Change the Father-Son rule

There great red sandy plains are rumbling.  It appears Melbourne Football Club will have to use the 3rd overall selection in this year's AFL draft to select Jack Viney, the son of former captain Todd.

Viney, courtesy: The Age

Before 2007, the promising sons of former club greats were available pre-draft to their father's club at the cost of that club's third-round selection.  That system changed to a "bid" system in 2007, where, should another club guarantees Viney selection in a certain round - say, the first - then the Demons have to match that offer and select the player with their own pick in the same round.  Melbourne has the third pick in this year's draft - meaning if another club values Jack Viney as a first-rounder, the Demons have to pick him third or lose him.

The "bid" system was implemented in response to Geelong adding Tom Hawkins via the old rule.  The power forward would almost certainly have been drafted first overall and arrived at a club already boasting Father-Son picks Gary Ablett Jr, Nathan Ablett, Matthew Scarlett and Mark Blake.  The Cats - who had decided consciously to re-embrace their past and locality -  were seen to be favoured so much that the rule was changed (never mind that the Abletts would have been third-round picks at best, while Scarlett and Blake probably wouldn't have been drafted if not their connexion to the Cats)*.

The Cats were rewarded for embracing their history.  Alongside the five listed above, they have also selected the sons of Andrew Bews, Terry Callan, Michael Woolnough, Garry Fletcher and Larry Donohue.  Of those five, four were busts and Bews is far from the final product.

Gary Ablett Jr, courtesy Wikipedia

The old rule was shouted down when some clubs got jealous - and with ample justification.  Adelaide is yet to select a Father-Son player in twenty-plus years of drafting, while Fremantle has only Brett Peake from seventeen.  A standard system, still at a significant cost - say, the old third-round pick - is fair, just as long as interstate clubs are able to participate as well.  However, drawing players from the SANFL and WAFL is more complex - nobody wants another Bryce Gibbs fiasco.  Perhaps an adequate compromise could be a total of games (200?) in which they play the majority (135-150?) with one of one "feeder" clubs.

The current rule places all the advantage in the hands of opposing teams, rather than the team who should benefit from their past.  At best, a bidding team gets a draft pick at market value.  At worst, they force the "parent" club into the contrived position of potentially mortgaging a part of their future against their past greats - a tricky situation.  The only sons now selected are generally "can't miss" prospects like Mitch Wallis, Joe Daniher and Jack Viney.  Without the Father-Son rule in 1997, the Cats wouldn't have unearthed the greatest full-back in history**.

The league shouldn't penalise clubs for drafting family.  It runs opposite to the family atmosphere the AFL has so successfully created.  History should be celebrated, rather than becoming a burden - it's great that the Western Bulldogs Footscray fans can see Liberatore and Wallace combine again, while the sight of Scarlett to Bews to Little Gary to Hawkins is a great callback to the free-flowing Cats of the1980s.

It isn't a retrograde step to look back fondly on history.  Embracing one's past is a concept that underlies a healthy collective - so it's time for the AFL to allow clubs to do so without penalty.

* You got me, I'm a Geelong supporter - but have felt this way since the rule was changed.
** Yes, I'm biased, but if you want I can give you a dozen reasons why.

Newsflash: Joel Selwood is not perfect. Just very close.

As far as youthful members of the AFL's elite, there are few who compare with Geelong's favourite son, Joel Selwood. Since his debut during that magical 2007 season, he's gone from the anointed "potential captain" to "talisman" to now a probable second to Cameron Ling in the Sleepy Hollow leadership. A popular early-season pick for the Brownlow Medal, his game has grown at nearly the same rate as his physique. From his first matches, he was one of the AFL's better midfielders and in 2008 he represented Victoria in the All-Star State of Origin match, high honours for a kid of 20.

Now his performance takes on more importance in a Cat midfield shorn of their 2007 pace and devoid of any Abletts. He and Jimmy Bartel are the key to the Geelong midfield, the jewels in their hooped crown. But there's a weakness becoming ever more apparent in his armour: Joel Selwood has the yips.

Not in a Josh Kennedy, Cam Mooney or even Rod "Tilt" Carter kind of way - Joel Selwood just can't seem to get the ball on target when shooting for goal. Remove the big white sticks and he's fine, posesssing the pinpoint delivery required for an elite player. But get him inside the forward fifty and his toughness suddenly doesn't cover scoring shots - he's booted 3.7 this year. And unfortunately for him, several of those behinds have been (relatively) easy misses. Never a goalscorer of note - at least, not since before his Bendigo Pioneer days - he has a total of 36 goals over the 101 games of his wonderful career.

