The AFL tribunal has handed Ahmed Saad an 18-month ban.
The StKFC had this to say: we "will continue to provide the appropriate welfare support and assistance to Ahmed." Not sure what that means.
I said last week that I suspected they would not ban him for more than one season, and thankfully they did not. It doesn't appear they've levied any fines, but a loss of an entire season is plenty, in my view. I do find it disappointing that Essendon players are being given a pass partly because they claim ignorance of what was going into their bodies and because none of them officially failed a drug test. So I suppose there's not a lot the AFL can do to punish them. Still, it feels little like the AFL is taking out some of it's frustration on Saad. But what's done is done, and I'm glad Ahmed doesn't have to miss more than one season.
One move that is proving a good one was the decision to begin a provisional ban in August, since the AFL is willing to backdate the start of Saad's suspension to August 20. So props to whomever made that call.
What remains to be seen is whether Saad will be able to train with StK during the suspension. AFL.com is calling the punishment a ban, while StK is calling it a suspension. Maybe those words are being used interchangeably, but the club hasn't committed to anything specific. Saad has been omitted from the Colorado trip, which makes sense. After that, we'll find out more. I'd love to ask them about it next week.
It would be awesome to see Saad come back in 2015 and have a great career. I firmly believe an example is being made of him, and I'd love to see him overcome it.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
Saints Moving Forward
It was refreshing to see this and this on AFL.com today. For all the negativity surrounding the period since the end of the 2013 season, I am still hopeful the Saints can have a successful season next year.
They've got a lot of work ahead of them, of course, and certainly, every club is out there doing this same sort of training right now. And while I wouldn't expect anyone to complain about the new coach on his first day, it's still nice to hear some positive sentiments from a club that's been so beaten down of late.
I'm excited for the upcoming trip to Colorado (have been for months). I hope to get the chance to talk to a few players about the outlook for the future and how they think things are going. Three players I really enjoyed talking to last year were Dal Santo, McEvoy, and Saad. I won't be seeing the first two again; we'll see about the latter. I was encouraged to see a picture of Saad working out with the team. That gives me hope that StK will do their best to support him.
They've got a lot of work ahead of them, of course, and certainly, every club is out there doing this same sort of training right now. And while I wouldn't expect anyone to complain about the new coach on his first day, it's still nice to hear some positive sentiments from a club that's been so beaten down of late.
I'm excited for the upcoming trip to Colorado (have been for months). I hope to get the chance to talk to a few players about the outlook for the future and how they think things are going. Three players I really enjoyed talking to last year were Dal Santo, McEvoy, and Saad. I won't be seeing the first two again; we'll see about the latter. I was encouraged to see a picture of Saad working out with the team. That gives me hope that StK will do their best to support him.
Friday, November 15, 2013
What a Saad Story
Watching Ahmed Saad play the last couple seasons has been a delight. His cheerful demeanor, his winning smile, his goofy, 23-step approach... it's all been great. Even learning of his commitment to his religious principles, to the point of observing Ramadan fasting rules during the season. That takes dedication, and altogether Saad is the kind of player whom fans and teammates can admire. I, for one, was very excited to see his continued development.
I say was because the Saints decided to de-list him as they await the outcome of this tribunal. It's a very disappointing move, in a story that's been even more disappointing.
Saad faces as much as a two-year ban, but I doubt he'll be punished that severely. Considering that not one Essendon player has yet been punished in any way, I think it would be extremely unfair to put this young player's career in jeopardy for this offense. More likely in my view, he'll get a 12-game suspension with a hefty fine, or possibly as much as an entire year ban. But I believe a ban is different from a suspension in that a suspended player can continue to train with the team, and maybe even play in the VFL while banned players must have no contact whatever with the club. That might not be the official distinction, but that's how I distinguish them. So a suspension would be preferrable.
StK have hinted that if Saad is indeed banned for two years, they will probably let him go for good. What a shame. His career is only just beginning and I think he stood a chance to become a fan favorite. No matter what punishment is handed down, I would love to see the Saints give this kid all the support they can. If he may continue to train while suspended, let him do so. If he is not allowed to be part of the club, help him find a way to stay fit and ready to play. It may cost a little bit, and it may not pay off. Yet to simply write him off as done, at 24 years old, for a fairly minor offense (in the grand scheme of things), would be a let down.
I won't say the club owes it to him; maybe Saad is more culpable than it seems. For all I know, he was warned not to take the questionable supplement. And maybe some team leaders would say there's no way a club can do anything for him. I'm only a fan, after all. From my perspective, though, I think they can find a way to save his career and I think it will be worth it in the end.
