By Steve Mcmorran
November 12th 2009 @ 2:00am
Get a Roar profile
Related coverage
Football at the forefront for Kiwis, for a change
For the first time in almost three decades, soccer will emerge from the shadow of rugby to command national attention when New Zealand plays for a World Cup spot on Saturday against Bahrain.
A crowd of more than 35,000 will pack Westpac Stadium – the largest crowd for a soccer match in New Zealand’s history – and thousands more will follow the action on giant screens at other Wellington locations.
The television audience for the Saturday evening match is also expected to break national viewing records and, for the first time in years, soccer has usurped rugby’s premier place on newspaper sports pages and on nightly sports bulletins.
With the All Blacks currently touring Europe, the New Zealand cricket team also overseas and in the annual hiatus between the winter and summer seasons, the World Cup qualifier has delivered the round-ball code an unprecedented chance to shine.
Whether the sport can capitalise on its prominence to permanently enlarge its following in New Zealand, an opportunity which might be dependent on the outcome of the Bahrain match, has been widely debated.
Soccer last enjoyed this level of interest here in 1982 when New Zealand reached the World Cup in Spain for the first time and after a qualifying campaign of 15 matches.
That success coincided with an unprecedented period of trauma for rugby. A tour to New Zealand in 1981 by a racially-selected South African rugby team had deeply divided the nation, leading to the most violent protests in New Zealand’s history.
Rugby’s image had been heavily scarred and many parents removed their children from the national sport and encouraged them into soccer as a safer, less political alternative.
But the sport was ill-equipped to cope with the influx of young players. It hadn’t the coaches or even the playing fields to support large player numbers and it quickly surrendered its new popularity.
The numbers of juniors playing rugby and soccer are now roughly comparative but at senior levels – from high school on – the sports rapidly diverge and rugby’s pre-eminence becomes obvious.
Rugby remains the first-choice sport for Kiwis from teenage years onwards while soccer has a niche following.
Demographic changes in New Zealand have slightly swelled soccer’s popularity but even the most important regional or interclub matches draw crowds of only a few hundred. That makes the scale of the crowd for Saturday’s match even more eye catching.
Demand for tickets was so great that, though the capacity of the stadium was increased by almost 500, thousands of would-be spectators were turned away.
The crowd is so much greater than any that has previously attended a soccer match in New Zealand that it seems unlikely to be reflective of the sport’s core support.
Rather, it seems followers of all sports, and mainly rugby, have been attracted to an occasion which is an exciting novelty.
The domestic rugby season in New Zealand has just ended with the final of the National Provincial Championship, 10 months after it began with the first round of matches in the three-nation Super 14 tournament. Recent domestic surveys have shown rugby fans are increasingly losing interest in their sport because of the sheer number of matches played each year.
After a scoreless draw in the first leg of the qualifying series in Bahrain, the All Whites have a real chance of reaching the World Cup finals for the first time in 27 years.
Although even that owes a great deal to its geographical location and the quirks of FIFA’s qualifying system.
New Zealand has reached this final stage of qualifying for 2010 after winning the Oceania tournament, which pitted it against mostly tiny island nations such as Fiji, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomons.
Until the 2006 World Cup, Australia was also part of the Oceania region and stood as a road block to 83rd-ranked New Zealand’s progress to later stages of qualifying.
Australia’s decision to switch to the Asian confederation – through which it has already qualified for South Africa 2010 – left the door open to New Zealand.
FIFA’s decision that the Oceania winner would then compete with the fifth-placed team from Asia for a place in South Africa was a further boost to New Zealand’s chances. That left New Zealand to face Bahrain, ranked 61st in the world, in a winner-take-all series.
A qualifying path which forced New Zealand through South America, for instance – as Australia faced in 2002 and ‘06 – would have likely made South Africa an impossible dream.
New Zealand will therefore achieve an unusual distinction if it manages to qualify. It will likely become the first nation in World Cup history to qualify without defeating a country with a population of more than one million.
Fiji, at 849,000, and Bahrain, at around 750,000, have been the largest of its opponents so far.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(71)
Realfootball said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
What is it with this “soccer” nonesense, Steve? No one in NZ calls rubgy “football”, so can we please call the code by its more dignified and internationally accepted name.
NZ would do well not to estimate Bahrain. They played Australia off the park at home and are a team of pace and technique. How they produce a team like that with a population of that size is an admirable mystery. The All Whites are going to have to play out of their skins to beat them. Fingers crossed – it would be fantastic for football in this region.
