Has the tattoo become a symbol of acceptance in society?

Collingwood's Dane Swan with some of his tattoos
Photo: www.3aw.com.au

Walking down the street on any given day around Australia, you will see many people sporting a tattoo. The sizes and designs vary, but it seems that to be socially accepted you almost need to have one. Yes they are an individual’s choice. However in a society where instant gratification is becoming the norm, it appears perplexing that most people would choose to express themselves in such a permanent way.

Part of the reasoning behind this entry is that I have been in conversations with people in the recent past that have ridiculed my choice not to have a tattoo. But more importantly have laughed at my preference that my partner not have one (or if she does have one … not to get anymore). From my perspective, it appears that I cannot be critical of this cultural change but people with a tattoo can criticise my choice not to have one. This is slightly paradoxical given that people who choose to have a tattoo make such a choice.

There are certain races where the tattoo is a status symbol and has deep meaning and the Maori immediately come to mind. This type of cultural reasoning is logical, but in Australia a cultural change towards having tattoos has gradually been occurring over the last five to ten years. So why has this change been occurring?

Is it the influence of sport on our society? Just consider this, how many AFL or NRL players can you think of that do not have a tattoo. Or to take it further, let’s include Cricketers and Swimmers as well. (Admittedly I am looking at this from a predominantly Australian viewpoint, but we could include sports such as soccer as well). Not too many…I would have thought. Some of these tattoos celebrate an achievement or have some significance which is fair enough.

Such is the fascination about tattoos in Australian Society, an article by Jim Tucker on Australian Diver Melissa Wu in the Herald Sun on May 30, quotes the following: “Wu has her Olympic rings tattoo boldly at the top of her right thigh with a heart-shaped twist on the five interlocking rings.”

I understand Melissa’s choice to have the tattoo, but what relevance does this have to the article in question? None, the article is basically about the coming of age of an elite young sportsperson who has a better understanding of what is required to be competitive at the highest level in her chosen sport. The fact she has a tattoo on her right thigh should not matter.

Or is it simply a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality? If so, has our society been manipulated so much by the media or have we become so listless that we need to identify so greatly with our sport stars or do we have this overwhelming need to “fit” in. Most of my heroes are Sports Stars and I easily identify with their tenacity and determination, but I have enough nous to distinguish between sports and reality.

Personally, I think it is an element of both sport and the desire to fit into society. The “Dumbing” down of Australian Society by the media is a worrying trend that transcends over many aspects of Australian culture. So the message that certain elements in the media are espousing could be summarised as “If you want to be successful like our sports stars and be accepted within society you need to have a tattoo”. To be honest I am not sure that is the correct message to promote!!

How can we attract the best state league teams to participate in the Foxtel Cup?

http://www.neafl.com.au/

The idea of a competition enabling the best teams from the various state leagues to play each other is always appealing to the Rambling Couch Sitter. Especially given that the AFL has now become too professional and has been built around vested Victorian interests. Unfortunately, Australian Rules will never be able to adopt the Divisional model of the English FA simply because the potential travel distance is too great for a suburban club. Also the lack of population and money available in Australia make it difficult for a state league club to rise through the ranks to compete in the AFL.

The Foxtel Cup aimed to alleviate these issues by inviting the best clubs around Australia to play against each other in curtain raisers to AFL games, thereby granting much needed exposure for these clubs. The Cup is a 16 team knockout-based competition with three teams participating from each of the SANFL, VFL and WAFL, two teams from Tasmania and Queensland and one from NT, NSW and the ACT.

The competition itself is not without controversy as when the original invites went out the Top 5 SANFL clubs issued a joint statement on 15/12/2010 declining to participate “citing lack of prize money; sponsorship conflicts, salary cap implications, schedule concerns and removing the focus from their SANFL premiership ambitions”.

The response from these clubs is not entirely unexpected; even if it disappoints yours truly because I don’t get to see my beloved Norwood Redlegs play in this competition. It also devalues the Foxtel Cup because the winner of the Cup has not been able to compete against the best non-AFL clubs in Australia.