I say was because the Saints decided to de-list him as they await the outcome of this tribunal. It's a very disappointing move, in a story that's been even more disappointing.
Saad faces as much as a two-year ban, but I doubt he'll be punished that severely. Considering that not one Essendon player has yet been punished in any way, I think it would be extremely unfair to put this young player's career in jeopardy for this offense. More likely in my view, he'll get a 12-game suspension with a hefty fine, or possibly as much as an entire year ban. But I believe a ban is different from a suspension in that a suspended player can continue to train with the team, and maybe even play in the VFL while banned players must have no contact whatever with the club. That might not be the official distinction, but that's how I distinguish them. So a suspension would be preferrable.
StK have hinted that if Saad is indeed banned for two years, they will probably let him go for good. What a shame. His career is only just beginning and I think he stood a chance to become a fan favorite. No matter what punishment is handed down, I would love to see the Saints give this kid all the support they can. If he may continue to train while suspended, let him do so. If he is not allowed to be part of the club, help him find a way to stay fit and ready to play. It may cost a little bit, and it may not pay off. Yet to simply write him off as done, at 24 years old, for a fairly minor offense (in the grand scheme of things), would be a let down.
I won't say the club owes it to him; maybe Saad is more culpable than it seems. For all I know, he was warned not to take the questionable supplement. And maybe some team leaders would say there's no way a club can do anything for him. I'm only a fan, after all. From my perspective, though, I think they can find a way to save his career and I think it will be worth it in the end.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
It's Easy to Criticize With Hindsight
With the draft approaching, past draft choices naturally becomes a popular subject in articles and blog posts. But this article on AFL.com was a little misguided, IMHO.
The article goes through, club by club, the most successful and most costly draft picks in history. I do think it's neat to see how picks in the later rounds turned out to be spectacular players. That's just fun. However, to call out all the high draft picks who never reached their potential and call them "misses" seems a little flaky.
Every year, there's lots of talk about which players are the best picks, the surest bets, the ones everyone agrees are destined for stardom. And then there are a whole bunch of other players who get drafted and make up the majority of the sides we see on the field every week. With the top picks, clubs always take the high-profile players, whether they really "need" them or not. After that, each club does its best to fill immediate or imminent holes with the best player available.
Occasionally, the un-heralded draftees become great players, which makes for a great story. And sometimes the hyped-up players never go on to greatness, at least not at their first club. But unless you were there advising publicly and clearly against a specific player, what point is there in declaring, years later, that choosing him was a "miss"? Especially if injuries were the primary factor in the player's inadequacy? For example:
I would certainly agree that these players ended up being huge disappointments to all involved, and that's a valid topic of discussion. But again, unless you were the prescient soothsayer, it doesn't seem very helpful to present the topic as if the club messed up and could have chosen so many other great players.
The article goes through, club by club, the most successful and most costly draft picks in history. I do think it's neat to see how picks in the later rounds turned out to be spectacular players. That's just fun. However, to call out all the high draft picks who never reached their potential and call them "misses" seems a little flaky.
Every year, there's lots of talk about which players are the best picks, the surest bets, the ones everyone agrees are destined for stardom. And then there are a whole bunch of other players who get drafted and make up the majority of the sides we see on the field every week. With the top picks, clubs always take the high-profile players, whether they really "need" them or not. After that, each club does its best to fill immediate or imminent holes with the best player available.
Occasionally, the un-heralded draftees become great players, which makes for a great story. And sometimes the hyped-up players never go on to greatness, at least not at their first club. But unless you were there advising publicly and clearly against a specific player, what point is there in declaring, years later, that choosing him was a "miss"? Especially if injuries were the primary factor in the player's inadequacy? For example:
Biggest miss: Scott GumbletonMy guess is Gumbleton was considered a stellar player in 2006, and no one thought it was foolish to pick him instead of the other players mentioned.
It's been well documented that the Bombers used pick No. 2 on the key forward in 2006, only to watch as he struggled to overcome injury after injury. Lachie Hansen, Matthew Leuenberger, Travis Boak, Joel Selwood, Ben Reid and Jack Riewoldt are among the names that went after him in that draft. Essendon cut its losses last month, trading Gumbleton to Fremantle for pick 55, after just 35 senior games for the Bombers.
