Don’t think it works like that mate. if are not used to it and dont like it, you will make up your own mind. Now days there are plenty of coaches that dont operate like that and get results, so no arguements that it dorsnt work.Monto
Woodsman basically saying he doesn't mind an "old school" coach, and getting a dressing room spray if needed. But some his (younger?) AWs team mates may struggle with that. No Sean Dyche was the AWs then. But yeah as Wood says, times are a changing, and sounds even Hay was trying to moderate himself.
Wood said that while he understood NZ Football’s decision to look beyond Hay, which was also rooted in the detachment of his All Whites setup from the organisation more broadly, he felt the descriptions of the former coach as “predominantly autocratic” and “demanding and intense” in the review were “a bit harsh”.
“I don't see it like that. I think if you experience football in a different culture and a different environment, you see different things.
“I've grown up in England, which is traditionally known for its tough culture. Whether that's right or wrong, it's made me who I am and shown what I can tolerate.
“Whether that's going to stay in the future or if football is evolving and that's coming out of the game … I think people need to worry about themselves and just enjoy and learn how to deal with situations as people, because everything's not nice and fluffy in the world, even outside of football.”
A key recommendation of the review was that the All Whites needed a more collaborative environment.
“I could see that he was trying to change and become a better manager. He's young and he's inexperienced in the grand schemes of things, so he wanted to learn and change.
“He just wasn't given the time to do so, which is fine and that's football.”
Good to see the Woodsman is made of sterner stuff than the staff at NZF. If he didn't mind Hay then I can't imaging the younger players trying to follow his lead would've either.
Of course you want someone who's constantly learning but for the national team you don't want players saying "he's a young coach..." to justify him being bad at his job.
And while you might deride certain players or admin staff as being soft, a trait of a good leader is knowing what motivates people and doing things which don't come naturally or are outside of your comfort zone in order to do so.
Good man management requires different approaches.
If the coach spends all week every day hammering home an aspect they want changed and the first thing you go and do is foul up the instructions perhaps you really need a rocket constantly to keep you focused.
But I guess it’s all about team dynamics and relationships being right and getting results. If you aren’t worried about disappointing the gaffer or don’t really respect what they’ve got to say, then a rocket isn’t going to change that. Maybe it’s your strike/midfield/defense partner who needs to keep you on track. And not with a rocket.
That's all far easier for your club coach, that your international manager, who often just doesn't have the time to manage each player individually.
2-3 training sessions before a game, some time explaining the game plan, scouting info on the opposition and that's generally it.
Though yes Hay did have the Olympics, OFC tourney & Costa Rica playoff buildup - that had the squads in camp for a few weeks. I remember at the time he did say candidly that he was struggling to sleep in the build up to the CR game. Huge pressure with $16M on the line, and I guess worrying endlessly if you had it all planned, what could you do better, everything riding on the 90 mins etc. So he likely wasn't that relaxed. No surprise Wood saying he was a bit less intense for the Socceroos friendlies.
To be fair he beat the Solomon Islands 6-1 under the lights at North Harbour in September 2017. Wood hattrick, Barbarouses, Thomas and McGlinchey. They're probably closer to us than Grenada are to the USMNT. That Wood free kick in added time is the last goal the All Whites scored on New Zealand soil.
I hope NZF are targetting someone else! Sure, Bazely only had the team for a couple of weeks and resultswise did ok, but I saw nothing that said he has a plan to make changes from the old ways.
I hope NZF are targetting someone else! Sure, Bazely only had the team for a couple of weeks and resultswise did ok, but I saw nothing that said he has a plan to make changes from the old ways.
To be fair once the coaching staff had seen China play after the first game, and Bazeley had had more time with the team, plus they had all rested from their long flights - I think he got the selection and setup pretty right for Game 2. He did pretty much what folks on here were suggesting he should do.
But I'd like to see him audition one more time in June, if NZF haven't found anyone else by then. No hurry as head towards 2026.
I hope NZF are targetting someone else! Sure, Bazely only had the team for a couple of weeks and resultswise did ok, but I saw nothing that said he has a plan to make changes from the old ways.
To be far once they had seen China play after the first game, and he'd had more time with the team plus they had all rested from their long flights - I think he got the selection and setup pretty right for Game 2. He did pretty much what folks on here were suggesting he should do.
But I'd like to see him audition one more time in June, if NZF haven't found anyone else by then. No hurry as head towards 2026.
Sure! I doubt NZF will delay the decision that long though. Pragnell did say they'd name someone after these games - or at least restart the process, so maybe that takes us to June. I wouldn't mind seeing what Bazely could do given some time, but then I'd prefer whoever this "#1 target" was to have as much time as possible through to the next WC.
An audition against China on home soil is not a particularly tough or relevant one. China are pretty average. No where near world cup qualification, and have only won once in the last 12 games which was against Hong Kong. I've long said fifa rankings are not relevant for us, and if you look at ELO ratings we are ahead of China. If we want to not just make up the numbers at the next world cup, we need a coach that is able to win (or draw) against better sides than us. Perhaps the Sweden game will be a better measure.
