The Matildas hardly deserved to go through to the World Cup quarter-finals but their penalty shoot-out defeat to Norway in Nice yesterday still left a bitter taste.
Let’s be honest, if Norwegian winger Caroline Graham Hansen hadn’t hit the inside of the post with a curling effort in stoppage-time on Sunday morning, we wouldn’t even be talking about Australia’s 4-1 penalty shoot-out defeat.
Ditto Vilde Boe Risa, whose deft chip from 30 yards caught Lydia Williams off her line in extra-time but ultimately clipped the top of the crossbar.
So it’s not like the Matildas were undeniably the better team.
But not for the first time it was the manner of an Australian national team’s loss, rather than the defeat itself, that left such a sour aftertaste.
(Photo by Martin Rose/Getty Images )
Because Alanna Kennedy should never have been sent off in extra-time.
And Tameka Yallop was denied the clearest penalty in the history of football just before full-time.
And the Matildas being denied yet another penalty just before half-time brings into question why football even uses Video Assistant Referees in the first place.
Maybe Sam Kerr’s cross did come off Maria Thorisdottir’s shoulder after all?
But when German referee Riem Hussein blew her whistle to signal a spot-kick after Thorisdottir had dropped her body downwards to meet Kerr’s cross, there was 41:10 showing on the match clock.
And when Hussein re-entered the field of play to chalk off her penalty decision, the clock now read 44:25.
So where in the intervening three minutes and 15 seconds was Hussein’s “clear and obvious error?”
If she had an unimpeded view and Hussein was clear in her conviction that Kerr’s cross had struck Thorisdottir’s arm, why was VAR technology used to overturn the decision?
The video replay seemed to suggest Kerr’s cross simply struck Thorisdottir’s upper body – but it’s not like it was conclusive.
And perhaps the bigger issue at hand – or at least one probably worth debating – is why refereeing decisions at major tournaments seem to constantly go against teams like Australia.
It’s not only us Aussies. Just ask Kiwi football fans how they feel about FIFA refereeing of late.
It seems no matter which Australian national team is in action, the default reaction from FIFA referees is to call almost every key decision against them.
But then – and this is an important distinction to make – the Matildas might never have been playing Norway in the first place if it wasn’t for a couple of crucial decisions going their way in the 3-2 win over Brazil.
So once in a blue moon refereeing decisions do go Australia’s way.
And maybe that’s the problem. In our rush as fans to run every decision that goes against our teams through the microscope, we’ve opened the door to the sort of officiating we’ve seen so much of in this Women’s World Cup.
Because, let’s face it, the use of VAR technology has been a nightmare.
Just as we’ve experienced in the A-League, it has ruined the flow of games, robbed goal celebrations of their spontaneity and forced on-field referees to second-guess their own decisions.
More often than not it’s only added confusion when the whole point of video referees was to remove it.
And as fans we should acknowledge that a culture of questioning every minor decision was only ever going to result in a major change to the way football is refereed.
(Photo by Marcio Machado/Getty Images)
At the end of the day, the Matildas weren’t good enough to beat Norway.
The Norwegians executed their game plan better on the night, including during that fateful penalty shoot-out.
And an Australian plan that involved sacking the coach in the build-up and finished with more questions than answers ahead of their Tokyo Olympics qualification campaign arguably got what it deserved.
We should be proud of the Matildas’ efforts in France.
But as is so often the case in Australian football, it’s another campaign that leaves us all wondering ‘what if?’
lapsedcyclist
Roar Rookie
Redirect future approach Australia has to spend money for the Matildas to improve, they need meaningful games. An annual tournament invite 3, 4 or 5 european national teams i.e. european continental champion & finalist. In order for Australia to win the world cup it needs to get past the european teams. Then and then should it look to bid for a future world cup.
Ad-O
Guest
LOL. Delete your account.