The main reason for the stance by the SANFL clubs is that the SANFL is generally considered the next best competition behind the AFL and the Thomas Seymour Hill Cup is very highly sought after by each club. Before the Adelaide Football Club entered the AFL, the total season attendance per capita for the SANFL was better than its VFL/AFL counterpart which adds some weight to this argument.

How do we ensure that the best teams from each league participate in the cup each year? It is a little tricky because the idea of exposing these clubs to a wider audience is very appealing. The answer may be to have weekends during the regular season that are dedicated to the Foxtel Cup, thereby allowing these matches to proceed with little disruption to the various state league competitions. There only needs to be three of these weekends in any given season.

In order to promote the Cup as the competition between the best club sides outside of the AFL, I would suggest that the grand final be played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final. This does mean that the SANFL will need to bring forward their season by two weeks as their Grand Final is normally played the week after the AFL Grand Final. This removes the obstacle of the SANFL clubs being more focussed on the T.S. Hill Cup. (By the way, this should rightfully be the focus of the SANFL Clubs!!)

Then there is the prize money aspect, I would suggest $100,000 for the winner, $50,000 for the runners-up and $25,000 for each of the losing semi-finalists. Add in the glory/incentive of playing in front of up 100,000 people, thereby providing much needed exposure for both finalists and there may be a chance to promote the game significantly at the grass roots level. But more importantly, the winner can justifiably say that they are currently the best non-AFL club in Australia.

Does the AFL influence Match Review Panel decisions to promote its agenda?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

Once again an AFL tribunal decision has been based on what damage was done to the player and not the intent of the tackle. The incident I refer to is the Taylor Walker tackle on Harry Taylor during the Adelaide vs. Geelong game on the weekend.

Let’s consider this: both Harry Taylor and Taylor Walker are around the same size, so the strength needed to tackle the other is quite large. To put it another way Stephen Milne would have a problem trying to tackle either player given he is of smaller stature. When a player is instructed to tackle by his coaches, the instruction would be to stop the player disposing the ball legally and hence win the free kick for “holding the ball”. If the tackle is not hard enough the player is likely to be dragged to the bench for failing to obey instructions.

The intent is not to hurt the player but to win possession through obtaining a free kick.

Now the AFL will argue that this is a “sling” tackle. A sling tackle involves lifting the player off the ground and then throwing them to the ground (usually head first) in the tackle motion. This is often used in Rugby League and is quite dangerous. But the tackle from Walker on the weekend did not lift Harry Taylor far off the ground and both players fell to the ground in the tackle.

On the AFL website the determination of the number of matches was: “Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction”.

The tackle itself from Taylor Walker was not high, but the contact of Harry Taylor’s head to the ground was. However that contact is covered by the medium impact charge. Thus at least two points can be removed from the charge. This reduces the penalty to 228.75 points and an early plea reduces the penalty by a further 25% to 171.56 points and a one-match suspension with 71.56 carry-over points.

In two other similar incidents on the weekend the AFL Match Review Panel (MRP) deemed the following.

“Contact between Richmond's Robin Nahas and the Sydney Swans' Nick Smith from the third quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Smith has his head down after picking up the ball when he is tackled by Nahas. Nahas applies a tackle, without making high contact, and takes Smith to ground with the forward momentum of the Sydney player. Smith's head makes contact with the ground but it was the view of the panel that Nahas did not use excessive force or drive his opponent into the ground. No further action was taken.”

“Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.”

In the Nahas case, given that Nahas is a small forward it is unlikely that he would have the strength to excessively drive someone to the ground. In the Lovett-Murray case the Essendon player did not sling the player, but both players fell to the ground in the act of tackling. So the force of the tackle was great enough to make both players fall to the ground… Just like Walker and Taylor !!

The assessment on each case is subjective in nature and consideration is given to the impact of the alleged infringement on the recipient player. But there is always going to be more damage if a larger stature player allegedly infringes on a smaller player based on power to weight ratio at time of impact.