I'd be bitterly disappointed if he was given the permanent job on the basis of the China games. If he gets a good performance out of a sensibly selected and shaped side against Sweden, I wouldn't be outraged if he was then given it, because let's be real, we aren't realistically going to get anybody better for what we can pay, given the 5 man shortlist selected in December and the only two of them that were any good no longer being possible. But i'd still be disappointed. This is a golden generation and it'd be so great to strongly believe our coach could get the best from them. Darren has a long way to go before he convinces me of that
Now that OFC have direct entry into world cup and the woman's world cup prize money is going to be equal to the men's come 2027. Could NZ now afford to pay a bit more for someone better? Bit of a gamble but pretty much guaranteed woman's wc money...
Now that OFC have direct entry into world cup and the woman's world cup prize money is going to be equal to the men's come 2027. Could NZ now afford to pay a bit more for someone better? Bit of a gamble but pretty much guaranteed woman's wc money...
I think so. If men and women both qualify every four years and we say that NZF receive 20 million every four years. It really is going to change the landscape of the game in NZ, together with the new Auckland team in the A-League. Not sure we realize how great this coming decade is going to be. It would be hard even for NZF to make of mess of it. The equal payment for women's qualification is huge and means leaving Oceania would be a mistake too, unless FIFA changes it because they see NZF benefiting from it disproportionally with NZ officials driving around in Bentleys. So we may as well make hay (not literally bringing him back) while the sun shines. We could also pay bigger money for bringing teams over for friendlies or playing them elsewhere too. I wonder if the Aussies will try and sneak back in to Oceania?
Also if I understand it correctly, Oceania runner up goes into inter-continental playoff, so could be massive for the island teams as well.
Now that OFC have direct entry into world cup and the woman's world cup prize money is going to be equal to the men's come 2027. Could NZ now afford to pay a bit more for someone better? Bit of a gamble but pretty much guaranteed woman's wc money...
Have I missed something? Seems is no guarantee will be equal prize money between the 2 World Cups any time soon.
But yes would be fantastic for NZ Football if it happened. Qatar qualification was worth about $NZ16M?? So combined that's over $NZ30M of extra income on a 4 year cycle!
NZF could do a huge amount with that, and would definitely kill off the move to AFC agrument. Would Australia then want to try switch back to OFC? Maybe but the Aus Football public would hate the idea, they like hosting likes of Japan, Saudi, Korea etc - compared to the OFC minnows. It might reopen a West Asia verus East Asia/OFC split debate.
With the 48 team 2026 WC, the Intercontinental Playoffs have been canned. The 2nd OFC team will go into a 6 team Playoff Tourney, with only 2 teams to qualify. So the Island teams will get a greater chance at qualifying than past World Cups, but is still going to be very very tough for them. The AWs should cakewalk OFC WC qualifying if it is proper H&A qualifying with 2 legged (H&A) final & maybe semifinal.
From Wiki Playoff tournament
A playoff tournament involving six teams will be held to decide the final two FIFA World Cup berths:[32] the six teams are one team in each confederation except UEFA, and one additional team from the confederation of the host countries (CONCACAF).
Two of the teams will be seeded based on the World Rankings, and they will play-off against the winners of two knockout games between the four unseeded teams for the two FIFA World Cup berths.
The four-game tournament is to be played in one or more of the host countries, and will also be used as a test event for the FIFA World Cup.
Now that OFC have direct entry into world cup and the woman's world cup prize money is going to be equal to the men's come 2027. Could NZ now afford to pay a bit more for someone better? Bit of a gamble but pretty much guaranteed woman's wc money...
I think so. If men and women both qualify every four years and we say that NZF receive 20 million every four years. It really is going to change the landscape of the game in NZ, together with the new Auckland team in the A-League. Not sure we realize how great this coming decade is going to be. It would be hard even for NZF to make of mess of it. The equal payment for women's qualification is huge and means leaving Oceania would be a mistake too, unless FIFA changes it because they see NZF benefiting from it disproportionally with NZ officials driving around in Bentleys. So we may as well make hay (not literally bringing him back) while the sun shines. We could also pay bigger money for bringing teams over for friendlies or playing them elsewhere too. I wonder if the Aussies will try and sneak back in to Oceania?
Also if I understand it correctly, Oceania runner up goes into inter-continental playoff, so could be massive for the island teams as well.
I can't really see any reason why Australia would voluntarily give up their place in AFC to re-join OFC. They are improving at a faster rate than New Zealand are and have a greater talent pool to call from. They have qualified for the World Cup out of Asia all four times since 2010 - with only Japan and South Korea joining them in having achieved that. In 2026 AFC will have eight direct spots and one via the playoff and I can't see Australia falling so far to be behind the likes of Qatar, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Oman, China etc. Add to that the minimal pull factors OFC has - five games in a four-year cycle, poor conditions in away matches, minimal prestige.
