Post history

History for Rusty Dunks

Current version

Posted October 15, 2024 06:50 · last edited October 15, 2024 06:57

I'm really not sure about this statement from the author - something she has also stated on a podcast;

"The year 2023 was supposed to be the beginning of a new era for the Football Ferns. Senior players were at their peak, a new wave of young talent was emerging and they had the opportunity to host a major tournament.

The potential was immense, yet NZF squandered it."

What exactly was NZF supposed to do after the WWC? She never opines on that, merely saying "aren't Australia doing well".

We won't know the true legacy benefit of hosting the WWC for years yet, but I think it's safe to assume that young girls up and down the country got a boost out of the sport. I have no idea what identification pathways there are in place, but that is irrelevant to the WWC. It's my guess that the real drivers of the women's game in the future will be the Phoenix and AFC.

I'm also not sure about this "Senior players were at their peak, a new wave of young talent was emerging" line - Percival retired, Nayler has disappeared, Riley is gone, Chance is gone, Cleverley retired, Hassett is.....?, Wilkinson on the outer. There were very few players who were at their peak age-wise.

I'm no fan of Klimkova, nor NZF (let's be honest, who is?) - but since the WWC we've seen Macey Fraser come in, Katie Kitching come in, Kate Taylor come in more regularly......Fraser and Clegg playing in the #1 league in the world ("playing"), IP Reilly joining Bott in the top flight in Blighty, Foster and Blake going to the UK, Katie Bowen playing for Inter fudgeing Milan, Pijnenburg at Feyenoord, Niedermayr in Austria.....

Yes, a new coach needs to be bold with selections - but to say NZF has blown any and all opportunities post-WWC is a vendetta.

Previous versions

4 versions

Unknown editor edited October 15, 2024 06:57

The potential was immense, yet NZF squandered it."

What exactly was NZF supposed to do after the WWC? She never opines on that, merely saying "aren't Australia doing well".

We won't know the true legacy benefit of hosting the WWC for years yet, but I think it's safe to assume that young girls up and down the country got a boost out of the sport. I have no idea what identification pathways there are in place, but that is irrelevant to the WWC. It's my guess that the real drivers of the women's game in the future will be the Phoenix and AFC.

I'm also not sure about this "Senior players were at their peak, a new wave of young talent was emerging" line - Percival retired, Nayler has disappeared, Riley is gone, Chance is gone, Cleverley retired, Hassett is.....?, Wilkinson on the outer. There were very few players who were at their peak age-wise.

I'm no fan of Klimkova, nor NZF (let's be honest, who is?) - but since the WWC we've seen Macey Fraser come in, Katie Kitching come in, Kate Taylor come in more regularly......Fraser and Clegg playing in the #1 league in the world ("playing"), IP Reilly joining Bott in the top flight in Blighty, Foster and Blake going to the UK, Katie Bowen playing for Inter fudgeing Milan.

Yes, a new coach needs to be bold with selections - but to say NZF has blown any and all opportunities post-WWC is a vendetta.

Unknown editor edited October 15, 2024 06:56

The potential was immense, yet NZF squandered it."

What exactly was NZF supposed to do after the WWC? She never opines on that, merely saying "aren't Australia doing so well".

We won't know the true legacy benefit of hosting the WWC for years yet, but I think it's safe to assume that young girls up and down the country got a boost out of the sport. I have no idea what identification pathways there are in place, but that is irrelevant to the WWC. It's my guess that the real drivers of the women's game in the future will be the Phoenix and AFC.

I'm also not sure about this "Senior players were at their peak, a new wave of young talent was emerging" line - Percival retired, Nayler has disappeared, Riley is gone, Chance is gone, Cleverley retired, Hassett is.....?, Wilkinson on the outer. There were very few players who were at their peak age-wise.

I'm no fan of Klimkova, nor NZF (let's be honest, who is?) - but since the WWC we've seen Macey Fraser come in, Katie Kitching come in, Kate Taylor come in more regularly......Fraser and Clegg playing in the #1 league in the world ("playing"), IP Reilly joining Bott in the top flight in Blighty, Foster and Blake going to the UK, Katie Bowen playing for Inter fudgeing Milan.

Yes, a new coach needs to be bold with selections - but to say NZF has blown any and all opportunities post-WWC is a vendetta.

Unknown editor edited October 15, 2024 06:52

The potential was immense, yet NZF squandered it."

What exactly was NZF supposed to do after the WWC? She never opines on that, merely saying "aren't Australia doing so well".

We won't know the true legacy benefit of hosting the WWC for years yet, but I think it's safe to assume that young girls up and down the country got a boost out of the sport. I have no idea what identification pathways there are in place, but that is irrelevant to the WWC. It's my guess that the real drivers of the women's game in the future will be the Phoenix and AFC.

I'm also not sure about this "Senior players were at their peak, a new wave of young talent was emerging" line - Percival retired, Nayler has disappeared, Riley is gone, Chance is gone, Cleverley retired, Hassett is.....?, Wilkinson on the outer. There were very few players who were at their peak age-wise.

I'm no fan of Klimkova, nor NZF (let's be honest, who is?) - but since the WWC we've seen Macey Fraser come in, Katie Kitching come in, Kate Taylor come in more regularly......Fraser and Clegg playing in the #1 league in the world ("playing), IP Reilly joining Bott in the top flight in Blighty, Foster and Blake going to the UK, Katie Bowen playing for Inter fudgeing Milan.

Yes, a new coach needs to be bold with selections - but to say NZF has blown any and all opportunities post-WWC is a vendetta.

Unknown editor edited October 15, 2024 06:52

The potential was immense, yet NZF squandered it."

What exactly was NZF supposed to do after the WWC? She never opines on that, merely saying "aren't Australia doing so well".

We won't know the true legacy benefit of hosting the WWC for years yet, but I think it's safe to assume that young girls up and down the country got a boost out of the sport. I have no idea what identification pathways there are in place, but that is irrelevant to the WWC. It's my guess that the real drivers of the women's game in the future will be the Phoenix and AFC.

I'm also not sure about this "Senior players were at their peak, a new wave of young talent was emerging" line - Percival retired, Nayler has disappeared, Riley is gone, Chance is gone, Cleverley retired, Hassett is.....?, Wilkinson on the outer. There are very few players who were at their peak age-wise.

I'm no fan of Klimkova, nor NZF (let's be honest, who is?) - but since the WWC we've seen Macey Fraser come in, Katie Kitching come in, Kate Taylor come in more regularly......Fraser and Clegg playing in the #1 league in the world ("playing), IP Reilly joining Bott in the top flight in Blighty, Foster and Blake going to the UK, Katie Bowen playing for Inter fudgeing Milan.

Yes, a new coach needs to be bold with selections - but to say NZF has blown any and all opportunities post-WWC is a vendetta.