Aftermath - processing the Matildas loss to South Korea

Aftermath and beyond

I’m writing this after listening to the ‘Aftermath’ episode of The Far Post podcast, referring to the shock loss of the Matildas to South Korea in the Women’s Asian Cup quarter finals, our worst performance in the history of Australia competing in this contest. I’ve only recently started following this podcast and have quite enjoyed it (though it rambles on a bit more than I’d like). But I found this episode intensely frustrating and it echoed my frustration with the live studio discussion following the match on Channel 10.

First of all, a confession: I wrote this article and then listened to the B90 podcast which addressed almost everything that frustrated me. But I’m publishing my thoughts anyway because frankly Channel 10 and The Far Post (off-shoot of ESPN) are more mainstream and therefore more visible.

I’ll come back to the points discussed in the TV post-match coverage and Far Post podcast, but I want to start with what wasn’t (or was barely) discussed – the match itself.

Now I completely understand that there is a broader and deeper context to this one match and yes, that needed to be addressed. But I watched the match with my 18 year-old daughter while chatting with a few die hard soccer tragic players from our local women’s club and that wasn’t what we were talking about. Things on our mind were:

• The refereeing. Was it as bad as we felt or were we just biased?
• Team selection and substitution decisions – why did certain players start, others brought on, others not?
• Strengths and weaknesses of the team performance at all stages of the match. It wasn't all bad and maybe there are things to build on as well as problems to fix.

There was very little discussion of the match itself – both TV and podcast went straight to the implications for the Matildas and their place in world football. ?For me, that misses what fans need - the debrief, the sense-making, knowing that others are asking and attempting to answer the same questions as us.

OK back to the aftermath. Back in the studio, the live coverage went straight to terms like ‘disaster’, ‘tragedy’, ‘catastrophe’. OK it was disappointing, but South Korea had just held Japan, probably the top team in the contest if we were being honest, to a draw. They are a strong team and it was unlucky they ended up in the same group as Japan and that Australia’s draw put them up against the second place team in that group. Had we finished second, we would have faced Taiwan and probably had an easy win. Luck of the draw – literally. But the point is, if we had lost to South Korea in the final, would it have been such a ‘disaster’?

From the discussion in the studio and on the Aftermath podcast, what emerged was a clear expectation that our Matildas team should be stronger and disappointment that they weren’t. Lots of good points made by people who are steeped in the game and know the ins and outs of the stakeholders and the behind the scenes negotiations. No real answers, some sympathy for the coach (along with the criticisms). To me it sounded like a lot of wishful thinking, a bit of nostalgia and left a few unacknowledged elephants in the room. Such as:

1. The length of the domestic season

This was mentioned briefly in the podcast, but discussion quickly moved on. To me it seems critical. The A League Women’s season is 14 rounds. Until the current season, it was 12. The South Korean women’s league is 21 rounds. The A League Men’s season is 33 rounds. Even the community competitions, right down to the u7 kids, play 18 rounds! How can you build world class players on such a short season? And as an aside, simply calling the women’s competition ‘A League’ without giving it equal status to the men’s doesn’t cut it. Window-dressing in my view.

The effect is that our top women players have to play overseas as well to build their skills and experience. Until recently that was in the USA, which worked OK because the USA women play in the northern hemisphere summer, meaning our players could do both. Now our women play in Europe where the season is during winter and clashes with the A League season. Of the 21 players in the Asian Cup core squad, only 8 play in the local A League. The rest are based in Europe. The good news is that the players based there are playing at a higher level and developing their skills. The bad news is that they don’t play together or against each other regularly. See point 2.

Early in 2020, I watched the final match of the home and away season for Melbourne City playing at home against Brisbane Roar. In the players on the field, I reckon there were at least 12 current or recent Matildas. Then the exodus to Europe began. The club I support (Melbourne City) suffered badly but so did the general quality of Women’s A League football. The best players simply weren’t there. Which brings me to the second point.