I think there is an inconsistency between the Lovett-Murray case and the Walker case, so let’s look at it from another angle. Taylor Walker is currently leading the Coleman Medal and Adelaide play finals contenders Carlton and Collingwood in the next two weeks. Removing a goal scoring player from Adelaide’s team would provide more chance of winning to Carlton and Collingwood. The AFL needs both Carlton and Collingwood to play finals to maintain interest and a healthy profit base.

It is probable that both these teams would beat Adelaide, but the AFL wants to provide them with a greater chance and the MRP can manipulate the subjective assessments of the charge accordingly.

Similarly, both Nahas and Lovett-Murray would normally be in the starting line-ups for their teams. Richmond and Essendon play in the Dreamtime clash which the AFL uses as one of its showpiece games each year and would want both sides to have the best possible line-ups available for the clash. Therefore, in applying the subjective measures that apply to video reviews the MRP could easily manipulate their findings to satisfy the agenda of the AFL.

Sound a bit of a stretch … Well the precedent was set when Barry Hall was allowed to play in a Grand Final after blatantly punching another player in the stomach during a Preliminary Final. Hall should have received a one match penalty (at least) for the offence, but because a Grand Final might be missed and there was some public outcry, the AFL decided not to penalise Hall.

In reality the Walker case is not worth a three match penalty, in fact at a stretch a one match penalty is probably more appropriate, but there was no intent to harm Taylor so I would debate that any penalty above a free kick is overkill. The tribunal should be deciding penalties on intent rather than “damage” to the other player. Furthermore, the MRP should be independent of the AFL and not subject to being manipulated by the AFL to achieve its agenda.

Have Labor and more importantly Treasurer Wayne Swan lost the plot?

The title is probably a little harsh, but my mate Wayne Swan is not really inspiring any confidence in me and to be honest I’m not sure the other mob are any better. Mind you the idea of Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer (should the Coalition get power) is somewhat appealing as at least he knows how to run a business.

The issue for the Labor Party is that is has: One, used the wrong tools to massage the economy; Two, lied to the Australian public about introducing a Carbon Tax, Three, gone to extreme lengths to control the House of Representatives and lost the trust of the Australian Public as a result.

However with the release of the 2012-13 Budget, I thought I would address point one above as my knowledge extends to this domain and others can deal with the political impacts. Economics is based on the distribution of Supply and Demand and without going into excessive detail on economic theory, there are different schools of thought that exist. (Similar to religion if one was to draw a parallel, i.e. every religion believes there is a higher authority/entity but the difference lies in the detail.)

In a nutshell, Wayne Swan comes across as a Keynesian Economist, although like all politicians is influenced by the electorate. Wikipedia basically describes Keynesian Economists as:

“Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector.”

Keynesian economic theory leans towards running budget deficits when the economy is in recession or a downturn and running budget surpluses in times of prosperity. There is another factor of interest on Government Debt which I have not addressed here, but is important in the current economic climate.

Factors providing growth to the economy are Consumption, Government Spending, Investment and Exports (through providing income) and Factors limiting growth are Taxes, Savings and Imports. Generally the multiplier effect of a $1 spent on consumption is not as effective as $1 spent on investment or Government Spending (if the spending is on infrastructure).

This is where I believe that the current government misread the electorate/Australian economy. When the original $900 was given to taxpayers under Kevin Rudd’s government (Swan was Treasurer) the expectation was that the Australian public would spend all of it and kickstart the economy through consumption. However most people either saved this money or paid off credit card debt both of which have negative impacts on economic growth according to Keynesian theory.

This money would have been better spent on infrastructure projects that were needed for the economy and may have resulted in job creation, or kept some companies in business etc, etc.

Similarly taxing the mining companies a greater amount causes problems, as then they charge more for their product which reduces profit margins for supplier industries, who in turn charge more for their products to cover costs, etc. A carbon tax has the same result, although I think the idea of a carbon tax is valid, we need to look at timing of implementation so that the economy does not suffer as a whole.

Changes to the health insurance rebate system may result in more people on the public health system. This may cause waiting lists to grow, which in turn causes problems. The better way would be for the government to encourage people to move into the Private Health system so as to place less strain on the health system.