I would certainly agree that these players ended up being huge disappointments to all involved, and that's a valid topic of discussion. But again, unless you were the prescient soothsayer, it doesn't seem very helpful to present the topic as if the club messed up and could have chosen so many other great players.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Milne's Saga
Stephen Milne's rape trial is in its early stages, and it's turning out to be a sad, disheartening mess.
When news broke a few months ago that Milne would be charged for the 2004 incident, I think very little was known about it. I wasn't a footy fan in 2004, so I don't know what came out in the press at that time. But I suspect that since the charges were dropped, the public was told only that a woman had accused Milne of rape, it was at Montagna's house, and nothing more would come of it. Skip ahead 9 years and things are very different.
This time the case is being heard fully and publicly, and it's not flattering. I'll let you read the salacious details, but the reputations of Milne and Montagna have been tarnished, to say the least. Whether Milne is found guilty or not, we all now know that they made some extremely poor decisions that night, indicative of less-than-admirable morals. Also, Montagna will have to testify for the court, which may have fallout of its own.
I know people make mistakes; I know people change, they mature, they grow up. I know a lot of my disappointment stems from my personal opinion of these two players (I like both of them a lot). And, of course, Milne and Montagna were 24 and 21, respectively, and new to fame and wealth. It's hard to know how that plays on one's decision-making ability. I made mistakes at 21, and I was neither famous nor wealthy. But when you become a professional athlete, you cease to be a kid; you are an adult being paid a lot of money and expected to handle yourself with dignity and discernment.
This club has had other incidents involving sexual indiscretion and insobriety. Every player whose been in the league more than a couple years needs to see himself as a role model, and know that his actions and attitudes are influencing younger players. Players spend a lot of time together, and peer pressure is arguably one of the most powerful forces guiding behavior in a club. This sad story underscores how crucial it is for the players to make sure this pressure is positive.
When news broke a few months ago that Milne would be charged for the 2004 incident, I think very little was known about it. I wasn't a footy fan in 2004, so I don't know what came out in the press at that time. But I suspect that since the charges were dropped, the public was told only that a woman had accused Milne of rape, it was at Montagna's house, and nothing more would come of it. Skip ahead 9 years and things are very different.
This time the case is being heard fully and publicly, and it's not flattering. I'll let you read the salacious details, but the reputations of Milne and Montagna have been tarnished, to say the least. Whether Milne is found guilty or not, we all now know that they made some extremely poor decisions that night, indicative of less-than-admirable morals. Also, Montagna will have to testify for the court, which may have fallout of its own.
I know people make mistakes; I know people change, they mature, they grow up. I know a lot of my disappointment stems from my personal opinion of these two players (I like both of them a lot). And, of course, Milne and Montagna were 24 and 21, respectively, and new to fame and wealth. It's hard to know how that plays on one's decision-making ability. I made mistakes at 21, and I was neither famous nor wealthy. But when you become a professional athlete, you cease to be a kid; you are an adult being paid a lot of money and expected to handle yourself with dignity and discernment.
This club has had other incidents involving sexual indiscretion and insobriety. Every player whose been in the league more than a couple years needs to see himself as a role model, and know that his actions and attitudes are influencing younger players. Players spend a lot of time together, and peer pressure is arguably one of the most powerful forces guiding behavior in a club. This sad story underscores how crucial it is for the players to make sure this pressure is positive.
New Coach Must Make Some Changes
Apparently, the word on the street is the Saints will be hiring Alan Richardson as next head coach.
I don't know enough about him to form a strong opinion on the matter, but I do have a few thoughts on what he needs to do.
First, establish trust. Trust, which goes hand-in-hand with loyalty, has been all but depleted at the club. The club leadership, the players, and the fans need to be able to trust the coach. I don't know whether the players trusted Watters, but the Board certainly didn't. And fans were getting to the point of incredulity too. Everyone knows now that the schisms in the club were deep, and the new coach will need to repair them immediately. Personally, I am disappointed Richardson lied to his own club and publicly about considering the StK position, especially when a move from assistant to head honcho is met with near-universal plaudits, even from the club one is leaving. But he did hide it, so let's hope that's just part of the business (doesn't make it right, though).
Second, the new coach needs to have and communicate a clear vision. For most of the season, it was difficult for us to understand what Watters was trying to accomplish. The list changed every week, young players were used in situations they could not handle, and Watters did little to re-assure us he had a clear idea of where he was heading. The new coach needs to bring a strong plan for success, and make sure we can all get on board with it.
