Sandy Roberts may not have coined the moronic phrase ‘big bad bustling barry’ but he did use it every time Barry Hall went near the ball. Thankfully Sandy is gone.
Being a great marking forward isn’t just about speed or strength. It’s not how high you can jump or how much you can bench. It’s about judgement. Judging the trajectory and distance of a kick. It’s about timing. Timing a lead. If it’s too early your teammate may not be ready to kick it to you. If it’s too late he will go to someone else. Most of all it’s about balance. A great marking forward seizes the moment where his opponent is off balance and nudges him out of the way. Great forwards can work their opponent under the ball before it is kicked toward them. Then as the defender struggles to move backward and loses his balance, the forward can easily bump his opponent out of position and take an easy mark.
In the past, a forward would use his hands to balance himself. He would sometimes place his hands on his opponents back and use his own backside to nudge the opponent out of position. For some reason, the AFL rulemakers decided that this mere placement of the hands in the back was against the rules. It has since been outlawed. The rule name, to the common punter, is push in the back. To us, the people that watch endless games and line the pockets of administrators, if there is no push, the rule is not broken. To us, simply putting your hand on someone’s back is not a free kick. Pushing someone’s back is. As the AFL indulges in endless ‘back-patting’ sessions (pun) and parries statistics of its success, do they think about the common punter sitting in a bar trying to explain this pathetic rule interpretation to a curious foreigner (Sydneysider?). We the common punter will defend our game to the death but I cannot, and will not, defend this rule. I can’t. I won’t.
So it is strange that Lord Demetriou, in one of his all too regular comments on a current football topic, bemoans the nearly complete demise of Barry Hall. Says He:
I'd love to see him playing again because we need tough players playing our game,"
I assume he means we need tough players so we can suspend them and fine them and gradually weed them out and make ourselves look useful. Image being everything. Hall is (was) the ultimate body player. While his large, pasty biceps may attract much of the focus (of me at least), it is indeed the use of his bottom and hips that makes him such a great marking forward. He really has a great ability to work his opponent under the ball. But Demetriou’s stupid and obsessive rule-changing has had a visible affect on Hall’s game, and the more free kicks he gives away the more likely he is to have another ‘brain snap’ (another silly new word for the AFL lexicon. How can a brain snap??? It could explode, or implode, or fail, or even fade, but I don’t see how it could snap). Alas, Hall has left Sydney and his football career hangs by a thread. He may not be calling Andy and thanking him for the new rules, and the support. But he can always move over to boxing, so maybe he will. Which to me seems quite incredible. Hall, by all reports, was a fabulous and formidable junior boxer, and he definitely has vast reserves of easily accessible rage needed to be good at the sport. But is it true to state that he has not really practiced this sport seriously for the past 12 years? How then can he, at 32 (the age that makes him too old for AFL), begin his professional boxing career? Is this not the same as a promising young footballer who becomes a champion boxer and then, at 30, decides to join the AFL? Sure he has done a few pre-seasons over the years and had a kick in between boxing workouts, but would an AFL club take him? Call me a cynic, but are there dollar signs in promoters’ eyes.
Jeff Kennett could be a boxing promoter. He works on the idea that if you keep talking constantly between all the rubbish you say there will be some nuggets of wisdom (he is a real mentor of mine). It’s up to poor journalists to weed them out. In another not too subtle dig at league headquarters, he opined quite profoundly that
success is not always about how much money you make or how many viewers you have.
I think Andy and the boys would disagree. Success is only about how much money you make and how many viewers you have. We are selling a product, after all, Jeffrey. In the marketplace… The AFL’s concession that it made scheduling mistakes was conveniently shadowed with insinuations that other parties were at fault. Like all good politcians, no mention was made of having to play the StKilda Geelong game at Colonial Stadium, but we all know the claim that people going to the footy are more important than fatties on the couch is pure rubbish. Fat bums on couches baby.
Kennett is a great sage in these confusing, intellectually barren times. He is refreshingly frank and sometimes quite original. But he, like most of us, sometimes confuses originalty with straight-up stupidity. Like John Harms. John…. Johnny, Johnny, Johnny. Be a Geelong supporter, by all means. But don’t write an article that claims Geelong supporters are smart when said article provides overwhelming evidence that Geelong supporters are, in FACT, idiots. Newspaper articles, as opposed to internet fluff composed by dumb and bored netizens, are printed and kept by old ladies in living room drawers. For eternity. Thus the printed word will follow you to your grave (mine can be deleted in a moment). John, an experienced journalist no doubt aware of this, included this line in his article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/we-are-geelong-the-greatest-team-and-example-to-all/2009/07/21/1247941916391.html
‘Were Shakespeare living now, he'd be writing plays about Geelong,’
and this:
‘The world has never seen, in any place, at any time in history, a finer people than Geelong people.’
They are just bogans…Leave the silly human interest articles to our favourite eccentric Bob Murphy (he’s a football player and he has a mind. Wow!!!). He has an excuse.
Dean Bailey does not. Previously praised in these pages, the dees coach is about to make a big mistake. Says he, in reference to talk of tanking and its affects on match day activities for the remainder of the season
“it's not going to change what we do, it's not going to change our focus,"
I’m sure it won’t. But as explained in these pages before, tanking can be done in many ways. Read Melbourne’s omissions:
Out: McLean (Knee), Jamar (Quad), Green (Scaphoid), Grimes (Back),
Robertson
Convenient injuries to : only half decent ruckman in career best form, last years b and f and best player. tough onballer and top five player... best young backman... and our experienced and decent key forward dropped....
This be some shameless sheet…
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Short memory...Must have a...
9 July 2009
Short memory, must have a…short memory. He might have been referring to the electorate but Peter Garrett could easily have been referring to the football industry. Or Mark Harvey. The coach of the worst club in the AFL. Harvey was an undersized centre half back who took on bigger opponents and beat them by throwing his body recklessly into packs. When the non-smiling Harvey took on the Dockers many people thought he would instil some heart and discipline into an underperforming club. Instead, it seems he has created the next generation of Freo frontrunners. The most used word in the AFL, rebuild, refers to a period of poor performance that follows a period of success and that leads to another period of success. Fremantle, under Harvey’s guidance, are rebuilding. The only problems is that, like Richmond, they never had success in the first place. They are forever building. Not rebuilding.
Maybe the Dockers need to get back to the old school. The school that Harvey grew up in and won premierships in. Maybe the players need to forget about structures, diet and watching game tapes. Maybe they need a night on the piss in Melbourne. Some time to forget about the boredom, discipline and rigid conformity of AFL football. That’s probably what Dean Solomon was doing when he stayed out drinking until 3am with an old teammate. He didn’t miss training. But he won’t play this week. Said reformed bad boy and now excrutiatingly boring coach Harvey:
“In this instance, Dean hasn't demonstrated the level of professionalism that we expect and require of a senior member of our playing group.”
Instead of trying to instil unreasonable levels of professionalism off the field the Dockers should try to instil some heart in the players on the field. And that might mean getting a new coach. Fremantle’s performances under Harvey have been quite pathetic. They still curl up and die as soon as they get behind. They still refuse to win in Melbourne. They still celebrate wins over West Coast like they are Grand Finals, even thought they mean nothing.
For the Melbourne media, driving an interstate club to coach sacking is not that juicy. Melbourne newspapers want Melbourne coaches to fall. Is that why The Age launched a conscious and unsuccessful campaign to have Mick Malthouse gone this year? Before Malthouse led the pies to a string of wins (quite a few of them interstate) established reporter Richard Hinds opined that: “it remains only to be seen whether the veteran coach (Malthouse) will move out of the nest or whether he will be asked to leave.” A little bit presumptuous?
Journalists know well the gold fish like memory of their readers. And it gives them the confidence to make silly predictions like Richard Hinds did. Fellow Age writer Greg Baum jumped to Terry Wallace’s defence after the Tigers courageously came back to lose against Port Adelaide. The very next day his own sports desk falsely reported Wallace’s sacking. The reporters don't know whether they are creating news or reporting it. But unless they are held acocuntable, they don’t really need to care.
This post was originally published before Fremantles capitulation in Adelaide.
Short memory, must have a…short memory. He might have been referring to the electorate but Peter Garrett could easily have been referring to the football industry. Or Mark Harvey. The coach of the worst club in the AFL. Harvey was an undersized centre half back who took on bigger opponents and beat them by throwing his body recklessly into packs. When the non-smiling Harvey took on the Dockers many people thought he would instil some heart and discipline into an underperforming club. Instead, it seems he has created the next generation of Freo frontrunners. The most used word in the AFL, rebuild, refers to a period of poor performance that follows a period of success and that leads to another period of success. Fremantle, under Harvey’s guidance, are rebuilding. The only problems is that, like Richmond, they never had success in the first place. They are forever building. Not rebuilding.
Maybe the Dockers need to get back to the old school. The school that Harvey grew up in and won premierships in. Maybe the players need to forget about structures, diet and watching game tapes. Maybe they need a night on the piss in Melbourne. Some time to forget about the boredom, discipline and rigid conformity of AFL football. That’s probably what Dean Solomon was doing when he stayed out drinking until 3am with an old teammate. He didn’t miss training. But he won’t play this week. Said reformed bad boy and now excrutiatingly boring coach Harvey:
“In this instance, Dean hasn't demonstrated the level of professionalism that we expect and require of a senior member of our playing group.”
Instead of trying to instil unreasonable levels of professionalism off the field the Dockers should try to instil some heart in the players on the field. And that might mean getting a new coach. Fremantle’s performances under Harvey have been quite pathetic. They still curl up and die as soon as they get behind. They still refuse to win in Melbourne. They still celebrate wins over West Coast like they are Grand Finals, even thought they mean nothing.
For the Melbourne media, driving an interstate club to coach sacking is not that juicy. Melbourne newspapers want Melbourne coaches to fall. Is that why The Age launched a conscious and unsuccessful campaign to have Mick Malthouse gone this year? Before Malthouse led the pies to a string of wins (quite a few of them interstate) established reporter Richard Hinds opined that: “it remains only to be seen whether the veteran coach (Malthouse) will move out of the nest or whether he will be asked to leave.” A little bit presumptuous?
Journalists know well the gold fish like memory of their readers. And it gives them the confidence to make silly predictions like Richard Hinds did. Fellow Age writer Greg Baum jumped to Terry Wallace’s defence after the Tigers courageously came back to lose against Port Adelaide. The very next day his own sports desk falsely reported Wallace’s sacking. The reporters don't know whether they are creating news or reporting it. But unless they are held acocuntable, they don’t really need to care.
This post was originally published before Fremantles capitulation in Adelaide.