Lastly, giving money to parents to spend on education needs for their children is targeted incorrectly as the money should be spent on improving education delivery. This will have a much longer impact on education standards and more importantly the nation’s children are better educated.

This last measure appears to be more of a political exercise rather than an economic one. This practice is not new to Australian politics and both major parties have played this game. The more courageous move to make would be to do what is correct for the economy and the nation which may earn the respect of the people !!

So Wayne Swan has really misread (and mislead) the public with the way the 2012-13 Budget is constructed and failed the leadership test when it comes to decision making. But the other side are also yet to prove that they are a better alternative!!

When is the right time for a cricketer to retire?

Rahul Dravid has been bowled in five of six innings in Australia

This question is quite topical at the moment in both the Australian and Indian cricket teams. Both of these teams have champion players that have contributed to most of their team’s success over the past decade and are in the twilight of their careers. There is a school of thought that would suggests that a cricketer should be able to declare their innings (i.e. retire) at a point of their own choosing based on what they have contributed to the game. However this notion should always depend on form and is especially the case in Test cricket.

Test cricket is played over five days and players need to be able to compete at a high level over that time. Every player is representing their country and I’ll often compare Test Cricket to siege warfare given the tactics required and the length of time involved to play the game. (In fact all international sport could be considered warfare without the bullets). Therefore it is very important that the 12 players representing your country are performing at the absolute best of their abilities.

For Australia, Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey have been outstanding players of their craft and both have recently gone through a rough period with the bat. Both these players (along with Michael Clarke) scored centuries at the SCG against India but fell short in Perth. Although it must be noted that Perth is a cricket pitch that you never feel completely “in” on and that the first 20 is often the toughest 20 to make. So then does the Adelaide test become a form indication for these two players? With the West Indies tour coming up in April, I would suggest that these two need to make runs in Adelaide to prove their worth. The Ashes are only 18 months away and sending young prospects to the West Indies is ideal preparation (followed by an Australian Summer) for an Ashes tour that will be tough.

Another player under scrutiny is Brad Haddin, who appears to be out of form with the bat and is losing some touch with the gloves. Haddin is a confidence player that plays streakily when batting, but some of Haddin’s shot selections have been puzzling to say the least and given his glove work has dropped questions must be asked about his position in the side. Possible replacements are Tim Paine and Matthew Wade, Paine is injured at the moment and Adelaide does present the perfect opportunity for the selectors to try out Wade to see if he is at Test standard.

For India, who has had an abysmal Australian tour to say the least, there are probably five players that are in the firing line: Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag and Dhoni. Out of these five players only Tendulkar (38 years old) looks like a batsman in reasonable form. Dravid (39) is out of sorts and his reactions may have slowed just a touch as he has been bowled in five out of his six innings in Australia. Laxman (37) is not moving his feet at the crease, is playing sub-continental shots and is either being bowled of getting caught behind the wicket. Sehwag (33) and Dhoni (30) are simply not taking the time to get themselves “in” (which is a must as a batsman) and have not contributed much to India’s cause over the summer.

In India’s case there are almost 50,000 test runs of experience under scrutiny. With such a generational change the challenge for India is how to manage the player movement. Do they drop players that are out of form in full knowledge that they may never return, thereby promoting youth? Do they stick with these players and hope for one last hurrah from them? It is a difficult choice for the BCCI as the first probably means that results may not go India’s way, but this may be cushioned with India playing their next few series at home. The latter enables the players to leave on their terms, would keep the Indian fans happy and probably generate more revenue for the BCCI (although that is probably not too big an issue).

The motivating factor for retention of any player should always be form, after all the objective is to win the test match. To paraphrase an Ian Chappell quote “A country should pick its best 11 players and then pick its captain”. Considering this statement are all of the Indian players mentioned above currently within India’s best eleven on form. At this stage I would suggest that Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag are probably not and their positions within the team should be heavily scrutinised before the Adelaide Test. As for the Australians, Ponting and Hussey are probably in the best eleven for now but need to be making runs consistently to justify their selection in the team and should be treated no different to all of the other players in the side.

