Chris Wood of the New Zealand All Whites reacts with team mates after scoring his second goal during their international friendly. Photo / Photosport.co.nz
OPINION:
The prospect of a profound change to the format of the FIFA World Cup Intercontinental playoffs next June will prompt mixed emotions in New Zealand.
As exclusively revealed by the Herald on Friday afternoon, the traditional home and away fixtures could be replaced by a single leg match, ina neutral venue.
That option is believed to be the favoured one for FIFA and is expected to get the green light before the end of this month.
It means that the All Whites, if they qualify as Oceania winners, will face a single 90-minute battle, against either an Asian, North/Central American or South American nation for a golden ticket to the World Cup in Qatar.
With more than US$10 million at stake, it would be the biggest single match in New Zealand football history, and only comparable in gravitas to the famous playoff versus China in Singapore in 1982.
But it means there will be no repeat of the magical quadrennial occasions we have witnessed in Wellington over the last 12 years. The epic night against Bahrain in 2009, which engendered one of the greatest atmospheres at a sporting occasion ever seen in this country. The Mexican fiesta on a sunny evening in 2013, or the tense, terrific afternoon against Peru in 2017, with so much colour and emotion.
That would be a huge shame, as it is the one occasion where football captures the national spotlight.
There are also massive implications for New Zealand Football. Aside from the importance to the brand and the marketing benefits, those games can be goldmines.
NZF banked an estimated $6 million from the broadcast rights for the Mexican match in 2013, while the Peru contest also brought in a seven-figure sum. Then there is the revenue from a sold-out stadium, along with the benefits to the city and region.
But what will it mean for potential qualification prospects?
There will be pros and cons.
Whoever the All-Whites face, assuming they progress from the Oceania qualifiers, their opponents will be much more battle hardened.
The Asian, South American and CONCACAF teams will have come through long qualifying series and will have tried and tested combinations, even more vital in a 90-minute contest when there is almost no margin for error, compared to two legs where there is at least a chance to make up some ground.
On the plus side, there won't be the logistical and travel demands, which compromised the preparation for the away leg in Peru in 2017 and was also problematic in 2013.
And injuries and suspension between ties won't be a factor, like they were against Mexico, when the All Whites lost several players for the second leg, including Chris Wood.
While the All Whites will miss the home support, which was pivotal in 2009, they also won't have to face the hostile, intimidating environments that can be generated around the away games.
That was apparent in Lima, with several incidents, including a Peruvian Air Force jet conducting a flyover of the All-Whites' hotel on match day, which almost provoked diplomatic intervention, while the Azteca Stadium in 2013 was a seething cauldron.
That could be a bonus for the New Zealand team, who aren't accustomed to playing competitive matches away from home in front of big crowds, unlike all of their prospective rivals.
It will also be less problematic to assemble a squad – especially if the game is in the Middle East – though two legged ties tend to favour nations with more depth, which probably works against New Zealand.
The final – and most important question – is a footballing one. With so much on the line, the match could be extremely defensive, like numerous big European finals over the years.
That would be a significant mental and physical test for this young All Whites group, who would have to call on the spirit of 1982 to claim the ultimate prize.