After a season from hell, the Adelaide Crows must act tough until the end of the year – and so far, so good.
Jack Gunston’s desire to leave the club and return home to Melbourne is understandable. Home sickness can be debilitating, and better he leave now then draw out the process and become an established part of the first 22, unlike another Gold Coast born tall forward who needs not to be named.
However, this doesn’t mean the Crows need to be happy about it. Hard words were used to describe Phil Davis’ defection earlier this year, with operations manager Phil Harper describing him as “the enemy”.
However, no amount of strong words or empty posturing could of kept Davis or resulted in a better deal for the 20-year-old centre-half back.
But in the case of Gunston, Adelaide can help decide the outcome.
Young players need to be shown that the club’s loyalty to them extends only as far as their loyalty back to the club. And by stripping the award from him, no matter how petty and shallow a gesture it may seem, the Crows have sent a strong message to any other players in two minds as to their future.
For those players on the list, however, every endeavour must be made to keep them. ‘Culture’ is perhaps the most over-used footy-buzz word of 2011, but for good reason.
Rebuilding the Crows’ identity around its young superstars and their desire to not only win a premiership but to win it in the tri-colours must now be a high priority of the board, leadership group, and coaching-review panel in their decision-making process on the new club mentor.
As for the discards, they are now goods to be used at the club’s will.
Gunston must now be used as hard currency – and if a deal isn’t there, then he can find his own way through the draft and face the prospect of heading to Queensland via the Suns, Sydney via the Giants, or even back to Adelaide with the Power. The likelihood of the Crows taking him back is so low it’s laughable.
Other players on the trade table, like big man Ivan Maric, who has been a great servant to the club playing with passion and heart but fading in comparison to import Sam Jacobs, must also be used for the club’s gain.
If the club can get a hard running, line breaking midfielder or another tall backman from trade week, then the experience has been a success – failing this then some pretty high draft picks. Anything less and the club has not only failed, but let a 20-year-old walk-out beat them. And that’s simply unacceptable.
Other Crows with their heads on the line must surely include James Sellar, who, since bursting onto the scene in 2008 in a pre-season exhibition game against Collingwood, has been unable to find his best position and spot in the senior team. Likewise half-back Chris Shmidt and midfielder Mike Cook, who have also been unable to hold onto permanent spots and look unlikely to do so next year. They must be cut loose.
Aggression must now be the order of the day for a club too long looked at as being boring and clinical. The Crows of the post-Craig era must re-model themselves as aggressive and uncompromising, both on and off field, starting this trade week.
Graham Smith
Guest
Bayman, you hit the nail on the head with your point about the small thinking of Adelaide. Giving the medal to someone else is a betrayal of faith. The fact is that he made his contribution while he was representing them on the field. Whether or not his decision and/or reason to leave was fair or reasonable is secondary. If the Crows have an issue with someone citing homesickness or leaving in a hurry then I suggest they take their case to the AFL. Once again the Crows have shown that they have two sets of rules. One for themselves and one for everyone else. Being rewarded is conditional on sucking up to Steven Trigg and his colleagues. These people got to their positions of power because their belief system is representative of the insipid, selfish, opportunistic attitude of the people living in the outpost called Adelaide.
Bayman
Guest
Damo, As a Crows fan since day one I have mixed feelings on the Gunston situation. In the case of Bock, and even Davis, I have no great problem with the fact the club declined to pick them once their decision was known (even allowing for injuries they may have had etc.). The club's first duty is to find an adequate replacement and try them, not further the career of a player who's leaving. Bock and Davis were no longer relevant to the club once their decision was made public. If people thinks that attitude by the club was petty then so be it. The fans tend to think of players as "heroes" who deserve absolute and ultimate consideration. Personally, I do not think this way. As far as I'm concerned, once a player says he's going he's surplus to requirement. The club's responsibility is to get the best possible deal for the club - not the best possible deal for the player. On the Gunston scenario, however, I'm doubtful if the club will win the battle for the higher ground. If Gunston did indeed win the Mark Bickley award then, well, he won it. He won it, presumably, on what he displayed on the ground this year for the Adelaide Crows. With the season now over for Adelaide surely what Gunston achieved has not changed. If I was Daniel Talia, supposedly the new recipient (according to reports I've read on the Crows web-site), I might feel a bit disappointed to be publicly considered the emergency replacement for Gunston. To put it another way, I wouldn't really feel like I won the award - ever! Now if Adelaide had simply not named Gunston as the winner and taken it from him without his or anyone else' knowledge, based on his departure, and then named Talia then no problems. Who has to know the original choice had been Gunston? Certainly not Gunston or Talia - or me and the football public at large. If, however, the club (through CEO Steven Trigg) simply decided to spit the dummy and take back their trophy then I'm not sure the high moral ground is theirs. All clubs, including Adelaide, are about to shaft several players very soon to accommodate the requirements of the draft. I'm guessing, but I reckon a couple of those players will not be pleased about this turn of events. There are already suggestions that St. Kilda's recent acknowlegement of some Grand Final heroes did not come, necessarily, with the blessing of all of them. I'm not sure Adelaide, or Trigg, can say cutting players is "just footy" while players volunteering to leave is the act of a traitor. So the question is, did Adelaide do the right thing, act tough, and send a message to their playing staff that disloyalty, as displayed by Gunston, will not be tolerated or did they set themselves