Finally, the new coach has to win. Sorry if that sounds like a lame, simpleton's comment, but it's the truth. Like silliness from beautiful women, the faults of winning coaches are largely overlooked. If the Saints are no better in three years, I promise you we'll be having this same discussion. If they make the finals and have strong showings against most opponents, there won't be much to debate. I've said before that I don't envy Collingwood and Essendon because I think their culture is so toxic, but one can't deny their success. So a lot of things go unnoticed that might be concerns at less-successful clubs.
Nothing with Richardson is official yet, but regardless who takes over next, these things will be crucial to having a rewarding tenure at StK.
I don't know enough about him to form a strong opinion on the matter, but I do have a few thoughts on what he needs to do.
First, establish trust. Trust, which goes hand-in-hand with loyalty, has been all but depleted at the club. The club leadership, the players, and the fans need to be able to trust the coach. I don't know whether the players trusted Watters, but the Board certainly didn't. And fans were getting to the point of incredulity too. Everyone knows now that the schisms in the club were deep, and the new coach will need to repair them immediately. Personally, I am disappointed Richardson lied to his own club and publicly about considering the StK position, especially when a move from assistant to head honcho is met with near-universal plaudits, even from the club one is leaving. But he did hide it, so let's hope that's just part of the business (doesn't make it right, though).
Second, the new coach needs to have and communicate a clear vision. For most of the season, it was difficult for us to understand what Watters was trying to accomplish. The list changed every week, young players were used in situations they could not handle, and Watters did little to re-assure us he had a clear idea of where he was heading. The new coach needs to bring a strong plan for success, and make sure we can all get on board with it.
Finally, the new coach has to win. Sorry if that sounds like a lame, simpleton's comment, but it's the truth. Like silliness from beautiful women, the faults of winning coaches are largely overlooked. If the Saints are no better in three years, I promise you we'll be having this same discussion. If they make the finals and have strong showings against most opponents, there won't be much to debate. I've said before that I don't envy Collingwood and Essendon because I think their culture is so toxic, but one can't deny their success. So a lot of things go unnoticed that might be concerns at less-successful clubs.
Nothing with Richardson is official yet, but regardless who takes over next, these things will be crucial to having a rewarding tenure at StK.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Draft Positions Not That Impressive
Since the end of the season, we've been hearing this line from StK about getting "three draft picks in the top 20" as if that were somehow the great secret of stealing the draft. Well that sounds kind of impressive at first, if you imagine those picks being sort of spread out across the top twenty. Like maybe picks 3, 11, and 19 or some such. But after frittering away two strong players, the Saints are left with 3, 18, and 19. And if this draft is as shallow as everyone is saying, that won't be much to brag about.
I think that when you trade away a current player for a draft pick, you should get a pick that's likely to yield a similar caliber player. I think that's where the Saints completely fell short. Meaning, I don't think pick 18 or 19 will get them a player the likes of Dal Santo or McEvoy. I understand they got a few other players in the McEvoy trade, but certainly not ready-to-go difference-makers. And they did not even know what draft pick they'd get because the AFL had not yet announced how Hawthorne would be compensated for losing Franklin.
Looking at the top 20 picks, I think Collingwood are the clear winner. GWS has the best picks, but that comes along with being the worst team in the league. Collingwood, however, haven't missed the finals for quite a while, and they didn't weaken their list to get draft slots. So considering that, having pick 6 and 10 is a minor coup.
I truly hope StK's draft picks and incoming players are able to make a huge difference in the coming years. Otherwise we'll all look back on this year's trade period with bitter regret.
I think that when you trade away a current player for a draft pick, you should get a pick that's likely to yield a similar caliber player. I think that's where the Saints completely fell short. Meaning, I don't think pick 18 or 19 will get them a player the likes of Dal Santo or McEvoy. I understand they got a few other players in the McEvoy trade, but certainly not ready-to-go difference-makers. And they did not even know what draft pick they'd get because the AFL had not yet announced how Hawthorne would be compensated for losing Franklin.
Looking at the top 20 picks, I think Collingwood are the clear winner. GWS has the best picks, but that comes along with being the worst team in the league. Collingwood, however, haven't missed the finals for quite a while, and they didn't weaken their list to get draft slots. So considering that, having pick 6 and 10 is a minor coup.
I truly hope StK's draft picks and incoming players are able to make a huge difference in the coming years. Otherwise we'll all look back on this year's trade period with bitter regret.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Interchange Cap: Horrible Idea
The AFL is about to implement a cap on the number of interchanges (bench rotations, in American parlance).
Here's an article discussing how the cap may affect each club and certain players.
Here's a little background.
