Phil Gould vs Ricky Stuart: and the winner is …
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 7 May 2008 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
When good mates fall out there is often hell to play.
This is what seems to have happened with the rugby league guru Phil Gould and Ricky Stuart, former rugby league great and now the coach of the Sharks and the Kangaroos.
Complicating the fall out, and adding tension to it, is the fact that Gould has a cult following on television and for his columns and opinion pieces in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun-Herald.
Gould often, and without fear, criticises the NRL and the control exercised over it and the money taken out of the code by News Ltd.
During the Super League crisis, Gould was an organiser and spruiker for the continuing dominance of traditional structures and organisation which were in a life-and-death struggle against the News Ltd takeover bid.
News Ltd is an organisation that takes no prisoners. It believes that it and it alone is the voice of rugby league. It runs a 16-page section on Mondays devoted to all the weekend’s league matches.
The Sunday Telegraph is equally replete with rugby league articles, with Ricky Stuart’s rather prosaic and mundane column being billed (in opposition to Gould’s guru status, perhaps?) as The Game’s Best Thinker.
Gould’s opposition to the News Ltd Super League struggle has clearly never been forgotten and forgiven.
Ricky Stuart was one of the defectors to Super League, and this divergence of allegiances may well be at the heart of the fallout, despite the intervening years.
When Stuart finished his distinguished playing career, Gould was something of a mentor to him as he created a new career as a coach. There was talk, for instance, that Gould was helpful during Stuart’s stint as coach of the Roosters. There is no suggestion that Stuart at the Sharks has had the same sort of support from Gould.
This brings us to Phil Gould’s hatchet job on Stuart in the Sun-Herald (4 May 2008) titled: ‘Stuart’s halfback quest littered with casualties.’
The essential argument in the piece is this: Ricky Stuart was a great halfback but during his ‘short and distinguished’ career as a coach has been a harsh judge of those who wear the number 7 jersey.
By implication, the argument makes the case that Stuart destroys halfbacks. By further implication, Stuart is not a great coach (this is my implication from the piece, I hasten to add).
Gould goes through all the halfbacks who haven’t worked well with Stuart’s methods and experimentations: Jonathan Thurston, Ben Hornby, Paul Green, Joe Williams, Craig Wing, Luke Phillips, Chris Flannery, Justin Holbrook, Brett Finch, Brett Firman, Jamie Soward, Josh Lewis, Grant Rovelli and now Brett Kimmorley.
The article started with the assertion that the Sharks ‘are trying to dump’ Kimmorley. And ended with the punch-line: ‘The Sharks may not want him but that doesn’t mean he can’t play.’
Biff! Bam! Wallop!
Phil Gould was a good player and a great coach. Ricky Stuart was a great player and (seemingly in the eyes of Gould) not a great coach.
Who is the winner in this argument?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- Gallop and some of his precious Sydney NRL clubs must go (101)
- The NRL is back baby! (65)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- Bulldogs setting benchmark for Sydney’s NRL clubs (46)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (23)
- New dawn for rugby league gets underway (11)
- Rugby league commission ushers in new era (3)
- Ennis confident about his NRL fitness
- Why sporting seasons should never cross paths (36)
- Independent Commission four years in the making, but worth the wait (30)
- Kearney still to choose Eels kicker
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (23)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (49)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (108)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Explore:
Steve Kaless said | May 7th 2008 @ 12:45am | Report comment
Spiro, I read that article and thought the same thing….the gloves are off. It will be interesting where it leads.
Gould in an interesting character in that I don’t know a single rugby league supporter that likes him, yet there are clearly plenty who do out there. I probably need to get out more.
Terry Kidd said | May 7th 2008 @ 9:16am | Report comment
G’day Steve, maybe you don’t have to like Phil Gould to sometimes agree with him.
I have never met Phil Gould in person and can only comment from what I see on tv and on what I read. He does not come across as a likeable person but I do recognize that he is passionate about the game, is very knowledgeable about the game and does seem to be able to recognize young talent. Most Qlders seem to hate him, mainly because he is so passionate about NSW, or because he sometimes lets his allegiances show when he is commentating, but I don’t hold that against him …. I actually think that there should be no golden rule about commentators supporting any team …. anyone remember Rex Mossop and his love for all things Manly? Or Frank Hyde and North Sydney? Or Ferris Ashton and Eastern Suburbs?
My main beef with Phil Gould is that sometimes he is over opinionated and allows his opinions to colour his commentary. For instance last Saturday night he criticised the referee for penalizing a player for stripping the ball in a tackle, a first tackler had fallen off and a second tacklerthen came in and stripped the ball. Gould called this a stupid rule, which I agree with, but then berated the referee for applying the rule. Gould’s actions then were beyond the pale, he takes unfair aim at a referee for applying the rules, making the referee look incompetent on national tv, yet the ref cannot fight back.
Not a good look from Mr Gould.
Bulldog said | May 7th 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I agree with Terry Kidd above that Phil Gould does come across as a bit arrogant and full of himself and of his own opinions, however I must admit that a lot of times he is right and seems extremely knowledgeable of the game and its player etc. It however does seem that sometimes he (and other ex players in the media) have too much influence on the day to day outcomes of the game, the judiciary, rep selections etc.
Ricky Stuart however I have never rated as much of a coach and I think it has been more NRL politics that has lead him to be the Kangaroo coach and not neccesarily coaching skill. The impression I always had when he was “coach” of the Roosters during their sucessful years was that Phil Gould as “coaching director” at the club was really pulling the coaching strings. My take on this coaching arrangement was that it allowed Gould to continue to “coach” the Roosters whilst allowing him also to participate as a commentator which is very convenient from a number of angles. Ricky Stuart acted as team manager and got all the plaudits as the coach and based on that false impression gained the Kangaroos job (this is purely my speculation).