Kelly said | November 12th 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
“What is it with this “soccer” nonesense, Steve? No one in NZ calls rubgy “football”, so can we please call the code by its more dignified and internationally accepted name.”
Actually, we call it soccer. No-one calls it football, not even British expats.
K B said | November 13th 2009 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Oh yeah Kelly, then you better head back home and get up to speed with…. NZ Football
http://www.nzfootball.co.nz/
Go the All Whites
~~~~~~~~~~~
KB
Realfootball said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Kelly
That says so much about the almost non existant profile of football in NZ that your post is in fact its own reply. And yes I speak from a position of knowledge, because I lived in NZ for more than decade until recently.
The fact that you insist on calling it by an anachronistic and culturally cringifying name does you no credit. That you seem proud of doing so is absurd.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
What is the big deal about the name? Some say soccer just to make absolutely sure everyone knows straight up what game you are talking about, especially in countries where there are other codes of football about.
If you want to blame anyone, blame it on the British, who long ago started these games and called it all football, but of various codes ie rugby footabll, association football etc. I’m sure you all know this but you still keep boringly bringing it up, like some sort of fundamentalist sect.
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
no problem — just follow the tabs on the ROAR site above if you are confused — I’m certainly not — never have been…
~~~~~~
KB
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
I am not confused but people of lesser intellect might be.
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
In that case you should have more faith in your ilk. The world Football family and the ROAR moderators are not — so why are you so concerned ?? Again check the tab above…
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Hey, i am a soccer/football fan from way back, probably from before you were born. I merely object to the fascist behaviour of johnny come latelys who get apoplectic whenever someone has the temerity to use the word soccer. All they are trying to do is be clear about which sport they mean but the fundamentalists cannot get past that word.
Steve wrote a good, interesting piece about a huge soccer/football match tonight, under the category football, and anyone who came here knew what sport he was talking about. But the likes of Realfootball and yourself HAD to come in and raise this soccer vs football issue again, to check him as if he had committed some heinous, unspeakable crime.
Just who are the confused ones? Who are the dull witted ones?
Pippinu said | November 14th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Shahsan
I feel a similar way.
Fortunately, the Southern newspapers, including the Canberra Times, have chosen for the moment to stick up for the Australian vernacular (as all quality Australian newspapers should do).
Dan said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
actually it is people who suffer from “cultural cringe” who call it football. Not the other way around. Soccer is a perfectly legitimate name for the sport and it has great utility in all countries where there exist more than one code of professional football (of which New Zealand is a proud member).
It never ceases to amaze me how zealots from the soccer crowd insist on demanding how we employ the English language. You want to call it football? Fine, just don’t tell me to. You’re like religious zealots who claim that 90% of the population believe in some kind of god, so therefore we may as well just accept there is one. Same arrogance, same flawed logic.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
Well said, Dan and Pippinu.
And well done, New Zealand. Though they sure did make it hard for themselves.
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Dan, isn’t it a case you and your ilk want me to call my football “Soccer” on what is clearly a thread tagged “Football” … So who is really the zealot here…? At any rate well done NZ Football, you are on your way to South Africa 2010… Now for the Australian National Football team to beat Oman
~~~~~~~
KB
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
WHAT DOES IT MATTER? So what if he calls it soccer? I can understand the consternation if it were the other way around ie someone writing on rugby insisting on calling it football throughout.
But there is no confusion when someone says soccer in an article on association football.
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
I think it does matter greatly in the eyes of the late Johnny Warren and of the Football family… Not to mention the ROAR moderators who must have thought long and hard before they tagged their threads… I don’t think it’s too much to ask to show some respect for the code on a Football thread… If you wish to call it soccer do it on the AFL site no problems there, that’s your thread presumably …
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
Show respect? Terms such as ‘world game’ and ‘real football’ are underhanded, passive-aggressive ways of saying that teh codes beloved of millions of people the world over, such as US, Canadian, Gaelic, Aussie rules, rugby union/league football, are somehow not real football codes or even games.
And if the ROAR moderators were as pedantic as you they would have called the tags at the top ‘rugby union’ (and not just rugby), rugby league (and not just league, which means many things but is not the real name of a sport, just a handy shorthand in Australia to avoid confusion), and Aussie Rules (and not AFL, which is a name of the competition, not the sport).