This, in itself, isn't the worst thing in the world - there are very few perfect players, or even players without a weakness. Carey's flaws were his dicky shoulders and occasional dose of white-line fever, Ablett Sr was held back by his debatable off-field work ethic and a strange manner of thinking. Brendan Fevola's weakness is obviously the big squishy thing between his ears, Joel Selwood's fatal (only?) flaw is his scoring accuracy. Unlike running mate Bartel, Selwood has a 30-goal-a-season gap in his arsenal. (Ed: You don't know how much it hurts Matt to write this).

Why harp on such a star? Because with their newfound flair for the close result, Joel Selwood's inaccuracy could end up hurting the Cats. Several times throughout the season he's had the chance to convert on the run from 35-40 metres away and failed. Often those shots have been under only mild pressure.

It could be he doesn't slow his momentum enough before setting himself for the kick or even just that he freezes. I'm sure there are myriad other reasons he could be inaccurate that someone more technically-minded could answer, but the Cats' young leader needs to get this right or else his leadership in inaccuracy could cost Geelong a win or two at crucial times.

Teams look to their leaders for guidance. While no-one ever misses a goal on purpose, a good leader has the ability to inspire their teammates through their play, tacitly demanding accountability. While Selwood's play all over the park does this, his shooting for goal does not. The Cats have played six of their eight matches against teams currently in the eight and won by one, two, three, eleven, nineteen and twenty-one points. Each match swung in the balance for some time. One day, probably soon, Joel Selwood - possibly the third or fourth-best midfielder in the league - will step up to shoot for goal with the Cats needing him to score.

When that day comes, Chris Scott hopes he's over his yips.

Image courtesy: en.wikipedia.org

Finally the AFL season can start

This offseason has probably been the most dramatic in recent AFL history. And, not a moment too soon, the break ends tonight as Carlton take on Richmond at the MCG. Thank goodness - because as car-crashingly enthralling as reading about the "St Kilda Schoolgirl" and her ... err ... exploits has been, it will be blessed and welcome relief to jam match coverage in amongst the tabloid-style back pages to which we've become so accustomed.

The offseason of 2010-11 for the AFL really started over twelve months ago when it became apparent that "Little Gary" would not sign a contract extension with Geelong, meaning he would effectively become a restricted free agent at the end of season 2010. Since then, AFL off-field shenanigans have included (in no particular order) Mark Thompson's lie-induced burnout; Ablett's inevitable re-enactment of the LeBron James masterpiece "Leaving Cleveland"; Brendan Fevola's self-destruction; Nick Riewoldt's wang; Zac Dawson's disco biscuits; the creation of a new franchise; a Collingwood premiership and subsequent uprising of the Magpie army; the gutting of the National Rugby League as Israel Folau and Greg Inglis changed (or threatened to change) codes; James Hird's Second Coming as Essendon coach; further rumours about stars leaving their clubs for what amounts to GWS slush-funds; Ricky Nixon's precipitous fall from grace and finally, thankfully, nothing at all about Port Adelaide or Fremantle.

Andrew Demetriou must surely be relieved that Melbourne, a town notorious for it's blanket coverage of AFL-related issues, will finally have actual deliverable content to space out the negative headlines. Aside from the form of Ricky Ponting - and how many words can you print daily on that? - the scarcity of sport worth speaking about has left Melbourne newspapers with little else on which to speculate throughout the Summer. Had the ignoble misadventures of Ricky Nixon, Sam Gilbert, Fevola and the horribly overpromoted Melbourne schoolgirl occurred in the Summer of 2007 amidst a 5 - 0 Ashes victory, the Melbourne Victory's phenomenal second season and the retirements of Warne, Langer, Martyn and McGrath, the AFL's offseason of new frontiers may well have garnered only a fraction of the attention it did this year.

The spotlight thrown on this off-field malarkey was only intensified by Australia's performance in The Ashes and waning public interest in cricket. As most sport becomes fully and painfully professional, they lose much of the larrikinism and fun which attracted the mug punter to them in the first place. Faced with the choice between a team full of bullies, pouters and bores or following the World Game (with very little television coverage), Joe Public decided it was best simply to re-invest in the coming Aussie Rules season. The league revelled in the exposure, initially falling victim to the old adage that any publicity is good publicity. This theory was recently discounted somewhat in The Economist; the AFL was only to learn how wrong that statement can be in February as first Brendan Fevola, then Ricky Nixon committed professional seppuku.