A Bird in the hand thanks
I’m a Melbourne supporter. I’m similar to a Richmond supporter. Victory is a cruel novelty, sandwiched between weekly heartbreak and humiliation. I don't expect to win and I feel a strange guilt when we do. I and my fellow demon fans watch the football expecting pain. And that’s what we usually get. For Melbourne supporters, victory, like a stay of execution, is about relief. So like all humans suffering from long term pain, periods of respite, no matter how short, should be celebrated and enjoyed.
And so I feel the cruelty of humanity penetrate my true-beating heart as idle brains pursue the topic of ‘tanking’. The argument, quite simply, is that Melbourne should win one more game for the season and no more. To win two or more games would cost us a very high draft pick and most likely negatively affect our long term future. It is a reasonable argument. But sick. Melbourne are experiencing their biggest hot streak in 30 months. They have responded to the illness of their president and club legend with defiance and emotion. And victory. Finally they have given tired, hopeless supporters a glimmer of optimism. They may well go down to Kardinia with a swagger in their step and smash the Cats. But inevitably, the relief of a Melbourne supporter must be blackened by the pathetic pragmatism of the ‘long term future’ obsessed common man. Where, I ask you, does reason stop and romance begin? And for every person who has said in a time of frustration and despair: ‘live for today’. I ask, who has actually done so???.
Of course, most of the injustice of today’s world can be traced back to governing bodies that were not democratically elected. Bodies that pursue equality and provide eternal hope. Like the AFL. The priority draft pick system is honourable in theory but flawed in practice. It’s purpose is to assist the clubs that perform extremely badly, even though the draft already does this. In practice it rewards extreme failure and pathetic underacheivement. Some people would argue that it is even wrong for the bottom placed team to get the number one draft pick. That even this may be an incentive to lose and may lead to game-throwing. Most people would agree that the priority system will lead to, and has already led to, a form of game-throwing. The term game-throwing, or tanking, may conjure up images of Hanse Cronje and Indian bookmakers, but in the ever growing AFL dictionary, game throwing has morphed into a newer, honourable term, used ad nauseum in football circles: rebuilding.
Coaches don’t need to tell players to play poorly. They don’t need to have team meetings and talk about how to lose games. They can sleep soundly at night. Club leaders can face the media and sell the future, while ignoring the past. Play young players way before they are ready, to give them some experience. Play players out of position to test their versality. Drop older players because they may not be part of the team next year, even though they are part of the best 22 now. Make players have operations early, so they can start their preseason on time. All these tactics are logical and honourable. Clubs must look to the future. But whilst the result of these tactics may be losing games, the main reason for these tactics should never be to deliberately lose. At the moment it sometimes is. To create a situation where a club, let alone several clubs, gets a reward for losing, is, for want of a better phrase, a blight on the game. The draft system as it is now not only rewards failure but punishes success. Clubs like North Melbourne, Collingwood and Adelaide strive for the finals every year and, admirably, try to regenerate and be consistently successful, rather than rebuild at the first sign of poor form.
The priority draft pick system has been criticised for a long time, and no real changes have been made. It should have been abolished years ago. Clubs are fielding poor teams and happily losing games every year. The draft system also needs to be changed. Perhaps the ladder needs to be split into 4 groups, so the bottom placed team doesn’t automatically get the first pick. It may well get the 4th pick, depending on a draw. At the moment we have the laughable situation where Melbourne might have to try to lose to Fremantle at the MCG just to appease members who want an extra draft pick. For real Melbourne fans, the promise of a brilliant future will never excuse tanking against the pitiful Dockers. The lure of football lies in the possiblilty of a weekend victory. A weekend where a fan would prefer a loss is just not in the spirit of the game.
And so I feel the cruelty of humanity penetrate my true-beating heart as idle brains pursue the topic of ‘tanking’. The argument, quite simply, is that Melbourne should win one more game for the season and no more. To win two or more games would cost us a very high draft pick and most likely negatively affect our long term future. It is a reasonable argument. But sick. Melbourne are experiencing their biggest hot streak in 30 months. They have responded to the illness of their president and club legend with defiance and emotion. And victory. Finally they have given tired, hopeless supporters a glimmer of optimism. They may well go down to Kardinia with a swagger in their step and smash the Cats. But inevitably, the relief of a Melbourne supporter must be blackened by the pathetic pragmatism of the ‘long term future’ obsessed common man. Where, I ask you, does reason stop and romance begin? And for every person who has said in a time of frustration and despair: ‘live for today’. I ask, who has actually done so???.
Of course, most of the injustice of today’s world can be traced back to governing bodies that were not democratically elected. Bodies that pursue equality and provide eternal hope. Like the AFL. The priority draft pick system is honourable in theory but flawed in practice. It’s purpose is to assist the clubs that perform extremely badly, even though the draft already does this. In practice it rewards extreme failure and pathetic underacheivement. Some people would argue that it is even wrong for the bottom placed team to get the number one draft pick. That even this may be an incentive to lose and may lead to game-throwing. Most people would agree that the priority system will lead to, and has already led to, a form of game-throwing. The term game-throwing, or tanking, may conjure up images of Hanse Cronje and Indian bookmakers, but in the ever growing AFL dictionary, game throwing has morphed into a newer, honourable term, used ad nauseum in football circles: rebuilding.
Coaches don’t need to tell players to play poorly. They don’t need to have team meetings and talk about how to lose games. They can sleep soundly at night. Club leaders can face the media and sell the future, while ignoring the past. Play young players way before they are ready, to give them some experience. Play players out of position to test their versality. Drop older players because they may not be part of the team next year, even though they are part of the best 22 now. Make players have operations early, so they can start their preseason on time. All these tactics are logical and honourable. Clubs must look to the future. But whilst the result of these tactics may be losing games, the main reason for these tactics should never be to deliberately lose. At the moment it sometimes is. To create a situation where a club, let alone several clubs, gets a reward for losing, is, for want of a better phrase, a blight on the game. The draft system as it is now not only rewards failure but punishes success. Clubs like North Melbourne, Collingwood and Adelaide strive for the finals every year and, admirably, try to regenerate and be consistently successful, rather than rebuild at the first sign of poor form.
The priority draft pick system has been criticised for a long time, and no real changes have been made. It should have been abolished years ago. Clubs are fielding poor teams and happily losing games every year. The draft system also needs to be changed. Perhaps the ladder needs to be split into 4 groups, so the bottom placed team doesn’t automatically get the first pick. It may well get the 4th pick, depending on a draw. At the moment we have the laughable situation where Melbourne might have to try to lose to Fremantle at the MCG just to appease members who want an extra draft pick. For real Melbourne fans, the promise of a brilliant future will never excuse tanking against the pitiful Dockers. The lure of football lies in the possiblilty of a weekend victory. A weekend where a fan would prefer a loss is just not in the spirit of the game.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Grant Thomas: this is where you are at
StKilda fans have no right to hate Grant Thomas. He got the Saints to two preliminary finals and within a few goals of a Grand Final. Considering StKilda’s history of extreme underachievement Thomas’ time as coach was very successful. But a lot of people were waiting for his demise, inside and outside of StKilda. Most clubs would love the luxury of sacking a coach who has taken a team to the finals three years in a row. It reeks of arrogance and the sort of expectations StKilda have no right to. Remarkably, the club also sacked Stan Alves a year after they lost a Grand Final. The Saints finished sixth in Alves’ last year.
Richmond, a club that has a recent history of extreme mediocrity, have much more lenient standards. Terry Wallace’s time as coach has been a disaster. 4 seasons. 0 finals. Yet still he remains, going through the processes in a futile attempt to squeeze some value out of his last season. Wallace should quit immediately, so pathetic is Richmond’s standard of football. Wallace and Thomas’ coaching results may not be very similar, but their football language is.
In a time of extreme football advancements in fitness, skill, strategy and opposition analysis, coaches and media commentators still have the ability to use a thousand words to say absolutely nothing. Both Wallace and Thomas insist on using unsuitable metaphors to explain simple situations. They also often talk in footy-speak. For example, nearly all coaches and players these days talk about where their team is at. “This game will be a good test of where we are at”. I recall that up until a few years ago this phrase was not used at all. Another football term that surely irks both Thomas and Wallace is ‘premiership window’. Wallace should have Richmond about to enter their premiership window. Unfortuantely they are in the exact same position they were when he became coach. Thomas was sacked mainly because people thought he had wasted StKilda’s premiership period. As Mick Malthouse pointed out this week, there is no reason to be so surprised by StKilda’s form. They have a number of high draft picks coming into their prime. Riewoldt and Koschitzke are 26. Ball is 24, Goddard is 23 and Dal Santo is 25. They should expect success. Which makes Thomas’ sacking all the more unreasonable. He coached all of these players, and can legitimately argue that he didn’t have the chance to coach them in their prime.
Thomas’ termination as a coach may have been harsh, but his sacking from the radio could be a blessing for the language of football. There are enough controversy-seekers in the papers already. There are more than enough ex-player’s talking in endless footy cliches on the radio. The sad truth for Thomas and for the public is that the vacancy he leaves in the football media may well be taken by Terry Wallace, the master of the footy cliche.
Richmond, a club that has a recent history of extreme mediocrity, have much more lenient standards. Terry Wallace’s time as coach has been a disaster. 4 seasons. 0 finals. Yet still he remains, going through the processes in a futile attempt to squeeze some value out of his last season. Wallace should quit immediately, so pathetic is Richmond’s standard of football. Wallace and Thomas’ coaching results may not be very similar, but their football language is.
In a time of extreme football advancements in fitness, skill, strategy and opposition analysis, coaches and media commentators still have the ability to use a thousand words to say absolutely nothing. Both Wallace and Thomas insist on using unsuitable metaphors to explain simple situations. They also often talk in footy-speak. For example, nearly all coaches and players these days talk about where their team is at. “This game will be a good test of where we are at”. I recall that up until a few years ago this phrase was not used at all. Another football term that surely irks both Thomas and Wallace is ‘premiership window’. Wallace should have Richmond about to enter their premiership window. Unfortuantely they are in the exact same position they were when he became coach. Thomas was sacked mainly because people thought he had wasted StKilda’s premiership period. As Mick Malthouse pointed out this week, there is no reason to be so surprised by StKilda’s form. They have a number of high draft picks coming into their prime. Riewoldt and Koschitzke are 26. Ball is 24, Goddard is 23 and Dal Santo is 25. They should expect success. Which makes Thomas’ sacking all the more unreasonable. He coached all of these players, and can legitimately argue that he didn’t have the chance to coach them in their prime.
