Matildas coach Tony Gustavsson has been savaged by followers and media alike after a shock loss to Nigeria within the group phases of the Women’s World Cup, leaving the Matildas with a do-or-die conflict with group heavyweights Canada in Melbourne as a way to progress to the knockout phases.
In a recreation dominated within the early phases by a Matildas aspect that might ultimately document 64 per cent of possession, 28 photographs to Nigeria’s 11 and 15 corners to Nigeria’s two, the wheels fell off the rails for Gustavsson on the stroke of half time after Uchenna Kanu slammed dwelling a bobbling unfastened ball into the underside proper to convey the Super Falcons degree heading into the break.
Stream Over 50 Sports Live & On-Demand with Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
It would head additional downhill for the Matildas as a uncommon defensive breakdown off one among Nigeria’s two corners for the match noticed Mackenzie Arnold solely capable of parry a header away and into the trail of the fast-approaching Osinachi Ohale, earlier than Asisat Oshoala took benefit of an Alanna Kennedy brainfade to make it 3-1 within the sixty fifth minute and deflate a packed Lang Park.
Gustavsson would, having not used any substitutions so far to Nigeria’s two, wait till the 82nd minute to convey midfielder Courtnee Vine off for defender Clare Polkinghorne, earlier than bringing off Hayley Raso for impression substitute Alex Chidiac three minutes later.
With Chidiac praised as one of many vibrant sparks in an in any other case disappointing efficiency from an understaffed Matildas outfit, the eye turned post-game to why Gustavsson didn’t make his adjustments earlier.
The most perplexing reply from the supervisor got here when he appeared to counsel his workforce had on a a lot larger scale gained the match.
“If you look at the performance, if you look at the stats, we should walk off the field to win this game. Look at all the chances we created, if we’re a little bit more clinical – but again, we scored two goals and can get off winning,” he stated.
“A couple of second balls scenario, all three goals they score is us losing second balls, we know that was going to be massive in this game … and unfortunately, tonight it cost us three goals when losing a lot of second balls in those situations.
“But I think also it’s important for me to be strong enough emotionally now to see that this performance was not a 3-2 loss, if you look at performance per se.”
The reply has left loads of followers scratching their heads.
Asked in regards to the choice to throw Alanna Kennedy ahead late within the recreation and the delayed nature of the substitutions themselves, whereas Gustavsson was assured in his choice to throw Kennedy ahead (which resulted in a comfort aim within the one hundredth minute), in justifying his late substitutions, appeared at considerably of a loss.
“(Playing Kennedy upfront) as a double nine, as we call it … was something we’ve done in the past year, last time against New Zealand to score those goals and won in overtime,” Gustavsson stated.
“Alana has a forward mindset with her aerial presence and her finishing, so that’s something trained and prepared for. We’ve done it before and we’ve done it a lot in training.”
“In terms of the late subs, I think that’s a fair question. That’s something I need to look at as a coach to find the right timing for the subs tonight, we did get a massive effect positively when we did it, did we get that in the right moment, or should I have done it earlier and we could’ve played longer with that positive effect?
“It’s something I’m going to review afterwards. But I do think that the players were prepared for what we wanted to do (late in the game, when goals were needed).”
Journalists within the press convention weren’t glad with that reply, with the subsequent query calling Gustavsson’s response a “half-answer”.
“You brought off an attacker and you brought on a defender,” the journalist requested.
“What was the reasoning behind that? And why did you wait so late to actually bring Chidiac on?”
Gustavsson stated that the reply wasn’t so simple as classing gamers as attackers or defenders, however that as a coach one wanted to look deeper.
“As a coach, the number one challenge is to try to find the right answer before you know whether it’s right or wrong, and find the right time to do it. Do we do an early sub, do we do a late sub?” he mused.
“I think some of the players on the ball have actually performed pretty well, we had the momentum and sometimes when you want a sub, you don’t want to disrupt the momentum in a game and I thought we had a good momentum going.
“In that sense, I’m going to review it, whether I did it too late or not, because (Chidiac) was brilliant when she came in.
“When it comes to saying that we replaced an attacker with a defender, I think that’s a logic question.
“I know it can look different, it looks strange when you take an attacker off and put a defender on but it’s more about what type of attacking tool do you want in that time of the game?”
Social media was furious in response to the selection to go away the substitutions to the final minute.
“Gustavsson has to answer for only making two subs,” stated one fan.
“Most of the Tillies looked dead on their feet by the end there, and even if there’s a drop in quality, having the energy to chase and bring the ball forward would have made a big difference.”
“What a dud of a coach,” stated one other.
“He puts Kennedy upfront and doesn’t make a sub until the 83rd minute and needs to review his own decisions.”
Journalist Luke Cooper stated it raised some “crucial points”.
“Chidiac must be played early, use the damn subs, and Gustavsson’s fate lies in game three,” he wrote.
Sportswriter Dominic Burke joked: “Tony Gustavsson should go and coach France, because he can’t make a sub for Australia.”
Source: www.news.com.au
