Were they in the inches of air that carried the dozens of shots from Foord and Vine and Raso and Gorry over the crossbar instead of under it? Were they in the second balls that Kyra Cooney-Cross and Katrina Gorry kept missing through midfield, falling instead to Nigerian feet to quickly launch forward in transition? Or were the moments that lost Australia this game actually found elsewhere - in the places our funhouse-mirror eyes cannot see? If Mackenzie Arnold had called a little more loudly, would Kennedy have headed the ball beyond them both, inviting Asisat Oshoala to nip in between and neatly score Nigeria's third? If Emily van Egmond had climbed just a little higher in the air to head a Nigerian corner further up the field, would it have fallen to Ajibade, whose own head speared it towards the back post for Osinachi Ohale to bundle into the net? If Ellie Carpenter had positioned her leg slightly differently, would the cross from Rasheedat Ajibade have spun off her in the way that it did to arc perfectly onto the foot of Uchenna Kanu at the back post? Triangulated through the prism of the final score, the match took on new awkward angles and uncomfortable questions: how much has Australia inflated its expectations of this team? How confident are we really that they can manage their way through this temporary injury crisis? How should we respond to the sudden reminder that this team's tournament hopes can still fall victim to fumbling human error or sheer, dumb luck?

What looked like a dominant performance from Australia now feels like one of their most uneasy in recent months.

Tournament football is like a fun-house mirror - it warps and magnifies and refracts, sometimes bending entire games out of shape. 'It's obviously a frustrating result, but there's a lot of positives to take out of the game,' she says.Īnd she's right, there were a lot of positives.Īustralia dominated Nigeria on paper: they had 28 shots to 11, 15 corners to 2, 467 passes to 270, 27 final-third entries to 6, and 43 touches in the opposition box to 15. The hot tears that spilled down her cheeks moments earlier in the dressing-room are threatening to flood back and she needs to default to the script they've all memorised for moments like this. This is where she takes the quivering half-breath, her voice beginning to catch in her throat. We possessed the ball well, we moved them around a lot, we created chances and put them under a lot of pressure in their back third.' 'But for majority of the game, we played well. 'There was big moment right before half-time where we gave up a goal. USA Today’s report studied the apparel contracts of 54 schools in the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC and found that, while the language differs slightly depending on the company, the restrictions against spatting are emphasized.'I just think it was moments,' she says professionally, looking past dozens of pairs of pecking eyes at the cold grey wall behind us.

There are some exceptions for players who need the tape for medical reasons, but that often requires written approval from the company. One example used in the USA Today report cites how Alabama’s contract with Nike allows for a reduction of 5 percent compensation per game “in which five or more players who take the field are spatted before the game or a reduction of 2 percent for each player who appears in a game after Nike provides written notice that he should not be spatted.” Shoe companies pay for exposure and when their logos get covered – particularly with the shoes of “skill position players” – they don’t feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. Yet, when the routine results in a high number of athletes taking the field with tape over the Nike, Adidas or Under Armour logos on their shoes, it becomes an issue. Some as a precaution against a sprain, some to get a more comfortable fit and others just like the way it looks. Digital Replica Edition Home Page Close MenuĪnkle tape is becoming an issue in college football and, of course, it’s all about money.Ī report published by USA Today took a close look at how the practice of spatting – players taping their ankles above their shoes – has shoe sponsors on alert and in some cases potentially pulling back millions from their apparel contracts with schools.Īccording to the report, players spat their ankles with tape for a variety of reasons.

Spat football tape