Although most cricketers (and other sports professionals) would like to dictate when they retire, form should always play its part and selectors should have courage to advise a player that his form may not warrant further selection in a team. Most players will know in themselves when it is time, but having the courage to act on their instincts and put the team first is difficult. India and Australia face tough decisions in the near future and it will be interesting to see if either or both nations are able to make those decisions effectively.

Is Australian Culture overly Reliant on the "Beer Drinking Ocker" image?

Previous favourites of The Rambling Couch Sitter. Image from www.beer-pages.com

The Australian psyche is still geared around a fascination around alcohol. Thankfully the message around drinking and driving appears to be hitting the mark as there do appear to be less fatal accidents involving alcohol than 10 years ago.

But what of the issue around it being a social requirement to consume alcohol and in a worrying trend for the under 30’s to consume copious amounts of alcohol with friends on a night out. Admittedly until a year ago the Rambling Couch Sitter had fallen into this category and would find that the hangovers would take longer to recover from as the years passed.

But over the last 12 months yours truly has abstained from alcohol completely and while there are some very personal reasons for this a few observations have emerged over this time.

One, every now and then I went to the local pub and watched sport on FOX (actually, I still do to get out of the house sometimes!!) so with beer in hand it was amazing how many people would come up and start chatting about the sport being shown. This is now a rare event which I attribute to the choice of drink in the hand.

In fact if you are by yourself in a pub, starting a conversation with a non-alcoholic drink is actually quite difficult. More often than not the other person is well on the way to being drunk, so usually incoherent. (or just dribbling shit, whereas before I may have dribbled just as much crap) But once the conversation has started it can be difficult to keep the conversation going as you usually have to repeat yourself or shout etc, etc.

Two, being a single man I have noticed a barrier emerging when chatting to the ladies. They are a little hesitant to chat to someone who is not as drunk as others. This could be because they are afraid of being taken advantage of (which is a fair concern) or a myriad of other things which I cannot even think to imagine given that I am no expert.

Three, and possibly most worrying, is that some people have questioned my sexuality because I am not consuming alcohol. It is as though in a portion of Australian Culture, alcohol is linked to sexuality (i.e. you are heterosexual if you drink alcohol). In a society that is meant to be “advanced” I find this truly amazing. Especially as now we are more multicultural and more accepting of people’s choices in other aspects of life. This attitude is more 1950’s than 21^st Century and probably needs to change for Australia to progress as a society.

Four, you have “mates” that feel it’s their responsibility to convince you to start drinking again. Once again, this is about not respecting the choice I have made. There are a few people that know all of the reasons behind my choice and in the main they respect them. However the remainder know the main driver for the change, yet see it as their mission (should they choose to accept it) to get me back off the wagon.

It will be interesting to see whether attitudes change while I maintain my abstinence from alcohol. However I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Samoa – A nation of forward thinkers??

The Samoan flag but for how much longer??? (Courtesy: Google)

Based on articles found on the ABC website, the tiny island nation of Samoa has undergone some serious changes in recent months. The Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi has changed the side of the road Samoans drive on and now has changed the time zone of Samoa.

The significance of the time zone change is that Samoa was on the eastern side of the International Date Line (IDL) which meant it was a day behind New Zealand and Australia its closest developed nations. Originally Samoa was on the same side of the IDL as NZ and Australia. However in 1892 it changed sides to reflect its trade with the US which is understandable given both Australia and NZ were nations in their infancy at the time.
As a result of the change Samoa, goes from Thursday 29^th Dec straight to Saturday 31^st Dec skipping Friday in the process. Surely skipping a Monday or a Tuesday would be a better idea than skipping a Friday, but each to their own I guess.

So Samoa goes from the last nation on the planet to see the sun set to the first nation to see the sun rise. The island nation of Kiribati may not take too kindly to Samoa taking the mantle of the first nation to see the sun rise and it will be interesting to see if the relationship between the island nations is strained in future months. If relations do become strained, Kiribati would have to send in its flotilla of warships … erm Triremes (???) to Apia in a show of strength against Samoa.

