[/quote]
...where they are Asian champions and generally in the mix for a WC spot? Seems like move to Asia is going ok really.
As to Aussie junior teams, I don't think anyone is re-thinking their move out of Oceania for the much tougher and longer qualifying cycle through Asia; Aussie have invested in qualifying preparation tournaments.
The key difference (apart from confederation issues) between Aussie and NZ kids is that per capita more young Aussies are playing at higher levels than young Kiwis. Our problems in the youth game start at home. Age group WC qualification through Oceania doesn't do a lot for the game here.
Sorry but that simply isnt true.
I agree with a lot of stuff you post Alf (in AW and ManU threads); in this case I'll have to bite though. I'd argue Asian competition is better for age group development than Oceania/WC qualification. It's a longer competitive match cycle, tougher competition etc - the benefits seem obvious. (Also it is a moot point as change will never happen until Oceania is absorbed into a modified East Asia/Western Pacific confederation).
Conversely WC qualification at age group level via Oceania doesn't benefit young player development as much. The only positive might have historically been the 'shop window' argument, ie, it's a well scouted tournament, but less so these days; and European clubs place more emphasis on European U19 and U21 tournaments. The last U17 Kiwi male player who was scouted from U17 World Cup was Jack Pelter I think; and he lasted less than 12 months at Sunderland - presumably because he wasn't ready for the transition to a pro environment. The only other player in recent time may have been Bill Tuiloma, but I think he had already trialled at LA Galaxy when he played U17 WC.
Why do you think WC qualification for U17/20s via Oceania benefits the game here more than tough regular competition in Asia, hypothetical as it is?