showed a graphic of all the major World Cup playoff qualifiers at home, only Uruguay in 2001 recorded a win. There was also Iran in 1973 where Australia won 3-0 before losing 2-0 in Iran.
Personally, and I've been monitoring these playoffs for 10 years, any advantage is with the away-last team. The case is more glaringly obvious for Australia. It's all because the away-goals rule make the final leg a double-jeopardy for the home team. It can turn a situation of requiring one goal to won of requiring three goals. It's not that big an issue in the first leg because it's only the first half of a playoff and you enter the second half knowing what you need to do.
In saying all that, the situation is actually a difference this time, and simply having that might help. It could also help if the Uruguayans believe it a disadvantage and play recklessly in first leg. Because really, the key to capitalising on home-last is actually achieving a result in the away leg first.
2) The coach
Hiring Guus Hiddink so late will always be a mistake, regardless if Australia qualifies. If Australia is derailed through lack of time with the coach, Football Australia will be to blame. What makes it even worst was the deceit and the exploitation the of situation to do what they should have done immediately the new administration came into being.
Also note that the re-hiring of Frank Farina immediately after the previous failed was not a mistake either.It wasn't just the financial reasons why he was hired, but also that at the time, Oceania were odds-on to gain direct qualification, and when they actually did, there was no necessity to hire a world-renowned coach. Some would even say to hire any coach at all. But when the qualification changed, it was time to reconsider the appointment.
Whether Hiddink helps, it will most likely be unquantifiable. Sure he brings a breadth of great strategically and technical capabilities for the team, but do they have enough time to harness it all and gel? What he certainly does bring to the table, though - something that was sorely missing for the past two campaigns - is in-game tactical nous. There should be no silly situations of the team chasing goals and playing naive unnecessarily.
The key factor that he brings, however, is discipline. It's something Hiddink himself noticed with players too committed for their own good, going in too hard and at the wrong time, and conceding important goals as a result. In trying to enforce is brand of football, it has included the elimination of reckless challenges. Why Brett Emerton was never castigated for that reckless challenge that caused the free kick for Uruguay's second goal last time is beyond me. Since then, he's been a loose cannon, rarely playing to the team's best desires and in danger of being dropped under Farina. The biggest change I've noticed since Hiddink's arrival is the lack of arrogance and recklessness in the team now. It extends for all the players. No spots are guaranteed and there's no questions asked. There's accountability now. The team under Farina seemed to do what it liked and got away with murder. You can't blame them either. There's no way a local coach like Farina could have the clout to control these multi-millionaires. Not genuinely.
3) The team
On paper, it looks vastly superior. Bresciano and Grella have come on, while Cahill has emerged. Archie Thompson up forward adds some great speed to the equation. There's more depth. Like many, I do worry about the defence - especially with Craig Moore out injured and the general lack of pace. But with Hiddink's "always have a spare man in defence" and "defending as a unit" theory, it does make things more comfortable. There should be nothing shambolic this time like Uruguay's first goal in Montevideo last time.
4) Uruguay
They seemed to have improved too, but not as much. They seemed to have gained up forward with tall duo of Morales and Zalayeta playing amongst a three man attack typically with Diego Forlan (though, he looks like he's out injured), while lost a little in defence with key defender Montero aging. After a change of coach mid-qualification, Uruguay embarked on an 11 game unbeaten run, albeit with only 3 wins, to finish in fifth. Their away record is atrocious, though, with just 3 wins over 19 games in the last two campaigns. The gap is closer, but Uruguay certainly still has an edge. Not derived solely from personnel, but also from the fact they've played so many games together. Australia's only hit-outs under Hiddink was the 5-0 romp over a weak Jamaica and the Oceania playoff against the Solomon Islands.
5) Preparation
The team should not be hit with such mayhem that greeted them last time. Indeed, they are training in Argentina in peace and will only fly into Montevideo the day before the game. Everything has been handled professionally and thoroughly as possible to take nothing away from the players to perform at their best. No stone has been left unturned. It will also be the second time for many of the players. With Hiddink's guidance on hand as well, intimidation should not be a factor.