James
Guest
The centre back position is a huge area of concern. Polkinghorne (and Alleway) will probably not be around come next cycle and we have no one to fill their shoes. We need to start looking for new players to put in that role. Kennedy is excellent technically (for a CB) and is very strong in the air, but is not fast. I would like to see us bring in a new CB with pace who can complement Kennedy. I also find it amusing that so many are woeful of the Matildas backline, but praise Carpenter nonstop. Carpenter has a huge engine and her speed is unmatched, but the same things she is praised for more often than not leave the defense exposed when she gets caught up high. Its happened numerous times, which forces the right CB out wide and leaves us stretched in the back. Carpenter could be a world class fullback, but needs to get that balance between when to go up and when to defend correct and take lessons from Catley, who imo, is very balanced fullback. A huge issue I also noticed, which has been mentioned here in other comments was poor finishing ability. Another poster mentioned how our greatest time was when we had Simon and Heyman up front and I am partially in agreement. Both those players have/had an instinctual ability on where in the net to place the ball. Raso, Gielnik and Yallop are very poor in finishing. They get into great positions and dribble through defenders and then end up wasting their hard work by taking a shot directly at the keeper or taking too many touches and ruining the shot opportunity. Finally I find it hugely ironic that the two players who currently play in Europe and are very technical, Luik and Chidiac were not really played in the first case, and left off the squad completely in the other. Poor.
Eamonn Flanagan
Guest
Exactly. Some like Robbie Slater have come to the Matildas late in the piece and make ill-informed comments about how this team, ranked 6th in the world are underperforming. They ain't. Despite the hype from and around the team, this team peaked in 2016 Olympics. De Vanna ( why wasn't she used v Norway is beyond me) Heyman and Simon, Sykes missing from the 2016 squad and you realise the replacements in the squad do not match that quality nor provide goals that these players did. Results since 2016 have been average. When was the last time we beat a European team. 2015? Or earlier. Despite 10 or more games against European teams..Not 1 win, and yet still we were going to go deep. Jbinnie, anyone watching Matildas games over last 3 years will have seen Matildas out played technically by Chile, powerfully by USA, and of course by England, Portugal, Holland, Italy, Norway in recent years. We can't keep the ball, not enough and not in the key areas when under pressure. Most of the starting 11, except for Carpenter started in the last World Cup. Where is the renewal? European teams, and 7 are in the last 8, have developed hugely in the last 3 years. Tactical awareness from male coaches schooled at Man Utd, AC Milan, Ajax in the men's game have brought rapid improvement. Fitness levels have gone through the roof, once an asset of the Matildas. No longer. And the depth. England have a strong 23 players squad. Neville made 8 changes for his 3rd game v previous winners Japan. We had no such luxury with a player base, realistically of around 9 or 10. And with Arsenal jetting to Bayern, or Barca v Lyon each Wednesday night in Europe the playing standards have gone through the roof in Europe. The American League where most of our players play is a historically athletic league which suited our players. Technically we need to be playing Champions League. Why haven't any of our 6th ranked players been picked. Sam Kerr has an offer we're told, but its taken along time. Our Socceroos don't play Champions League either and we know what that means for our chances. I expect the European teams to strengthen further and continue to move away from all the once powerful China, Japan, North and South Korea and the USA. We got out of the group. We done good. But not by our own expectations. If, Robbie and others had watched the last 25 Matildas games, was in touch with the changes in player base, and major changes occurring in Europe, they may have changed the tone and expectations leading into the tournament, and their faux outrage post tournament. Enjoyed watching Lydia, Ellie , Logarzo and Foord. Thought they were our standouts over the tournament.
Rossco
Guest
Your summary missing the most glaring penalty shout that dis not even go to VAR, god knows why. When the Matilda’s had a shot at goal is was going in when it was deflected by a Norway defenders arm away from the goal. If this goes on people will walk away from the game. Definitely a penalty and not reviewed an absolute disgrace. The FF if they any back bone should lodge a complaint. The least they could given how they nearly destroyed this team. All the FFA should go, especially Gallop who must be in hiding.