The AFL plays the politics of sports much better than any other code in Australia. No other competition in the nation felt obliged to have its say on the bidding process save the AFL, yet Demetriou managed to sound both condescending and patronising to football's governing body all at once. The failed FFA bid for the 2022 football World Cup meant only more airtime and column inches. The League invited - and loved - the attention, yet as the summer wore on it became obvious that those at League headquarters couldn't wait for the season to begin. The stream of life malapropisms committed by AFL brethren had made life in the public eye nigh-on unbearable. What were once a player's endearing foibles now appear glaring character weaknesses. Football's never been played by saints - but now media coverage and the blogosphere mean for better coverage. What was once left uncovered rarely remains so now.

Finally, the season is upon us. Now perhaps we can get around to covering what really matters: the game itself.

"Bomber" Thompson's strange rhetoric

Mark Thompson is unrepentant as to the manner in which he left Geelong in October. No surprises there. In fact, in today's Age he actually came off sounding as if he was the one who was wronged in the messy marriage-breakup that was his exit from the Cattery.

His quotes in that newspaper are telling as words like "I can look myself in the mirror and just say I'm happy with everything that I've done" and "I gave anything I could possibly give. I walked away from a very lucrative contract" give an insight into his mindset: mildly hurt and surprised by the furore his decision has generated. But what he fails to realise is that by defending himself in this manner, he can only further infuriate the Cats supporters who saw his last season derailed by the constant circus surrounding Gary Ablett's possible move to the Gold Coast. Ablett eventually walked and so did Thompson. It's probable the Geelong faithful will wish the Brownlow Medallist more good favour than their former coach. It's also likely that Li'l Gary's departure will be seen as a much lesser act of disloyalty.

Because make no bones about it, Thompson tried to curry favour with both board and public in order to rid himself of his obligation to Geelong and re-join his former club Essendon. By claiming burn out, he didn't lie but withheld portions of the truth so as to reflect more sympathetically. He's re-stated his lack of desire to continue as a senior coach and thus feels justified, but by claiming ill-health - which is what burn-out equates to - only to re-surface a mere month later at another club makes him look economical with the truth.

There's little doubt that "Bomber" was burnt out. Indeed, in his interview yesterday he looked very well, rested and much healthier than he did during almost all of his stint at Kardinia Park. This can only back up his side of the story but from the outside it looks very much as if Thompson's head was turned toward Bomberland by all that he sought: less stress, re-uniting with a former club and a new challenge. When he realised the grass was greener back in Melbourne, it was down to him to engineer an excuse for leaving.

It's often said that some coaches are re-building masters and others don't have the stomach for that aspect of the job. Thompson had been the coach at Geelong for a decade and the reconstruction of that Cats side from afterthought to Premiers took the best part of those ten years by which time he was facing another remodelling. The fact that many of his best players are approaching retirement meant a bevy of personnel decisions and probable rebuilding from scratch. To be blunt, he just wasn't up for it.

Perhaps ten years of intense scrutiny in the fishbowl of Corio Bay took it's toll. Most tellingly of all, Thompson yesterday said "Being a senior coach, you just get criticised very heavily a lot of the times in your life and you almost become immune to it and that’s where I’m at" before continuing to say "I don’t have a problem with Geelong at all. If they have (with me) it's their problem. I gave anything I could possibly give. I walked away from a very lucrative contract ...".

Therein lies the problem: Thompson feels no remorse because he's been pilloried so heavily over the years that his response is one of a learned behaviour: go with his instincts and stick to any decision he makes. The criticism has given him such a thick skin that even he struggles to see through it. Thompson is happy with everything that he's done only because he's been desensitised by the scrutiny he's endured, even to the point of refusing to examine his decision-making process.

Were he to look at his departure objectively then perhaps he would think he owed Geelong hierarchy the complete truth. Of course that's unlikely.

Also irksome is his statement about "giving anything possible". Actually, it's complete rubbish. By resigning, Thompson broke his contract and as such forfeited any monies due to him. This doesn't constitute not giving up anything, only not receiving money for work which he did not complete. Giving implies he bought his way out of his contract, something which patently did not occur.

It was perhaps the most poorly kept secret in AFL football that "Bomber" would eventually take the senior assistant role at Essendon. New coach James Hird wanted him and he wanted to come. However he didn't escape the Cattery with his dignity intact. By telling half-truths to his comrades fearing the whole story would make him look bad, he has just made himself look worse. It's too bad that this ill-judgement means he will not just be remembered for two premierships and the fantastic play the Cats have delivered over the past decade. He will now, like Norm Smith, always be remembered for the way he left.