6) Referees
Uruguay successfully lobbied Fifa to have the Belgian referees for the Sydney leg replaced with Spanish ones after asking for Spanish speaking ones. The concern was that Belgium is neighbours with Hiddink's home country of Holland. Seems a tenuous connection to say the least, and I'd have thought the Danish trio for the first leg would be more of a concern considering an Australian is next in line to become the queen of Denmark after Mary Donaldson married their Crown Prince Frederik in May last year. They recently just had a baby. Australia must be like a second nation to most Danes.
On a serious note, I don't think it really matters. The more critical appointment has been for several official Fifa observers to watch over proceedings for any possible trouble, which seems to have truly riled the Uruguayans. In fact, much of Uruguay's shenanigans with the flip-flop of start times and the referees is more about Uruguay trying to unsettle the Australians. Pity it's not working with Uruguay now having problems with their flights to Sydney and now wanting to move the match time back to its original position of 5pm (6am AEST time) from 9pm. The FFA here are holding firm, but it seems Fifa will intervene, even though they shouldn't. The status quo should be enforced, especially since Australia had to rearrange travel arrangements to accomodate the initial change as it was made prior to the designated deadline and officially accepted by Fifa. TV rights were also made based on this new later time of 10am AEST. This change now - it's too late. Quite simply, Uruguay have had plenty of time to organise themselves and deserve no favours for their duplicity.
We just can't under-estimate the very nature of a playoff in all this. A pot-shot goes in, a deflection, and suddenly we're bound for Germany. All the best plans of mice and men and go out the window in a split second with an ounce of luck. It really is a shambolic way to decide four years of fate for Australia, but we are stuck with it... for this one last time.
According to Les Murray, had we played away first in 2001 and lost 2-0, we'd have won
in Melbourne. Wonder if that still remains?
Personally, if it's 2-0 there, we are gone. To score 2 here for just a shootout against
Uruguay defending such a lead, not to mention the fear of copping an away goal that would
mean we'd need 4 or be eliminated, well...
An away goal is definitely required to cancel out the away-goals factor for them in the return leg. 4-2 is better than 2-0. To think that we were complaining about conceding so many goals like that at the Confederations Cup a few months ago? If we were playing Germany and got 4-3 in the first leg there, we'd kill for that.
Considering that we are quite the unknown quantity to Uruguay and packed full of extra attacking power with the likes of Cahill and Bresciano, scoring at least something in Montevideo should be easily within our reach. I'd suggest it would be the bare minimum if we are to succeed. Given Australia's history of poor performances of conceding goals in second legs at home, I say at least a 2-2 is required, but preferably something like a 2-1 win. Then we can lose 1-0 in Sydney, or gain any sort of draw, and still make it.
Even at 2-2 in Montevideo, a 1-1 or 0-0 in Sydney is enough.
Optimistically, I give us a 40% chance to qualify.
I just hope all those concerned keep cool and collected under the situation. Most of all, I wish the best of luck. Really, we are due for a change.
It just goes to show, that despite the talk of national coach Guus Hiddink only playing players that are regularly playing for their clubs, there's always that compulsion to return to class and experience. That was the case with surprise selections of Harry Kewell and Tony Popovic to the starting team in yesterday's first leg qualifier against Uruguay. Both saw out the match.
Popovic was worthwhile considering the situation and also the need for height against
Uruguay's tall strike force of Morales and Zalayeta, and even Kewell's selection had merit
in the need to steal an away goal. While he did produce some nice touches early on, he was
eventually hounded out of the game and spent most of the second half defending. It seemed
to have defeated the purpose of his selection - especially leaving him on his unfavoured
right side in a match where Australia barely produced one cross. Although, with players
like Bresciano and Cahill on yellow cards, Hiddink probably did not want them risked
gaining another and therefore suspension for the second leg.
The match finished 1-0 to Uruguay, though, featured large junks of play when Australia was
dominating - especially the first half. As encouraging as that was, the reality is that
Australia barely produced a chance. In fact, it seemed like Uruguay allowed them
possession, and any advance up the park would see Uruguay charge Australia's players,
hoping them to produce errors.
Australia seemed to expect this and accordingly would pass the ball off in time, usually
in good space, but could not keep the effort and concentration for the remainder of the
game nor capitalise on their moments. They really should have produced a goal somehow, but
spent most of the second half hanging on to the 1-0 deficit.