As for NZF, leaving OFC isn't an option open to them so nothing changes in that respect.
In terms of spending millions of dollars on a coach, there is a ceiling to what NZF can attract even if money is no object. Ambitious coaches want to do well and money will come as a side-effect, and there isn't much scope to be successful as coach of New Zealand. If the All Whites qualify they'll probably be the weakest team at the World Cup, and certainly be massive underdogs in any of their matches. There's the very real possibility any coach would leave with their reputation damaged after three bad losses, especially if they try be recklessly expansive. I doubt Felix Sanchez at Qatar was on peanuts and I also doubt he came out of the recent World Cup with an improved reputation and he was at Qatar and who had just won the Asian Cup with a side better than the All Whites.
As a result, NZF could end up in a niche where you attract mercenaries who were famous a couple decades ago looking for a final payday. New Zealand football circles are suckers for an English accent especially - listen to any national team/National League coach speak. If a guy who was a Premier League coach in the '90s asks for a million NZD, NZF could jump at it. That might work, but it could also backfire.
I do think the All Whites are probably better now than in 2013 and that things will probably improve still. The contention to me is whether the team has improved relative to opposition - to the OFC teams, yes probably, to the European teams, possibly not. There might only be ten/twelve UEFA sides I would consider that are not in a better place than the All Whites . Every country is investing in football development and most countries are doing so with access to many more resources. It's very difficult to improve when there's only three/four professional players starting every week in the country.
A last point is that don't count any chickens before they hatch. Spending money you might earn is fraught business. Never count out OFC's tropical-belt-members' ability to collude to get one over the big bad New Zealanders. The OFC qualifying program isn't set yet and if it follows the path set by the OFC Champions' League it could be one-off games (even if it's just semis and final) hosted in a single country. The last five matches the All Whites have played in the tropical belt have finished 2-2, 2-0, 0-0, 0-0 and 1-0. Anything can happen on a mid-30s, 85% humidity Honiara afternoon and there are ten other OFC members who want nothing more than to see it happen.
Now that OFC have direct entry into world cup and the woman's world cup prize money is going to be equal to the men's come 2027. Could NZ now afford to pay a bit more for someone better? Bit of a gamble but pretty much guaranteed woman's wc money...
I think so. If men and women both qualify every four years and we say that NZF receive 20 million every four years. It really is going to change the landscape of the game in NZ, together with the new Auckland team in the A-League. Not sure we realize how great this coming decade is going to be. It would be hard even for NZF to make of mess of it. The equal payment for women's qualification is huge and means leaving Oceania would be a mistake too, unless FIFA changes it because they see NZF benefiting from it disproportionally with NZ officials driving around in Bentleys. So we may as well make hay (not literally bringing him back) while the sun shines. We could also pay bigger money for bringing teams over for friendlies or playing them elsewhere too. I wonder if the Aussies will try and sneak back in to Oceania?
Also if I understand it correctly, Oceania runner up goes into inter-continental playoff, so could be massive for the island teams as well.
I can't really see any reason why Australia would voluntarily give up their place in AFC to re-join OFC. They are improving at a faster rate than New Zealand are and have a greater talent pool to call from. They have qualified for the World Cup out of Asia all four times since 2010 - with only Japan and South Korea joining them in having achieved that. In 2026 AFC will have eight direct spots and one via the playoff and I can't see Australia falling so far to be behind the likes of Qatar, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Oman, China etc. Add to that the minimal pull factors OFC has - five games in a four-year cycle, poor conditions in away matches, minimal prestige.
As for NZF, leaving OFC isn't an option open to them so nothing changes in that respect.
In terms of spending millions of dollars on a coach, there is a ceiling to what NZF can attract even if money is no object. Ambitious coaches want to do well and money will come as a side-effect, and there isn't much scope to be successful as coach of New Zealand. If the All Whites qualify they'll probably be the weakest team at the World Cup, and certainly be massive underdogs in any of their matches. There's the very real possibility any coach would leave with their reputation damaged after three bad losses, especially if they try be recklessly expansive. I doubt Felix Sanchez at Qatar was on peanuts and I also doubt he came out of the recent World Cup with an improved reputation and he was at Qatar and who had just won the Asian Cup with a side better than the All Whites.
As a result, NZF could end up in a niche where you attract mercenaries who were famous a couple decades ago looking for a final payday. New Zealand football circles are suckers for an English accent especially - listen to any national team/National League coach speak. If a guy who was a Premier League coach in the '90s asks for a million NZD, NZF could jump at it. That might work, but it could also backfire.
I do think the All Whites are probably better now than in 2013 and that things will probably improve still. The contention to me is whether the team has improved relative to opposition - to the OFC teams, yes probably, to the European teams, possibly not. There might only be ten/twelve UEFA sides I would consider that are not in a better place than the All Whites . Every country is investing in football development and most countries are doing so with access to many more resources. It's very difficult to improve when there's only three/four professional players starting every week in the country.