They called it football I suspect to shut up people like yourself, for if they hadn’t, Spiro, Zac and the whole family would never have heard the end of it (indeed, we still havent).
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Shahsan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4I3-w9589E
Yep its the world game 208 FIFA member nations more than the United nation members.. I think we can safely say it’s indeed the world game… yep real football as being the root of all football perhaps with the English London Schools Football … Harrow Football the great ancestor of the English FA dating as far back as the Sixteenth Century with a round ball… (see video above)
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
This is like arguing with a 5-year-old, but I have to make the point.
Listen, along with rugby union, soccer/football is my favourite sport. I know all those stats and videos you’re trying to educate me with. I have missed fewer than 10 World Cup finals matches since 1974, and have watched every European cup, European championship, FA Cup, etc since around that time. I know the game and I absolutely love it.
My objection is to the fundamentalism of people like you insisting we must all call it football or the conversation cannot go on. It’s all holier than thou, all primary school.
For your information, few people outside Australia call it the ‘world game’. It is the world’s biggest game — everyone knows that, it doesnt even need to be said. There is no dispute. Peoplel like SBS and the late, great Johnny Warren coined it (I believe) because they felt like the little kids trampled in the schoolyard who wanted to remind the school bullies that their daddy was the biggest guy outside the yard.
But I have lived in countries where soccer is king, and wherever that is the case, all other sports are trampled underfoot and slowly wither. No respect is shown to them at all. Soccer/football is the worst bully of all.
For the sake of the other footballing codes, I hope that never happens here in Australia, which is a paradise for those who love many footballing codes rather than just one.
Dan said | November 14th 2009 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
Actually no. I have no problem with soccer fans calling their game football at all. It’s the arrogant demand for the hemogenisation of the English language in respect to the use of the word football that I can’t stand. When I use the word football I do not mean association football, I generally mean Rugby League and my community of friends of collegues are much the same. If you and your friends mean soccer, then so be it. But don’t talk down to me and try to explain that “the world calls it football” (a categorically incorrect statement given some 300 million Americans who would beg to differ along with the various differing translations of the word into different languages) so therefore I have to as well. You know what I’m referring to when I use the word soccer, the same cannot be said for your use of the word “football” in the Australian context (barring your group of friends who may all be soccer fans).
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
Shahsan,
Oh really you just seemed to want to impose your belief that Football has no right to call itself Football in its own house … I mean is it so offensive to you …? Your not a football fan you’ve demonstrated that with your shallow knowledge of Australia’s, Asian membership..
AndrewRoo corrected you on that score that every real football lover knew about and were traumatised by Sepp Blatter’s back flip of the Oceania affair, one WC spot given then taken away … You have some knowledge granted, but your love is else where in another code…
Here you are telling me to behave myself like a child and presuming I’m younger than you… How do you know that..? I’m of the same generation of Les Murray and the late Johnny Warren and met them both when I lived in Sydney…
K B said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Well Dan this being a Football thread I’m communicating with football folk … I would have thought I was talking about Football not Rugby League…
btw I grew up with ARL in Sydney and have a love for it… as a one time old Newtown Blue Bag supporter… Now a NRL Rabbitoh supporter… In the NRL house I go with the flow, shouldn’t you do the same…?
Dan said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
No, I should most certainly not be told which officially accepted name I will use for a sport. I will not be ordered on how I use language. I will not ever ask you to call it soccer. Call it football however and whereever you want, and I will call it soccer. They are both legitimate names. I’ve never known the game as football and I resent being told I have to call it such. I understand you wish to reverse a past wrong, but your methods are just as bullish as those you would derride.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
Obviously your comprehension of English is as poor as your logic.
I sought clairification from AndyRoo to make sure I didnt rip into him for nothing. The way he wrote it (go read it for yourself), it sounded like
a) the AFC esp Arab bloc were the ones who deprived Oceania of automatic qualification, and
b) the way it was written it sounded as if automatic qualifcation for Oceania had already happened.
I knew the facts behind both those points but wanted to hear Andy’s version first. Once satisfied, I then reiterated it with my next statement that it wasnt ever made known if it was the AFC or Arab countries that cost Oceania its spot, which was never ever granted.
Blatter only said Oceania would get it as part as his usual campaigining spiel, something long-time soccer watchers knew was never going to happen.
Can you understand all that?
Pippinu said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Actually, I’m not sure how strict the Roar editors are about it. Occasionally they do edit articles to change the word from soccer to football, but they let it through stacks as well!!