Thomas’ termination as a coach may have been harsh, but his sacking from the radio could be a blessing for the language of football. There are enough controversy-seekers in the papers already. There are more than enough ex-player’s talking in endless footy cliches on the radio. The sad truth for Thomas and for the public is that the vacancy he leaves in the football media may well be taken by Terry Wallace, the master of the footy cliche.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Good Luck Wallet
A player reaches 30 these days, plays three bad games and is pretty much gone. Footy, as they say, is a young man’s game. Young players, young coaches, young ideas. Which makes the thought of Denis Pagan coaching an AFL side again completely ridiculous. Pagan’s two premierships were a decade ago, and after his time at North he dismantled and destroyed Carlton to the point where they are still recovering. If Terry Wallace is going to be held accountable for the performance of his players and their game style and take some of the blame for the recruiting decisions during his tenure then Pagan is also responsible for what he did at Carlton.
Admittedly, the conditions under which Pagan began at Carlton were different. The club was broke and did not have a lot of early draft picks, so it decided to pick almost exclusively recycled, mature age players (Daniel Harford, David Clarke, Cory McGrath, Digby Morrel). From the 2003 draft only Heath Scotland and Andrew Walker remain. Rebuilding a club with rejects would never happen in the AFL today and six years ago it was already an outdated strategy.
But Pagan’s mistakes were much bigger than overseeing those horrible, short-sighted draft selections. Didn’t he cut Anthony Koutofides career short by insisting Kouta complete the same training as younger players? Didn’t he direct his team towards winning the pre season competition when every other club treats that competition as a warm up? (The moronic Carlton board gave him a new contract after a preseason flag, without consulting any senior players) Didn’t he base training drills around having the ball on the ground even when his captain and best player had back problems? Pagan’s winning ratio from his time at Carlton was 24%. Wallace’s ratio at Richmond was 41% at the start of this season. Pagan, clearly, will never coach an AFL club again.
It would be no surprise to see Terry commentating by round 10 this year. (Sportsbet had him at $501 to coach them next year – though the odds were ‘speculative’ and not available so they mean absolutely nothing) Most people believe that it’s not just the four losses Richmond have suffered this year that have ruined him but the pathetic nature of the losses. Two mass floggings (by quality teams), a gallant defeat (Geelong) and a loss to the super impressive Melbourne. The first month of the season has been a disgrace, but as everyone insists on forgetting, it is a very long season. One common argument from ultra-loyal, massively deluded Richmond supporters is that the skill errors plaguing their games simply result from a lack of confidence. Just go and see the boys hit their targets down at Punt Road. Could this confidence suddenly turn around with one win? (Coughlin’s back this week) Could the Tigers possibly turn their season around? (Cuzzy and Cotchin next week) Could they still make the finals? (Pettifer is ready!) They would need to go 12 and 6 for the rest of the season. I say, in a state of total sobriety and with a history of unbridled Richmond bagging: It is possible. Richmond will most likely beat North on pure emotion this weekend. Then they have Sydney (in Sydney) and Brisbane at the ‘G. Why couldn’t they go into round 8 at three wins and four losses and a head of steam drifting out from Wallet’s sunbed? As long as Richo is playing in front of goal instead of piss farting around on the wings (I said that from the very beginning) then they are a chance. Wallace is at his best when the game is broken down to emotion and pure mindless footy talk.
On other matters, big shout out to Collingwood and Jeff Kennett (I feel sick) for having a crack at the AFL and the current state of umpiring. The AFL is becoming more and more like a government that insists on ‘winning’ PR and media battles rather than confronting the serious problems that are affecting its stakeholders. The public and clubs have no effective channel for voicing their ideas regarding the rules of the game. For all their arrogance, Eddie and Jeff are flying the flag for the millions of pissed off fans watching the rubbish 50-metre penalties and double goals being handed out weekly by umpires. Massive shout out to Richard Hinds for summing it all up in this article
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/umpires-put-in-harms-way-by-stubborn-technocrats-in-ivory-towers/2009/04/21/1240079671037.html
On other matters, Fremantle doesn’t deserve an inch of column space as it is and their Ku Klux Klan ‘scandal’ is the stupidest thing that has ever been reported in the paper ever. Except that Pavlich should have left them years ago. They are cursed to a perpetual state of rebuilding.
Finally, it is time columnists stop condemning ‘hysterical and hypocritical’ media frenzies that they and their colleagues have created. That is my job. Two journalists are sitting next to each other. One is hounding the Tigers about sacking Terry Wallace whilst the other is writing an article condemning the irresponsible behaviour of his colleague. Their third colleague is reporting on the KKK scandal. They should just cancel each other out and concentrate on the feel good stories in football. Like the renaissance of the mighty dees. Or new footballing sage Dean Bailey (Melbourne’s coach if you didn’t know):
“Belief comes to its crescendo when wins become continual” It may be a while before that theory is tested down at Casey fields (Melbourne trains there if you didn't know), but at least Dean is speaking English.
“this is a pressure-cooker environment and if you don’t want to handle it, it’s too hot in the kitchen.”
Good luck Wallet.
Admittedly, the conditions under which Pagan began at Carlton were different. The club was broke and did not have a lot of early draft picks, so it decided to pick almost exclusively recycled, mature age players (Daniel Harford, David Clarke, Cory McGrath, Digby Morrel). From the 2003 draft only Heath Scotland and Andrew Walker remain. Rebuilding a club with rejects would never happen in the AFL today and six years ago it was already an outdated strategy.
But Pagan’s mistakes were much bigger than overseeing those horrible, short-sighted draft selections. Didn’t he cut Anthony Koutofides career short by insisting Kouta complete the same training as younger players? Didn’t he direct his team towards winning the pre season competition when every other club treats that competition as a warm up? (The moronic Carlton board gave him a new contract after a preseason flag, without consulting any senior players) Didn’t he base training drills around having the ball on the ground even when his captain and best player had back problems? Pagan’s winning ratio from his time at Carlton was 24%. Wallace’s ratio at Richmond was 41% at the start of this season. Pagan, clearly, will never coach an AFL club again.
It would be no surprise to see Terry commentating by round 10 this year. (Sportsbet had him at $501 to coach them next year – though the odds were ‘speculative’ and not available so they mean absolutely nothing) Most people believe that it’s not just the four losses Richmond have suffered this year that have ruined him but the pathetic nature of the losses. Two mass floggings (by quality teams), a gallant defeat (Geelong) and a loss to the super impressive Melbourne. The first month of the season has been a disgrace, but as everyone insists on forgetting, it is a very long season. One common argument from ultra-loyal, massively deluded Richmond supporters is that the skill errors plaguing their games simply result from a lack of confidence. Just go and see the boys hit their targets down at Punt Road. Could this confidence suddenly turn around with one win? (Coughlin’s back this week) Could the Tigers possibly turn their season around? (Cuzzy and Cotchin next week) Could they still make the finals? (Pettifer is ready!) They would need to go 12 and 6 for the rest of the season. I say, in a state of total sobriety and with a history of unbridled Richmond bagging: It is possible. Richmond will most likely beat North on pure emotion this weekend. Then they have Sydney (in Sydney) and Brisbane at the ‘G. Why couldn’t they go into round 8 at three wins and four losses and a head of steam drifting out from Wallet’s sunbed? As long as Richo is playing in front of goal instead of piss farting around on the wings (I said that from the very beginning) then they are a chance. Wallace is at his best when the game is broken down to emotion and pure mindless footy talk.
On other matters, big shout out to Collingwood and Jeff Kennett (I feel sick) for having a crack at the AFL and the current state of umpiring. The AFL is becoming more and more like a government that insists on ‘winning’ PR and media battles rather than confronting the serious problems that are affecting its stakeholders. The public and clubs have no effective channel for voicing their ideas regarding the rules of the game. For all their arrogance, Eddie and Jeff are flying the flag for the millions of pissed off fans watching the rubbish 50-metre penalties and double goals being handed out weekly by umpires. Massive shout out to Richard Hinds for summing it all up in this article
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/umpires-put-in-harms-way-by-stubborn-technocrats-in-ivory-towers/2009/04/21/1240079671037.html
On other matters, Fremantle doesn’t deserve an inch of column space as it is and their Ku Klux Klan ‘scandal’ is the stupidest thing that has ever been reported in the paper ever. Except that Pavlich should have left them years ago. They are cursed to a perpetual state of rebuilding.
Finally, it is time columnists stop condemning ‘hysterical and hypocritical’ media frenzies that they and their colleagues have created. That is my job. Two journalists are sitting next to each other. One is hounding the Tigers about sacking Terry Wallace whilst the other is writing an article condemning the irresponsible behaviour of his colleague. Their third colleague is reporting on the KKK scandal. They should just cancel each other out and concentrate on the feel good stories in football. Like the renaissance of the mighty dees. Or new footballing sage Dean Bailey (Melbourne’s coach if you didn’t know):
“Belief comes to its crescendo when wins become continual” It may be a while before that theory is tested down at Casey fields (Melbourne trains there if you didn't know), but at least Dean is speaking English.
“this is a pressure-cooker environment and if you don’t want to handle it, it’s too hot in the kitchen.”
Good luck Wallet.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Pandemic...Get your Pandemic
en⋅dem⋅ic [en-dem-ik]
–adjective Also, en⋅dem⋅i⋅cal.
1. natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous: endemic folkways; countries where high unemployment is endemic.
2. belonging exclusively or confined to a particular place: a fever endemic to the tropics.
When it comes to ‘Boris the Chicken’, I’ll go for shoulder shrugging dismissiveness. Let John Harms, Phil Cleary and other outraged football followers and idiots that call talkback radio jump on their pedastals and condemn. But seriously, Phil…
"It's clear they're thinking, 'Woman as bitch, woman as someone you trample on'," Cleary said. "At the end they actually kill the chicken.”
Long bow anyone??? Go back to coaching Coburg Phil (was it Coburg?).
I had GongBaoJiDing for dinner (7 meals a week). Am I a rapist or a murderer?
And John Harms, who doesn’t get that many articles and unfortunately has been asked to pull on the boots to follow ‘Boris the Chicken gate’…:
“another setback in a society that is slowly growing to accept that violence against women is endemic.”
Is that right??? (Pandemic…Get your Pandemic.)
And:
“the football club that produced Wayne Carey.”
So North are responsible for all his mistakes too??? Massively long bow John and a pretty ordinary comment. They should relocate the Kangaroos’ pimpin’ bitch hatin’ asses to the NRL post haste. I heard that Gillon Mclaughlin, the AFL’s media dunce, got a call from the NRL accusing the AFL of ‘shamelessly and unfairly targeting loyal NRL consumers’. Was Chickengate just an AFL backed plot to win over those elusive western Sydney bogans?
(WMD…Get your WMD.)