When Gould stepped away from Roosters and Stuart had to actually “coach” the team on his own two feet. They then fell in a heap and he was subsequently sacked. His time at the Sharks to date has been solid but in no way can it be seen that he has turned the club around by the force of his coaching talent.
To answer your question Spiro “who will be the winner” – my guess is that the loudest voice in the media will always win. Therefore look for Gould to score a knock out blow here. My guess is Ricky will be on shaky ground as Kangaroo coach from here on in – particularly if they get beaten by the Bennett backed Kiwi mob.
Just on the point about commentators supporting teams – although I do not disagree with a commentator being passionate about a team they support, I must admit it was annoying on Sundays commentary of the Souths vs Cowboys game when Phil Gould said on air midway during the game that he thought that the Rabbits deserved to win and that everyone else thought the same. From there he went on to be fairly one eyed about the performance and some of the 50/50 calls that appeared to go against the Cowboys during the game. Peter Sterling (who seems much more balanced in commentary) went on to distance himself from Gould by saying that he actually hoped the best team deserved win. (PS – I am a Cowboys supporter).
Terry Kidd said | May 7th 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Good point about Peter Sterling Bulldog. I have always thought that he is a wonderful commentator, not too full of himself, has a wonderful knowledge of the game, gives some brilliant insights into a game or player, and is nearly always right ….. but also willing to admit when he is wrong.
You also have no doubt who he supports …. the Eels …. but he does not shove it in your face or allow his support to colour his commentary.
I always thought that he would be a very good coach, very smart about the game, a very good role model, someone whom I feel would be very good at getting the best out of his players ….. maybe too smart and thats why he won’t coach.
Greg Russell said | May 7th 2008 @ 11:44am | Report comment
1. Stuart’s fall-out with Gould follows on from his even more bitter fall-out with Wayne Bennett. Indeed, this is probably Bennett’s major motivation for taking on a coaching role with the Kiwis (and from all reports he is doing a lot of coaching of them!). There is an obvious pattern here. Bennett and Gould probably don’t agree on that many things, so when they do, one should take note. So Stuart should pull his head in and stop alienating himself from the game’s most senior and most respected coaches. Stuart is a very good coach, but he is not bigger than the game. He will be ultimately be the loser if he keeps going down his current path.
2. Re Stuart’s ability to coach 7s, Warren Ryan constantly argued last year that the reason why Kimmorley and Dykes didn’t work as a halves pairing at the Sharks is because Stuart played them in the wrong positions. Kimmorley is good at passing to ball-runners, while Dykes is better at sparking wider ball movement. This suggests playing them at 6 and 7 respectively as a combination, rather than in their traditional positions of 7 and 6 respectively. But Stuart never seemed to get Warren Ryan’s point that Kimmorley (at 7) passing to Dykes (at 6) could never work, for the stated reason.
Chris Seage said | May 7th 2008 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Spiro, I think the other source of aggravation between the pair was the perceived role of Gould in Ricky’s sacking from the Roosters.
Who wins? Who cares! It’s great theatre and there is nothing like a bit of drama in the game to arouse interest.
Hatchet said | May 7th 2008 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Phil Gould comes across a a prize bitch.
cosmos forever said | May 7th 2008 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Sometimes on weekends when I find myself agreeing with Gould I feel dirty and have to go and wash…
Actually, it’s rare for me to hear him because the collective ego of the channel nine commentary team – and ‘not hidden’ agendas mean I haven’t watched them regularly for years (that and the fact that if I watch nine I’ll only ever see St George, Souths, Easts, West Tigers, Broncos and Cowboys).
Interestingly I will read Gould’s articles and find much more to agree with there (when I can’t hear his voice, it doesn’t involve a game and it’s edited by professionals). He is about as close to the high level of analytical analysis our friends in the AFL take for granted league gets. Though Roy Masters is even better for analysis and story telling and Jaquilline Magnay is streets ahead in unbiased tackling of taboo topics.
As for Stuart, he’s not much better. He’s on the way to breeding a culture of thuggery and alienation at the Sharks (perfect for the Shire some may say…). And the Kangaroos – I could coach them and they would win – plain and simple.
So – Stuart v Gould – who cares…
The fact that Sterlo has been overshadowed by bullies like Vautin and Gould on the 9 commentary for years when he is much better at the job is one of the great tragedies of broadcasting history (though anyone who knows anything about how TV Executives work aren’t surprised the Vautins, Goulds and Sam Newmans of the world take precedence).
Rob said | May 7th 2008 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Ah..Hatchet…those pudgy fingers caressing the the microphone in an ever increasing torrent of passion……….for the greatest game in the world in the history of civilization as we know it. Does something for you doesnt it??
Plato said | May 8th 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
The real culprit in this is News Ltd. They tried to steal the game, boot out hundred year old teams and create their own competition. People predicted back then that no matter what happened in the future, the game would always remain worse off because of ‘the war’. Those predictions are right.
There is so much anger and so many agendas left over from the Super League fight that it might take a lifetime for league to truly work its way back to where it was. The residue, in the meantime, is for all to see through petty arguments like that going on between Gould and Stuart. Imagine for a moment how the rugby league landscape would look if News’s influence had been positive instead of trying to steal a code for their own financial and strategic benefit.