According to reports PM Tuilaepa also plans to change the flag and I imagine it will not stop there. As a suggestion I think he should change the position of all hot and cold water taps on basins as well. On a more serious note, perhaps changing the business hours to run simultaneously with Sydney or Auckland may be an option to consider and given it is a tropical nation it would mean that businesses are not open in the hottest part of the day and it may open the country up to more trade.

Should the AFL employ goal-line video technology for AFL matches?

This topic has often come up for debate in recent years and was unfortunately highlighted when a Tom Hawkins shot for goal actually hit the post in a grand final but was awarded a goal. St.Kilda lost the game and it would be easy to imagine that some of their supporters would be aggrieved to this day.

The game itself appears to have sped up in the last few years and yet the umpiring of the most important aspect of the game …scoring…has not changed in light of this. Therefore, assuming that something needs to be done to maintain accuracy, what solutions are available to AFL to remedy any mistakes.

Video Technology… Many sports have gone down this path and while it is successful in some sports (i.e. cricket with run-outs and the use of hot spot, or tennis with the use of Hawkeye or Rugby in general) it has not been as effective in others (e.g. American Football) as it can slow the game down. It is worth noting that an American Football game can take over 4 hours for just 60 minutes of actual playing time.

Does the AFL go down this path? In the knowledge that the game can be delayed by several minutes over the course of the game while contentious goals are reviewed by a fifth umpire, who would need to be employed just to review these decisions.

In my opinion the AFL indicated through its rule changes surrounding holding the ball and its experiment with the kicking backwards rule in the NAB cup that it wanted to keep the game competitive and retain a high action game (i.e. fast). Although it could also be argued that they wanted to slow the game down a little with the introduction of the substitute rule.

Video technology is expensive and not necessarily accurate and there are shortcomings with the use of the technology on Hawkeye for LBW decisions or video replays on low catches in cricket... Well according to the Indian’s anyway!!! 

More Goal Umpires…this may not be as costly to the AFL as the use of Video Technology, although there is problem that decisions are still prone to human error. But both Rugby Union and Rugby League use two umpires that stand behind each post to judge if the ball has passed correctly through the uprights.

Given the speed of an AFL match has increased, this may be an option as it would mean that goal umpires would have less ground to cover in a short time and this may lengthen the life span of a goal umpire (difficult to believe I know… but logically true). Potentially fewer mistakes are made given that the umpire is in position earlier and the game is not stopped to review a decision.

But I can already hear the cries of derision and the first question asked will be how the scoring will be signalled by the umpires to avoid confusion. Some thought has been given to this by yours truly and I think the following will logically work.

Both umpires to raise a flag at the pole to signal a goal (just as is in Rugby)

If it is a goal then one designated umpire at either end to perform the normal flag signal for the goal.

For points the umpire in control of the point region to signal a point with downward flag wave (as per Rugby) and then to signal the point as per the normal flag signal.

The contentious area is for touched or rushed behinds this is to be signalled by a downward flag waving motion by the umpire that sees it (and if both deem the point to be rushed then both signal the behind) this is followed by the normal flag waving signal for a behind by the designated goal scoring umpire.

Personally I favour the “More Goal Umpires” option; however it is all food for thought. Perhaps this is something that the AFL could consider as the game moves forward.

How much longer will Neil Craig be coaching at Adelaide ?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

In May I wrote a piece asking what has happened at the Adelaide Crows and are changes required at Adelaide to arrest the slide in the 2011 season. Well two months down the track and after witnessing Adelaide’s recent performance against St. Kilda it would indicate that the situation has gone from bad to worse.

There are now constant rumours about Neil Craig’s future not only in Adelaide, but in Melbourne as well. This is probably justified as there has been no change to the Adelaide Crows game plan. This suggests that Craig has undeniable faith in his game plan and presumes that as the playing group improves so will the results. Or worse, Neil Craig is unwilling to make changes to a plan that is clearly not working through stubbornness.

Players have gone off the boil and there is a lack of belief in the playing group. The hierarchy will tell you that the playing group is solid, but this is pure spin. Nothing shows up more in team performance than despondency and the coaching staff has not been able to fix this within the playing group. There is no fluency within the play on the field with constant “stop-start” football and the Crows are often exposed by the opposition team’s forward press.