A last point is that don't count any chickens before they hatch. Spending money you might earn is fraught business. Never count out OFC's tropical-belt-members' ability to collude to get one over the big bad New Zealanders. The OFC qualifying program isn't set yet and if it follows the path set by the OFC Champions' League it could be one-off games (even if it's just semis and final) hosted in a single country. The last five matches the All Whites have played in the tropical belt have finished 2-2, 2-0, 0-0, 0-0 and 1-0. Anything can happen on a mid-30s, 85% humidity Honiara afternoon and there are ten other OFC members who want nothing more than to see it happen.
Nice reply Carlind, I really respect the time, detail and effort you put into your post and to be clear I agree 100% with the sentiment although not always the details of what you say.
Just for the purpose of discussion I would like to play devil’s advocate even though I don’t have any real opposition to your points and think they are all valid.
Playing devil’s advocate I would question whether Australia have improved that much and that would be the argument from many Australian fans as well. Australia joined AFC in 2006 and that year reached a world ranking of 33 currently their world ranking is 32. In 2009 they ranked as high as 14 and in 2014 they ranked as low as 102.
The success at the most recent World Cup I believe, was mainly due to the excellent managerial skills of Graham Arnold but their pool of players was of as low quality as ever before, they also have less high profile players than ever before. The game in Australia has seen falling attendances for the national team and for the domestic competition (ok so Covid impacted everything).
What would they lose by moving back to Oceania? They would cut costs by not having to travel to Uzbekistan and other far flung locations and they would still get the prestige and profile of playing at the World Cup. They would get the estimated 20 million every 4 years so would still be able to maintain their current operating budget. Although there is 8 direct spots and a playoff there is still more chance than missing out than if they were in Oceania and for far less effort and more importantly, financial cost.
If we look at their results against the teams you mentioned we get the following:
The last time Australia played Qatar they lost 0-1, Uzbekistan 0-0 draw, Jordan they beat 2-1, Syria they beat 3-2 , Iraq 1-1 draw, Oman 2-2 draw, China 1-1 draw.
You could argue that they are not much above the level of these teams now and that any of these teams could beat them as the margins are not that big. The only risk in Oceania is playing New Zealand. I would say there is very little prestige in Asia as they are never a threat or contender for the World Cup title and they produce very few top level stars considering the population base.
Its true the WC qualifiers would be pretty boring but they would still have the cash to play high profile friendlies and none of the teams in Asia are packed with big stars that can pull a crowd. Australia’s strength is its assertiveness and creativeness. They managed to wangle an invite to the Copa America so they would still be able to do things like this.
In terms of Coaches, for the ambitious NZ could point to how it has worked out for Anthony Hudson who could potentially be the head coach of a home team at a World Cup and the biggest footballing event in the states for over 30 years. The seasoned veteran also might see it as a nice pay day while knowing that his entire careers reputation is not going to be damaged by how well NZ do at a world cup. I would say with the expansion to 48 teams it’s likely NZ won’t be the weakest team in the group although by FIFA world ranking metric that will probably be the case. Felix Sanchez who coached Qatar is now coaching Ecuador so that would look like a step up and not a step down. Also we could use the Saudi manager Hervé Renard whose profile went through the roof after beating Argentina and Saudi are not that much better than NZ. I agree with what you said about the British accent as somehow mistakenly being judged the best qualification you can have in NZ football but I am also a huge Des Buckingham advocate, so it can sometimes be true.
I would not say that most countries have access to many more resources than NZ. We are one of the 30 richest countries in the world so have a head start on 170 countries in terms of basic infrastructure, organization and economic prosperity and there is going to more opportunities in the future with the World Cup revenue and the addition of another pro team. We also have an advantage just by speaking the international business language as our native tongue. I think the last count on the number of pros NZ can call on is around 90, so not great in world terms but not bad either (I understand you meant pros starting locally) . Considering Iceland has a population of Christchurch and they can achieve success, there is no reason NZ cannot do something similar.
In terms of not counting chickens before they hatch and the anti NZ bias in OFC, it may be true but not to the level of open hostility. Even if playing in the islands is tough ( I love that you refer to it as “the tropical belt” reminds me of Joseph Conrad) it has still not prevented us from going to at least the World Cup Play off stage every time and only prevented us once in a Confed cup. So if we are going to back test the theory since the last WC qualification in 2010 and say that Oceania men and women got direct entry and equal prize money, NZF coffers would currently be 60 million dollars heavier. Now, with that we could get Jose Mourinho.
I was in Australia during the Qatar WC. The Socceroos did bloody well and for a few short weeks, football was the no 1 conversation for sports fans. Unfortunately for the FA a WC is only every 4 years, but playing a few big home WC qualifiers each cycle against Saudi, Japan etc - plus the Asian Cup, keeps the Socceroos relevant.
