Kelly Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Australia draw from Premiership Australia have named 10 British-based players in their squad to face Norway in a friendly at Fulham's Craven Cottage on Tuesday, 16 November. Everton's Tim Cahill and Birmingham's Stan Lazaridis return and Middlesbrough supply Mark Viduka and Mark Schwarzer. Also in are Blackburn's Brett Emerton and Lucas Neill, Crystal Palace's Tony Popovic and Liverpool's Harry Kewell. The British contingent is completed by Leicester's Danny Tiatto and Cardiff's Tony Vidmar. National team coach Frank Farina said: "It is very competitive for places in the team, so some tough decisions will have to be made but we'll be putting the best possible team out on the park." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 That explains it....why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juaninho Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Not to be a total ass, but Leicester is not in the Premiership. Sure, they bounce up and down between the Prem and sub Premier League, well whatever they choose to call it now, but still no Premiership. I don't think Cardiff has ever been in the Premiership. This doesn't diminish the argument as the aussies beat us hands down in the numbers game. Well, maybe next year if Ipswich & Millwall get promoted, the latter a big IF, and Peters signs with Ipswich, then the representation could be DeVos, Peters, Radzinski, Serioux, and Simpson. Still not like the Aussies, but hopefully getting there. Didn't include Brennan as i doubt Norwich will stave off elimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I don't understand what Kelly's referring to. Australia's better because they have EPL players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juaninho Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 redhat, Kelly's point: To play for an EPL team you need to be talented. Australia has more players in the EPL then Canada. Ergo, Australia's team is composed of more talented players and as a result, a better team then Canada. Yes, the argument assumes that validated 'talent' = better team. Completely ignores the significance of coaching, familiarity with team-mates on the pitch, preparation, system philosophy etc. etc. BUT, if the EPL was composed strictly of demi-gods, or 'god-men', well then hell, no argument from me, australia IS better because they CAN out demi-god us, but I doubt that's the case regarding the EPL's status - the Neville brothers play there! edit: spelling, exclamation added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I think the telling point is in the last paragraph: they may have somewhat better talent then us, but the talent they have is willing to play and compete amongst each other for the positions, even if they have further to travel for home matches. That Vidulka, a bit of a selfish jerk overall, still has the hots to play for Australia although being punished for missing a friendly in Venezuela under pressure from Leeds to fake a strain last winter, shows a keen and different spirit that only De Vos (and, for all his limitations, Watson) has truly displayed for us over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruud Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Let's not kid ourselves...the Aussies overall have a sports system that, thanks to their distance from the US and everyone else, is wholly and fully supported by their country and government. Their depth in almost every sport in the summer Olympics was simply astounding. Canada has a long long way to go before they match the Aussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Please get back to me when Australia qualifies for the World Cup, then I'll be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montry Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ruud Canada has a long long way to go before they match the Aussies. So have the aussies to qualify to another World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Australia is so far ahead, because they have far superior infrastructure in their homeland. These players in the premiership have to come from somwhere. They come from home. Furthermore, Australia has a DOMESTIC NATIONAL LEAGUE. That is how you develop talent, is give them somewhere to play at home! WE NEED A NATIONAL LEAGUE. The MLS model is a waste of time. Think big, and think independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi44 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by RJB Furthermore, Australia has a DOMESTIC NATIONAL LEAGUE. That is how you develop talent, is give them somewhere to play at home! WE NEED A NATIONAL LEAGUE. The MLS model is a waste of time. Think big, and think independently. i'm pretty sure if canada was an island we'd have some sort of domestic league as well... remember australia doesnt share a HUGE boarder with a country nearly 10 times their population... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrennanFan Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I'm not convinced Australia is that far ahead of us. Im sure they'd love to have a Deguzman or Hume on their team. They've never accomplished much as a team anyway. The way we played in the first half against Costa Rica, we could at least tie anyone. Wake up guys, we'll never have a decent domestic soccer league, and we'll never have the 2 or 3 teams in the MLS that would make a worthwhile development option. . . who cares, we can still produce a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denis Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Actually, with all things considered I think Canada does relatively well in soccer compared to the aussies. While their international record is better than ours, it’s not overwhelmingly better. Australia is currently fifa ranked 49. Which is pretty much in the mix with our recent concacaf competition. While fifa ranking don't tell all, they do give some measure of international success. When you consider that soccer is probably in the top three team sports in Australia in terms of public interest (obviously behind rugby and probably cricket), and also considering their temperate climate and domestic league presence, one would think they would be more dominant then they are. Not to take anything away from the aussies. You can’t deny the over all success of their athletes, as demonstrated in the last few summer Olympics. However that being said, in soccer they do provide much better opportunities for their players and national team to succeed then Canada does, and I don’t believe that the opportunity difference is equal to the quality difference of our international players or our national team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadasBest Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 You forgot to mention that Australians and New Zealander's can automatically obtain