Well let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Thank god there is a Thursday game and some good old fashioned Christianity around so some people can focus on accepting what is really endemic in our society. Footy… (and pedophile priests). It was a brave man who defended the Swans’ chances pre season and after their round one loss many may have called him stupid. How a team can not kick a goal for nearly three quarters one week and then kick 25 the next is for Paul Roos to explain, but the Swans will still be a good team this year. Look back at a pre season post for evidence of my refreshingly rational foresight.
Talk of a definite Hawthorn and Geelong grand final is just evidence of how short-sighted and stupid football commentators are (if you need more evidence read into the ‘Boris the Chicken’ saga), even when they are being long sighted. Remember that Hawthorn got flogged (Richmond win = flogging) by Richmond in round 21 last year so their ‘dominance of the competition’ lasted a massive four games. Now they are ‘mere mortals’. They are one injury (Roughhead or Buddy) away from being merely ordinary. You heard it here first. Geelong are shithot though I’m not denying that.
–adjective Also, en⋅dem⋅i⋅cal.
1. natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place; native; indigenous: endemic folkways; countries where high unemployment is endemic.
2. belonging exclusively or confined to a particular place: a fever endemic to the tropics.
When it comes to ‘Boris the Chicken’, I’ll go for shoulder shrugging dismissiveness. Let John Harms, Phil Cleary and other outraged football followers and idiots that call talkback radio jump on their pedastals and condemn. But seriously, Phil…
"It's clear they're thinking, 'Woman as bitch, woman as someone you trample on'," Cleary said. "At the end they actually kill the chicken.”
Long bow anyone??? Go back to coaching Coburg Phil (was it Coburg?).
I had GongBaoJiDing for dinner (7 meals a week). Am I a rapist or a murderer?
And John Harms, who doesn’t get that many articles and unfortunately has been asked to pull on the boots to follow ‘Boris the Chicken gate’…:
“another setback in a society that is slowly growing to accept that violence against women is endemic.”
Is that right??? (Pandemic…Get your Pandemic.)
And:
“the football club that produced Wayne Carey.”
So North are responsible for all his mistakes too??? Massively long bow John and a pretty ordinary comment. They should relocate the Kangaroos’ pimpin’ bitch hatin’ asses to the NRL post haste. I heard that Gillon Mclaughlin, the AFL’s media dunce, got a call from the NRL accusing the AFL of ‘shamelessly and unfairly targeting loyal NRL consumers’. Was Chickengate just an AFL backed plot to win over those elusive western Sydney bogans?
(WMD…Get your WMD.)
Well let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Thank god there is a Thursday game and some good old fashioned Christianity around so some people can focus on accepting what is really endemic in our society. Footy… (and pedophile priests). It was a brave man who defended the Swans’ chances pre season and after their round one loss many may have called him stupid. How a team can not kick a goal for nearly three quarters one week and then kick 25 the next is for Paul Roos to explain, but the Swans will still be a good team this year. Look back at a pre season post for evidence of my refreshingly rational foresight.
Talk of a definite Hawthorn and Geelong grand final is just evidence of how short-sighted and stupid football commentators are (if you need more evidence read into the ‘Boris the Chicken’ saga), even when they are being long sighted. Remember that Hawthorn got flogged (Richmond win = flogging) by Richmond in round 21 last year so their ‘dominance of the competition’ lasted a massive four games. Now they are ‘mere mortals’. They are one injury (Roughhead or Buddy) away from being merely ordinary. You heard it here first. Geelong are shithot though I’m not denying that.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Ball...............No thank you......
I’m not a redneck or a bogan and I don’t insist players ‘kick it long’ and I don't call out ‘deliberate’ and I don’t think footy was better in my day. This being my day though I’m quite far away. I love a ‘ball…yeah’ as much as any other bloke in the outer. I went to a game in Sydney once and they don’t know how to do a ‘ball…yeah’ and for that they are ignorant and maybe that’s why the game may never catch on in that strange and detached city. A ‘ball…yeah’ is like a good root in that sometimes you have to earn it and wait for it and it’s all the more better for the wait. Mostly it doesn’t come easily. Though you may. But things are changing. Change for the sake of change being the mantra of the AFL.
Being a fly on the wall down at umpire ‘training’ (think the biggest bunch of nerds and bullied kids ever) could make for some pretty disturbing viewing. I guess they spend the first half of training trying to remember players’ names and then thinking of nicknames so they can act like the players are their mates. The umpires clearly have no mates and that is why they became umpires. Umpiring is like the law in that it’s enforcement should be detached and consistent but always based around discretion and reason. For this reason umpires should be ice cold and faceless zombies and then they may get the respect they so deeply want.
Consistency is something the fans and players have always yearned for. But it is like a decent shag we all want it but rarely get it. When the AFL at one stage decided that in certain rounds the umpires would concentrate on the enforcement of certain rules (being ‘red hot’ on said rule) the idea of consistency became even more unrealistic. How can umpires be consistent if they admit that they will change the focus of the rules from week to week?
Even worse, the discretion of umpires is slowly being abolished, and rules are being enforced that surely are not in the spirit of the game. The second half of umpire training must surely involve studying and finding new ways to confuse the ‘holding the ball’ rule. The amount of ‘ball…yeahs’ getting paid in round one was quite breathtaking. Do umpires have to fill a quota of ‘ball…yeahs’? Is the ball-up a plague on our game like flooding and tunneling before it? If a player goes for a loose ball, picks it up, gets slung to the ground and then has five players jump on him, is that considered prior opportunity? How can he dispose of the ball correctly if he is semi-conscious? Punishing the player ‘making the play’ is not in the spirit of the game and this obsession with paying holding the ball free kicks has to be stopped. If you were an AFL players perhaps it would be wiser to avoid picking up a loose ball. Simply wait for your opponent to possess it then tackle him and wait for the idiots in the crowd to scream ‘ball…’. The idiot in white will surely oblige.
Good football rules are like decent laws in that they should respect history and democracy and take into accont the viewpoints of all stakeholders. A good law is rarely thought up by a few men in a room without the consultation of the people it will affect.
Being a fly on the wall down at umpire ‘training’ (think the biggest bunch of nerds and bullied kids ever) could make for some pretty disturbing viewing. I guess they spend the first half of training trying to remember players’ names and then thinking of nicknames so they can act like the players are their mates. The umpires clearly have no mates and that is why they became umpires. Umpiring is like the law in that it’s enforcement should be detached and consistent but always based around discretion and reason. For this reason umpires should be ice cold and faceless zombies and then they may get the respect they so deeply want.
Consistency is something the fans and players have always yearned for. But it is like a decent shag we all want it but rarely get it. When the AFL at one stage decided that in certain rounds the umpires would concentrate on the enforcement of certain rules (being ‘red hot’ on said rule) the idea of consistency became even more unrealistic. How can umpires be consistent if they admit that they will change the focus of the rules from week to week?
Even worse, the discretion of umpires is slowly being abolished, and rules are being enforced that surely are not in the spirit of the game. The second half of umpire training must surely involve studying and finding new ways to confuse the ‘holding the ball’ rule. The amount of ‘ball…yeahs’ getting paid in round one was quite breathtaking. Do umpires have to fill a quota of ‘ball…yeahs’? Is the ball-up a plague on our game like flooding and tunneling before it? If a player goes for a loose ball, picks it up, gets slung to the ground and then has five players jump on him, is that considered prior opportunity? How can he dispose of the ball correctly if he is semi-conscious? Punishing the player ‘making the play’ is not in the spirit of the game and this obsession with paying holding the ball free kicks has to be stopped. If you were an AFL players perhaps it would be wiser to avoid picking up a loose ball. Simply wait for your opponent to possess it then tackle him and wait for the idiots in the crowd to scream ‘ball…’. The idiot in white will surely oblige.
Good football rules are like decent laws in that they should respect history and democracy and take into accont the viewpoints of all stakeholders. A good law is rarely thought up by a few men in a room without the consultation of the people it will affect.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Coach Swapping. Not mid-season thanks.
It's true that in the past some coaches have been treated extremely badly by their employers. When a team experiences a patch of bad form the media and the public smells blood. And in most cases, all the blame is focused on the coach. With growing professionalism of the league, the treatment of coaches is improving. Sackings by media (Damian Drum) are almost certainly extinct. But the coaches want a little bit more. They want to be told, before their contract is expired, whether or not they will be offered a new one. In one way this is reasonable. If a coach knows that he will not be offered a new contract, he can begin looking for a new job, nice and early. This would also be benefical for a club looking for a new coach, as they can start their search earlier. Under the proposed agreement, by July 1st of every year, out of contract coaches will be told whether or not they will be sacked at the end of their contract. Assumedly this means if they are not told they will be sacked then they will definitely be re-signed? It seems like a better deal for the coaches. But if it is agreed to, it could lead to a few problems.
The first problem is this. If a coach has his team in 8th spot on July 1st of the final year of his contract, how does the club judge his success? If they inform him he won't be sacked, and the team falls apart and finishes 12th, the decision could be considered a mistake, and they are stuck with him for another year. By the same token, if a club decides not to offer a coach a new contract, and that coach leads his team to finals glory (perhaps out of spite), then they will face the wrath of supporters. Will clubs extend coaches contracts by one year, just in case? But then they may have to go through the same awkward process a year later.
If a coach is not re-signed, he will likely begin looking for a new club. Other clubs, who have not re-signed their current coach, may rush to employ a free coach. So a scenario could eventuate where a coach goes into round 16 knowing that he will coach another club the next season. The public will also probably know this. Will he put his heart into coaching out his contract, or will he already be preparing for the final season?
Another supposed advantage for coaches is that they will rarely be fired mid contract. If a club terminates a coaches contract after round 22, for example, they will be two months behind other clubs in the search for a new coach. But what about this scenario? A coach has a three year contract. Halfway through the second year, his team is still performing very poorly. For a club, choosing to sack a coach mid season may be a more attractive choice than waiting out the contract. If they do sack the coach early they can join the race as soon as possible.
It could all become very complicated. July may become coach swapping season. Does the AFL want this month dominated by media speculation about which coaches will go where? Do coaches really want to finish their contracts knowing they are doomed? Deciding who will coach the club is a very important decision. During the season, clubs should be focusing on football. They should not also have to be courting new coaches, or agonising over the future of the current coach. Coach swapping season should begin after round 22.
The first problem is this. If a coach has his team in 8th spot on July 1st of the final year of his contract, how does the club judge his success? If they inform him he won't be sacked, and the team falls apart and finishes 12th, the decision could be considered a mistake, and they are stuck with him for another year. By the same token, if a club decides not to offer a coach a new contract, and that coach leads his team to finals glory (perhaps out of spite), then they will face the wrath of supporters. Will clubs extend coaches contracts by one year, just in case? But then they may have to go through the same awkward process a year later.
