Banyana Banyana may have qualified for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup knockout stages, but have had to cop a lot of flak for 'throwing' games away, and almost actually did so in the final group match against Italy. The reigning African champions scored first in the opening two matches against Sweden and Argentina, before conceding late goals. Goalkeeper Kaylin Swart has also come under heavy criticism for her displays between the posts. Now Desiree Ellis' charges have progressed to the knockout round after a 3-2 win over Italy on Wednesday. In this interview with Soccer Laduma's Zola Doda, former Banyana star Maude Khumalo gives her opinion about what the team has been able to conjure up at the global showpiece, with the rampant Netherlands lying in wait on Sunday morning (SA time).
Zola Doda: Coach Maude, phew, into the knockout stages! What did you make of Banyana Banyana's win over Italy?
Maude Khumalo: The game was just… I don't know what to say. The girls, I think they gave their best, they understood what was at stake, but still I believe that we didn't play that well. But we must give them credit because they fought. I saw a lot of improvements from the match against Argentina, but we're still making those same mistakes, especially the goalkeeper and the defence. Defensively, we were not sound because we were still repeating the same mistake. For example, Thembi Kgatlana not releasing the ball on time and decision-making let her down. We were also defending too deep in the first half. But what they did right this time around, when we attacked we had more numbers and then also creating those chances and making sure that we convert them. Our danger player was Hildah Magaia – she was always on point, she is a consistent player in this team with the two centre-backs, Bambanani Mbane and Bongeka Gamede. (Lebohang) Ramalepe also played well. But we are still lacking in midfield, we need someone who is aggressive. The goals that we scored were brilliant goals, and then how we nailed that, created the chances and how we converted the chances…
ZD: What does qualifying for Last 16 mean?
MK: It's history in the making. For the first time, we have qualified for the Last 16 of the World Cup. This is history. Also remember, at the last World Cup we didn't win any game. So, this time around you can see there is something different – we drew, we won and we lost. It's a balance for me. This is great history for the country and South African women.
ZD: What do you want to see improving ahead of the Netherlands encounter on Sunday morning?
MK: They must not be scared of playing, they must play according to their strength because the more they defend, the more they commit mistakes. The players that come on from the bench, they must come in and make a difference. They must not just come in to be part of the team because last time there was no difference, but against Italy, they had a game plan and how they wanted to play. But I'm still saying we need to be solid in the middle so that we don't put (the) defence under pressure. There was a moment whereby Bongeka and Mbane were pressing in the middle, which resulted in Karabo Dlamini being alone and committing that penalty foul because she was coming from deep. But I'm sure we will see a great performance in the next match.
ZD: Everyone keeps talking about that Argentina game, where our ladies let a two-goal lead slip to eventually draw 2-2. What did you make of it?
MK: I think they did very well. They gave us a great performance because they knew what was at stake. That game was a must-win, but you know, when we make mistakes, the opponents will always capitalise. But overall, the performance was good. It's only certain areas that we still need to look at and improve. We still need to grow in those areas in terms of tactical awareness and decision- making. As coach Desiree (Ellis) also said during the post-match interviews, decision-making let us down in important areas of the game where we were supposed to score goals. I think they did very well, at least they could have managed the game (better) – I'm talking about scoring goals and not sitting deep and allowing the Argentines to come at them. They should have won that game.
ZD: Why do you think we conceded two goals immediately after taking a 2-0 lead?
MK: If we can score first, what makes us think the opponents cannot do the same? We became complacent, we were relaxed thinking that we were taking it. We could have scored more goals and then when we score three or four, that's when we were supposed to relax. We lost the first game and we knew that if we lose or draw the second match, we were putting ourselves in a tough position. We should have continued scoring instead of sitting back. The first goal scored by Argentina was from a distance and we didn't do enough to press and block the player from scoring. Defensively, sense of urgency was not there.
ZD: The second goal was a simple cross and a header. How do you think that should have been avoided?
MK: Argentina were attacking on the left and the ball was crossed. The positioning of the goalkeeper (Kaylin Swart) … she didn't move. She was facing the left side. If she was in the middle, she could have tried to win that ball. We were not aggressive enough to block the cross coming inside the box to Kaylin. Defensively, we were not aggressive enough, we were struggling with aerial balls. We've been punished from wing play (before), so we should have pressed that player and not allowed them to cross. We have ball players – we should have forced them to play in the middle so that when we win those balls, it will be easy to supply Thembi, Linda, Hildah and Jermaine. When the Argentina cross landed inside the box, there was no one competing with the striker because the body positioning of (the) defence was not the proper way.
ZD: Some people are of the view that had Andile Dlamini been in goals, Banyana could have done better. Agree?