Griffo
Roar Guru
In isolation you are correct but this doesn't mean kids born a few years earlier didn't start benefiting. It is more to generate discussion around Kanga's comment about the skill gap. In the time we have had various take up of the preferred curriculum and pathway other nations have looked at their own development, with or without success. In this aspect if we look at overall youth tournament qualifications this appears less and other nations improved...
Fadida
Roar Rookie
Agree totally John
Fadida
Roar Rookie
But not all incidents where the ball hits the hand are penalties, there is an interpretation of intent - a subjective opinion
Ad-O
Guest
Wishful thinking. I expect Norway to give them a game but England have the better team. They're probably the most improved team since the last World Cup.
Nemesis
Guest
England look to me an average side. One dimensional & I'd expect Norway to expose them quite easily.
Ad-O
Guest
If u believe VAR must take the blame for this loss, which I dont, you can at least be grateful it saved us taking a hammering from the Poms. The girls werent up to much the whole tournament and we rode out luck just to get past Brazil.
Useless 25mm spanner
Guest
This comment has been removed for breaching The Roar's comments policy.
Lionheart
Roar Rookie
thanks JB. I have no coaching experience, in sport anyway (discounting kids cricket).
Nemesis
Guest
"What does this say about youth development/curriculum?" It says absolutely nothing about the Curriculum. The Curriculum was published in mid-2009. Then it would take at least 12 months minimum for coaches to start implementing the curriculum. If we say a kid's football education begins at age 6, then it means the kids born in 2004 are the first to start their football development under the Curriculum. Even this is being optimistic, because it assumes all coaches across Australia were implementing the Curriculum in 2010. Kids who were born in 2004 are now aged 15. So, they're not playing for the senior men's or women's National Team, nor even club teams. Having said that, the u17 World Cup is in Brazil later this year, and Australia's u17 team has qualified for this World Cup.
Griffo
Roar Guru
What does this say about youth development/curriculum? Has a closed a little, not at all, or widened? And whether due to others moving along faster or our efforts not efficient? And youth development for girls for the same age probably has ramped up later than for boys.
jbinnie
Guest
Lionheart -Without knowing your coaching/management experience it is hard to know where to start to answer your question.Suffice to say that every game a manager takes on he should first of all analyse his opponent's strengths and weaknesses and then his own team's potential, and then "set his team up" accordingly. These analyses differ greatly between club managers and national team managers simply because of the talent and skills of the players available for selection,at club level around 18 or so, at national team level some 300 or so!!!!!! So we come back to the Matildas. As a team whose recent record shows a distinct lack of goals scored (with one exception) one could be forgiven for thinking the Norway coach should have thrown every player at the Aussie defence, but no doubt his experience has taught him better,better to defend for a while and gradually come up to their game plan.Is this not what happened,with Australia missing two golden chances early in the game but gradually these chances got fewer and fewer and Norway's raids out of defence began to increase accordingly, bringing out the best in the Aussie goalkeeper. So therein lies the answer to your query. You pick a team for the job at hand,be it club or country, and if you win,a hero,if you lose!!!!! Managing a reserve or local league team in local Brisbane football is light years away from coaching a national team at World Competition level so it is a road better not travelled. Cheers jb.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Cross came off the upper arm, would have deflected in a different direction if it was the shoulder. The question is what is going with the SBS commentary team and Mr Virtual Reality here.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Thailand are almost the same squad. How did you come to the above conclusion?
Nemesis
Guest
Handball also has a factual element to it. At the very core "did the ball contact the player's hand or arm". As much as I wanted it to be handball against Norway, from the replays I saw the ball did not touch the players arm. The ref thought it did, like I thought it did. But when we saw the replay the ref realise it didn't hit the arm.
Fadida
Roar Rookie
Offsides are factual. Handballs are open to interpretation. VAR doesn't change that