Nick Bendel
Pride before the fall
January 29th 2010 02:22
The problem began when Robbie Fowler, upset at being excluded from Ian Ferguson’s starting line-up, elected to skip the match entirely, preferring to play with his little son in the stands than take his place on the bench. This was interpreted as a legend of the game raising a very public middle finger to his rookie boss – which, nobody should doubt, was exactly how it was intended.
That’s despite the vigorous spinning that the Fury attempted the following day. According to chairman Don Matheson, the whole thing was nothing more than an unfortunate mix-up between Ferguson and Fowler.
“I’ve spoken to them today and realise there has been a misunderstanding,” he insisted. “Ian wanted to play a particular formation and that included utilising Robbie as an impact player off the bench and Robbie believed he wasn’t part of the squad – and there has been an unfortunate outcome because of that misunderstanding.”
If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. After all, it’s very difficult for somebody to be told “Robbie, I’m dropping you to the bench”, only to hear “Robbie, rather than including you in the match-day squad, I’ve decided that you and your boy should spend some quality time together in the stands.” Yet even if, somehow, something was lost in translation, as Matheson would have people believe, there would have been ample time for Ferguson to clarify things.
So why, then, has Matheson decided to accept – at least officially – such a fairytale? The answer is that he has concluded it is in North Queensland’s best interests for everybody to pretend that nothing actually happened. In football the world over, it is commonplace for disgruntled players to rebel. Sometimes, they will storm out of the stadium if substituted early; sometimes, they will refuse to attend the game if not included in the squad; and sometimes, as in Fowler’s case, they will react angrily to news that 11 teammates have been preferred to them. In response, an ultimatum is generally issued, along the lines of “Apologise, or you’ll never be picked again.” This is the club’s way of trying to regain control of the situation, and of reminding the players who is and who isn’t in charge. Typically, such phrases as “No player is bigger than the club” are also bandied about.
If Matheson opted not to follow this well-trodden path, it’s because he must have feared that Fowler would refuse to apologise. For continued recalcitrance by the Englishman would have forced him to choose between two unpalatable options: sack his star import, who is by far the most talented and marketable member of the Fury; or essentially do nothing, thereby destroying the credibility of the board and the coach. Consequently, Matheson chose to hear no evil and see no evil, reasoning that looking a little foolish and weak was better than escalating a crisis that may well have ended unhappily.
With the standoff now seemingly over, it can be said that all three key participants have emerged from it with their reputations diminished. Clearly, Fowler has behaved petulantly (unless, before signing with North Queensland, he was secretly promised that he would always start if fit). When it came time to go into battle, he decided that salving his wounded pride was more important than fighting side by side with his comrades. As captain, he has set a shocking example for his teammates, while disrespecting them in the process. His was the reaction of a man who believes himself to be bigger than the club. Inevitably, some of the Fury – especially the younger members, who would have hung on his every word – must now be questioning their faith in God.
Where Fowler looks arrogant, his superiors appear pathetic. We now know that their authority is not as absolute as was once thought. Having so publicly lost the respect of his marquee man, Ferguson’s credibility has taken a battering. And having turned a blind eye to his employee’s disobedience, so has Matheson’s. Yet it is difficult to say that they have acted wrongly.
Ferguson may have erred in trying a new formation, and he may have erred in thinking that it could not accommodate Fowler. But tactics and selection are solely the coach’s domain. It is the coach’s right to plump for whichever system and players he likes, for which he is then held accountable. Fowler understands this – as does Matheson, who, to his credit, made a point of refusing to overturn the controversial demotion. A coach is paid to make decisions and a player is paid to obey them. If Fowler wasn’t willing to accept this, he shouldn’t have signed his generous contract.
However, once the crisis erupted, the Fury powerbrokers may have reasoned that although they occupied the moral high ground, backing down was the most responsible option. Yes, they may have been justified in publicly admonishing the former Liverpool legend, reminding him that a paycheque comes with obligations, and that he would therefore have to apologise – or else. But would escalating a crisis that may have resulted in Fowler’s axing have been in the club’s best interests?
In other words, could it be that instead of feebly caving in, Matheson and Ferguson have demonstrated strength by being prepared to lose face in order to secure the fledgling club’s future? Turning a profit in the A-League is difficult at the best of times, but when your market is small and you’re sitting near the bottom of the ladder, it becomes even more challenging. Maybe, the pair agreed that although it would undermine their authority and affect the team’s cohesion, finding a way to retain their highly bankable star was the lesser of two evils. If so, that would be ironic, because a crisis that was precipitated by somebody placing their ego before the club would have been ended by two men placing the club before their egos.
Such a message would not have been lost on Fowler, who has agreed to play out the season, but may well return home rather than honour the final year of his contract. It is no secret that he and Ferguson have never had the best of relationships, and now the Scotsman has irritated him further, firstly by dropping him and – perhaps – by then being the bigger man. Given that the import’s tantrum has been indulged, and his place guaranteed for the following game, he has no pretext for angrily storming back to England. So now it is him who has been left with two options: swallow his pride and fulfil his agreement, or conceitedly run away and damage the club that he has so often declared his commitment to. What sort of man is God? We’re about to find out.
| 13 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