If a coach is not re-signed, he will likely begin looking for a new club. Other clubs, who have not re-signed their current coach, may rush to employ a free coach. So a scenario could eventuate where a coach goes into round 16 knowing that he will coach another club the next season. The public will also probably know this. Will he put his heart into coaching out his contract, or will he already be preparing for the final season?
Another supposed advantage for coaches is that they will rarely be fired mid contract. If a club terminates a coaches contract after round 22, for example, they will be two months behind other clubs in the search for a new coach. But what about this scenario? A coach has a three year contract. Halfway through the second year, his team is still performing very poorly. For a club, choosing to sack a coach mid season may be a more attractive choice than waiting out the contract. If they do sack the coach early they can join the race as soon as possible.
It could all become very complicated. July may become coach swapping season. Does the AFL want this month dominated by media speculation about which coaches will go where? Do coaches really want to finish their contracts knowing they are doomed? Deciding who will coach the club is a very important decision. During the season, clubs should be focusing on football. They should not also have to be courting new coaches, or agonising over the future of the current coach. Coach swapping season should begin after round 22.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Within the Walls of Reason??? Not really.
Robert Walls earns his crust writing provocative articles. And I feel for the bloke sometimes. Because he is under pressure to come up with his little bit of talkback controversy every week, and every time he writes an article some of his credibility gets lost. It seems like a strange time to question the future of Mick Malthouse. The Pies are in the Panasonic cup Grand Final and they have a young list with a lot of potential and some valuable finals experience. Last year they won a final in Adelaide with an injury depleted team missing key players. So what can Malthouse do to ensure his future?
Make a grand final, according to Walls. The finals are miles away, so speculating on whether they will make it is pointless. But to say that Malthouse should already be feeling the pressure is baseless. His record is very good. His win-loss record at Collingwood is 50 percent. Walls argues that the Collingwood board may view this percentage as unacceptable. But in the modern AFL every team is expected to ‘bottom out’ every 3-4 years. At some stage in a cycle, playing young players, performing poorly and receiving high draft picks is accepted, if not actively encouraged, by supporters. So a 50 percent ratio is very respectable. Malthouse has bottomed out once at Collingwood, where they finished two seasons in the bottom three, but he has made the finals five times in nine years, including two Grand Finals. In recent years he has also made a brave attempt to introduce a lot of young players whilst still aiming for the finals. In comparison to other experienced coaches in the league, his record is also quite good. Eade has a better ratio, but no grand final, and his team seems still seems a way off. Roos and Worsfold have won flags but the Eagles are rebuilding now and the Swans’ demise is widely predicted. Clarkson has a poorer ratio but a premiership. Malthouse’s most powerful team was only beaten by the almighty Brisbane Lions.
So if his win-loss ratio is not a problem, Malthouse might be worried about Nathan Buckley waiting in the wings. Buckley is much too savvy to even think about coaching Collingwood until Malthouse is well and truly gone. He also has Tony Shaw in the adjoining commentary box to remind him of the perils of the favourite son. Eddie McGuire is much too savvy to think about crossing Malthouse to introduce Buckley. Malthouse will have to have a very ordinary year, or to resign, before Buckley gets that job. Would Collingwood sack him if he won another final with a young team? No. Which makes Walls’ speculation quite meaningless. But a lot of his opinion pieces are. Malthouse is not young, but his team is, and he and Collingwood should be pretty optimistic about 2009 and 2010.
The Demise of Sydney....Based on...?
The trend towards 'rebuilding' and 'bottoming out' has gone much too far in the last decade. As soon as a team starts losing a few games supporters and the media begin talking of bottoming out. Losing games and giving up midway through seasons so a club can get good draft picks is now the norm. Unfortunately, it is assumed that a period of success is inevitably followed by a period of failure. Hawthorn's premiership is the first example of a team hitting rock bottom, getting draft picks, and rebuilding to a flag. But some of the experienced coaches in the AFL may have a problem with the common opinion that success is cyclical. Malthouse is already bucking the trend. He plays very young players in important positions and continues to make the finals. Paul Roos is the same. The age of his team is well documented, and most experts will probably predict that they will miss the eight this year. But the players are only 6 months older than the team that won a final last year. They are experienced, well coached and good. On the other hand, Carlton are widely tipped to be the rising team this year. As Roos pointed out last year, the Blues, despite their masses of draft picks (and Juddy!), have yet to play a decent season since the horrible Pagan years. For all their potential, they are only that. Potential. They have no results to speak of. Sydney have results, and winning experience. The same as North Melbourne, another team that is always on the slide, but often in the finals. Looking to the future is natural, but a good team doesn't disintegrate overnight. Maybe the obsession with football being a young man's game has gone a little bit too far.
Make a grand final, according to Walls. The finals are miles away, so speculating on whether they will make it is pointless. But to say that Malthouse should already be feeling the pressure is baseless. His record is very good. His win-loss record at Collingwood is 50 percent. Walls argues that the Collingwood board may view this percentage as unacceptable. But in the modern AFL every team is expected to ‘bottom out’ every 3-4 years. At some stage in a cycle, playing young players, performing poorly and receiving high draft picks is accepted, if not actively encouraged, by supporters. So a 50 percent ratio is very respectable. Malthouse has bottomed out once at Collingwood, where they finished two seasons in the bottom three, but he has made the finals five times in nine years, including two Grand Finals. In recent years he has also made a brave attempt to introduce a lot of young players whilst still aiming for the finals. In comparison to other experienced coaches in the league, his record is also quite good. Eade has a better ratio, but no grand final, and his team seems still seems a way off. Roos and Worsfold have won flags but the Eagles are rebuilding now and the Swans’ demise is widely predicted. Clarkson has a poorer ratio but a premiership. Malthouse’s most powerful team was only beaten by the almighty Brisbane Lions.
So if his win-loss ratio is not a problem, Malthouse might be worried about Nathan Buckley waiting in the wings. Buckley is much too savvy to even think about coaching Collingwood until Malthouse is well and truly gone. He also has Tony Shaw in the adjoining commentary box to remind him of the perils of the favourite son. Eddie McGuire is much too savvy to think about crossing Malthouse to introduce Buckley. Malthouse will have to have a very ordinary year, or to resign, before Buckley gets that job. Would Collingwood sack him if he won another final with a young team? No. Which makes Walls’ speculation quite meaningless. But a lot of his opinion pieces are. Malthouse is not young, but his team is, and he and Collingwood should be pretty optimistic about 2009 and 2010.
The Demise of Sydney....Based on...?
The trend towards 'rebuilding' and 'bottoming out' has gone much too far in the last decade. As soon as a team starts losing a few games supporters and the media begin talking of bottoming out. Losing games and giving up midway through seasons so a club can get good draft picks is now the norm. Unfortunately, it is assumed that a period of success is inevitably followed by a period of failure. Hawthorn's premiership is the first example of a team hitting rock bottom, getting draft picks, and rebuilding to a flag. But some of the experienced coaches in the AFL may have a problem with the common opinion that success is cyclical. Malthouse is already bucking the trend. He plays very young players in important positions and continues to make the finals. Paul Roos is the same. The age of his team is well documented, and most experts will probably predict that they will miss the eight this year. But the players are only 6 months older than the team that won a final last year. They are experienced, well coached and good. On the other hand, Carlton are widely tipped to be the rising team this year. As Roos pointed out last year, the Blues, despite their masses of draft picks (and Juddy!), have yet to play a decent season since the horrible Pagan years. For all their potential, they are only that. Potential. They have no results to speak of. Sydney have results, and winning experience. The same as North Melbourne, another team that is always on the slide, but often in the finals. Looking to the future is natural, but a good team doesn't disintegrate overnight. Maybe the obsession with football being a young man's game has gone a little bit too far.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Like a Beijing two way-street: hostile
Caroline Wilson has a point. The media is a two-way street. But the two-way traffic between clubs and the media is sometimes pretty combative territory. Clubs can use the media to promote their teams and players. They can get the word out about their pre-season (the best in recent history!) and they can warm our hearts with human interest stories about their community minded youngsters (bloody do gooders). The media needs the clubs for stories and club information that they can feed to the insatiable public. Reciprocity is paramount.
The importance of this street does not stop the media from taking risks that endanger the balance of said street. Sometimes they take dirty side roads and allies and stray from the street. Sometimes they create stories that harm the relationship, and the street becomes a dangerous, hostile street. Some media do voyeuristic, inexcusable and unjustifiable things. See the Herald-Sun. Other media mostly stick to the rules, but they too report on things that are not always true. They take hearsay, sell it as hearsay until it becomes a sort of fact in the muddy consciousness of the information-overloaded public. No wonder clubs become hostile. The clubs are constantly fighting to assert their importance. They put barriers up on the street like we did at our neighbourhood street parties in the nineties. And the media, like those idiot drivers who wanted to drive down the street, piss and moan about the injustice of it all.
Caroline Wilson has been involved for years. Like a player, some media writers lose all perspective stuck in the little Melbourne fish bowl. Wilson’s job as a woman in a man’s world is doubly difficult. She has never been the most popular journo amongst the boys club of the AFL. And to her credit she has never backed down from reporting the facts as she sees or hears them. But perhaps some of the animosity towards her comes from the fact that most of her comments are unrelated to actual on-field games. They are usually focused on the politics and media created controversies of the league. She seldom offers positives on the beauty of the physical game itself. Her focus on Ben Cousins is rarely on his on-field performance (thought they are admittedly rare) but on the media storm around him. A number of media commentators feel they have the right to sit back and comment on the rights and wrongs of the storm that they and their colleagues have created. That job should be left to people like me. The “Today Tonight” tactics of other journalists has led to club hostility towards all media. Can the responsible media legitimately complain? Isn’t it the same as the reputation of all players being stained by the misbehaviour of a small few?
But what about the public’s right to know? What is the public’s right to know? Is it the same as our appetite for such knowledge, which is close to insatiable? Does the media, the dominant channel of information from club to public, have the responsibility of deciding what rights we have to know? Is it the guardian of good and evil, the moral intermediary between club and public? A sobering thought. When a player is relentlessly judged for a minor off-field misdemeanour the media has the nerve to talk about the public’s right to know. They just report the story and let the public react. The public may want to know, but it may not have a right. The clubs do have the right to conceal any information they choose, within reason. They have financial obligations too. The media is publishing the news for purely financial reasons, and justifying the publication of its ‘stories’ as heeding to public rights is simply nonsense. So if one is to concede that the media is just reporting facts according to public demand for such facts, what is the justification for the unreasonable demands placed on the behaviour of players?