Old habits die hard (and in this case, there’s a compelling case for continuing with the old habit and indeed for reinforcing standard Australian usage, just as the Americans have no problem reinforcing standard American usage).
Take the opening paragraph of this very article, despite the title, it says:
“For the first time in almost three decades, soccer will emerge from the shadow of rugby to command national attention when New Zealand plays for a World Cup spot on Saturday against Bahrain. ”
It has to say that.
To the average NZer and Australian, to say “football will emerge from the shadow of rugby” is completely devoid of meaning – editors want clarity – not ambiguity.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Dan, this is unedifying and really beneath us. We should leave him festering in the gutter with his fascist brethren.
K B said | November 15th 2009 @ 12:06am | Report comment
Shahsan,
“That’s why Australia and NZ were kicked out of Asia in the first place, back in the 80s. The Arab lobby is very strong in the AFC.”
Oh yeah as I thought .. you know nothing about it … Australia and NZ were never ever in the Asian confederation, never, do you understand.. Simpleton…? (Now you are using offensive language allow me to do the same) However, they did have to qualify through Asia in 1974 and 1997…
Batter did give Oceania a half spot from Conmebol (Sth America’s half spot) that was revoked only because Australia in the Confederation’s cup in Germany failed to impress, so Blatter was forced to do a back flip under immense pressure from the Sth American confederation…
You had not mention Sth America’s involement not once…
Pippinu said | November 15th 2009 @ 12:14am | Report comment
But up till 1982, Australia and New Zealand played off through the AFC, one way or the other.
Shahsan said | November 15th 2009 @ 12:24am | Report comment
Jeez.
Asia and Oceania used to be grouped together for purposes of World Cup qualifcation, from the 60s. It used to be known as the Asia/Oceania zone. Which is why the Socceroos played often against the likes of Vietnam, HK etc to try to get to teh World Cup.
Ok, to be more correct, the Oceania winner (in effect Australai or NZ) were blocked from qualifcation via the Asia route from the 80s, once it became clear to the Asian nations that the strength of Aust/NZ meant they were always likely to get the sole spot on offer then.
So the Oceania winner had to go find all sorts of routes to ge through, including Europe in 1986, Concacaf (if i recall corectly) in 1990, South America in 1994, back to Asia in 1998, and then South America again for 2002 and 2006.
I hope i passed your test, sir.
Pippinu said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Realf
It’s not a mystery – it’s called petro-dollars!! (there will be a few in the Bahrain team who are not from Barhrain).
As for Steve’s historic note – the first team in history to qualify without defeating a team with a population over 1 million – that’s a nice bit of trivia!!
Good luck to NZ – I’d love to see them there – it will also be a reminder that when they were last there, we had one of the very best World Cups ever – in part helped by NZ conceding 13 goals!!
AndyRoo said | November 12th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
I remember hearing Bahrain wasn’t that richa company so I doubted they would have had many imports.
But you were right Pip, in their team are a couple of Nigerians, some one from Chad and a Morrocan.
Shahsan said | November 13th 2009 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
Could they not be genuine migrants? Every rich country has had good sportsmen/women get a fasttracking on their migration program, Australia, USA, UK, included.
dasilva said | November 14th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Yeah I agree with the sentiments from you and shahsan, I think majority of the Bahrain players are local players in contrast with the qatari national team anyway.
Also I don’t like this connatation about migrants not being “true” Qatari/Omani/Bahraini etc
Sure it’s distasteful for the FA to go buy 12-13 year old players to play for hte national team (although I don’t know the circumstances of the Bahrain foreign borns players), however you can’t go around telling these players that they are not Qatari/Bahraini etc.
Pippinu said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Yes – of course it’s ok that Bahrain has immigrants in its squad – but either way, it still comes down to petro-dollars.
Darwin hammer said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
“The crowd is so much greater than any that has previously attended a soccer match in New Zealand that it seems unlikely to be reflective of the sport’s core support.”
I’d disagree with call – there’s always been a strong base of support for football in NZ and kiwis have shown they’ll get out and support the game if they consider it’s worth watching …. moving the A League team to Wgtn was the best move and the Phoenix certainly have shown a sizable and loyal supporter base … and when FIFA gave the U17’s world cup to NZ the games were generally well supported throughout the country with the final being getting around 21,000 and restricted due to Nth Harbour stadium being only half built at the time …
35,000 sell out is fantastic and well done to New Zealand Football for taking to Wgtn – I’m flying out to night for what should be a ripper of a weekend in the Capital …
Smokygrayson said | November 12th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Good luck Kiwis. I would love to see Shane Smeltz playing in the World Cup, even though he might not get many chances.