With these facts in mind, the board at Adelaide seriously need to consider Craig’s future and quickly. The Adelaide performances of late have been below standard and look to be getting worse. The supporters want the coach to be dismissed after a string of horrible performances and the playing group are showing signs on the field that the messages from the coach are having no effect. Leaders should demand respect of the playing group and the supporters and it appears that Craig has lost this respect. The best answer to this situation is for Craig to be removed from the post.

Ex-Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett recently wrote an article on leadership to which he held the theory that those appointed to leadership positions should remain in that position for approximately 6-8 years. In that time the person is able to stamp their authority in the position with the impetus to add innovation without the need to defend what has been established. Kennett suggests that after this time there is a shift towards protecting everything that has been previously gained. After that they should distance themselves completely from the organisation to allow the new leader to make his mark. Craig has been at the helm for seven years at Adelaide so from that perspective his time is now up.

If the Adelaide board has someone in mind then appoint them now and give them a few weeks with the playing group before the end of season to determine which players to keep and which to delist. The captain needs to be changed as his exploits on field are not inspiring enough. This did prompt a friend of mine to suggest that Van Berlo is the “softest” captain in the AFL and I could not agree more.

Personally I would delist Tambling (looks all at sea), Van Berlo (softest Captain in the AFL and simply not hard enough), Walker (very talented but does not apply it), Doughty, Symes, Sellar, Knights and Moran (all form based) just to name a few off the top of my head.

It will be interesting to see what decisions are made by the Adelaide board over the next few weeks.

What is happening at the Adelaide Crows?

I must apologise for the length of time between articles. This article looks at some problem areas at the Adelaide Crows and discusses what could be done to produce winning performances from the team.

After witnessing an insipid performance against Melbourne on the weekend I would like to briefly discuss three areas; Leadership, Game Plan and Personnel.

In terms of Leadership, the simple question arises: “Is Nathan Van Berlo the right man for the job?”

Based on the performances that I have seen this year, the answer is no. The word from West Lakes is that Van Berlo is a natural leader, but performances on field do not suggest this to be the case. A leader of men needs to be fearless, uncompromising and passionate about the cause. Leaders command respect just by their presence and motivate their army, their followers and their men to perform great deeds. 

However on Sunday against Melbourne, I saw a Captain who dropped his head at a crucial time. A captain who did not chase the opposition player which every last bit of energy he could muster. It was very disappointing moment and something that no other Adelaide Captain would ever do. This attitude quickly spread through the players as a result. Yes, it is Van Berlo’s first year as captain, but based on this performance the future is not very encouraging. 

So, who should replace Van Berlo if he should be deposed of the Captaincy?

My choices are Scott Thompson, Kurt Tippett and Patrick Dangerfield, although the latter is still very young so we are left with Scott Thompson and Kurt Tippett. For my mind, Tippett has too much responsibility at Full Forward as the spearhead with additional Ruck duties thrown in to be given the Captaincy as well. This leaves Thompson as my choice for Captainm this is based on his determinination and his on-field presence.

Are the playing personnel a problem? 

This could be one aspect in Adelaide’s favour as the playing is fairly young and Adelaide currently has the longest injury list in the AFL. The list will take time to develop and there are encouraging signs with Luke Thompson, Rory Sloane and Sam Jacobs to name a few. Adelaide has also recently lost well over 1000 games of experience with the retirements of Riccuito, McLeod, Burton, Goodwin and Edwards so there is a lack of on-field presence when times are tough. That said senior players currently within the side need to stand up during games and the Captain’s example mentioned above does not set a good precedent.

Does Adelaide’s game plan need tweaking?

It become obvious at the Melbourne game that when Adelaide were in trouble the players went back to chipping the ball around and the game plan of rushing the ball forward became non-existent. Is this because the players on the ground are not able to execute the game plan under pressure?

However, there are still question marks over Craig’s ability to change plan mid-game when circumstances change in a match. There have been times when Craig goes defensive when in an attacking position. The semi-final against Collingwood in 2009 is an example. So are there other game plans in Craig’s repertoire or is it time for new blood?