Aussie has a hugely competitive sports market. The FA always have a tough fight keeping football in the sports pages. Returning to OFC (not that the Islands countries will want them), would be seen as a massive negative backwards step, that the other codes would gloat over.
In gross GDP NZ sits 50 in the world. Most importantly as Carlind points out we have 1 professional football team, that starts about 4-6 Kiwis per week. The most important resource in an international football context is your player base. Our's is tiny compared to most countries in FIFA's top 50. Anyway being a poorer country doesn't stop you spending big on football. Ex Peru boss Gareca reportedly turned down a new offer of $USD2M/yr from the Peru FA. They sit 49th on that gross GDP list. But their FA is obviously a fair bit 'richer' than ours.
I was in Australia during the Qatar WC. The Socceroos did bloody well and for a few short weeks, football was the no 1 conversation for sports fans. Unfortunately for the FA a WC is only every 4 years, but playing a few big home WC qualifiers each cycle against Saudi, Japan etc - plus the Asian Cup, keeps the Socceroos relevant.
Aussie has a hugely competitive sports market. The FA always have a tough fight keeping football in the sports pages. Returning to OFC (not that the Islands countries will want them), would be seen as a massive negative backwards step, that the other codes would gloat over.
In gross GDP NZ sits 50 in the world. Most importantly as Carlind points out we have 1 professional football team, that starts about 4-6 Kiwis per week. The most important resource in an international football context is your player base. Our's is tiny compared to most countries in FIFA's top 50. Anyway being a poorer country doesn't stop you spending big on football. Ex Peru boss Gareca reportedly turned down a new offer of $USD2M/yr from the Peru FA. They sit 49th on that gross GDP list. But their FA is obviously a fair bit 'richer' than ours.
ok where to start.
I guess at the beginning. In response to the proposal that Australia has greatly proved since 2006 my response in the role as devils advocate was that they have not improved greatly since (ie: a 17 year period) and that their recent success at the world cup was due to Graham Arnold. Your reply is to agree that they did well at this world cup ignoring the totality of the counter argument and then defeat your own argument by saying football was popular for a few weeks in Australia. Well it was briefly in 2010 in NZ as well.
Sorry but then comes the worst point. I am not sure how well you understand economics but I will try to be respectful. How can you look at gdp and not look at gdp per Capita??! Do you actually believe that people living in Peru have the same standard of living as NZ and the same access per head of population to opportunity and resources?! Have you seen the grinding poverty in which many people of Peru live? They are by the way currently under going a coup. Show me any list where the standard of living in NZ is ranked 50th in the world? On GDP nominal per Capita NZ sits 22nd. Unfortunately you completely buy in to this "little old NZ" garbage that infects NZ thinking and culture. It's economics which provides opportunity.The population is not even that small. If NZ was in Europe,out of 50 countries, just based on population NZ comes in at around 25. You also completely ignore the example of Iceland with a population of Christchurch which can't even play outside 9 months of the year.
To other points you ignore. We have 90 professionals playing world wide. You say player base is most important and then proceed to ignore anyone Playing outside NZ ? How come?
Can a poor country spend big on one aspect/one position in their entire football infrastructure? Yes. Is it advisable and the case normally? No.
Hasn’t the youth set up in Australia gone to crap somewhat? The A league doesn’t have a full youth league anymore yeh?
I’m NZ we’re reaping the results largely of Ole, but also the Phoenix and Wynners academies producing some v good players. Oh and Iffy with Elliot!
It’s hard to say, but it feels to me by the metric we mostly understand- players in the EPL (or Bundesliga/Serie A etc) that Australia has gone backwards.
Getting regular competition games at home is a major difference between the two teams, but it only encourages regular fandom, not necessarily the creation of top drawer players.
Where genius sports players like Tendulkar come from is a fanatical culture around the game and a lot of competitive play everyday. It’s why younger brothers often are the strongest. Throw in some individual quality and determination…That doesn’t need money, though it may help. Football is a traditionally working class game, currently very doled up. And in the UK and elsewhere some of the best players come from difficult circumstances. If your life is 99% football it’s got to help.
Hasn’t the youth set up in Australia gone to crap somewhat? The A league doesn’t have a full youth league anymore yeh?
I’m NZ we’re reaping the results largely of Ole, but also the Phoenix and Wynners academies producing some v good players. Oh and Iffy with Elliot!
It’s hard to say, but it feels to me by the metric we mostly understand- players in the EPL (or Bundesliga/Serie A etc) that Australia has gone backwards.
Getting regular competition games at home is a major difference between the two teams, but it only encourages regular fandom, not necessarily the creation of top drawer players.
Where genius sports players like Tendulkar come from is a fanatical culture around the game and a lot of competitive play everyday. It’s why younger brothers often are the strongest. Throw in some individual quality and determination…That doesn’t need money, though it may help. Football is a traditionally working class game, currently very doled up. And in the UK and elsewhere some of the best players come from difficult circumstances. If your life is 99% football it’s got to help.