Realfootball said | November 12th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
I would love to think the Kiwis will win, but reluctantly I predict it will be Bahrain. Having seem them in action against Australia I have no doubt they are better team on every level. However, home town support can make a difference, and I hope it gets the All Whites over the line.
Gaz said | November 12th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Funny, there seems to be more interest in this game from Australian than in our own Socceroos game v. Oman. And why not, with so much riding on it? We’ve all been there, and we all know the feeling – win or lose! Good luck, Kiwis!!!
Rusty0256 said | November 13th 2009 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
I think we Aussies are feeling a bit nostalgic about Saturday night.
New Zealand’s adventure feels quite similar to Australia v Uruguay 4 years ago; last gasp opportunity to qualify in first WC in a generation and the real prospect of a penalty shootout mimicing our experience (substitute screams of ALLLOIISSIIII with SMEEELLTZZZ).
Kiwis deserve a break and it would have to be fantastic for the game there. Flip side, I am guessing Asian Federation are going to be seriously pissed with FFA what with Wellington’s All-Whites getting plenty of experience in our A-League.
Shahsan said | November 13th 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Yes, good luck , New Zealand. All the very best.
Does anyone know if NZ could end up being drawn in teh same group as Australia?
Imagine if Australia had England, Guus Hiddink’s Russia and NZ — what a group that would be!
cab711 said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Will b searching for a pub in Sydney who will be showing this game.
Republican said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Go Bahrain – only because if it were Oz playing them, that’s who the Kiwis would be supporting!
katzilla said | November 14th 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Not because we don’t like you guys repub, but because your no longer the underdogs.
To your credit there aren’t many teams you can claim to be an under dog against anymore (maybe 20?)
You guys like battlers, we like battlers. Bahrain v NZ we are the battlers. Bahrain V Oz Bahrain are the battlers.
I cheered OZ on like a madman in 06, would do the same if they played any of the top countries.
jake said | November 14th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
LETS GO NZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
nz are thru!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well done, fantastic game and drama
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
hope i didn’t spoil that for anyone
katzilla said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
COME ON KIWIS! Man this next World Cup is going to be my fav
Rusty0256 said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
Never thought I would be cheering on the Kiwis. Well done lads, you deserve it.
Now if you can only do the right thing and get drawn in Australia’s group….
Vicentin said | November 14th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Congratulations NZ – thoroughly deserved win. Watching the celebrations has taken me back to my feelings at the Olympic Stadium when we qualified in ‘85. Again, well done.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
What happend in 85?
Robbos said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
I think he meant 05.
Vicentin said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
Shahsan, good question – I don’t remember either. I meant 2005 of course (and “we” meant Australia) – but I think I was thinking about NZ last qualifying for 82 got confused etc … eh, it’s been a long day with too much of it spent in the sun. Sorry about that.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
No worries. I thought i blanked out a year in my memory! yes, i was there too. Wonderful night.
For a moment there — when Bahrain had a late freekick — thought NZ were about to have their own “Iran MCG” moment too.
Robbos said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Well done NZ, see in Sth Africa.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Just to spoil the moment and be a spoilsport though, I hope NZ really improve on this showing by teh time they get to South Africa. That performance was one of the poorest I’ve ever seen from a team that’s qualfied for a World Cup.
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Well Bahrain were the 5th best team in Asia and they didn’t deserve to sneak that one.
Pippinu said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
It’s fantastic that NZ will be there with us – but I do wonder how the West Asian countries will react.
Out of 4.5 spots – they have ended up with none – and to make matters worse – two non-Asian countries got almost half the spots.
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Well the President of the AFC is from Quatar and a Bahrainian tried to ursurp him so he is probably pretty happy the Bahrain officials won’t be invited to SA2010 on an official basis
but there should be a few sad faces in the west right now.
westy said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Pippinu it would help if they defended properly. Well done NZ.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
That’s why Australia and NZ were kicked out of Asia in the first place, back in the 80s. The Arab lobby is very strong in the AFC.
And poor Bahrain. This is the second time in a row they have missed out (the last time to Dwight Yorke’s TnT), each time after very long and hard campaigns.