Want to know now? Tough.

Last week, Greg Baum wrote an article in the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/for-the-sake-of-all-ablett-must-reveal-any-decision-20100720-10ji5.html) saying that if Li'l Gary Ablett has agreed to join the Gold Coast Suns he should announce that decision publicly, allowing everyone – especially Ablett himself – to focus on football rather than his probable departure. Now it seems that by declaiming that football should be the focus in an article about someone potentially leaving his club, then you shoot your argument in the foot. But that aside, there's a few fatal flaws in the logic that fans are entitled to know a player's decision as soon as it's been made.

No one is implying that Ablett's made his final choice already. I fail to see how he could have given the Cats are among the favourites for the 2010 flag and a premiership could play a major role in whether he stays or goes. He may be a long way from decided, or pretty sure in himself but to cliche horribly, five weeks are a long time in footy. Let's say for argument's sake that Ablett is 50/50 on joining the Suns next year. In the next five weeks, Geelong could fall away badly as their older brigade are exploited for a perceived lack of mobility and suddenly he's 75% of the way to the Gold Coast. The Cats could steamroll everyone on their way to another premiership and before you know it, perhaps the decision is 40% in favour of the Gold Coast. Geelong has everything to lose or gain here and it's not Ablett's fault. If it's the case that Ablett still isn't 100%, and I think it is, then of course he shouldn't make a decision and he's a fool if he has.

Other players are unquestionably facing similar circumstances. West Coast ruckman Dean Cox is only 28, and has potentiall five years of high-class footy ahead of him yet finds himself in danger of being superseded and may well head out the door. Adelaide's Nathan Bock is also the subject of rumours, one of which is that he has signed already with GC17 and has garnered publicity from teh Adelaide and national media for his “distracted” performance on the weekend.

The most publicised incident of this “one foot out the door” attitude in recent times could equally go to the NBA's former poster child LeBron James for his insipid last home game in Cleveland, or to the Brazilian Robinho in the EPL, who quit on Manchester City as the English winter approached. Warmer climes and changed lifestyles had such a strong appeal that both played like they were preoccupied, and both had the results one would expect. Both ended up wearing the scorn of fans for their perceived lack of stomach, suspicions confirmed in LeBron's case with his “LeDecision” to join Dwyane Wade in Miami.

But do the paying public have a right to know immediately the results of an athlete's decision is? Of course not. It's complete bunkum to suggest that we as a public are foremost in the minds of our professional sportsmen. Athletes can say their primary concern is the fans until they're blue in the mouth, but in truth their first priority is themselves and personally, I have no truck with that. Careers are short and the demands on both the body and spirit would be tremendous. A player may be a certain starter with one coach, only to be completely disregarded by another for no good reason. Playing time can be plentiful or sparse depending on the whims and natures of their head coach.

The franchise is responsible for player remuneration, and they are charged by their fans to prioritise sustained success. Because of this, their first priority should be paying players who help them win, irrespective of statistics or reputation. If a player does not perform, then they should not be rewarded with raises, security or even a place in the squad. The club is concerned first and foremost with itself. As fans, we tend to identify with players who exemplary in one of two fields: work ethic or skill. For a team however, often fielding only players with a good work ethic isn't rewarding – the combination of talent and hard work is required so a hard worker and “good club man” is cut. So, if a club's first priority is to itself and they hold most of the trumps, why shouldn't a player's first priority be to him or herself?


We as fans tend to support teams rather than players. More and more recently we find the club is all-important and the Jason Akermanis/Western Bulldogs row illustrates this perfectly. He was viewed as allegedly putting his own interests above those of the club and put through the wringer because of it. But it's hypocritical to sack a player for the sin of self-indulgence: if the club will do what's best for it's long-term success, why should Akermanis be pilloried for attempting to ensure his own long-term success? Everyone on that Bulldogs side is looking after “Number 1”, just in a different manner to Aker, a more subtle way. (Do you expect subtlety from a man with peroxide hair and a black goatee?) Each Bulldog individually prioritises “Number 1” through the results of corporate success – the adoration, money and recognition that a winning team brings.

