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?
We might not get regular games at age group level via Asia because we would have to ration the teams we sent to qualifiers in the same way Australia has sometimes had to do. The cost is significant because we have multiple teams and if Australia with a bigger economy and bigger player base struggle with these costs how much of an impact do you expect it to have on us?
I wasnt saying we shouldnt switch to Asia, I was just pointing out what i believe are important aspects of our players opportunities and development via age group WC's for both sexes and how switching to Asia would hurt that a lot. There are other aspects to think about as well. We have a great opportunity to give coaches experience on the world stage at world cups at age group level. There is a huge amount of information sharing that goes on at FIFA tournaments and part of that had an input into the coaching curriculum portion of the WoF plan. The study that produced the WoF plan came directly from technical data gathered over successive age group world cups we took part in. You can ask Rob Sherman or any of the other technical staff about that. If we go to Asia we simply wont be able to afford to send every age group side to qualifiers and also run a big risk of only qualifying on rare occassions. The loss of opportunity and experience for both players and coaches via Oceania's place at age group world cups is significant for us, to think otherwise is either ignoring reality or not understanding what goes on with respect to coaching knowledge and experience as well as players experiencing big tournaments on a very frequent basis.
The days of a NZ age group side being thumped 13-0 such as against Spain in 1997 are well behind us and a big chunk of that is because of the experience gained by players and coaching staff in the years since then.
With respect to the AW's and the womans senior side qualifying via Asia would be a much better route because of the increased quality of opposition. Im just pointing out that if we go via Asia then we win on one hand but lose on the other and that within the context of our development as a football nation would the loss of experience and opportunity for age group players and coaching staff be something we are ready for and able to deal with. Qualification via Oceania because its affordable has meant that our age group extended squads are able to train together more and the significance of that has multiple benefits. Sure the qualifying games offer a weak set of games generally but the cost saving leaves money in the kitty for meaningful build up games to an age group WC.
So better for our 2 senior sides for sure but are we at the point where the loss of the age group experiences is something we can handle?