HERE’S a thing to fire us all up a little. An American soccer writer has tipped Australia to come 32nd and last in the upcoming FIFA World Cup in Brazil. Ouch.

But the humiliation doesn’t end there. Journalist Harrison Stark says the Socceroos have a historically “defeatist” attitude, claims none of our younger players are any good, and says our 2006 golden generation was a “fluke”.

Triple ouch. So is there any merit in these views?

Well, Stark has compiled in-depth previews of each of the 32 nations contesting next month’s football fest in Brazil in his new e-book. His previews are also running daily as a countdown on the website slate.com. He has clearly done his research.

Evidence of this is that Stark makes some insightful points with regard to the recent history of the sport of soccer, or football, or whatever you want to call it, in the Australian context.

He rightly states that the development of the game here is similar to that in America — in as much as the sport continually fights to get a foothold among other sports no one else in the world plays much.

Stark also gets just how well the Socceroos did at the 2006 World Cup, and how unlucky we were to be eliminated by eventual champions Italy on a dodgy penalty.

And it’s not easy to argue with statements like this synopsis of events after 2006:

“Hiddink left and the next generation of internationally ready players never came. Today, Australia’s squad still contains many of the same names it did in 2006, though these increasingly bedraggled fellows are now playing their club soccer at elephant’s graveyards like the Australian league and the Qatari professional league.”

Or his damning synopsis of more recent times:

“A series of high-profile friendlies abroad were intended to boost Australia’s soccer standing globally but did the opposite: The Socceroos lost to Brazil and France back to back, both by the embarrassing score of 6—0. In response, it sacked its coach, a move that doesn’t normally pay off right before a big tournament.”

That last point is perhaps the one thing really worth disputing. We all know that Australia goes to Brazil as the lowest-ranked team in the tournament. We all know we’re in a really, really tough group and will struggle to draw a match, let alone win one.

But Holger the Horrible had to go. Socceroos coach Ange Postecoglou is trying to build things from the ground up and establish a truly Australian style. This might be a horrible World Cup for Australia, but it could be a good one for us in the long run. Because if we go to Brazil and perform even half well, it will set a precedent to build the game with Australian hands — just like we have with cricket and other sports we excel at internationally.

So on balance, you’d have to say the 32nd ranking is harsh. (Not that teams are actually ranked in numerical order from first to last, but anyway).

At the very least, you’d have to believe we’d do better than Iran, the team Stark tips to come 31st. We should also surpass the feats of Costa Rica, who Stark tips to come 30th. After all, we beat them last year in Ange’s first match as coach.

By the way, the title of his story on slate.com was “Why are the Socceroos suddenly so bad at Soccer?”. That’s not really an accurate question. We’ve never been great, but we’re not that bad now. Or are we?

What do you think? Is this journalist being too harsh or will Australia really be the worst team at the World Cup? Tweet him at @harrisonstark or tweet us at @antsharwood or @newscomauHQ. You can also share your thoughts in the comments section below.