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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)