up for ridicule as petty, small minded men who are only comfortable if everything goes the way they want it and bugger the rest? Popular comment on the issue seems, more or less, to be evenly split (ignoring the Power fans who naturally chimed in on the side of Gunston and against the club's decision - any chance to have a go at the Crows - particularly after the Power disaster that's been 2011). Be that as it may, on balance I'm inclined to agree with those who think the club may have acted prematurely and behaved in a manner which can only be described as petty and childish. It tells us as much about Trigg and his board as it does about Gunston. No doubt Gunston has been a coward in this affair. He's had a breakthrough year, proven his worth and established himself in the team. On the other hand, he's only 19 and, not surprisingly, is not actively seeking confrontation with anyone. He had booked his flight and only told the club he was leaving, and not coming back, two hours before heading home to Victoria. The reason given was homesickness. I still smile about young men, mixing with other young men in an environment they have dreamed about for years getting homesick. Frankly, it's like one of your workers telling you he has a "back problem". You have to take it on face value because it can never really be proved but, the reality is, you just do not believe it. Homesickness indeed! Gunston was in the throes of negotiating a new contract with the club. His manager was talking about a tweak here, a tweak there and everything would be sweet. Far more likely is that Gunston had some doubts about the Crows immediate future and preferred to play with a team with better prospects. Especially now that he has shown he can mix it at this level. No doubt some Victorian clubs knew about Gunston's pending departure before Adelaide did and his manager would probably be negligent if that were not the case. Adelaide may feel hard done by. My advice would be to get over it. There is talk in Adelaide now that the club should just recruit South Australians to avoid the "homesickness" issue. This, of course, ignores the fact that young South Australian players are available for every other club in the draft. Adelaide will not get to pick and choose and they definitely won't get to pick and choose before those other clubs. What the Gunston case highlights is the need for clubs to do their homework. It was Adelaide, after all, who chose McGregor ahead of Pavlich. Kenny was a good average footballer, Pavlich has been a champion. They also drafted Laurence Angwin (at no. 7) in 2000, happily ignoring players like Shaun Burgoyne, Kane Cornes, Drew Petrie, Daniel Kerr, Richard Hadley, Ted Richards, Jamie Charman, Adam McPhee, Andrew Krakouer, Josh Hunt, Domenic Cassisi and their latest B&F winner Scott Thompson (taken by Melbourne at pick 16) who were all taken later by another team. Graham Johncock, incidentally, was taken by Adelaide in the same draft at pick 67. So Adelaide hasn't exactly set the world on fire with their recruiting over the years. The best players they've had have tended to be among those taken in the first year or two or three. Personally, I believe Davis had been massively under appreciated by the club until Bock left and he suddenly found a spot in the side. He immediately proved his ability and got everyone excited but he'd been there for a couple of years before that without a trial. It didn't surprise me that Davis left. He owed nothing to the club in my view. Dangerfield is a crowd favourite and attacks the footy hard. The fact is, though, a dozen touches a game sees him out. The good players are getting 20-30 a week, every week and the great players even more. Perhaps Dangerfield is doing a "job". Yes, the more I think about it the more I think the real problem is in the Adelaide management. As fish they are simply too big for the size of their pond. There seems to be no real accountability and decisions like re-assigning Gunston's trophy reek of small town, petty thinking confident the Crow faithfull will just accept it without question. Living is Sydney I can now appreciate how small Adelaide really is. Until now, I never fully appreciated how small the thinking is as well.
JasonA
Guest
Kurt Tippett must be traded to the Suns or Lions for either a top 10 draft pick or young talent from the Suns. I hope that Adelaide can get the key defender, running outside midfielder and a back up ruckman they need from trading Maric, Gunston and Tippett. I would also like to throw the idea of trading Patrick Dangerfield as well. I think he has the potential to be a superstar but at the moment he is overrated so see what hes worth to Victorian clubs come trade week. I think Geelong still has a compensation pick from losing Ablett which could tempt the Crows.
TomC
Guest
'And by stripping the award from him, no matter how petty and shallow a gesture it may seem, the Crows have sent a strong message to any other players in two minds as to their future.' With the departures of Bock, Davis and Gunston, and their shabby treatment by the Crows, the only message Adelaide are sending to their playing group is that the club will reign fire and brimstone down upon you if you dare to try to leave. This is not a positive message. How would any Crows player who is thinking about leaving right now feel about taking any concerns they had to the coach or other Adelaide management? They'd hardly be confident of getting a fair hearing. What are the odds that if an Adelaide player decides to leave in the future that he'll be open and honest with the club, when what he'll get in return is the cold shoulder? The story is that Gunston only told the Crows he was going a couple of hours before his departure. He gave them no warning and allowed no chance of a confrontation. Why would he act in this way? No doubt the treatment of Davis and Bock before him weighed on his mind. Moreover, now that the Crows have stripped him of the award and condemned him publicly, they've only weakened their own trading position. Everyone now knows they pretty much have to trade him. Compare this to the way Sydney treated Ryan O'Keefe a few years ago. He publicly declared his intention to leave, which no doubt upset a number of people at the club, but they swallowed their pride and convinced him to stay at the Swans, and continued to be a key player for them. Adelaide have created a rod for their own backs with their treatment of these three. Clearly the shabby treatment of Bock did nothing to persuade Davis and Gunston to stay, so I fail to see how continuing the same policy will convince their current players to stick around.