Soccer
Australia
- SimonMelville
- JCofBH
- KiwiDave
- dantilles
- SimonMelville
- SimonMelville
- EJF_TBFFaH
- JCofBH
- fan84
- Moolay
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» SimonMelville - Australia
In response to Australia posted by JCofBH:Woah -- fightin' talk JC!
To be fair to the Oceania section, why does it have only 0.5 of a place at the World Cup? Shouldn't the World Cup represent the World? Or should we just have the richest European nations taking on Argentina and Brazil? Oceania is a weak area but then so was CONCACAF for years and no-one complained that Mexico had a relatively easy route to the finals.
I understand why the Aussies jumped ship -- Fifa have diddled Oceania for years so they have no option but to play the politics and join the increasingly important Asia bloc.
As for their chances at this year's finals, I think they can surpise the Croatians. Yes, they have a marvellous qualification record at home, but this isn't qualification. The Aussies have a decent team when they're all fit and they won't need much motivating to play the Croatians -- Skoko, Culina and Viduka all have Croatian roots while Joey Didulica, the reserve keeper, and centre back Josip Simunic for Croatia were both born Down Under.
That's assuming Brazil steam roller the group as we all expect and Japan are the whipping boys. I just don't see Croatia having the real quality players they used to have that can take them through the competition. I'm not saying Australia do, but they can certainly cause Croatia problems when they meet in the last Group F match in Stuttgart on 22nd June -- effectively a qualification play-off. Current prices at Betfair have Australia at 2.58 to win that match but 3.05 to qualify. Seems sensible to take the last price -- not exactly enticing prices but you may have goaded me into it.
-- posted by SimonMelville
» JCofBH - Australia
In response to Australia posted by SimonMelville:We shall have to see how that Slavic connection plays out.
One thing I'm certain of is that I'll be cheering the Croats on. Having made the error of going to that Upton Park drubbing a couple of years ago, and it being an Ashes year, any dent that can be made in the Australian sporting psyche will get my support.
-- posted by JCofBH
» KiwiDave - Australia
To talk about the quality of the opposition that Australia had to play off against is missing the point (although having said that, Uruguay are hardly Accrington Stanley). The point is that to have to qualify via a 2 leg tie is a much more difficult proposition for any team than to go through the usual group competitions.Take the England team as a hypothetical example. England are always a fairly good bet to emerge from their group and qualify for the finals, because the group system means that in the long run the best teams qualify, allowing for the odd slip up (Northern Ireland 1 – England 0). League tables, and world cup qualifying tables, don’t lie. If England had to qualify by playing a home and away against “middling South American” opposition, such as Uruguay, then the place in the World Cup finals that England fans have gotten used to would be far less certain. One bad night and Sven’s men could all book their summer holidays.
Despite what FIFA's wacky world rankings say (USA five places above England!?) Australia are a better side than some teams that reguluarly qualify for the finals, Japan for example.
-- posted by KiwiDave
» dantilles - Australia
I think that to argue about Australia moving to the Asian zone to make it easier to qualify for the WC is to miss the point. The main reason they are moving is to play a better standard of opposition and therefore improve their own ability and experience against decent sides. Playing the likes of American Samoa, the Soloman Island and even New Zealand may make qualifying for the play-off against a South American side easy but it doesn't exactly prepare you well for those games or for the subsequent World Cup. If Australia want to improve as a footballing nation they need to be playing regular competitive games against good teams. Which is why they pushed for the move to the Asian qualifying group. I don't personally believe though that they are a better side than the likes of Japan. But at least now we'll have a better idea about this.-- posted by dantilles
» SimonMelville - Australia
In response to Australia posted by dantilles:The Aussies do get to play a better standard of team regularly in Asia but just as importantly they know Asia will have four guaranteed places at the World Cup and they see the calibre of sides that qualify and know that they can do as well.
I wonder how keen they would have been to move to Asia if that bloc only got two qualifying places, for example? Or if South America offered them a slot?
It's definitely the right decision for the Aussies to move because the national side and clubs can play decent opposition in competitive games more often. What will make the difference is if they can strengthen their domestic league by getting more kids involved -- the way Rugby Union is managed in the Southern Hemisphere I can see soccer overtaking that sport in the near future -- especially if Australia have a decent World Cup (score a few goals, get a win against Japan).
As for that match up, I'd expect Japan to win at home against the Aussies, but Sydney would be a difficult place for any team to go to. Looking purely at the game on 12th June in Kaiserslautern, I think the Socceroos have a good chance -- more European-based players and that can make a difference.
-- posted by SimonMelville
» SimonMelville - Australia
In response to Australia posted by SimonMelville:As an addition to the Great Aussie Debate, here's a match report on their 1-0 victory over Greece in Melbourne earlier on Thursday:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingn...
I like this bit from it:
"Australia started with a 4-3-4 formation on Thursday which had Blackburn's Brett Emerton in an unfamiliar right-back role and matchwinner Josip Skoko pulling the strings in midfield."
No wonder they won with 12 outfield players.
-- posted by SimonMelville
» EJF_TBFFaH - Australia
In response to Australia posted by SimonMelville:I don't want the Aussies to get better at football, because then they would get too good at it and beat us. Same goes for the Americans.
-- posted by EJF_TBFFaH
» JCofBH - Australia
In response to Australia posted by EJF_TBFFaH:I'd be interested to know how long the Greeks had in Oz before playing that game, and apparently they started with an unfamiliar formation and improved second half when they reverted to type.
Anyway, I don't see it as Fifa's job to shuffle countries between continents in order to try to improve the standard of a country's national side. In any case, I'm not sure they'll be that much better off shuttling between Pyongyang, Riyadh and the like, and I await the club versus country row when the Australian Premiership contingent fly off for a midweek tie in Beijing.
Certainly, England and any of the top European sides would be fools to want a 2-legged tie as opposed to group qualification. Over the course of 10 or so games, they should fancy themselves to finish top or secure one of the best runners-up spots.
Alas, there are a number of reasonable sides in Europe who know they can't secure top spot, so are in effect left hoping to secure a play-off spot at best. I'm thinking here of Romania in the last set of qualifiers, when they were up against the Czechs and Dutch. I'm sure they would have lapped up a chance to get to Germany over 2 games.
-- posted by JCofBH
» Moolay - Australia
I agree. We can't have the Aussies being good at football as well as every other sprot. Same goes for the Yanks.I only say this because I suffer from a deep-rooted inferiority complex (as the Scots, Welsh et al do when viewing us)...
...and because I used to go out with an Aussie.
-- posted by Moolay
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.