Despite all the possession, this game is about chances and moments. Viduka had a snap shot
on the turn at close range from a Chipperfield a low cross from the by-line that just went
wide. He had a direct free kick saved nicely from Carini, while late in the game, Culina
had a shot that also just went wide. So close that it almost scraped the upright. That was
really it. I can recall no real crosses for the game, and the team fell into its old
habits of trying to walk through the middle of defense. Emerton again was the biggest
villain by trying to do the impossible all the time - trying to take on so many players or
going for totally ambitious passes or interchange plays - when a quick cross was required.
He seems to have totally lost the plot with regard to the team ethic, and is just so
frustrating to watch.
For Uruguay, Morales really should have had a penalty early on with Popovic's arm over the
shoulder. No doubt he milked it, but the arm was there. A close range header by Dioga from
a flicked-on corner went straight to the goalie. In the second half, a Recoba free kick
was almost turned in of the boot. There was another possible penalty when a charging
Schwarzer seemed to trip Recoba. Again milked to the maximum, but Schwarzer's leg was out
and referees have given these. Recoba had a chance from a sloppy Australian back-header
that almost caused a huge mix-up, which Schwarzer thankfully palmed away. Late in the game
Morales had a scrambled shot at point blank range that fortunately went straight to
Schwarzer.
Now, the goal. It was contentious with the linesman seemingly flagging Australia's way
after Chipperfield was shouldered by Dioga as they were both going for the ball. The
linesman flag seemed to break with the flag flying off, but regardless of whether that was
a factor, the referee made the call Uruguay's way - apparently for elbowing, according to
Hiddink, whom confronted the referee at half time. In a position a few metres in from the
by-line, Recoba whipped it in and Rodriguez headed in at close range at the back post.
Australia had free kicks of their own, but wasted most. Same with the corners, which was 7
to 6 in their favour. Suffice to say that if Australia had Recoba on their team, they
probably would have won.
While Australia could have a case for no favouritism by the Danish refereeing, on balance
they probably just had the better. The Uruguayan coach certainly feels that his team was
the one that was robbed. Especially with the Recoba penalty decision.
There's no dispute Australia's performance was quite good. Special credit must go to the
defensive trio of Vidmar, Neill and Popovic. When the midfield started coffing up
possession later in the game, they were the ones to keep Australia in it.
Chipperfield performed well, though, he is no defender. Often his side of the field was
exploited.
Viduka performed superbly, yet had little support or reward to show for it.
Grella held the midfield well together, while Bresciano was lively and dangerous once he
was brought on the the second half. He really must start the game in Sydney. Another
consideration would be Tim Cahill, who, along with the yellow card scenario, was probably
rested to be fresh for the second leg.
Thompson and Culina seem most likely to make way. They seemed a touch out of their depth. Though, I'd be dumping Emerton.
Suffice to say, Hiddink seems to have saved something for the second leg.
The fear is, of course, the away goals. It's just amazing how much better a 2-1 loss is in
Uruguay sounds to a 1-0. There's been many media comments now regarding this double
jeopardy phenomenon that we now face, and also talk of whether Australia can "come
from behind" - especially against a Uruguayan team seemingly intent on defense, and
extremely proficient at stopping teams. Unfortunately that's the situation you put
yourself in when you don't have first use of any advantage. As is now vividly clear,
home-last is only an advantage if you get a result in the away leg.
What is so ironic is that the roles were reversed four years ago and the talk then was
whether Australia could hold on. Well, do we have the advantage now or not? The sentiment
seems more reflective of our regard for the teams, not so much the format. We were in fear
of Uruguay back then, and we still are now.
Regardless of whether there is any innate advantage in either scenario, this is the
position Australia has talked about so long. Playing home last and with an achievable
task. The 1-0 in Uruguay is a semi-result. While it could have been better, it quite
easily could have been worse. There's no reason why the team cannot replicate at least a
1-0 result that they achieved in Melbourne four years ago. If you compare the basic form
against the last campaign, why not even a 3-0 result? It truly is in our own hands.
Personally, I still give us a 40% chance. While before I said it was optimistically, now
it is realistically. This 1-0 lead is such a small deficit, and we only need 1 goal to
stay in the game. With Uruguay rarely winning away from home and Australia rarely winning
at home, history points to a draw. The betting markets have Australia as favourite to win,
but Uruguay favourite to qualify, so an away-goals loss?
