By Spiro Zavos
December 3rd 2008 @ 3:25am
Related coverage
The Phil Gould, Ricky Stuart feud gets nasty
On Sunday, in his column in the Sun-Herald, Phil Gould lined up Ricky Stuart and fired a series of deadly accurate and devastating broadsides that should, if Stuart or the ARL have any consideration for the good of the rugby league code, lead to the Kangaroos coach resigning or being sacked.
Read the story behind the fallout
The back story to the Gould-Stuart feud is a narrative about a mutual friendship that has soured, the split in the Rugby League code following the Super League disaster, and a battle of the Sunday newspapers in Sydney, with Gould being a star and highly-paid writer for the Fairfax Sun-Herald and Stuart ‘The Game’s Best Thinker’ playing a similar role for the News Ltd, The Sunday Telegraph.
Adding gun-powder to the explosive feud has been unrelenting and unfair attacks on Gould by the executive sports editor of The Sunday Telegraph, Phil Rothfield.
The guts of Gould’s attack on Stuart, following the Kangaroos coach disgraceful broadsides on the referee of the League World Cup final and other World Cup officials, is summed up in the headline to his article: I’m sorry, Mr Stuart, it’s time for you to go.
“He would admit he’s brought great discredit upon himself and the prestigious position of Australian coach,” Gould writes. “It’s an international embarrassment. He can’t honestly expect to survive.”
Gould’s reference to “Mr Stuart” after calling the incident “the Ricky Stuart affair” is curious. It may well be a sarcastic attempt to insinuate that Stuart gives himself airs and graces that do not equate with his behaviour.
The Sunday Telegraph is called “The Daily Astonisher” by Gould. Again, the sarcasm here is obvious with the point made that “countless times over the years they’ve blazoned headlines demanding the sacking of individuals from various sports for myriad minor offences … when compared with Stuart’s behaviour, the majority of these offences pale into insignificance.”
Gould also makes the point that Wayne Bennett resigned as Australian coach “because he dodged journalists at Brisbane airport when he returned home from a losing tour in England … Maybe he would’ve been better served if he abused the media, branded officials cheats and given the match referee a shoulder charge on his way out of the country.”
The Sunday Telegraph ran Stuart’s column in which he said that he knew he was in big trouble when his father rang him to tell him he’d made a big mistake. He also argued that he’d worked hard over the past eighteen months to restore pride and passion back into the Australian jumper.
This last comment is clearly yet another shot at Bennett, with the implication that the pride and passion in the Australian jumper had somehow been lost during the coaching tenure of Rugby League’s most successful coach in the modern era.
And the comment that it took his father’s call to make him realise the “magnitude” of what he’d done is equally hard to believe. Surely it was self-evident to Stuart, either at the time or shortly afterwards, that he had behaved in a totally unacceptable manner and that the only redress was to apologise and resign.
Enter Phil Rothfield with a self-serving and gratuitous article in defence of his star columnist: “The column Ricky Stuart has written today should go a long way towards saving his job as Australia’s Test coach.”
Rothfield assured his readers that Stuart’s apology was not a cynical public relations exercise. The real problem was not Stuart but the campaign waged against him by the Fairfax newspapers “because he works for this newspaper and not theirs.”
After conceding that Stuart’s behaviour after the game was “disgraceful,” Rothfield finds some solace in the “guarantee” that it will not happen again: “He deserves a second chance.”
Sorry Phil, there can be no second chance for someone who has behaved in such a totally unacceptable way as Stuart. And to be realistic, if Gould had behaved in such a way, there is no way someone like Rothfield would be arguing that he deserved a second chance.
There may be personality clashes and media interests adding fuel to the Stuart controversy.
But the reality is clear enough: if Stuart does not resign, then the ARL has to sack him.
Every day the controversy rages is another day when the game is dragged down further and further into the mud.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(12)
The Link said | December 3rd 2008 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Agree Spiro, but this one turned nasty a long time ago.
Gus can have tickets on himself alot of the time, but he’s right in this instance.
Sticky’s coaching isn’t good enough anyway, despite the blow up.
The ARL should appoint Des Hasler, a proud man with integrity and a bloody good coach.
cosmos forever said | December 3rd 2008 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Aside from the paper wars and personal conflicts Stuart should just go. Full stop. Any work the NRL do to life the standing of the game is continually undermined by the rank amateurish behaviour of Geoff Carr at the ARL. This bloke is a joke and should be sacked along with Stuart.
Sooner RL has a Commission that does away with the multiple layers the better.
Greg Russell said | December 3rd 2008 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Ian Chappell was once pursued to coach either India or Pakistan (I can’t remember which). He made the comment that he could never bring himself to coach another country to try to beat Australia.
In this respect I find Wayne Bennett’s role with New Zealand interesting. I can fully understand someone like Robbie Deans coaching the Wallabies – he is a fully professional coach aspiring for the opportunity that his talents deserve, and he only took on the Wallaby job after the path to his first preference, coaching his home country, was unfairly blocked. But none of this applies to Bennett – he did not need the opportunity, and nor did he need the money (not that there can have been any in it for him – the NZRL has been financially mismanaged and is currently broke).
