Nick Bendel
Death, taxes, and footballers behaving badly
August 7th 2008 06:00
The wonderful thing about the scandals in which footballers seem to find themselves perennially immersed is their mind-boggling diversity. Whether they are texting things they oughtn’t text, exposing things they oughtn’t expose, snorting things they oughtn’t snort, bashing things they oughtn’t bash, bonking things they oughtn’t bonk, urinating places they oughtn’t urinate, or even shitting in shoes they oughtn’t shit in, these supposedly witless athletes possess an enduring capacity to fascinate.
In recent days, it has been the turn of Collingwood’s footballers to fascinate. Without poring over the details, suffice to say that certain Magpies drank things they oughtn’t have drunk, drove things they oughtn’t have driven, and told porkies they oughtn’t have told. Eddie and Mick were not amused. Indeed, the latter was so disappointed by the behaviour of Alan Didak, Heath Shaw and Rhyce Shaw that he felt compelled to vent his frustrations in The Australian.
For almost a decade, the jovial McGuire and the despotic Malthouse have run Collingwood as a kind of good cop-bad cop duo. Where Eddie has been all backslapping and bonhomie, Mick has displayed more bristle than his venerable moustache. Yet despite their contrasting personalities, both have been ruthlessly focussed on the one goal: the club’s success. While previous scandals were hardly welcomed, they were tolerated, because to demonstrate meaningful anger would have meant imposing serious punishments on key players, and doing that would have given the Magpies less chance of winning games. When those victories duly arrived, one can only wonder if the pair appreciated the irony as they belted out the team song: “Side by side we stick together, to uphold the Magpies’ name.”
Of course, as an earlier article on Sport: The Australian Disease explained, this ruthless pursuit of success is hardly unique to Collingwood. It is a rare club that values principles more than premierships. Thus, it is surprising to learn how hard Collingwood has come down on the wayward trio. Not only has Rhyce Shaw been banned for two matches, but his brother and Didak have been suspended for the rest of the season. Furthermore, if the reports are to be believed, the three will be plying their trade elsewhere in 2009. Apparently, the only reason the club has not officially declared so is because it doesn’t want to weaken its trading position.
If that happens, it will be proof that McGuire and Malthouse are as incensed as they claim, for to dismiss three such important players would be a very serious punishment. But to be clear- it would be serious not so much for the players, as the club. With Rhyce 26 and Heath only 22, the Shaws have many productive years ahead of them, while the brilliant Didak, who must surely be in the sights of numerous rivals, is just 25. These young men will no doubt be sorry to leave Collingwood, but wherever it is that they end up, they will still have the luxury of earning lots of money without having to work for a living. The club, however, having lost the services of three experienced footballers, will not be able to so rapidly adapt.
Unlikely though it seems, there is a bigger picture to this latest sporting scandal. And it centres on this question: is Collingwood doing the right thing? Given that we can probably assume that Collingwood considers the right thing to be the most advantageous course of action, rather than the most ethical, the question needs to be considered in that light. So is Collingwood doing the right thing?
In the short term, the answer is clearly no. With its list significantly weakened, the club that came within one kick of making last year’s grand final now has very little chance of repeating the feat. But could this stricter style of man management bear fruit in the longer term? That is a more difficult question to answer. When North Melbourne axed Wayne Carey, after he was caught bonking things he oughtn’t have bonked, it marked the beginning of several fallow years for the Kangaroos. North fans must have reflected how fortunate it was that their King wasn't deposed earlier- that is, when he groped things he oughtn’t have groped and drunk things he oughtn’t have drunk- otherwise they surely wouldn’t have had those flags in 1996 and 1999 to celebrate. Likewise, many Eagles’ supporters must now be questioning the wisdom of sacking Ben Cousins, given how poorly their club has fared since West Coast lost patience with his habit of snorting things he oughtn’t snort, drinking things he oughtn’t drink, driving things he oughtn’t drive, and associating with people he oughtn’t associate with.
Yet Sydney’s recent history provides a different moral. Under Paul Roos, misbehaviour has not been tolerated, even when it has come from such key players as Barry Hall and Nick Davis. The Swans did not make grand finals in 2005 and 2006 because they were the most talented bunch; rather, their success was due to their teamwork and ability to execute an intricate game plan. Their success, in other words, was a product not of innate talent, but fierce discipline.
Thus, when pondering whether or not Collingwood has made the right decision, one must also ponder how they expect to win their next premiership. Will it be the result of sheer brilliance, as was the case with the recent grand final triumphs of Geelong, West Coast, Brisbane and Essendon? Or it will it be due to the maximisation of resources, as happened with Sydney in 2005? If emphasis is to be placed on talent, then disposing of players such as the Shaws and- most particularly- Didak is illogical. If, on the other hand, the emphasis is to be placed on discipline and teamwork, then there was no choice but to be rid of such foolish, dishonest and selfish footballers.
When, in the not too distant future, a footballer is discovered to have assaulted something he oughtn’t have assaulted, crashed something he oughtn’t have crashed, or (yawn) bonked something he oughtn’t have bonked- as he inevitably will- the reaction of his club will be enlightening. A ruthless, narrowly-focussed outfit will attempt to make light of the scandal. A more contemplative and courageous organisation will try to nip the ill-discipline in the bud. Or, there will be the third scenario, in which a formerly indulgent club is left with no option but to furiously slam the stable door shut, long after its snorting/bashing/drinking/tex ting/urinating/bonking horse has bolted.
| 70 |
| Vote |