Well, I just have this sneaking feeling that Wednesday night will be offering us the ride of our lives. Yes, Australia will get the goal, and the match will end in a penalty shootout. Imagine that.
"This is the moment
This is what we've been waiting for
All of our dreams will finally become reality for sure..."
When this website launched just after the Iran game in 1997, the theme was "the dream is dead". But now, that dream is a reality. At the time, especially to avoid further heartbreak, I vowed to take a journey that had no finite time of completion. The journey would not end in four years time, nor the four years after that, nor the four years after that. It would end when Australia finally qualified for the World Cup.
Now the journey has ended. In a stunning match, which naturally, as is the way with Australian soccer, went right down to the wire, John Aloisi converted the final penalty in a penalty shootout to send Australia on its way to Germany. It came after Marco Bresciano levelled the tie with a goal in the 35th minute and with both teams having good chances throughout the game to score the decisive goal.
Almost 24 hours later, it's still so surreal. Reliving those images of Aloisi's penalty conversion, and then celebrating down the field, it's still difficult to correlate those with actually qualifying for the World Cup. Bizarrely, the aura that descended at the time felt just like the Iran game. After the initial burst of excitement, I just sat in stunned amazement trying to comprehend what happened. Absorb it all. Then the numbness felt - it was just so familiar. Of course, for different reasons.
So, to those opening comments, they are the lyrics to "Champions" - a song by Swedish singer Shirley Clamp. It was the official song for the Swedish team in 2004 - probably for the European championships. Whenever I heard this song, I could not help but associate it with this playoff. It just summed up the feelings and emotions for the event, and also captured the essence of the game.
Yes, the game is about moments. Every time Australia was making an attack - especially during the later stages of the game - I was saying "this is the moment", just hoping for a goal. For all the preparation and masterful coaching - and yes, full credit to Guus Hiddink for his plans - one Uruguayan goal in those early dominant stages and it was all over. With Recoba's free kick after 3 minutes bouncing off Schwarzer's chest and then a one-on-one shot after 19 minutes that was blasted wide, there were chances. For Australia, with just 10 minutes to go, Kewell had a one-on-one shot himself, although, on a narrower angle and on his unfavoured right foot, while there were numerous other half chances.
The goal itself, came from a moment. Popovic received a yellow, Kewell was soon brought on in his place, after a small interchange of play from a throw in that involved Kewell, he was eventually in position to shoot clear on goal, he mis-hit his shot, and Bresciano was on hand to smash it in.
That is why this game is so great. That is why the night was so magical. That is why this victory is so deserved.
It also shows just how big this game can really get. There were street parties everywhere. Did we see such things for when Australia won their "world cups" in rugby and cricket? Quite easily, this moment rivals the Americas Cup win in 1983.
Those two events stand head and shoulders above anything else. Cathy Freeman's gold medal in the 400m at the Olympics was merely an athlete running to her form. She'd won the past two world championships and had lengths on her opposition. Whereas this World Cup qualification and Americas Cup, it's a result of decades of struggle, injustice and heartbreak - a relentless quest to achieve a dream, and then to finally do it. Just remarkable.
What makes also makes this so extra special is that we finally did it through this ridiculous playoff system that we've suffered for so long. There was a sense of satisfaction that we could actually do it this way. Also for Oceania, they finally have a representative in the World Cup too. Then to do it against Uruguay, the team that knocked us out for years ago, it was just so poetic.
In fact, it was justice. Justice for all the pain, suffering, anguish and frustration that we've felt over the years.
To add to the occasion, this game was the first time any team has qualified for the World Cup via a penalty shootout.
For me, it's been a journey since 1993 when the World Cup bug bit me. Ironically, it was the game against Canada where Mark Schwarzer - making his debut - saved Australia in such a shootout. If that wasn't exciting enough, it was then onto the games against Argentina.
Since the catastrophe of the high-expectation series against Iran, it really has been a case of not getting too excited. It wasn't until the penalty shootout, and especially Schwarzer's first save that the nerves finally built. Then of course, Viduka, just had to miss one on the fourth kick to make it interesting. Remember, nothing comes easy for Australian soccer - win or lose. Schwarzer saves the next. Aloisi is set-up for the ultimate moment.
"No hesitation, fortune will favour all the brave
There is no way of stopping us
It's now or never..."