2. The location of the players

I heard – I think in the commentary of one of the friendlies against USA – that the USA Women’s team (until recently at least) demanded that players who wanted to be selected for team USA had to play their club football in the USA. This obviously makes it easier to bring together the national squad. It also means that the players are used to playing with or against each other and are familiar with each others’ games.

You could argue that Australia still has this advantage, just with a different base as the majority of the Matildas overseas players are in the Women’s Super League in the UK. But this ignores the ones who are elsewhere in Europe (Ellie Carpenter, Mary Fowler, Clare Wheeler, Aivi Luik, Charlie Grant and goalie Tegan Micah), not to mention that there is no opportunity for the (predominantly younger and emerging) Australia-based players to play alongside the experienced veterans.

And so to the final ‘elephant’ for me – which was in the discussion, but without a clear rationale

3. The location of the coach

Given that two thirds of the Matildas squad are not based in Australia, why are so many commentators arguing that the coach should be based here? I’m sure that all of those who mentioned Gustavsson’s location as a problem had their reasons, but what were they? It was stated as a given with no acknowledgement that possibly the best place for the coach to be is where most of the players are.

What next?

There are two ‘take homes’ for me from this experience:

1. The mainstream image of the Matildas is built on hope, romance and wishful thinking rather than the realities of the world in which they operate.
2. Despite the successes of the Socceroos and Matildas over the past couple of decades, football remains a fringe sport in Australia.

As a fan of women’s football, I am constantly frustrated by the lack of opportunity to actually watch our women play! The season is so short, half the matches are interstate and there’s usually a home match at a country ground meaning that for most fans, less than half the season is actually available to watch in person. Sure there is some TV coverage but it’s not a substitute for being at the ground.

There are a few deep issues that need to be recognised if the future success of the Matildas is to be more than a hope and a prayer.

• The season needs to be at least long enough all teams to play each other twice. That means 18 rounds and given that’s the length of the season for the u8 Miniroos, that really shouldn’t be a big ask!
• All football associations need to promote the women’s game relentlessly. Clubs and the FFA continue to mention women’s matches as an afterthought. My club, Melbourne City, has a calendar you can subscribe to for their A League Men’s team but not for the Women (or if it exists it is very well hidden!!). Email bulletins focus on the men’s matches (at least 3 reminders for each one), new signings and international matches with the women’s matches either forgotten or lost in the clutter.
• Girls and women are participating in football in record numbers, but there is no connection between FFA and the State Football organisations and the grassroots. Why isn’t every home A League Women’s match promoted to every registered female player in the relevant State organisation? If the A League clubs aren’t connecting with the local potential fans, why not? Surely it can’t be that hard. And on that topic…
• I’m constantly disappointed by the lack of turnout for the Women’s game at the double header matches. There’s an argument (a valid one) that these are a waste of money because most fans will prioritise the men’s game. While that’s probably true of existing fans, it ignores the much bigger numbers of potential fans out there. AAMI Park is a fantastic stadium and it wows first time visitors. Get them there, let them in free or at the very least free for u18s and $10 for adults. Don’t worry about them stealing seats from the ticket holders for the following Men’s match. If they stay (and many won’t because the Women’s match time is more kid friendly) then they will simply take up otherwise unsold General Admission tickets and in the unlikely event that all these are taken, they will just have to leave (and maybe scarcity will encourage them to take up membership in future).

If football – mens and womens – is to grow and succeed in Australia, then it needs to embrace the grassroots game, just as AFL has done. We love to be proud of our Socceroos and Matildas when they succeed but we need to understand that success is built on continuous investment in the game. And that investment has to leverage what resources we have. The cheapest of these resources is the army of players many of whom don’t currently go to the matches. Get them involved!

With the Women’s World Cup right here in 2023, it’s now or never to build the fanbase that will see Football move from a fringe sport to a part of our national sporting psyche.