The average time for a footballer to have the ball before being tackled is not much than a second, for strikers it is less than a second, so free kicks do help a lot in resetting the team and stalling the relentless pressure.
I digress, but, in fact, you could argue that the team that is pressing doesn’t want to give an unnecessary free kick to their opponents and ease the pressure. They want to tackle cleanly and win the ball or intercept an errant pass.
It was noticeable in the match versus Sweden that the Australian tackling efficiency seen earlier in the WWC declined significantly and it was Sweden predominately winning clean tackles and gaining possession. It seemed uncanny to me the number of times Swedish players tackled and won the ball while Australian players tackled and the Swedish player retained possession.

As the article suggests it is time to stop being so naive. We have just come from a period where the term “sports rorts” has been echoing throughout the community and a blight on our political economy, something we used to be proud of. An independent body to allocate funds sounds like the right way forward but what will be its terms of reference, vision and criteria for allocating funds? Those settings still have the potential to be high jacked and deliver very little funding to women’s football.

I fear that you will be proven correct. However, one hopes she is given a brief to officiate so that we see skills and tactical flexibility and not heft and simulation. She needs to set the standard from the start not paint herself into a corner by being lenient on the “dark arts” during the first stanza.

I’ll pass on commenting on the political analysis but take issue with the lionising of the English team, who I thought looked very beatable last night. Notwithstanding, it can’t be used as an excuse (because that’s football), but it didn’t help that we basically gave them their second goal. Australia is the first team that they have played from the top 10 of the FIFA Women’s Rankings. England is ranked 4th and Australia is, of course, 10th. So far, their credentials have not been tested in the way Australia’s were against France. I thought that France looked a better team against Australia than England did.
They say one learns more from defeat than from victory and I thought that was the case last night as England came to the match with a strategy to address their shortcomings from their recent defeat by Australia. We failed to respond to that strategy in the first half. Defensively, we were also poor, or, perhaps more accurately too timid, repeatedly allowing English forwards to turn and play the ball. The first goal was especially lamentable as two English forwards were allowed to turn and play to the open field with the ball barely a metre away from the goal line.
With the ball at their feet the English players did not look superior to the Australians. If at times that appeared to be the case it was only when the Australians were sitting back and not applying team pressure. Granted, England did look more cohesive bringing the ball down the wings than they have in previous matches but the result was more after than not a back pass to a defender, then start again.
I could go on, but “England were hugely superior”? I don’t think so.
Based on that match and the previous one against Columbia their greatest strength seems to be their controlled aggression and “never say die attitude” that got them across the line against Columbia.

A high proportion of goals are scored at the end of each half so there is also an argument to start her at 40 minutes.

So true. There are plenty of people who wish Chidiac got game time in the last three matches and Grant seemed hard done by after some underwhelming performances by Carpenter, but here we are. As they say, “football is a game of opinions”.

There is quite a bit to contend with in this article.
I probably shouldn’t bother but here are some thoughts without any digression.
Personally, I think the England/Australia rivalry in cricket is from the last century. India vs Australia feels more intense to me these days.
Where I live the number of people with Italian heritage would probably ensure an Australia vs Italy football match would be more keenly supported than Australia vs England.
I think the English commentators are beating things up because they are quietly confident England will win.
But then again, England are the underdogs even though they’re the European Champions!? For Australia to make the semi finals for the first time is extraordinary when you reflect that this also Spain’s first time in a semi final.
“England is the place you going holidays”. Really?

We saw what Sweden did to Japan yesterday with the confidence of knowing what Japan’s strengths and game plan would be and it was a disaster for a team which many thought good enough to win the WWC easily. For that reason we need to go into this match with something different and something more than we have applied so far. I suspect the G is playing games suggesting if Kerr is fit she will start and he really expects to play her for 30 minutes. However, if she is fit I would start her because the French will have a doable plan to stop our attacks switching the ball to the opposite wing and running Raso and Foord not space behind. With Kerr hunting the middle they will be restricted in their plans.

She will more likely get 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes in the next match but I would rather replace Kerr for EVE for starting the next match. Her mind is fast enough demonstrated by her lay off to Raso for a goal but EVE is ponderously slow across the turf and is better suited to periods where the pace has gone out of the game. EVE’s height is useful and may be a factor in selections if we meet France. She may also be the most suitable mid-match back up for Gorry if her fitness fails her or she gets a hammering from someone.
We can be sure that whoever we play next will be setting up to intercept switches to Foord and Raso so we need the central threat posed by Kerr to ensure our strongest scoring options aren’t neutralised.

The biggest threat is either France or Morocco. They haven’t come to the WWC just to make up the numbers.

Mary Fowler looks like she should be a dead set Number 10 and I am sure she will end up there but for now looks a little lost when deployed in that position. However, as a false 9 she seems willing and able occupy space defensively then optimise the outcomes from her passing without too many opponents being in front of her.

It reminded me of a 6 year old scoring their first ever goal and looking for their mum and dad on the sidelines to see if they were watching.
For me, Fowler has gone from someone who looked a bit arrogant about her ability to someone who is very easy to like, even if I would like to see her run harder more often for her team and tackle with a little more intensity sometimes, if only to protect herself.

It is tournament play so the brains trust needs to manage player fatigue better. Japan changed five players from their previous match and smashed Spain.

