The Socceroos, in their risky flirtation with Germany, the world champion, did well. More than well. They, for a period, led 2-1 and controlled the game. The 2-2 outcome in Kaiserslautern was more than acceptable. We're talking here of drawing with a team, away from home, which only eight months earlier won the world title and smashed Brazil 7-1 on the way to doing it.
Yet the impact in Australia was meagre and quiet. Why, I had to wonder.
There is little doubt that the Socceroos, once the bright torch bearer of football in our country and the thrust of the game's marketing appeal, have lost some of their shine in recent years. There are a number of reasons for this.
First the cathartic, ice-breaking moment of Uruguay 2005 is now almost ten years ago. The novelty has worn off. Two more consecutive World Cup appearances since means the Socceroos making it onto the world's top stage is now the expected norm, not the exception.
Then there were the two dreary periods under coaches Pim Verbeek and Holger Osieck when dour functionality characterised the team's playing posture, costing it a lot of public affection. The landmark moment in this was a low-stake home World Cup qualifier against China in June, 2008, when Verbeek fielded not an A team, not a B team but at best a C team and lost. 70,000 were there. Most, feeling ripped off, never came back. Australia's next home qualifier after that drew 34,000. Allowing Verbeek to do this, in the name of his right to select whomever he wants, cost football and Football Federation Australia umpteen millions.
Another strong element in the drop in the team's appeal was the passing of the so-called golden generation, including the highly marketable pin-up stars Mark Viduka, Harry Kewell and Lucas Neill. Like them or not, we don't have players like this in the current generation, or at least not yet. Tim Cahill, at 36, remains a box office star but beyond him there is nothing on the horizon as a serious drawcard.
So what does all this mean?
It means there needs to be some strategic thinking at the top, including by Ange Postecoglou, on the marketability and the status of the Socceroos as Australia's most loved national sporting team.
There is nothing that can be done about the historical significance of 2005 and those duels with Uruguay. They won't come again. Neither can we bring out of retirement Viduka, Kewell and Neill.
But what can be done is three things: 1 Instill into the team an attacking playing identity which is in line with Australian sporting culture and mindset; 2 Cultivate players of star quality; and 3 show off the Socceroos more often at home.
The first of these has already been done thanks to Ange Postecoglou, his dogma and his philosophy. Nothing, it seems, can derail the coach from this direction. Thank goodness for that.
Cultivating players of star quality is less easy and a longer term process. But giving young, exciting players, like Massimo Luongo, a chance is a good start. Postecoglou has done an excellent job with regeneration but he must continue and persist.
Showcasing the Socceroos more often in home games is a must. In building appeal with the Australian public, nothing beats giving them a chance to see their heroes in the flesh. We all get sexed up by the visits of Liverpool, Manchester United and Juventus and the bulging attendances they generate. But I personally would prefer to see the Socceroos on those dates against box office opponents, like Argentina, Spain or England.
In the coming World Cup qualifiers we will see the Socceroos as often at home as away from home. But, with respect, these games will not be against big drawcard opponents, at least not until our team comes up against the likes of Japan, Korea or Iran.
The Asian Cup, and Australia's victory in it, has no doubt done much to rebuild the appeal of the Socceroos. Yet the Socceroos still remain without a naming sponsor. Clearly more work needs to be done by the marketing gurus at FFA.