MK: We all know that Andile is a top goalkeeper and everybody believes that she could have done better, but we will never know the reasons why the coach preferred Kaylin instead of Andile. Those are the reasons that the coach knows. As fans, we expected Andile to start the game. Remember, she is the tallest to start with, standing at 1.69m, and Kaylin is shorter. When you look at the height difference, automatically she has height and could have challenged those aerial balls very well. At the end of the day, it's not based on goalkeeping only, it's also a collective effort. Defensively, we need to work together, in midfield and even up front. We need to defend in order for us to attack and attack in order for us to defend. We were not compact enough and organised enough. Maybe Andile could have done better, maybe she was going to suffer from certain areas where she would make mistakes. But we will never know but because we know her quality and how she plays, we believe that she could have done better. If Kaylin didn't concede those goals, we would not be saying, "What would have happened had Andile played?"
ZD: What's the difference between the two goalkeepers?
MK: Kaylin is a goalkeeper that plays long ball, she is not someone who plays from the back. Andile can play and the other difference is (in) dealing with aerial balls. Kaylin goes out of the post a lot and when she does, she is not sure. I feel like she didn't communicate that much with her defence in terms of organisation. She was focusing on the ball, not making sure that in front of her, everything is organised. Kaylin is a long ball-playing goalkeeper than Andile, who can start buildups from the back. In the match against Argentina, the plan was to start from the back, but there were moments she was kicking the ball up front. She was not consistent with building up from the back.
ZD: In three matches – against Spain, Sweden and Argentina – at two World Cups, Banyana scored first but failed to hold on and win. Why is that?
MK: It's all about game management and tactics. When is the right moment to defend? When is the right moment to make substitutions? The substitutes in the first game (against Sweden), Nomvula Kgoale and Gabriela Salgado, didn't change the game. If you are leading, you need to be tactically aware and smart and say, "This is how I want us to play. As much as I want to defend, this is how I want us to attack." We need to learn from those moments. Defensively, what is letting us down, I think, it's organisation. We are too late in giving cover, we don't track, in defence we are not consistent. But it also starts in the middle, how we are organised as well. I feel like some of the players were not playing in the positions that they normally play in their teams, but as a player, you need to be versatile. Defensively, we were not 100 percent organised and consistent in terms of reading the game well. Our shifting and movement when we had the ball and off the ball was not on point. In most cases, when we were attacked, we were facing our goalposts. I know it's difficult for defenders to defend while facing goalposts. We need to look at how we are defending because we can't be scoring goals and also concede. But it's a learning curve because this is our second time going to the World Cup. If we know that we are struggling defensively, we need to go back to the drawing board and find the right combination that will give us the results we need.
ZD: What has Banyana learnt from this tournament?
MK: I'm happy that we are scoring goals. What I've learned is that we need to stick to our strengths because if we resort to playing like opponents, we will never bring out the best in us because we are not playing our game. We should have mixed playing long and short balls. We need to understand when to play long balls and when do we combine the two. When we have possession of the ball and opponents are awaiting in their own half, why do we keep on playing long balls? Confidence is also very important in order to be consistent. We know our strengths that we are ball players, we need to move the ball around. What we did against Argentina was so impressive and I felt that we were going to score a lot of goals, but tactical changes let us down. Our substitutes – if you have a player with speed, you bring on that speedy player so that they continue where Thembi or Linda left off. We need to look at our tactical changes.
ZD: But just overall, are you impressed with how the team played?
MK: There are certain areas that we need to improve. But we can't take away the fact that we managed to score goals. We have the capability of scoring – that element is fine. When we look at what let us down, is it how defend or the tactical change that affected us in conceding the goals because we cannot say it's defence only? If other players are not there, like when Refiloe Jane was substituted, can we have someone who is going to have stability in the middle and give us balance? I was impressed with how the team played against Argentina, that is what I was expecting when we played against Sweden. Against Sweden, I could see that there was a game plan: let's be defensive and not allow them to score first. I felt that immediately when we scored, we were going to use the same tactics we used against Argentina. Sweden didn't have pace, but we lacked that aggression and fighting spirit. We still have elements to fix. The overall performance was on point.
ZD: How do you think Banyana compare to the rest of the teams?
MK: Tactical awareness is there, which is the most important thing in such games because you need to manage the game. You need to be able to read the game, and if it's not working, how can we make change? Some of our players, their conditioning is not there. It's there, but when I look at other countries, they are technically sound and tactically disciplined. For example, when the ball is there, how should I position myself? When we attack, what is it that I need to do so that I can be back in my position when we lose the ball? In other countries, they stick to the game plan. Sweden were always attacking through wing play on the left.