The AFL argues that the game is getting too fast, that the value of extreme physical fitness is being diminished, and that managing fatigue is part of the game, for both players and coaches.
I'm not sure about the game getting too fast; that doesn't really seem possible. I do agree with the other points, though. Top physical form should be paramount, and playing all-out should always be measured against saving something for later in the game. When players can simply take a quick breather on the sidelines whenever they want, getting a drink and a leg rub, they are able to have an impact on the field without being as physically fit as possible. This is disappointing, especially for a game in which fitness has traditionally been both a prerequisite to success and a point of pride.
The interchange cap, however is a terrible way to fix this.
Just think how this will play out. The job of keeping exact count of every interchange will be extremely difficult, and inevitably, something will go wrong. It won't be long before game review shows that a winning side made too many interchanges. What then? Change the result? Penalize the club in some way? What a mess.
Instead of a cap on interchanges, I suggest reducing the number of interchange players. I think allowing one interchange player and three substitutes would work well. There would be only one player available for resting at any given time, so while unlimited interchanges would be allowed, there's only so much resting that can be done with only one player on the bench. And players who need some additional conditioning will simply have to choose how long they can remain in the game. Sorry, Dane Swan, but if you can't hack it the whole game, maybe you should just play half the game.
I just don't want to see any controversies from this cap, but I think we will.
Here's an article discussing how the cap may affect each club and certain players.
Here's a little background.
The AFL argues that the game is getting too fast, that the value of extreme physical fitness is being diminished, and that managing fatigue is part of the game, for both players and coaches.
I'm not sure about the game getting too fast; that doesn't really seem possible. I do agree with the other points, though. Top physical form should be paramount, and playing all-out should always be measured against saving something for later in the game. When players can simply take a quick breather on the sidelines whenever they want, getting a drink and a leg rub, they are able to have an impact on the field without being as physically fit as possible. This is disappointing, especially for a game in which fitness has traditionally been both a prerequisite to success and a point of pride.
The interchange cap, however is a terrible way to fix this.
Just think how this will play out. The job of keeping exact count of every interchange will be extremely difficult, and inevitably, something will go wrong. It won't be long before game review shows that a winning side made too many interchanges. What then? Change the result? Penalize the club in some way? What a mess.
Instead of a cap on interchanges, I suggest reducing the number of interchange players. I think allowing one interchange player and three substitutes would work well. There would be only one player available for resting at any given time, so while unlimited interchanges would be allowed, there's only so much resting that can be done with only one player on the bench. And players who need some additional conditioning will simply have to choose how long they can remain in the game. Sorry, Dane Swan, but if you can't hack it the whole game, maybe you should just play half the game.
I just don't want to see any controversies from this cap, but I think we will.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Why the Saints Shouldn't Pick Harvey
There's been a bit of talk lately about StK hiring former club star Robert Harvey. And while fans might see that as a positive move amongst all the chaos and drama, I advise against it.
My reason is simple: Harvey is currently the number 2 at Collingwood. I've addressed the idea of club culture in previous posts, and if there's one culture I don't want to see at StK, it's the culture they've established at Collingwood.
The Pies have certainly had success over the years, but there's just something about that club the turns my stomach. They're jerks. Just as I loathe the Yankees in every way possible, the Maggies make me root for whomever is opposing them. If there is a coach who absolutely oozes with jerk-juice, it's Buckley. Malthouse was not much better. They scream obscenities at the slightest mistake on the field, often taking their anger out on the poor booth phone. Call me unfair, but there is just nothing I like about anything that Collingwood represents.
And I don't see any value in bringing in a coach who comes from that dark, toxic place.
My reason is simple: Harvey is currently the number 2 at Collingwood. I've addressed the idea of club culture in previous posts, and if there's one culture I don't want to see at StK, it's the culture they've established at Collingwood.
The Pies have certainly had success over the years, but there's just something about that club the turns my stomach. They're jerks. Just as I loathe the Yankees in every way possible, the Maggies make me root for whomever is opposing them. If there is a coach who absolutely oozes with jerk-juice, it's Buckley. Malthouse was not much better. They scream obscenities at the slightest mistake on the field, often taking their anger out on the poor booth phone. Call me unfair, but there is just nothing I like about anything that Collingwood represents.
And I don't see any value in bringing in a coach who comes from that dark, toxic place.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Culture Crumbling
Could the club leadership at St. Kilda make it any harder on players and fans to find something to cling to? It seems not.
Their coach of two years is gone, in a bizarre, soap-opera-esque charade that has defined the club since the end of the 2013 season.