Each player's first loyalty is to himself, but the difference is in what shape that loyalty takes. For one guy, that could manifest as wanting more money. For others, it may be media or marketing interests, fame, recognition, new challenges, lifestyle, winning, security, his or her legacy and even plain and simple fan adoration. The athlete who values fan adoration is always going to be drawn to devoted supporter bases or large market teams. Those who value money are going to chase larger contracts. Those who want money, fame, girls, lifestyle at the expense of personal legacy go to Miami. With the publicity and coverage each decision receives, we pretty soon can open a window into the very heart of each player and deconstruct them, pigeonhole them into “Driven by money”, “Driven by lifestyle” et al. If this is the case, why wouldn't you keep your cards close to your chest? Why should someone risk teammate and fan ire, not to mention the match payments simply for coming out and saying “This summer, I'm going to take my talents to ...”

An Open letter to Gary Ablett Jr.

An Open letter to Gary Ablett Jr.

Dear Gary,

As your impending decision approaches, I would like to offer a different perspective: that of a Geelong fan living in North America. I'd also like to draw some parallels between your situation and that of a hoops star of a different breed, LeBron James, the basketballer who recently found himself in similar circumstances.

I'm sure you know of LeBron: he's arguably the best player on the planet, the runaway winner of the past two NBA MVP awards. His team, the Cleveland Cavaliers, have steamrolled through the league for the last three seasons much as the Cats have done in the AFL. Unfortunately for him tough, they've not experienced the same finals success as Geelong. Over the past year much of the media publicity surrounding the NBA has not come as a result of his or his team's performance, but because at season's end, James's contract expired and he became a free agent along with several of the best players in the league.

After an unprecedented media frenzy, LeBron's “people” scheduled a nationwide hourlong special on ESPN last Thursday where he would announce his decision. After much speculation, LeBron did as the pundits expected and chose he felt were better opportunities for the future – one with better weather - the Miami Heat. And he did it for the same money that Cleveland was offering.

I can't help but see some similarities in your respective future career choices.

As a Geelong fan, I'm obviously on tenterhooks awaiting where you'll play next year. To be honest, I couldn't fault you for going to the Gold Coast – especially for the money reportedly on offer. I can't even fault LeBron for his choice. But what I ask is that if you choose the Gold rather than Surf Coast, you don't insult your fans, your hometown, and teammates like LeBron James.

I'm not talking about choosing another city in which to continue your career. But by making his fans, teammates and club the last to know, popular opinion has swung against James so strongly that everyone now regards his ESPN special as misguided, at the very best; most agree that it was perhaps the most self-centred thing that a “team-oriented” athlete could do; some even posit that the TV special has tarnished his legacy

Most people in North America knew that LeBron was sorely tempted by Miami and it was probable he would depart Cleveland. His camp misjudged the situation however, and the hour-long special came off as self-promotion rather than explanation. The best comparison I can make was that inviting your partner onto “Jerry Springer” only to tell them you were having a baby with their sister. Sure Cleveland was upset that he'd been “unfaithful” – but the manner the news was delivered made the city want nothing to do with him ever again except boo.

If you leave, Gary, fair enough – you're completely entitled to look after yourself and your future. But if the decision is GC17, please don't tell us why. We don't have many articulate athletes and those that are get shackled by team rules and the expectation that all any player will say is “Man-Talk”: the same hackneyed cliches. We cry out for articulateness. We scream for someone who will publicly say more than “We're taking things one week at a time” or “We're excited about the prospect of playing Team X, Y or Z next week”. But this is different. This is a situation where ONLY hackneyed cliches will work.

You see, it will be seen by Geelong as a breakup. Some breakups are predestined because the parties were unsuited at the start. Other times, both parties realise it's time to go in their own directions. After two (hopefully three) premierships, a hatful of awards and recognition as one of the great teams of the modern era, perhaps you feel it's time to strike out separately.

Delivering the break-up speech, it's impossible for the “breaker” to look good by the words you choose, but you can come out looking much, much worse. After “I've decided we shouldn't see each other any more”, the “breakee” often doesn't take in a lot more due to shock. And we are, as a public, similar. Please don't let the media circus that this situation will undoubtedly generate go to your head and allow you think your motives are important to us now. In time, these factors will become completely apparent and we'll make our peace with them.

If you choose the Gold Coast it won't be a betrayal, nor should it be seen as one. But if a decision is compounded by a lack of class as LeBron's was, it seems like betrayal. We can forgive an affront, but following a breakup with an insult creates different wounds that rarely heal completely.

Choose well, Gary. We have enjoyed you for eight years, and I hope you finish your career in Geelong. The level of public interest and media coverage surrounding your decision is unprecedented in Australia. But please learn from an older, more experienced and more cynical market as you look at all your options.

Sincerely,

Matthew Wood
www.balancedsports.blogspot.com