Yes some good points but I would say if we are talking about the opportunity to be professional at something there is more weight on the economic state of your neighbourhood, your infrastructure and your country, when you start playing, rather than the economic wealth of your family although that is of course a relevant factor. A poor kid in a rich country has more opportunity than a poor kid born in a poor country. Tendulkar comes from a rich family, if he was born in the slums of India, he would (if he had survived infancy) probably have got no more chance to play organized cricket than swinging a makeshift bat with a few of his mates on some Mumbai wasteland. We could also look at the NBA stars in USA most come from deprived backgrounds but in a wealthy country. If they were born and raised in Africa they are not playing in the NBA.
I like that you bring up the academies, Ole etc. Wouldn't it be good if NZ was able to identify the most talented kids and reach out to the public or corporates to pay the fees rather than their parents. I imagine this goes on to some extent but right now I get the impression you have to find a talented kid and his parents then have to be rich to go to these academies. I don't think the All Blacks would keep their best talent based on this model. Yes of course it is slightly different as the most talented athletes in NZ in general have a strong love of Rugby from their background but this can change with some good examples or role models. I remember hearing Bill Tuiloma tell a story about how his parents did not have a spare 5 dollars to give him for something to eat on a flight to a youth NZ football camp. Pretty heartbreaking but at least with a happy ending now he is earning well in the USA.
Once again I am not sticking to the topic of the thread. Apologies.
Australia has a lot of exciting youth coming through at the moment. The amount of 16/17 year olds playing regularly in the A League is exciting for them.
I was in Australia during the Qatar WC. The Socceroos did bloody well and for a few short weeks, football was the no 1 conversation for sports fans. Unfortunately for the FA a WC is only every 4 years, but playing a few big home WC qualifiers each cycle against Saudi, Japan etc - plus the Asian Cup, keeps the Socceroos relevant.
Aussie has a hugely competitive sports market. The FA always have a tough fight keeping football in the sports pages. Returning to OFC (not that the Islands countries will want them), would be seen as a massive negative backwards step, that the other codes would gloat over.
In gross GDP NZ sits 50 in the world. Most importantly as Carlind points out we have 1 professional football team, that starts about 4-6 Kiwis per week. The most important resource in an international football context is your player base. Our's is tiny compared to most countries in FIFA's top 50. Anyway being a poorer country doesn't stop you spending big on football. Ex Peru boss Gareca reportedly turned down a new offer of $USD2M/yr from the Peru FA. They sit 49th on that gross GDP list. But their FA is obviously a fair bit 'richer' than ours.
ok where to start.
I guess at the beginning. In response to the proposal that Australia has greatly proved since 2006 my response in the role as devils advocate was that they have not improved greatly since (ie: a 17 year period) and that their recent success at the world cup was due to Graham Arnold. Your reply is to agree that they did well at this world cup ignoring the totality of the counter argument and then defeat your own argument by saying football was popular for a few weeks in Australia. Well it was briefly in 2010 in NZ as well.
Sorry but then comes the worst point. I am not sure how well you understand economics but I will try to be respectful. How can you look at gdp and not look at gdp per Capita??! Do you actually believe that people living in Peru have the same standard of living as NZ and the same access per head of population to opportunity and resources?! Have you seen the grinding poverty in which many people of Peru live? They are by the way currently under going a coup. Show me any list where the standard of living in NZ is ranked 50th in the world? On GDP nominal per Capita NZ sits 22nd. Unfortunately you completely buy in to this "little old NZ" garbage that infects NZ thinking and culture. It's economics which provides opportunity.The population is not even that small. If NZ was in Europe,out of 50 countries, just based on population NZ comes in at around 25. You also completely ignore the example of Iceland with a population of Christchurch which can't even play outside 9 months of the year.
To other points you ignore. We have 90 professionals playing world wide. You say player base is most important and then proceed to ignore anyone Playing outside NZ ? How come?
Can a poor country spend big on one aspect/one position in their entire football infrastructure? Yes. Is it advisable and the case normally? No.
Getting serious off topic, but I'll take the bait. NZ doesn't have 90 male professional players. It's more like 50-60. Piney's top 50 power ranking always includes a couple of 'amateurs' like Howieson & JHS.
If you count players from pub leagues like Swedish 4th tier (Torslanda crew), Finnish 3rd tier, 6th tier Germany plus every Kiwi kid in Europe signed to a youth deal, plus the complete ACFC squad you might get close to 90.
Yes I know Peru well. Spent about 3 years in total there since late 2017. For sure per capita it's a poorer country than NZ, guess it depends by which measurement of rich country you use. But's it's football scene is far bigger & wealthier than NZ's. They are on different planets. Turn on the Peruvian TV sports news and it's 7 football stories, then a token women's volleyball item at the end. A talented kid in Peru (except in the very poorest remote areas) has as much chance of making it as a kid in NZ. There's scores of academies & talent setups in Lima with it's 12M people. Plus 5 aside football being played in every neighbourhood park, it almost seems around the clock 24/7.