When players do suffer from the merciless judgment of the public and media, the question gets asked. Why are players of a sport held to much higher standards than to those of the general public? The most common response is that they are role models for our youth. Simply, they must do only good things so our kids will be good too. The role model topic needs to be researched more. Do kids become successful because they idolized Chris Judd? It’s a long bow to draw. Even if a youngster obsesses over every step that Juddy takes (he could even be a youngster older than Juddy!), will this youngster do everything that Juddy does? Will an easily influenced youngster lose interest in footy after reading about the Ben Cousins’ drug problems? Will the kid give up the game and turn to drugs? It seems unlikely. Perhaps the best reason for the high demands placed on the players is their responsibility to their clubs reputation and their clubs sponsors. This reason is much more believable than the unproven role model theory. Whatever the justification, the media and public scrutiny of a player’s every move is a steam train that won’t slow down. As long as the media continues to speculate over the unproven, minor off-field mistakes of players there is going to be hostility between clubs and reporters. And those reporters who do report on hearsay and rumour cannot complain when clubs refuse interviews.
The importance of this street does not stop the media from taking risks that endanger the balance of said street. Sometimes they take dirty side roads and allies and stray from the street. Sometimes they create stories that harm the relationship, and the street becomes a dangerous, hostile street. Some media do voyeuristic, inexcusable and unjustifiable things. See the Herald-Sun. Other media mostly stick to the rules, but they too report on things that are not always true. They take hearsay, sell it as hearsay until it becomes a sort of fact in the muddy consciousness of the information-overloaded public. No wonder clubs become hostile. The clubs are constantly fighting to assert their importance. They put barriers up on the street like we did at our neighbourhood street parties in the nineties. And the media, like those idiot drivers who wanted to drive down the street, piss and moan about the injustice of it all.
Caroline Wilson has been involved for years. Like a player, some media writers lose all perspective stuck in the little Melbourne fish bowl. Wilson’s job as a woman in a man’s world is doubly difficult. She has never been the most popular journo amongst the boys club of the AFL. And to her credit she has never backed down from reporting the facts as she sees or hears them. But perhaps some of the animosity towards her comes from the fact that most of her comments are unrelated to actual on-field games. They are usually focused on the politics and media created controversies of the league. She seldom offers positives on the beauty of the physical game itself. Her focus on Ben Cousins is rarely on his on-field performance (thought they are admittedly rare) but on the media storm around him. A number of media commentators feel they have the right to sit back and comment on the rights and wrongs of the storm that they and their colleagues have created. That job should be left to people like me. The “Today Tonight” tactics of other journalists has led to club hostility towards all media. Can the responsible media legitimately complain? Isn’t it the same as the reputation of all players being stained by the misbehaviour of a small few?
But what about the public’s right to know? What is the public’s right to know? Is it the same as our appetite for such knowledge, which is close to insatiable? Does the media, the dominant channel of information from club to public, have the responsibility of deciding what rights we have to know? Is it the guardian of good and evil, the moral intermediary between club and public? A sobering thought. When a player is relentlessly judged for a minor off-field misdemeanour the media has the nerve to talk about the public’s right to know. They just report the story and let the public react. The public may want to know, but it may not have a right. The clubs do have the right to conceal any information they choose, within reason. They have financial obligations too. The media is publishing the news for purely financial reasons, and justifying the publication of its ‘stories’ as heeding to public rights is simply nonsense. So if one is to concede that the media is just reporting facts according to public demand for such facts, what is the justification for the unreasonable demands placed on the behaviour of players?
When players do suffer from the merciless judgment of the public and media, the question gets asked. Why are players of a sport held to much higher standards than to those of the general public? The most common response is that they are role models for our youth. Simply, they must do only good things so our kids will be good too. The role model topic needs to be researched more. Do kids become successful because they idolized Chris Judd? It’s a long bow to draw. Even if a youngster obsesses over every step that Juddy takes (he could even be a youngster older than Juddy!), will this youngster do everything that Juddy does? Will an easily influenced youngster lose interest in footy after reading about the Ben Cousins’ drug problems? Will the kid give up the game and turn to drugs? It seems unlikely. Perhaps the best reason for the high demands placed on the players is their responsibility to their clubs reputation and their clubs sponsors. This reason is much more believable than the unproven role model theory. Whatever the justification, the media and public scrutiny of a player’s every move is a steam train that won’t slow down. As long as the media continues to speculate over the unproven, minor off-field mistakes of players there is going to be hostility between clubs and reporters. And those reporters who do report on hearsay and rumour cannot complain when clubs refuse interviews.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Robbing Melbourne to pay Tassie...Not likely
The AFL commission. The name is not as intimidating as it should be. There is definitely a need for a more menacing title. Perhaps something similar to the threatening names of totalitarian governments in times gone by. Those governments that siphoned the wealth of a nation into their own hands. Forgetting to redistribute it, they spent it, and blamed the people as the country declined into poverty.
Plans of national domination are first priority on the AFL agenda. The Sydney and Gold Coast teams seem mere formalities. Though one wonders why the Gold Coast license hasn’t been granted. An 18 team competition is a matter of time. The AFL’s plan is completely understandable and maybe necessary. The way they execute it needs to be examined. Australia is definitely a competitive sporting market and if the league wants to one day be the most popular sport all around the country it needs to start its investment now. But it is terms like market and investment that lead people to talk about the AFL like it is purely a business entity. It is clearly not.
People love to mention the term brand in reference to our game. Fans are consumers. Buying a product. One day the term club, conjuring up ideals of community and friendship, may be replaced by that dreaded American word franchise. Plenty of wealthy brands have entered hostile markets and succeeded. But the word brand connotes an item that is sold to people for their use. Something that they buy as a requirement or as a luxury. Sure, certain brands go beyond mere use and become emotional items. People do become attached and emotionally involved with brands. But the vast majority of brands just serve a purpose. Brands and consumers are not the same as a sport and its fans, and confusing them can lead to some big errors.
People in Sydney and Queensland have grown up with Rugby as their main sport. Assuming that in time that they will grow to love AFL is almost as insulting as assuming that with the same investment, the NRL could slowly convince us to love Rugby more than Aussie Rules. The AFL really has no solid precedent to support its investment in new territories. The Swans, after years of investment and pain, had their most successful period in the last 5 years. They still couldn’t draw more than 20,000 to a home final. Brisbane lost more than 2 million last year and their membership was similar to Melbourne’s in 2008. They just emerged from a period of unprecedented post-VFL success (on field). It is reasonable to suggest that investing in a football loyal state may be a better option than the high-risk investments in hostile territories.
Many forever-stepped-upon Tasmanians agree, and with all the talk of new AFL licenses around, Tasmania has put together a compelling case for consideration. Sadly, consideration is all they will ever get. The league will most likely never extend to more than 18 teams. A further two teams will already devalue the standard of the game. When the new Sydney team and Gold Coast team join the league, the only chance of Tasmania getting a team is to usurp a Melbourne team. (Relocate is a dirty word). The Tasmanian market is simply not lucrative enough to invest in. The population of the state is just 500, 000 and the team would have to play games in both cities. Attendances for Launceston games would need to grow considerably. That is not to mention the public relations battle the AFL would face. Most Victorians are probably quite supportive of the Tasmanian bid. Every Victorian club has had a legend from Tasmania, and at least a team there would be supported by genuine footy supporters. But a relocation would surely galvanise the Melbourne football public. Such hostility was shown by North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca. The Roos and their members, like Melbourne members, have had just about enough of ‘footy supporters’ insisting on their clubs inevitable extinction. So when an ANZ banker (insert ‘w’ where appropriate) proposed that for a Tassie team to join either Melbourne or North would have to die Arocca took umbrage. Said banker forgot that North had 6 million lying in his bank. Promptly withdrawn.
North has already fought some tough battles, and after beating off the Gold Coast relocation they will be in Melbourne for a while yet. So will the Dees. For all the talk of teams moving one must remember that a lot of Melbourne clubs have fought the AFL to the death and won. Footscray, Richmond, StKilda, Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Melbourne (thanks Don Scott). Perhaps the AFL, sitting in piles of money, needs to join the dots. Most of its wealth comes from television. Television is watched by obsessed fans, not consumers. And those fans love a game produced by the clubs. Some socialist thinkers may argue that some, if not most, of the fortune in the AFL coffers rightfully belongs to the clubs. But builders of empires rarely think of their loyal subjects. It’s not likely the AFL will start now.
Plans of national domination are first priority on the AFL agenda. The Sydney and Gold Coast teams seem mere formalities. Though one wonders why the Gold Coast license hasn’t been granted. An 18 team competition is a matter of time. The AFL’s plan is completely understandable and maybe necessary. The way they execute it needs to be examined. Australia is definitely a competitive sporting market and if the league wants to one day be the most popular sport all around the country it needs to start its investment now. But it is terms like market and investment that lead people to talk about the AFL like it is purely a business entity. It is clearly not.
People love to mention the term brand in reference to our game. Fans are consumers. Buying a product. One day the term club, conjuring up ideals of community and friendship, may be replaced by that dreaded American word franchise. Plenty of wealthy brands have entered hostile markets and succeeded. But the word brand connotes an item that is sold to people for their use. Something that they buy as a requirement or as a luxury. Sure, certain brands go beyond mere use and become emotional items. People do become attached and emotionally involved with brands. But the vast majority of brands just serve a purpose. Brands and consumers are not the same as a sport and its fans, and confusing them can lead to some big errors.
People in Sydney and Queensland have grown up with Rugby as their main sport. Assuming that in time that they will grow to love AFL is almost as insulting as assuming that with the same investment, the NRL could slowly convince us to love Rugby more than Aussie Rules. The AFL really has no solid precedent to support its investment in new territories. The Swans, after years of investment and pain, had their most successful period in the last 5 years. They still couldn’t draw more than 20,000 to a home final. Brisbane lost more than 2 million last year and their membership was similar to Melbourne’s in 2008. They just emerged from a period of unprecedented post-VFL success (on field). It is reasonable to suggest that investing in a football loyal state may be a better option than the high-risk investments in hostile territories.
Many forever-stepped-upon Tasmanians agree, and with all the talk of new AFL licenses around, Tasmania has put together a compelling case for consideration. Sadly, consideration is all they will ever get. The league will most likely never extend to more than 18 teams. A further two teams will already devalue the standard of the game. When the new Sydney team and Gold Coast team join the league, the only chance of Tasmania getting a team is to usurp a Melbourne team. (Relocate is a dirty word). The Tasmanian market is simply not lucrative enough to invest in. The population of the state is just 500, 000 and the team would have to play games in both cities. Attendances for Launceston games would need to grow considerably. That is not to mention the public relations battle the AFL would face. Most Victorians are probably quite supportive of the Tasmanian bid. Every Victorian club has had a legend from Tasmania, and at least a team there would be supported by genuine footy supporters. But a relocation would surely galvanise the Melbourne football public. Such hostility was shown by North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca. The Roos and their members, like Melbourne members, have had just about enough of ‘footy supporters’ insisting on their clubs inevitable extinction. So when an ANZ banker (insert ‘w’ where appropriate) proposed that for a Tassie team to join either Melbourne or North would have to die Arocca took umbrage. Said banker forgot that North had 6 million lying in his bank. Promptly withdrawn.
