We failed to get out of group. However, we played some good football and we scored 4 goals.
We were lower ranked than all the teams we played and yet managed to come away with a draw.
I’d point out again that success against Belgium would have been the all time greatest upset in World Cup history.
We played aggressive football, in that we looked to score, rather than to suffocate a game.
I think we’d love to have more points, but I don’t think we can call the World Cup a failure.
I think Bazeley set consistent expectations and consistent selections. If we look at the past 12 months club and country the players did about what we’d expect them too.
With injuries to Singh, Thomas, Cacace, Garbett and Wood this season we weren’t at our peak, but we played slightly better than we had a right to.
The point is even if all those players are fit we were up against the second placed Asian team, Mo Sakai’s team and a Belgium team packed with top flite and Champions League talent.
The NZ Media/Most Kiwis has no clue on World Football. Yes I think we should/could have had six points given how the first two games played out but I think most people who know how football is played globally would have been happy with 1 points given our group leading into the world cup.
Heck the stuff poll pre-kickoff had NZ Win at 33%.
Further to my earlier post where I commented on the Uruguayan press ripping into Bielsa over the premature exit of La Celeste from the WC, here is another example of where the nations' expectations are such that the word "failure"is the only one left standing:
Don’t want to repeat, rehash what many others have already said regarding what we did achieve, things to take into consideration, and the problems that outdid us throughout the three games.
This WC was a missed opportunity, but ‘failure’ is just too harsh.
Edit: Just now realised that I typed outdid instead of undid, whoops.
