Greater Western Sydney Giants should aim to be big, old(ish) and strong

As footy baptisms go, they don't get much harder than the one experienced by the Gold Coast this year. A first-up twenty goal loss to a Carlton side looking strictly mid-table, followed by a thirteen goal defeat to Footscray, sorry, the Western Bulldogs. On both occasions they managed only just above fifty points and, although their list management has been highly praised for their foresight and talent, yet the kids haven't been able to physically compete with the established clubs they've come up against.

This must sound alarm bells for the Greater Western Sydney project due to kick off next year. Their biggest money signing, Rugby League expat Israel Folau, has struggled to adapt to the speed of AFL so far, as has the Gold Coast's big poaching, Karmichael Hunt. "K" has a better Aussie Rules pedigree than "Izzy", having represented Queensland as a schoolboy, but questions now should be asked as to whether youth, and total youth, is the way forward for a GWS franchise which probably won't have the same luxury of time - former Swans coach Paul Roos is convinced that team success is the only way for the league thrive in Sin City.

Roos' recruitment policy reflected this for the majority of his time harbourside. Over his eight-plus year tenure, he brought in several re-treads and mature-bodied players who were able to keep his side in finals contention. Recently, names such as Josh Kennedy, Ben McGlynn, Mike Pyke, Shane Mumford, Martin Mattner and Rhyce Shaw have made themselves a home in the shadow of the Harbour Bridge alongside youngsters Dan Hanneberry, Craig Bird and local boy Kieren Jack. Success for GWS is paramount for the AFL and should they risk a totally-youth oriented recruitment program as the Suns have, then they risk losing fans and, eventually, losing credibility when public opinion suggested - with good, but not perfect reasoning - that a Tasmanian team was the better option for the AFL's eighteenth licence.

This recruitment of more mature players has thrived once again with expanded rookie lists and the success that Fremantle and Geelong have had with the likes of Michael Barlow, Alex Silvagni and James Podsiadly. This season as the top level talent went north (voluntarily or involuntarily) to join the Suns, clubs were forced to face the fact they were more likely to get a better quality recycled player than young prospect and drafted accordingly, allowing Andrew Krakouer a route back into the AFL and securing lifelines for players like Brad Miller, Mitch Hahn, Ed Barlow, Nick Lower and Robert Campbell.

In order to secure a reasonable first-season showing - and with much of this year's talent plumbed already by the Suns - the Giants will have to recruit accordingly, and mix their poached players and prospects with more hardened, experienced bodies. A quick glance around the next tier down suggests there is the quality at that level: Troy Selwood and Jaxson Barham at Geelong, Jarryd Allen at Sandringham, Bens Davies and Jolley at Williamstown, Adam Pattison at Box Hill and most notably, Brendan Fevola at Casey. Each of these players - though not superstars - is serviceable at AFL level and should serve to ensure defeats aren't as demoralising. Each also would be motivated by their last chance at AFL level, and each could be replaced by a developing youngster within three years.

By expanding to Greater Western Sydney, the AFL willingly acknowledged they were biting off a piece of the sporting pie which they weren't sure they could digest, let alone chew. To make the transition easier, it may be best to simply acknowledge that youth at all costs is a flawed strategy for starting a club. They should, because if the Giants are creamed week in, week out next season, the notoriously fickle Sydney crowds will flock to the exits and the AFL's greatest experiment since Brisbane will go down as a sure-fire failure.

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 ...”