Do AFL players really need farewell games?

Tyson Edwards of the Crows during the AFL NAB Cup Round 01 match between the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power at AAMI Stadium.

The past 48 hours have been a PR disaster for the Adelaide Crows following Tyson Edwards’ sudden retirement and Neil Craig’s dramatic U-turn on offering him a farewell match.

But the saga has also brought the issue of the AFL’s unique ritual of farewell games up for scrutiny.

I can not think of too many sports worldwide where a player retires and is then ‘gifted’ a competitive game to say goodbye to the fans. It is an idea which is certainly unique to Aussie Rules footy.

Of course, there’s the ‘natural’ farewell games for veterans retiring at the end of a season, but we’re talking about the ‘artificial’ farewell games which we occasionally see.

In 2009, West Coast’s Chad Fletcher and Richmond’s Joel Bowden were two good examples of players being artificially ‘gifted’ a farewell game after battling for regular games during the season.

Edwards’ situation isn’t dissimilar after being dropped from Adelaide’s 22 this week.

We’ve all read the Edwards story and typically it’s been big news over in South Australia.

On Thursday evening – following Edwards’ axeing from the team and his subsequent retirement – Crows fans made their thoughts clear on talkback radio and on internet forums with a swell of support for the 320-gamer getting a farewell match.

On the other hand, speaking on Adelaide radio station FIVEaa football journalist Caroline Wilson slammed the idea, claiming farewell games are ‘shallow and individualistic’.

Wilson made it pretty clear she didn’t agree with farewell games in general, stating she believes there’s a ‘selfish culture that has developed with these farewell games’.

You can understand where she’s coming from with those comments. If a player isn’t in a team’s best 22 then what right do they have to being ‘gifted’ a game. Aren’t they putting their own interests ahead of the team?

In the modern-age of the professional, cut-throat AFL industry teams can not afford to be simply gifting games out. Especially mid-season with finals still a mathematical possibility and with a coach under the pump to win games of footy.

But, as Adelaide and Craig’s midweek indecision on the matter shows, it isn’t so simple.

More than anything – even the player who is retiring – farewell games are about the fans and supporters of a club.

As shown by the groundswell of support which built up this week behind Edwards, fans have a big say at footy clubs.

Craig said following his U-turn on Friday: “It’s a great opportunity for our football club in an industry where it’s cutthroat, highly professional and where there’s very little sentiment shown in a lot of situations… to still show care and a sense of belonging to one of our people.”

Adelaide chief executive Steven Trigg added: “The decision was much more about the club than Tyson, with a mind clearly to supporters and members.”

On Friday night, Channel Seven commentator Tom Harley revealed he supports the idea of farewell games and he argued Adelaide’s decision was important for the ‘fabric’ of the club.

Considering the obvious popularity in Adelaide for the idea of an Edwards farewell game, if the Crows had’ve denied him and the fans that opportunity, the ‘fabric’ of their footy club would’ve been damaged.

It’s far to say, their U-turn will appease a lot of those angry Crows fans, who have already been incensed by Adelaide’s 2-7 start to the season.

So the positives gained from the popular farewell game far outweigh the negatives involved, which are basically denying one youngster one game of footy.

Personally I believe every case for a farewell game should be taken on its individual merits, but in the main, there’s little harm in a bit of sentiment every now and then.