Me too, I much prefer the navy blue from our flag, which would be better without the Union Jack, but let’s not start that discussion!

It is part of ball skills but don’t forget shielding/protecting the ball. They don’t learn to get their head up and see the whole game until the ball is safe from opponents.

I actually thought that Carpenter showed signs of getting her mojo back in the second half against Nigeria so should still start but the energy provided by Grant is definitely worth tapping against Canada. I think that having Fowler back and leaving Kerr on the bench until (if) needed could be enough to tip the scales to buy more time for Kerr to be properly fit for the next match. Obviously, if we’re behind Kerr needs at least 15 minutes to try and assert her influence.
I also like the suggestion elsewhere to start with Chidiac on the left with Vine on the right and substitute her with Raso later in the match. (I don’t see the experiment with Vine on the left as being warranted.) Chidiac provides something different and success seems to follow her around. Like Carpenter, Raso does a mountain of work and could use a lighter load in preparation for the next match as well.
An old coach I knew always demanded that one puts their best team on to start. It is good advice but this is tournament play and doesn’t account for players carrying injuries, like Kerr.

I’ll comment later but I’m just looking up Wisden for their records of moral victories.

There’s a match in Perth?! Who knew…

Are there any matches in WA?

On face value an interesting analysis but that was an underwhelming performance by the Dockers so I am not sure the conclusion is particularly valid.

I am not a fan of debating leadership being the answer to a team’s problems. Good teams effectively have leadership oozing out of every player on the ground. Studies have shown that as often as not the true leader of great teams doesn’t wear the armband anyway. He or she is the one talking quietly in the change room or in the car park after training building the team ethos and identity.
Introvert/extrovert, doesn’t matter, you still have to execute your skills and game plan and leave the field with a smile on your face.
Something was clearly wrong with their preparation. I feel as they they all overplay the ball when they get it including trying to break tackles too much. Fyfe doesn’t even get away with that so much anymore. Young, who I think is an elite ball handler is getting caught with the ball and causing turnovers with his kicking. The fumbling from Pearce must be demoralising for team mates. I’d drop him immediately and put in Hamling until his form improves. Chapman needs to come back from injury and if Darcy is injured he needs to be replaced with the most like for like ruckman in their squad, not pinch hit with Treacy.
They are clearly coached to attack with certain predetermined situations and either the forwards/midfielders weren’t providing them or the defenders/midfielders lack the skill or confidence to execute. If the situation ahead was that serious why not just chip it around the back line, switch two or three times, until the situation presents itself? They only scored 5 goals all game anyway so it is not as if there was any urgency to score….
Yes, Serong is growing in stature, not because he is a leader, an extrovert or a green-eyed Martian, but because his skills, game awareness and onfield prowess have stood up and flourished under pressure unlike a lot of others.

I’m crossing my fingers that Simon can make the squad. It is hard to explain why, but I simply feel that when she is on the pitch she is one player (even when not playing at her best herself) who makes the team greater than the sum of the parts.

I have a different recollection of Souttar in qualification. While he played we were steaming along winning everything, then when he was injured the wheels fell off.
When he returned for the World Cup, probably prematurely for the injury he had, our results turned for the better again. Maybe coincidence but I doubt it.

It seemed to me like neither team looked especially keen to be there, certainly not competing at World Cup standard. The lack of goal scoring threats by Australia was telling. We had a good run at the World Cup creating scoreboard pressure with goals but last night that looked like a distant memory.
Messi looked as amazed as anyone by his goal, which tells you how good it was. The second goal was more troubling for Australian supporters.
At times, the way Argentina constructed its attacks were things of great beauty.
Messi showed the Australian defenders he can still play football with them hanging on to him.
I thought it was a nice touch for the Argentinians to wear shirts with their names written in Chinese. I wish we had done likewise. (Of course, I could be wrong and the shirts actually had the wise sayings of Xi Jinping written on the back.)

It’s the chicken or egg question. In a big country do teams develop a substantial supporter base being forced to play the Grand Final in Sydney? Massive crowds for the AL are not a solution for growing the game. Obviously, the current arrangement also undermines rewarding the teams (including their supporters) that finish on top of the home and away ladder. How is Melbourne City (or Western United or MacArthur) to grow their supporter base if they don’t have the Grand Final on their home pitch? Notwithstanding Sydney-based teams, shouldn’t the preeminence of being home and away premiers be supported by also getting the home final? Otherwise, the AL risks becoming more like the AFL where you really only have to win one game to be considered the best team of the season.
CCM have now won two AL Grand Finals. (Meanwhile, NSL powerhouse Perth Glory have won none!)
If CCM were to finish first on the ladder next season by what logic should they be denied a Grand Final on their home pitch!?
Conversely, if that had been a Perth vs Melbourne City Grand Final it would likely have been a disaster. On the other hand, any Grand Final featuring the highest ranking team, usually the Premiers, will be well attended and full of the atmosphere football is famous for.
Passionate crowds on home turf make great TV. Po-faced neutral supporters, not so much. The AL is dependent on TV funding and marketing. I think if I was Paramount I would be demanding the GF is held at the home of the highest ranking team to leverage that spectacle, not fixed to Sydney for the benefit of another business entity such as a state tourist body.
To finish, I enjoyed the football on display last night, while to my amusement my wife seemed more interested in talking about the vast numbers of bare chested young men! (“Why have they taken their shirts off?”)