North has already fought some tough battles, and after beating off the Gold Coast relocation they will be in Melbourne for a while yet. So will the Dees. For all the talk of teams moving one must remember that a lot of Melbourne clubs have fought the AFL to the death and won. Footscray, Richmond, StKilda, Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Melbourne (thanks Don Scott). Perhaps the AFL, sitting in piles of money, needs to join the dots. Most of its wealth comes from television. Television is watched by obsessed fans, not consumers. And those fans love a game produced by the clubs. Some socialist thinkers may argue that some, if not most, of the fortune in the AFL coffers rightfully belongs to the clubs. But builders of empires rarely think of their loyal subjects. It’s not likely the AFL will start now.
Friday, February 13, 2009
O'Hailpin - the luck of the Irish.
'The AFL tribunal is a complete disgrace'
One of the aims of this blog is to present a rational, thoughtful reaction to the current issues surrounding AFL football. Something in contrast to some of the disposable opinion pieces that are regularly published in our daily sports pages. No sensationalism. No ridiculous, fanciful, provocative statements. No controversy. (And with my reader base, believe me, I cold stir up some controversy). With these core values (decided by my 'leadership group') in mind I have made the above statement.
Let's give the tribunal a clean slate. I can forget about the past. Its first serious decision this year was to give Setanta O'Hailpin five weeks. This got reduced to four because he admitted it (hahaha), then the tribunal in its unpreparedness and stupidity said he could serve it during the Panasonic cup. Even though four hundred preseason games are not worth one real game. They probably knew Setanta wouldn't be playing many regular season games anyway. The footage of the incident is damning to say the least. Setanta belted his own teammate and then kicked him while he was on the ground, defenceless. Mike Sheahan suggested he would get 12. How, in 2009, can a player get just four games (pointless ansett cup games) for doing this?
The glorious AFL is a highly political institution, driven by an insatiable public and media. February is the feel good time of the year. Every player has done their first ever pre-season. (Those that are still injured have been exiled and banned from media contact). Every club has a full list ready to play for the first time in a decade. Membership levels are at record highs. And before the real games begin, the commentators,for some reason, are happy to fill the sports pages with feel good stories of football players and coaches finding goodness in the football community. See human interest stories on Dean Laidley, Alan Didak, David Zaharakis, Shaun Higgins, Jarrod Harbrow, and every player at Richmond (their PR man is good).
All very lucky for O'Hailpin. He is a fringe player at best. Some suggested Carlton take this opportunity to delist him. Others suggested delisting him would be 'hanging him out to dry', as Carlton had recruited him from Ireland and owed him something. They have paid him enough I'm sure. What Carlton choose to do with O'Hailpin is their business. But the tribunal does have a responsibility to enforce the rules and punish players suitably for breaking the rules. The tribunal does, in my mind, have a responsibility to be consistent. The biggest problem it has had for so many years is a blatant lack of consistency from week to week. If the tribunal did work on the core value of consistency (I don't have a nobel prize so I don't understand the points system) then the O'Hailpin judgment is a joke. As the season goes by, can all reported players point to this precedent of extreme leniency and escape with light penalties? Could it lead to a new era of AFL violence??? (You wish...) No. Because the AFL tribunal pays no heed to precedent. It has no interest in consistency. The tribunals judgments are decided by a points system that comes up with decisions that are completely random and sometimes quite ridiculous. And that is a rational appraisal.
PS... I ordinarily refrain from representing Collingwood's interests in any way, but one only needs to look at the penalty Nick Maxwell got for his good old fashioned hip and shoulder to agree with the sentiments above.
One of the aims of this blog is to present a rational, thoughtful reaction to the current issues surrounding AFL football. Something in contrast to some of the disposable opinion pieces that are regularly published in our daily sports pages. No sensationalism. No ridiculous, fanciful, provocative statements. No controversy. (And with my reader base, believe me, I cold stir up some controversy). With these core values (decided by my 'leadership group') in mind I have made the above statement.
Let's give the tribunal a clean slate. I can forget about the past. Its first serious decision this year was to give Setanta O'Hailpin five weeks. This got reduced to four because he admitted it (hahaha), then the tribunal in its unpreparedness and stupidity said he could serve it during the Panasonic cup. Even though four hundred preseason games are not worth one real game. They probably knew Setanta wouldn't be playing many regular season games anyway. The footage of the incident is damning to say the least. Setanta belted his own teammate and then kicked him while he was on the ground, defenceless. Mike Sheahan suggested he would get 12. How, in 2009, can a player get just four games (pointless ansett cup games) for doing this?
The glorious AFL is a highly political institution, driven by an insatiable public and media. February is the feel good time of the year. Every player has done their first ever pre-season. (Those that are still injured have been exiled and banned from media contact). Every club has a full list ready to play for the first time in a decade. Membership levels are at record highs. And before the real games begin, the commentators,for some reason, are happy to fill the sports pages with feel good stories of football players and coaches finding goodness in the football community. See human interest stories on Dean Laidley, Alan Didak, David Zaharakis, Shaun Higgins, Jarrod Harbrow, and every player at Richmond (their PR man is good).
All very lucky for O'Hailpin. He is a fringe player at best. Some suggested Carlton take this opportunity to delist him. Others suggested delisting him would be 'hanging him out to dry', as Carlton had recruited him from Ireland and owed him something. They have paid him enough I'm sure. What Carlton choose to do with O'Hailpin is their business. But the tribunal does have a responsibility to enforce the rules and punish players suitably for breaking the rules. The tribunal does, in my mind, have a responsibility to be consistent. The biggest problem it has had for so many years is a blatant lack of consistency from week to week. If the tribunal did work on the core value of consistency (I don't have a nobel prize so I don't understand the points system) then the O'Hailpin judgment is a joke. As the season goes by, can all reported players point to this precedent of extreme leniency and escape with light penalties? Could it lead to a new era of AFL violence??? (You wish...) No. Because the AFL tribunal pays no heed to precedent. It has no interest in consistency. The tribunals judgments are decided by a points system that comes up with decisions that are completely random and sometimes quite ridiculous. And that is a rational appraisal.
PS... I ordinarily refrain from representing Collingwood's interests in any way, but one only needs to look at the penalty Nick Maxwell got for his good old fashioned hip and shoulder to agree with the sentiments above.
Friday, February 6, 2009
If it's not broken...
After years of talking absolute rubbish, rent-a-quote Jason Akermanis has said something really logical. And all is now forgiven. Because someone needs to stop the AFL rule-changing machine, and we all know that once the season starts players and coaches will be gagged and bound if they mention anything negative about the Communist party. Oops... I mean the AFL. Akermanis, in a strangely thoughtful and non-controversial manner, has joined Rodney Eade in questioning the need for another new rule. (At least it's not a new 'interpretation')
"I don't understand why there is continually knee-jerk reactions to lots of stuff in the game today. Our game doesn't need to keep changing."
Nearly every person who enjoys football is thinking the exact same thing. Does anyone hear Geelong supporters complaining about Hawthorn rushing too many behinds in last years Grand Final? Is that why they lost the flag? If the game had have been closer, and Hawthorn had lost, then the behind rushing tactic would already have met its end.
Being a defender is hard enough these days with the push in the back interpretation. Giving away a free kick/goal for a rushed behind is much too harsh a punishment. Even worse, if the rule was to become permanent, we would introduce more umpire interpretation into the game (the LAST thing we need) where umpires would need to adjudicate on if a player 'rushed' a behind or not. Defenders would need to practice 'accidentally' rushing a behind in the same farcical way that players deliberately/accidentally lead the ball out of bounds. If the AFL's aim is to create controversy, confuse players and frustrate the public, then it should introduce the rule into the real season. Otherwise, leave it in the Ansett Cup with the nine pointer.
Finally, it could be argued that the rule changers created their own problem a few years ago when they allowed players to take the kick out immediately after a behind. This meant that teams that score the behind have no time to set up a zone or a tactic to hold in the kick out (any junior footballer knows that man-on-man led to the huddle which forced the creation of the now redundant zone). So a defender can happily rush a behind then kick out straight away. If there isn't an immediate option the defender can take their time to find one. Previously, when the full back (ah...designated kicker)had to wait for the goal umpires flag, a rushed behind was not nearly as attractive as it is today.
Which just goes to show that messing with the beautiful equilibrium of AFL rules is a dangerous practice. One that the AFL should refrain from.
PS. If you look back to a post in 2007 you can see Paul Roos first reaction to the push in the back rule. Interesting.
"I don't understand why there is continually knee-jerk reactions to lots of stuff in the game today. Our game doesn't need to keep changing."
Nearly every person who enjoys football is thinking the exact same thing. Does anyone hear Geelong supporters complaining about Hawthorn rushing too many behinds in last years Grand Final? Is that why they lost the flag? If the game had have been closer, and Hawthorn had lost, then the behind rushing tactic would already have met its end.
Being a defender is hard enough these days with the push in the back interpretation. Giving away a free kick/goal for a rushed behind is much too harsh a punishment. Even worse, if the rule was to become permanent, we would introduce more umpire interpretation into the game (the LAST thing we need) where umpires would need to adjudicate on if a player 'rushed' a behind or not. Defenders would need to practice 'accidentally' rushing a behind in the same farcical way that players deliberately/accidentally lead the ball out of bounds. If the AFL's aim is to create controversy, confuse players and frustrate the public, then it should introduce the rule into the real season. Otherwise, leave it in the Ansett Cup with the nine pointer.
Finally, it could be argued that the rule changers created their own problem a few years ago when they allowed players to take the kick out immediately after a behind. This meant that teams that score the behind have no time to set up a zone or a tactic to hold in the kick out (any junior footballer knows that man-on-man led to the huddle which forced the creation of the now redundant zone). So a defender can happily rush a behind then kick out straight away. If there isn't an immediate option the defender can take their time to find one. Previously, when the full back (ah...designated kicker)had to wait for the goal umpires flag, a rushed behind was not nearly as attractive as it is today.
Which just goes to show that messing with the beautiful equilibrium of AFL rules is a dangerous practice. One that the AFL should refrain from.