To add salt to the wound , the awards for the match tonight were sponsored by Gulf Air, national airline of … Bahrain!
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Well since they backtracked on the automatic spot for oceania we ahve done pretty well. It has meant 2 have made it instead of a max of one
Seems that Automatic spot was deserved!
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
Who backtracked? Was there ever an automatic spot for Oceania?
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
Sepp Blatter anounced oceania would get an automatic spot (back when Australia was still a member), then it was revoked and we had to beat Uruguay (knocking out NZ on the way).
For 2010 the first time it has been possible for both countries to qualify they both did.
Pippinu said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
Shahsan
for a few months, yes, Oceania officially had a spot – the South Americans then lobbied hard to take the full spot away from Oceania when their idiotic idea for a 36 team WC was knocked on the head.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Ok, so it wasnt teh Arab countries or the AFC?
westy said | November 14th 2009 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
The author is also a little to trite suggesting NZ qualification is tarnished beating countries with a population of less than one million. On their way to getting to be Asia’s fifth team Bahrain did have wins over japan Oman and thailand , finishing above Uzbekistan and Oman and pulling off fighting draw against Saudi Arabia to earn qualification against New Zealand.
These countries have more than a million in their population. Do not denigrate NZers achievement Bahrain can play.
I remember a time when NZ had to get past taiwan / Australia/ indonesia / Saudi Arabia /Kuwait and China to get to the 1982 World Cup. If it was a little easier this time good on them.
Shasan the last team I would want in our group would be New Zealand.
Republican contrary to what you state I think if Australia does not play Australians support New Zealand . this was the case in rugby World cups and my experience to date. love to beat them but if we are not there they are my team.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
I agree with that. It would merely be interesting to have NZ in the same group. Won’t be easy, as they will raise their game several notches against Australia. But sadly , i suspect they will get hammered by almost everyone else. Their results will be much like 1982 I suspect.
westy said | November 14th 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Shahsan I agree but they have some ability to learn quickly. Thrashed in the Confederations Cup by Brazil 5 to nil then 2 to 0 by South Africa they gave Iraq the fright of their lives with a scoreless draw. In fact the NZers were more positive.
Unlike many limited teams the NZers actually try to score. With a very limited base they have a penchant for producing an odd individual striker/s of some reasonable quality especially in the air.
I feel sorry for Bahrain but as we know we have all been there. The fact is what we lack technically they lack in physical no nonsense defence and quality goalkeeping. I do not mean courage they put their bodies on the line but they have a tendency in defence to slightly back of and seek or expect greater assistance from the official whereas with the the All Whites contact is paramount with a sidewards glance and prayer afterwards to the official.
By the way the kangaroos have at least 5 foreign born players and the wallabies ten. We are an immigrant country. Bahrain also has migrant workers and offers citizen ship much more generously than some other Middle Eastern Countries.
You do have to love the NZers though ” We will lose for oil”
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
Yes, that was very funny.
And i agree about their producing the odd gem in attack. I hope NZ get better, for their own sake. They were pretty careless with possession tonight, were too impatient and naive. And their tempo was too slow. What they need now is a top-notch coach to whip them into shape, the way Hiddink improved Australia in a few months.
AndyRoo said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:34pm | Report comment
What i couldn’t believe was that he played 3 strikers home and away. Then 1 nil up with about 15 mins to go was it he takes of one of his strikers…. for another striker!
Was a good move though as the fresh legs made a difference.
And the first sub was bringing on a guy from the NZ local league. Hopefully he is not a local league player for much longer
Oh and I don’t really care what other people call the game, most Aussie rules fans seem to accept us calling their game AFL, and league fans accept the game being called NRL even though it sounds stupid. I still sometimes use Soccer as the name depending on the audience.
Shahsan said | November 14th 2009 @ 11:49pm | Report comment
Yah, i get you. When there is confusion, use whatever makes things clear.
Yes, i thought 3 strikers away was quite smart: go for jugualr early, sneak away goal etc. But i thought he would have been more careful at home, esp when 1-0 up with 15 minutes to go.
true, they almost scored again but they also didnt hold things up well at all upfront. Comes with experience, I guess.
Shahsan said | November 15th 2009 @ 12:28am | Report comment
This site is a fun place to talk sport and disagree and agree on whatever the hell is going on, and to debate strenuously without ever getting too personal, and retaining some sense of humour. But a few have to spoil it for the rest of us. Why is that?