And don't forget the behavioural patterns sometimes of kids from a poorer neighbourhood. They can be completely football obssessed and dream of it as their path out of poverty. Declan Edge is an advocate of the 10,000 hours rule (Malcolm Gladwell 2008 book "Outliers"). Who's more likely to spend 10,000 hours outside kicking a football. A Peru kid in poverty, or a Kiwi kid with a comfortable home that has TV, a playstation etc all waiting in a nice warm house if it's cold & wet outside?
I don't the know the situation in Iceland that well, but I do know they have the highest % of FIFA qualified coaches per capita, and lots of large full pitch indoor stadiums so they can play the game all year round. Sure NZ can try to replicate that, but it's so much more difficult when Rugby dominates the scene money & media wise.
I believe this goes deeper than just finding a new coach, just like what has been happening with NZRU. We need a governing body that has experience and knows what they are doing. We tend to appoint people to football roles just because they are from the UK, played for NZ etc without the pedigree to actually make a difference or have the vision to get the most out of the players. If Iceland can do it so can NZ.
I really hope that NZF had a good chat to the experienced AWs like Wood, Smith, Boxall & even Bell whilst they were in NZ. The first 3 especially have been in pro football for like 12-15 years each. That's a wealth of experience and different club coaches in different countries, plus obviously different AWs setups.
They should be able to give honest confidential feedback on Bazeley & Co. You can't rely on Pragnell & the new high performance guy from netball, to really know much about appointing the right gaffer.
I was in Australia during the Qatar WC. The Socceroos did bloody well and for a few short weeks, football was the no 1 conversation for sports fans. Unfortunately for the FA a WC is only every 4 years, but playing a few big home WC qualifiers each cycle against Saudi, Japan etc - plus the Asian Cup, keeps the Socceroos relevant.
Aussie has a hugely competitive sports market. The FA always have a tough fight keeping football in the sports pages. Returning to OFC (not that the Islands countries will want them), would be seen as a massive negative backwards step, that the other codes would gloat over.
In gross GDP NZ sits 50 in the world. Most importantly as Carlind points out we have 1 professional football team, that starts about 4-6 Kiwis per week. The most important resource in an international football context is your player base. Our's is tiny compared to most countries in FIFA's top 50. Anyway being a poorer country doesn't stop you spending big on football. Ex Peru boss Gareca reportedly turned down a new offer of $USD2M/yr from the Peru FA. They sit 49th on that gross GDP list. But their FA is obviously a fair bit 'richer' than ours.
ok where to start.
I guess at the beginning. In response to the proposal that Australia has greatly proved since 2006 my response in the role as devils advocate was that they have not improved greatly since (ie: a 17 year period) and that their recent success at the world cup was due to Graham Arnold. Your reply is to agree that they did well at this world cup ignoring the totality of the counter argument and then defeat your own argument by saying football was popular for a few weeks in Australia. Well it was briefly in 2010 in NZ as well.
Sorry but then comes the worst point. I am not sure how well you understand economics but I will try to be respectful. How can you look at gdp and not look at gdp per Capita??! Do you actually believe that people living in Peru have the same standard of living as NZ and the same access per head of population to opportunity and resources?! Have you seen the grinding poverty in which many people of Peru live? They are by the way currently under going a coup. Show me any list where the standard of living in NZ is ranked 50th in the world? On GDP nominal per Capita NZ sits 22nd. Unfortunately you completely buy in to this "little old NZ" garbage that infects NZ thinking and culture. It's economics which provides opportunity.The population is not even that small. If NZ was in Europe,out of 50 countries, just based on population NZ comes in at around 25. You also completely ignore the example of Iceland with a population of Christchurch which can't even play outside 9 months of the year.
To other points you ignore. We have 90 professionals playing world wide. You say player base is most important and then proceed to ignore anyone Playing outside NZ ? How come?
Can a poor country spend big on one aspect/one position in their entire football infrastructure? Yes. Is it advisable and the case normally? No.
Getting serious off topic, but I'll take the bait. NZ doesn't have 90 male professional players. It's more like 50-60. Piney's top 50 power ranking always includes a couple of 'amateurs' like Howieson & JHS.
If you count players from pub leagues like Swedish 4th tier (Torslanda crew), Finnish 3rd tier, 6th tier Germany plus every Kiwi kid in Europe signed to a youth deal, plus the complete ACFC squad you might get close to 90.
Yes I know Peru well. Spent about 3 years in total there since late 2017. For sure per capita it's a poorer country than NZ, guess it depends by which measurement of rich country you use. But's it's football scene is far bigger & wealthier than NZ's. They are on different planets. Turn on the Peruvian TV sports news and it's 7 football stories, then a token women's volleyball item at the end. A talented kid in Peru (except in the very poorest remote areas) has as much chance of making it as a kid in NZ. There's scores of academies & talent setups in Lima with it's 12M people. Plus 5 aside football being played in every neighbourhood park, it almost seems around the clock 24/7.
