Once, on an All Blacks tour of Australia, I was called out of a media pack by the New South Wales coach. He’d been waiting to collar me over something I’d written.
He began an impassioned rant, his voice rising to a pitch only dogs could hear; his wordsbluer than the New South Wales jersey. He halted only when I and some colleagues managed to make it clear the offending words were not devised by me but reproduced as a quote - uttered by Buck Shelford, then the All Blacks captain.
He had the grace to apologise later; all well. But the practice of waiting for the right moment to settle scores with the media is not unknown - and highly respected Football Ferns defender Katie Bowen apparently unloaded after the historic win over Norway.
I wasn’t there but one who was told me she fired off about the media “trashing” her team in the build-up to the tournament. In one sense, fair enough. A right of reply is undeniable, and most media people can take it, even if most New Zealand football writers had been hyping up the coming tournament, playing a part in a highly successful event attracting new fans and carrying promise for the sport in this country - and the Ferns in particular.
But now the tournament has reached its zenith and can be seen in totality, it raises a couple of interesting questions: what constitutes fair and reasonable criticism of an emerging sport or team and how much should the media lend their weight to hype, rather than the role of objective observers?
Women’s football can’t have it both ways. You can’t talk about equality - of pay, conditions and exposure - but then imply that kinder treatment is required.
Jacqui Hand thought she had equalised against the Philippines. Photo / photosport.nz
The Ferns’ record since coach Jitka Klimkova took the reins is now played 27, won five, hardly the stuff of legend. The World Cup saw a win, a loss and a draw, not bad. Not good either. The loss to the Philippines, in particular, could have been treated far more harshly than it was.
Contrast the Ferns’ soft landing media-wise with the criticism meted out to the US as Megan Rapinoe and co were bundled out. Pre-tournament, a friend predicted that the US would not make the final: “Too many old people and activists.” Also pre-tournament, another friend - a stalwart of a leading Auckland football club - told me he’d be watching but that the New Zealand team was “a bit crap”.
The point is that if much of the grassroots of the game felt the same way, should the media be reflecting that or overlooking it - going out of their way to “be positive”?
I think we all know the answer. Criticism is not easy to give and journalists have to front the team and team members afterwards. It’s even harder to take, but it is part and parcel of international sport and, in particular, World Cups. Those at the peak of their sport’s most prestigious event can expect a similar peak in the intensity of scrutiny.
Criticism at this level means you’ve arrived at a new playing field - where the rules are the same but expectation and perception are very different.
You didn’t see much reporting of Bowen’s views because (a) few apart from players and media care about such issues, (b) many in the media had published extensive profiles and “prelims” (preliminary, build-up stories), including pointing out the issues within a women’s sport struggling to be seen and heard and (c) slamming those who write about your sport is a bit like sending an abusive letter to the IRD criticising tax policies before asking for a refund.
The Football Ferns' tournament ended in Dunedin. Photo / photosport.nz
So, always allowing for playwright Kenneth Tynan’s famous observation that a critic is a person who knows the way but can’t drive the car, here’s some (hopefully constructive) critical thoughts after watching the women’s World Cup and the Ferns.
Their goalscoring shortcomings have been well traversed but they also struggled in terms of pace and running into positions off the ball to receive it in space. Their set pieces tended to be static and crowded; passing was often slow, too many square balls, allowing defences to set themselves - and they had few players running at massed defences with elusive footwork. They were not good headers of the ball. Compare that to the classy skills on show in the two semifinals, Spain v Sweden and Australia v England. The Ferns’ game plan, in contrast, seemed to be the archaic long ball over the top to a lone striker, Hannah Wilkinson.
Maybe it’s time now that younger players come in and take over from some of the older, senior players - hopefully with enough skills to be able to have options as far as game plans go.
One thing is certain – the Ferns and the World Cup have given women’s football an enormous boost here, which is heartening to see. New Zealand Football, however, have form in not making the most out of such opportunities and it remains to be seen what happens now.
Media will be reporting on this. They won’t be trashing anyone but will be trying to tell it like it is, even if some don’t like it.