So one cannot immediately dismiss Stuart’s “shot at Bennett, with the implication that the pride and passion in the Australian jumper had somehow been lost during the coaching tenure of Rugby League’s most successful coach in the modern era.” Thinking of Ian Chappell’s comment, it is hard to understand that Bennett could take on the NZ position if he really did have complete pride and passion in the Kangaroo jersey.
Aside from all the above, why is there so much interest in the Gould-Stuart feud? It is roughly equivalent to being deeply interested in someone else’s marriage breakup.
sheek said | December 3rd 2008 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Greg,
I constantly remind myself that sport is not war. Contrary to what some people might want us to believe. It’s not even remotely close. In any case, much better to belt the crap out of each other on the sporting field, than on the battle field.
The ensuing logic therefore, is that a coach offering his professional services to another country isn’t even remotely comparable to a person commiting treason & treachery in war. Not even worth giving a second thought to.
Ian Chappell is my favourite all-time cricket captain from any country, let alone Australia. I respect his views. But on the other hand, what a wonderful lift Wayne Bennett gave to international rugby league through his help with the Kiwis.
Midfielder said | December 3rd 2008 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
It helps sell papers and keeps league in the quite part of the season in peoples minds ….. but Rickie should go ….. maybe Rickie should go back to the stories put up when Kossie grabbed Muskket by the throat ….
Nik said | December 3rd 2008 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Greg,
Bennett certainly didn’t need the opportunity or the money, he wanted a challenge. What better way to prove your talent as a coach than to go up against the best, coaching an inferior outfit and come out on top?
Mark said | December 3rd 2008 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Greg,
Mark said | December 3rd 2008 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Whoops – Greg – Perhaps Wayne & Robbie both wanted the challenge of assisting/coaching the second best team in the region in their respective codes.
JohnB said | December 3rd 2008 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Greg – those sort of feelings didn’t stop Ian’s brother taking the job (although he may well wish he hadn’t)! Anyway, with his often stated views on the value of a national coach, how could Ian Chappell ever take such a position anywhere?
The Link said | December 3rd 2008 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Bennett has been open about his intentions, he wants to see international RL as strong as it can be. In a sense he’s achieved this through NZ’s win.
On another note Reni Matua just got punted by the Dogs, he’d make a nice acquisition for Wayne at the Saints. From memory he would’ve coached Reni in the Australian team in 03/04/05?
joeb said | December 5th 2008 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Stuart’s over-reaction to the loss to the Kiwis in the RLWC Final was due entirely to my mind his placing so much importance on what was this once in a hundred years event, this Centenary of rugby league celebration. His over reaction was like saying, “Damn, how could we lose the unlosable?! Now we’ll have to wait ‘100 years’ to square the ledger!” But of course the rematch comes as early as next season (presuming they meet again in scheduled test matches in 2009?) so considering his past stellar service to Australian rugby league as a player even though he was well out of line confronting the match officials the following day after the “major upset”, for mine he still deserves a chance to redeem himself.
And if he gets it hopefully he’s realised forwards win big matches, especially big punishing hard-hitting hard-running forwards (RL might’ve depowered their scrum [as there was so much gratuitous violence being conducted therein unseen to the outside world, according to some] but at least the game hasn’t as yet degenerated into exhibition-style touch footy suburban park RL just yet). As Gus said in his post match review highlighting Sticky’s major blunder (and considering Steve Price was unavailable due to injury):
“We could also talk about the decision to go into a Test match of this importance with only two recognised front-row forwards. At a crucial time in the second half, a very tired-looking Petero Civoniceva was out there toiling away on his own while a frustrated Brent Kite was left sitting on the sidelines and an even more frustrated Josh Perry was watching from the grandstands. That allowed the Kiwi big men to run without fear and they totally dominated proceedings when the game was in the balance.”
As well there were several bad omens at the start of the game, if you’re the superstitious type as me; first when several of our Roo players ran onto the hallowed turf wearing those ghastly dreaded white boots which for some of us will always bring back memories of that fateful 1976 Grand Final day when the Dragons suffered that still humiliating defeat to Gibson’s all-conquering Eastern Suburbs and at the conclusion a singular pair of white boots mysteriously ended up slung over the crossbar of the posts at the ‘infamous’ Hill end of the SCG, and two, when that particular day’s St George and Kangaroo great Changa Langlands was shown just moments prior to the Centenary Test Final’s kickoff on Nine’s telecast in an obviously distressed state lying on the asphalt with concerned officials around him indicating he’d toppled from the back of the parade vehicles’ rear open tray, and try as he might Ray Rabbits Warren’s best efforts to allay fears to family, friends and viewers of any serious injury to our league legend, it was plainly an inescapable forewarning of the gloom that lay in wait for all Kangaroo supporters.
Jerry said | December 8th 2008 @ 6:08am | Report comment
Greg – how was Robbie Deans path “unfairly blocked”?