So, what's going on? Well, start with almost a decade of very poor list management, with almost no high profile draft picks (thanks, Lyon). Then add a seeming inability to hold on to mid-career talent (Ball and Goddard come to mind). Then mix in the departure of two well-loved, high-caliber players (see: Dal Santo and McEvoy). Spread this on a team full of inexperienced youngsters who seem to be taking their time reaching their potential (hello Milera, Stanley, Siposs, Maister, Dennis-Lane, Markworth, and others), and a few aging stars who will not be able to carry this group much longer, if at all (Hayes and Reiwoldt). Finish with a sprinkle of off-field drama (Saad, Milne, and Jones). And you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.
So what are the ramifications? First and foremost, the playing group is in disarray, preparing for a trip to Colorado and months of adjusting to new players and a new system. Secondly, the club will probably have to give away memberships to fill the stands.
But the biggest problem is the disintegration of the club culture.
Positive club culture is essential for sustainable success. There has to be something for fans and players to believe in, something for them to get behind. It's what makes great players stay. It's what makes people want to buy a membership. It's what makes young players dream of playing at the club. And it's what leads to great on-field chemistry and, ultimately, victories.
They've got very little to offer right now. Fans are confused. Players are worried. The management is apparently angry and ready to throw out anyone they think is part of the problem. It's certainly possible that Watters was not all that great as a coach. And it's possible the Saints will benefit from the trades made this year. But when it feels like no one can trust anyone else, no one performs well and those who can get out do so at first opportunity. Remember those players at other clubs who said they wanted to trade to St. Kilda? They may have been excited to play for Watters, or at least saw something good going on there. I would be surprised if they still feel the same.
American sports have always been, to me, the model of everything that's wrong with big-time pro sports: no loyalty to anything but money, big egos controlling everything, huge rows between club owners and the city where they play; about the only thing more disgusting is Euro soccer's practice of "loaning" players to other clubs. But it seems the AFL and its clubs are trying to emulate this dysfunctional state of affairs.
If the AFL doesn't get a grip on how to manage free agency and St. Kilda doesn't figure out what they stand for, things are not going to improve. And my guess is the current Board of Directors at this club will not be able to sort this out.
Their coach of two years is gone, in a bizarre, soap-opera-esque charade that has defined the club since the end of the 2013 season.
So, what's going on? Well, start with almost a decade of very poor list management, with almost no high profile draft picks (thanks, Lyon). Then add a seeming inability to hold on to mid-career talent (Ball and Goddard come to mind). Then mix in the departure of two well-loved, high-caliber players (see: Dal Santo and McEvoy). Spread this on a team full of inexperienced youngsters who seem to be taking their time reaching their potential (hello Milera, Stanley, Siposs, Maister, Dennis-Lane, Markworth, and others), and a few aging stars who will not be able to carry this group much longer, if at all (Hayes and Reiwoldt). Finish with a sprinkle of off-field drama (Saad, Milne, and Jones). And you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.
So what are the ramifications? First and foremost, the playing group is in disarray, preparing for a trip to Colorado and months of adjusting to new players and a new system. Secondly, the club will probably have to give away memberships to fill the stands.
But the biggest problem is the disintegration of the club culture.
Positive club culture is essential for sustainable success. There has to be something for fans and players to believe in, something for them to get behind. It's what makes great players stay. It's what makes people want to buy a membership. It's what makes young players dream of playing at the club. And it's what leads to great on-field chemistry and, ultimately, victories.
They've got very little to offer right now. Fans are confused. Players are worried. The management is apparently angry and ready to throw out anyone they think is part of the problem. It's certainly possible that Watters was not all that great as a coach. And it's possible the Saints will benefit from the trades made this year. But when it feels like no one can trust anyone else, no one performs well and those who can get out do so at first opportunity. Remember those players at other clubs who said they wanted to trade to St. Kilda? They may have been excited to play for Watters, or at least saw something good going on there. I would be surprised if they still feel the same.
American sports have always been, to me, the model of everything that's wrong with big-time pro sports: no loyalty to anything but money, big egos controlling everything, huge rows between club owners and the city where they play; about the only thing more disgusting is Euro soccer's practice of "loaning" players to other clubs. But it seems the AFL and its clubs are trying to emulate this dysfunctional state of affairs.
If the AFL doesn't get a grip on how to manage free agency and St. Kilda doesn't figure out what they stand for, things are not going to improve. And my guess is the current Board of Directors at this club will not be able to sort this out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)