PS. If you look back to a post in 2007 you can see Paul Roos first reaction to the push in the back rule. Interesting.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Prizemoney Debate. The Final Word
The prizemoney debate is quite confusing, and Baum's article provides some very good arguments for women receiving equal prizemoney. The debate is irrelevant. Simply because after years of campaigning for equal prizemoney, upon receiving it, there is no way that women's tennis would even contemplate going back to receiving less prizemoney.
But after the Williams-Safina debacle of 59 minutes, debate we will. The epic 5 setter between Nadal and Federer one day later added weight to arguments that women don't deserve equal cash.
Baum points out that sportspeople, and entertainers in general, are not payed by the hour. Excellent point. Although sportspeople are not payed by the hour, it is reasonable to argue that the revenue that they generate (ticket sales, advertising, sponsorship, merchandise etc) which leads to and justifies their monstrous pay packets, is calculated in a more conventional way. Advertisers pay to have their product shown during a match. Sponsors pay to have their product associated with a spectactle. Members of the public pay to watch a game. So if one were to look at the prizemoney debate in a different way, they could argue that women's games generate less revenue for the tournament and so, women should be payed less. But is this true?
If, for example, an advertising spot for the women's final is cheaper than a spot for the men's final, then this is evidence. Keep in mind that men's games go for much longer so can generate much more advertising money for the tournament. If ticket demand is lower for the women's matches than the men's matches and the prices are subsequently lower, then this is evidence. Statistics like these are more compelling than the simple argument that women play for less time and so deserve less money.
But that argument, 3 verses 5 sets, also deserves attention. Don't male players have the right to complain? Why are they required to play longer? They put more energy, time and quite possible training, into winning games. They risk more injury and maybe their careers are cut short by the demands of 5 set battles. And they get the same pay as other sportspeople who play for less time, who spend less energy, and whose careers can possibly last longer (and allow them to earn more money). In many industries this would be considered unfair.
Perhaps the only way to really establish which sex generates more money would be to hold the tournament completely seperately. Like in Golf. That way we could see the revenue generated and award the prizemoney accordingly. This, obviously is also an impossibility.
So the debate is pointless. But here is my final word. Sexism and statistics aside, the common tennis fan wants to see great games. Not long games, but great games. Epic rivalries. Tension. Stirring comebacks and players showing heart. Competition, courage, stories... In this respect the women are not delivering. They are delivering a product and the product is poor. The men's product is better and so male tennis players could legitimately argue that they deserve a greater cut of the revenue.
But after the Williams-Safina debacle of 59 minutes, debate we will. The epic 5 setter between Nadal and Federer one day later added weight to arguments that women don't deserve equal cash.
Baum points out that sportspeople, and entertainers in general, are not payed by the hour. Excellent point. Although sportspeople are not payed by the hour, it is reasonable to argue that the revenue that they generate (ticket sales, advertising, sponsorship, merchandise etc) which leads to and justifies their monstrous pay packets, is calculated in a more conventional way. Advertisers pay to have their product shown during a match. Sponsors pay to have their product associated with a spectactle. Members of the public pay to watch a game. So if one were to look at the prizemoney debate in a different way, they could argue that women's games generate less revenue for the tournament and so, women should be payed less. But is this true?
If, for example, an advertising spot for the women's final is cheaper than a spot for the men's final, then this is evidence. Keep in mind that men's games go for much longer so can generate much more advertising money for the tournament. If ticket demand is lower for the women's matches than the men's matches and the prices are subsequently lower, then this is evidence. Statistics like these are more compelling than the simple argument that women play for less time and so deserve less money.
But that argument, 3 verses 5 sets, also deserves attention. Don't male players have the right to complain? Why are they required to play longer? They put more energy, time and quite possible training, into winning games. They risk more injury and maybe their careers are cut short by the demands of 5 set battles. And they get the same pay as other sportspeople who play for less time, who spend less energy, and whose careers can possibly last longer (and allow them to earn more money). In many industries this would be considered unfair.
Perhaps the only way to really establish which sex generates more money would be to hold the tournament completely seperately. Like in Golf. That way we could see the revenue generated and award the prizemoney accordingly. This, obviously is also an impossibility.
So the debate is pointless. But here is my final word. Sexism and statistics aside, the common tennis fan wants to see great games. Not long games, but great games. Epic rivalries. Tension. Stirring comebacks and players showing heart. Competition, courage, stories... In this respect the women are not delivering. They are delivering a product and the product is poor. The men's product is better and so male tennis players could legitimately argue that they deserve a greater cut of the revenue.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Australian Public
"It just shows you what the Australian public is like. They're very forgiving, and very, very understanding, very embracing of people who've had hardships. We're still that country of battlers, even though we're very wealthy compared to the rest of the world in a lot of ways. She's a battler and you're proud if you're Australian to see something like that. It's pretty emotional stuff, I think."
This is Peter McNamara’s brave description of the Australian public regarding Jelena Dokic. In some ways it’s quite an accurate assessment. We are forgiving. If a sportsman makes a mistake, professionally or personally, he or she can expect forgiveness. It just takes a while. First comes speculation. Gossip, hearsay and cruel media lies. The giddy excitement of seeing a hero fall suddenly from grace.
Then comes judgment. Media commentators and the ‘public’ fight valiantly to preserve Australian morality. Sportspeople are role models after all, and so their every action is public property. Remember that for a time Dokic was Australian tennis’ anti-hero. A greedy villain who used millions of our tax dollars for junior development (she was a battler too) only to take her talents and betray us. Oh, and then comes forgiveness.
Most of all, the ‘public’ just has a short memory. Those rejoicing in this great Aussie success story were probably the same rabid fans that stood in cruel judgment of Jelena a few years ago. Perhaps we, the public, shouldn't be so self satisfied with our forgiving and open minded attitude. Perhaps we should just be happy that those stars that we have forgiven forgive us.
This is Peter McNamara’s brave description of the Australian public regarding Jelena Dokic. In some ways it’s quite an accurate assessment. We are forgiving. If a sportsman makes a mistake, professionally or personally, he or she can expect forgiveness. It just takes a while. First comes speculation. Gossip, hearsay and cruel media lies. The giddy excitement of seeing a hero fall suddenly from grace.
Then comes judgment. Media commentators and the ‘public’ fight valiantly to preserve Australian morality. Sportspeople are role models after all, and so their every action is public property. Remember that for a time Dokic was Australian tennis’ anti-hero. A greedy villain who used millions of our tax dollars for junior development (she was a battler too) only to take her talents and betray us. Oh, and then comes forgiveness.
Most of all, the ‘public’ just has a short memory. Those rejoicing in this great Aussie success story were probably the same rabid fans that stood in cruel judgment of Jelena a few years ago. Perhaps we, the public, shouldn't be so self satisfied with our forgiving and open minded attitude. Perhaps we should just be happy that those stars that we have forgiven forgive us.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
While I am bagging Richmond...
Can you imagine the tiges going into the mid season break at 9 and 2? Punt Road is pumping and way beyond talking finals the tiger faithful are seriously considering premierships. Tickets to the massive top of the ladder clash against Hawthorn are already sold out, Chris Newman is unbackable Brownlow favourite and Terry is the new Mao Zedong (except his 5 year plan worked...). Oh and Cuz has been getting a kick too.
They finished 9 and 2 last season so if Richmond can carry that momentum into 2009 why not dream of premierships? Do teams really carry momentum from one season to the next? In 2007 Port Adelaide also won 9 out of 11 regular season games. They then made the GF (and got murdered)and had a young team and considerable momentum. In 2008 they were 3-5 by round 8 and 4-7 buy Round 11. Their season was a disaster. In 2006 Fremantle also finished 9 and 2 in the normal season and won their first ever final and made the prelim. Surely grounds for a fiery start to 2007. They were 2-4 by round 6. On the other hand, in 2006 Brisbane lost their last 6 games. In 2007 they won 4 of their first 6. The point??? Carrying momentum from one game to the next is difficult enough. Carrying it for 6 gameless months....Impossible. But love the optimism.
They finished 9 and 2 last season so if Richmond can carry that momentum into 2009 why not dream of premierships? Do teams really carry momentum from one season to the next? In 2007 Port Adelaide also won 9 out of 11 regular season games. They then made the GF (and got murdered)and had a young team and considerable momentum. In 2008 they were 3-5 by round 8 and 4-7 buy Round 11. Their season was a disaster. In 2006 Fremantle also finished 9 and 2 in the normal season and won their first ever final and made the prelim. Surely grounds for a fiery start to 2007. They were 2-4 by round 6. On the other hand, in 2006 Brisbane lost their last 6 games. In 2007 they won 4 of their first 6. The point??? Carrying momentum from one game to the next is difficult enough. Carrying it for 6 gameless months....Impossible. But love the optimism.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Is Mark Coughlan the resident Einstein down at Tigerland?
Stand by for the human interest stories that accompany the return of Mark Coughlan to the AFL. You know the ones about the 'different' afl footballers who read, write poetry, listen to alternative music (jet...) and fight for human rights.
"Premierships are worth their weight in gold" says Coughlan.
Hmmmm.... Firstly, a premiership is not tangible item, so it cannot be weighed, as far as I know (though a premiership cup is...). And even if he meant the cup, it would have to be a very heavy cup. Otherwise I think a premiership would
raise much more money for the club than the weight of the premiership
cup in gold. After 17 years out of the game (that shower slip was costly), I thought Coggs would have studied up on some semi-logical answers to media questions.
Oh... Actually he has.
"I know it's only January, but we were the second or third best-performed side in the second half of last year and if we can take that into the first half of this year, we'll have every chance of playing finals"
It's January...nothing means anything.....
Richmond were indeed the second best performed side during the second half of last season, behind only Geelong. But after numerous 9th place finishes Coggs must know that finishing well one season means absolutely ....... come round 1 the year after.
"I haven't played finals in 8 years."
May as well go down to Ballarat and mine for it...
"Premierships are worth their weight in gold" says Coughlan.
Hmmmm.... Firstly, a premiership is not tangible item, so it cannot be weighed, as far as I know (though a premiership cup is...). And even if he meant the cup, it would have to be a very heavy cup. Otherwise I think a premiership would
raise much more money for the club than the weight of the premiership
cup in gold. After 17 years out of the game (that shower slip was costly), I thought Coggs would have studied up on some semi-logical answers to media questions.
Oh... Actually he has.
"I know it's only January, but we were the second or third best-performed side in the second half of last year and if we can take that into the first half of this year, we'll have every chance of playing finals"
It's January...nothing means anything.....
Richmond were indeed the second best performed side during the second half of last season, behind only Geelong. But after numerous 9th place finishes Coggs must know that finishing well one season means absolutely ....... come round 1 the year after.
"I haven't played finals in 8 years."
May as well go down to Ballarat and mine for it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)