a work visa in the UK if they are under 30. This is why there are so many Aussies playing in the UK in the first place. The work visa restrictions against Canadians are much more restrictive. In my opinion the success of so many Aussies and playing in the UK is more a reflection on the differences in immigration policy, not differences in national soccer policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Australia also gets lots of FIFA points for official games, which are always always wins inside their confed. That helps a lot. I still think they're ahead of us, but I'm not sure they'd get out of WCQ in CONCACAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Bertuzzi44 i'm pretty sure if canada was an island we'd have some sort of domestic league as well... remember australia doesnt share a HUGE boarder with a country nearly 10 times their population... Right, I forgot. We've got something we can use as an excuse for all our problems, and they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by RJB Right, I forgot. We've got something we can use as an excuse for all our problems, and they don't. Well, if you want to make a rational argument then it's best to take into consideration ALL factors. Anybody can say we should do this and we should do that when instead we should be focussing on what we can</u> do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Australia beat England in Enlgand; I think it was two year ago. Australia beat Canada in a play-off showdown during qualifiers for WC 94. Australia has the crappest route ever. After beating crap nations they have to face 2 additional rounds of some pretty big names. They lost to Argentina in 94 by a goal. In 98 it was Iran. And in 2002 It was Uruguay. Like to see Canada come close to those results. They succeed where we fail cause they have their national team players playing in a top league, where we have guys playing in Norway. You have to train at a high level and play at a high level everyday. Those Australian EPL players arrive in England when they were teens. Our players arrive in Milwall at 22. Until we send our best at 15, we always trail Australia. They smart. They don’t try to pretend that their domestic league is worth something. They send their best (again) to the best. Anyway Wrexham is for sale. The CSA should buy it and stock it with our U-20 team. Better money spent that building a 5000-stadium in Edmonton for a pro team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Actually, I think most of the Aussie players are brought up through their domestic league before being getting the best shipped abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natesta Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Originally posted by Daniel Moreso than premiership players, Australia is way ahead of us because they play friendlies in England (where those player are based) against other teams. They use London as a neutral location. It makes far, far more sense to play regular friendlies in England/Europe and have a cohesive unit of your -best- skilled players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 quote:Originally posted by G-Man Australia beat England in Enlgand; I think it was two year ago. Australia beat Canada in a play-off showdown during qualifiers for WC 94. Australia has the crappest route ever. After beating crap nations they have to face 2 additional rounds of some pretty big names. They lost to Argentina in 94 by a goal. In 98 it was Iran. And in 2002 It was Uruguay. Like to see Canada come close to those results. Of course you know that in '94, Australia advanced over Canada on a shootout so as far as I am concerned the two were eqaul there. The crappiest route argument is also bogus. They continually loose against .5's out of different Confederations. Their problem is that they leave their quality players in England up until the play-off at which point the team is somewhat like Canada's against Guatemala: Out of synche. I think Australia would qualify out of CONCACAF more often than not, and think with a full side are on par with our American and Mexican friends, but would be susceptible to the style of play and reffing in CONCACAF. They would defintely have to change their style of play to have a hope of qualifying out of this region. All my oinion of course Never seen them play as a national team, just lots of thier players in club games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 A better question would be why are sh*tholes like Guatemala ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ed A better question would be why are sh*tholes like Guatemala ahead of us. That is a question we get to ponder for the next four years. [] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 There is no way Australia is on par with the US or Mexico. I would probably rate them about 4th if they were in CONCACAF but pretty near in quality to several teams under them. This means they would presently be favoured to get a .5 position just like they get in Oceania and have failed to qualify from. Whether they would have better chances of qualifying in CONCACAF is debateable. There are more spots so if they have a particularly good campaign they might have a better chance of qualifying. However, if they were in a qualifying group such as ours (where each team is stronger than New Zealand) they would also stand a reasonable chance of missing the Hex as well. Far from having a crappy qualifying route they probably have the easiest route in the world, being almost guaranteed a .5 spot. Who including Canada would not jump at the chance to play a two game series with a lesser Asian, European or South African nation for a World Cup spot. The fact that they have not managed to qualify through this system is more of an indiciation of weaknesses in their team and system. Australian complaining about the system is merely people trying to find an external reason for their own failures. I think Oceania should be combined with Asia which would allow for a more balanced qualification process but I doubt Australia would automatically qualify from this conference every 4 years either. Australia has been more successful in its sports programs than Canada recently but I don't think that this is particularly the case in soccer. I would rate their team as somewhat better than Canada's at the moment but not enough that they should be some sort of model for us to learn from. We are far better looking at countries that have more similarities to us in sporting, climatic and geographic conditions and who have also had more success in soccer than Australia. The most obvious examples would be the USA and Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Then lets bring on a Commonwealth games tournament. A pretty decent pool of teams. I'd say Canada would be ranked 11th or 12th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.