Another World Cup exit cloaked in drama, controversy and, ultimately disappointment.
Another tournament where "brave", "gallant" "unlucky" Australia crashed out of the competition, with fans and some pundits proclaiming that once more they have fallen victim to the cruellest of fortunes.
Norway won a penalty shootout against Australia.Credit:AP
But did they simply underperform?
Should they, as the No. 6 ranked team in the world, at least have played to their rating and made the quarter-finals?
Advertisement
After all, the Matildas were eliminated in the round of 16 by Norway, a team ranked six places below them, whom they would have expected to beat.
Many pundits were tipping Australia as dark horses for the title, with berth in the last four slated as a genuine aspiration.
The players themselves, a so-called golden generation spearheaded by perhaps the best striker in the world in Sam Kerr, had loftily spoken of aiming to claim the crown.
In that context, and with the expectations from home, not to mention the considerable sums invested in their preparation and lead-up training camp in Turkey, it's fair to say that exiting at this stage was not what was expected.
Yes, they lost in the lottery of the penalty shootout. Yes, Australia had many chances to score. And of course Alanna Kennedy's late sending off distorted the game and shifted the balance in extra time.
But the reality was that the Matildas never really built up a full head of steam in France except for patches of their four matches: the second half of that great comeback against Brazil in Montpellier, the Sam Kerr four-timer against Jamaica in Grenoble and the opening 15 minutes of this loss to Norway.
The surprise defeat to Italy in the opening game always put them on the back foot and ensured that they were chasing their tails from the outset.
Had they played to their seeding – as all the other top teams did in the other groups stage – they would have faced China, ranked four places below Norway, an Asian opponent with whom they are familiar and against whom they have enjoyed success.
The issue of the Alen Stajcic sacking and whether it impacted on the team and its performance will inevitably be asked again given the way in which the dismissal happened and the fact that the FFA board and management made such a mess of the process.
Amongst other things, their rationale at the time was that the team's performances under Stajcic were heading south and that the board needed to act swiftly and ruthlessly to ensure a strong World Cup performance.
It's very hard to imagine that the previous coach would not at least have matched this performance.
Does a round of 16 exit make that decision a valid one?
It's very hard to imagine that the previous coach would not at least have matched this performance of getting out of the group – not that difficult when 16 of the 24 teams competing in France make the last 16.
Would he have done better? It's impossible to say.
That is nothing against his successor, Ante Milicic, who has won plaudits for the way he has coached the team and handled the pressure and the incessant questioning over this issue since taking on the job in late January.
A personal view is that the abrupt change did have some impact in that Milicic, an excellent coach who clearly became deeply involved Read More – Source
Another World Cup exit cloaked in drama, controversy and, ultimately disappointment.
Another tournament where "brave", "gallant" "unlucky" Australia crashed out of the competition, with fans and some pundits proclaiming that once more they have fallen victim to the cruellest of fortunes.
Norway won a penalty shootout against Australia.Credit:AP
But did they simply underperform?
Should they, as the No. 6 ranked team in the world, at least have played to their rating and made the quarter-finals?
Advertisement
After all, the Matildas were eliminated in the round of 16 by Norway, a team ranked six places below them, whom they would have expected to beat.
Many pundits were tipping Australia as dark horses for the title, with berth in the last four slated as a genuine aspiration.
The players themselves, a so-called golden generation spearheaded by perhaps the best striker in the world in Sam Kerr, had loftily spoken of aiming to claim the crown.
In that context, and with the expectations from home, not to mention the considerable sums invested in their preparation and lead-up training camp in Turkey, it's fair to say that exiting at this stage was not what was expected.
Yes, they lost in the lottery of the penalty shootout. Yes, Australia had many chances to score. And of course Alanna Kennedy's late sending off distorted the game and shifted the balance in extra time.
But the reality was that the Matildas never really built up a full head of steam in France except for patches of their four matches: the second half of that great comeback against Brazil in Montpellier, the Sam Kerr four-timer against Jamaica in Grenoble and the opening 15 minutes of this loss to Norway.
The surprise defeat to Italy in the opening game always put them on the back foot and ensured that they were chasing their tails from the outset.
Had they played to their seeding – as all the other top teams did in the other groups stage – they would have faced China, ranked four places below Norway, an Asian opponent with whom they are familiar and against whom they have enjoyed success.
The issue of the Alen Stajcic sacking and whether it impacted on the team and its performance will inevitably be asked again given the way in which the dismissal happened and the fact that the FFA board and management made such a mess of the process.
Amongst other things, their rationale at the time was that the team's performances under Stajcic were heading south and that the board needed to act swiftly and ruthlessly to ensure a strong World Cup performance.
It's very hard to imagine that the previous coach would not at least have matched this performance.
Does a round of 16 exit make that decision a valid one?
It's very hard to imagine that the previous coach would not at least have matched this performance of getting out of the group – not that difficult when 16 of the 24 teams competing in France make the last 16.
Would he have done better? It's impossible to say.
That is nothing against his successor, Ante Milicic, who has won plaudits for the way he has coached the team and handled the pressure and the incessant questioning over this issue since taking on the job in late January.
A personal view is that the abrupt change did have some impact in that Milicic, an excellent coach who clearly became deeply involved Read More – Source