And don't forget the behavioural patterns sometimes of kids from a poorer neighbourhood. They can be completely football obssessed and dream of it as their path out of poverty. Declan Edge is an advocate of the 10,000 hours rule (Malcolm Gladwell 2008 book "Outliers"). Who's more likely to spend 10,000 hours outside kicking a football. A Peru kid in poverty, or a Kiwi kid with a comfortable home that has TV, a playstation etc all waiting in a nice warm house if it's cold & wet outside?
I don't the know the situation in Iceland that well, but I do know they have the highest % of FIFA qualified coaches per capita, and lots of large full pitch indoor stadiums so they can play the game all year round. Sure NZ can try to replicate that, but it's so much more difficult when Rugby dominates the scene money & media wise.
In regards to the number of professionals you were trying to make a case of NZ weakness based on the player base and a stat of 4 professionals starting every week, so not exactly a fair or accurate assessment of the "player base" I would say.
I do not know what you mean by "it depends on which measurement of rich you use"? Reminds me of Bill Clinton defending himself under cross examination saying "It depends what your definition of 'is' is." Do you mean richness in terms of football culture? I guess I can agree with that but this is not directly correlated to opportunity for those with no money vs those with money.
"A talented kid from Peru has as much chance as making it as a kid from NZ"? You say this as someone who has lived there for 3 years since 2017?
"About 34% of children in Peru must work in order to help their families. Most children have difficult, exhausting, and sometimes extremely dangerous work. They work in jobs at such diverse places as plantations, waste disposal centers, traveling markets or mines. Some risk their lives daily in terrible conditions and earn mere pennies, far from adequate compensation for the precariousness of their positions. Other children are forced into prostitution or drug dealing, which is just as dangerous.
Violence in Peru is only increasing. No one dares oppose the gangs, which terrorize the streets and lay down the law. They intimidate other inhabitants, who remain submissive and silent in the face of the violence. Gang leaders often turn to children: some are raised by the gang, some become victims of the gangs. They practice the worst forms of sex and drug commerce as traffickers. If the children are able to escape the gangs, they are usually still traumatized by their experiences and must undergo a long and difficult reinsertion into normal society."
"And don't forget the behavioural patterns sometimes of kids from a poorer neighbourhood." -So the first point is you say "sometimes" so "sometimes" they do and "sometimes" they don't? By saying "sometimes" you make your point inherently redundant. So poor people play football? So therefore poor people have a better chance of becoming professional footballers than kids that are not poor? I can't get on board with that. Poor kids are also more likely to suffer from domestic abuse, violence, self esteem issues and discrimination.
Now for that terrible book by a pseudo scientific journalist who has no scientific qualification whatsoever but for some reason is the darling of the western liberal middle class. No kid in poverty in Peru is hunched over Malcom Gladwell books looking for any answers, unless of course you gave them to him? I don't get randomly mentioning Declan Edge? What? Declan Edge agrees you must spend a lot of time of something to be good at it? Therefore Gladwell is an Oracle? Either way Gladwell's ideas shouldn't be quoted as established fact or science. e.g:
"Unfortunately, the moment the 10,000-hour mark is reached is not a skills tipping point – to use another phrase popularised by Gladwell. Learning and gaining experience are gradual processes; skills evolve slowly, with practice. And there is a vast range of time periods over which different individual reach their own peak of proficiency – their concert level, you might say – in whatever field."
You say who is more likely to put in 10,000 hours playing football a kid in Peru or NZ? Well, who is more likely to have better access to healthcare, the best teachers, coaching and transportation? Who is more likely to be in better physical health? Who is more likely to suffer from malnutrition? Who is more likely to afford coaching clinics and academies? Who is more likely to have access to better training equipment? Whose family is more likely to have connections? Who is more likely to go outside and be threatened with criminal violence or activity (as mentioned above)?
Now Iceland.
"they have the highest % of FIFA qualified coaches per capita"-So what's the point there? I am using them as a case study in how economic wealth is the most important factor for success and this is just one more point that proves it.
"lots of large full pitch indoor stadiums so they can play the game all year round." Again, it is proving my point that the money spent on infrastructure leads to success (would not call 7 "full indoor pitches" a lot but anyhow we can say per capita it is "lots"). That economic wealth of your country is the biggest factor.
"Sure NZ can try to replicate that, but it's so much more difficult when Rugby dominates the scene money & media wise. "-Again we are talking about a population of 380k vs 5 million in NZ. How can we not replicate it? Maybe Christchurch can't replicate it as they have competing sports as you mention with Rugby etc. but now with the prize money for men and women being equal and the automatic qualification that should not be an issue at all. Let's say its 10 million for Men and 10 million for women every four years. I think we can count at least some of those chickens before they hatch.
