The drinking ban that Gold Coast Suns coach Rodney Eade placed on his team after their first win of the year against Brisbane last weekend has backfired in a big way.
Although well intentioned and seen by many as a step in the right direction for the struggling club, it has inadvertently led to three players being suspended and rumours that several others also had a sneaky frothy or two.
As a result, instead of galvanising the team and proving their seriousness in getting their ailing season back on track, it has brought discord to the group and all manner of problems to the selection table as the club desperately tries to cobble together a side for this week’s game against Adelaide.
Any momentum gained by last week’s win has instantly evaporated thanks to the foolish actions of Harley Bennell, Brandon Matera and Trent McKenzie.
Eade must be pulling his hair out, especially as the trio are repeat offenders.
But while most were shaking their heads and tut tutting in disbelief at the trio’s lack of self discipline, one former player was decrying their loss of personal liberty.
Campbell Brown, once considered a bad boy himself, tweeted – “Can’t have a bet. Can’t have a beer. Thank Christ I don’t play footy anymore.”
While I don’t totally agree with Brown’s sentiments, I can at least see where he is coming from.
Up to what point should a football club control a player’s personal life?
Obviously, if a player’s actions are going to be detrimental to his preparation, and the condition he presents himself in at training or on game day is below what is expected of a league footballer, then the club has every right to intervene.
According to an article by Caroline Wilson in The Age earlier this week, Bennell turned up for work on Monday morning still reeking of alcohol. It is little wonder the club acted to suspend him. No workplace around the country will stand for that – or if they do, they shouldn’t.
But putting Bennell aside for the moment, does that also give a club the right to dictate to a player that he can’t have a beer at a BBQ the day after a game? Or that he can’t have a glass of wine at a family dinner? As long as he presents himself in the best possible shape when at the club, does it even matter?
I understand that the Gold Coast players broke a team rule and some form of punishment needed to be handed down. That is not in dispute. What I am questioning is whether a club has the right to impose such a blanket ban on any sort of activity if it doesn’t have a direct impact on its players’ performances?
A couple of years ago I wrote an article criticising Collingwood for sanctioning Dane Swan for doing an interview with The Footy Show.
He was fined after not getting permission from his club to do the interview, even though the topic in question had little to do with the club and was primarily a personal one. To my mind it was a case of a football club wanting complete control of its player. I felt that Collingwood had over stepped the mark and interfered with Swan’s right to manage his own affairs.
And it is not always the expectations of the club that cause a player angst. When Adelaide’s Taylor Walker was spied drinking a beer while watching a footy game back in 2011 some commentators went into over drive.
The fact that Walker had already played his game the night before and was not breaking any team rules seemed lost on the likes of Tony Shaw and Gerard Healy, who screamed hysterically that his actions were “silly” and would “affect the whole fabric” of the group.
For once the club didn’t overreact, with football operations manager Phil Harper stating, “He’s down there watching his mates, we don’t have a problem with that. He’s allowed to have a life.”
Harper’s comments were a refreshing breath of common sense across an industry that seems increasingly primed to overreact to even the most minor infractions.
While the Suns were right to take a tough stance on its players (although apparently not all who were found guilty of the breach were punished), what would have happened had Eade not initiated the ban in the first place?
What if he had said something along the lines of, “Well done fellas, a good win today. It feels good to win doesn’t it? Enjoy it, suck it up. Go home tonight and have a couple of quiet ones with your mates but look after yourselves, stick together, keep the feeling alive, and we’ll front up Monday morning raring to go.”
If anything it would have stopped players from drinking behind the club’s back. Perhaps it would have even put the responsibility back on the players to manage their own condition. At least the club would know for certain who was fair dinkum and who wasn’t!
While most players would look after themselves if placed in that position, there would always be a player like Bennell who would take things to excess and effectively ruin it for everyone else.
Whether that behaviour is sparked by a lack of respect for the club, teammates or the privileged position of being a league footballer, I’m not sure – it may even be a lack of self respect – but it has the potential to bring down a football club.
While I sympathise with Campbell Brown’s lament and indeed at times agree that the constraints placed on players today can be strangulating, they still need to follow the rules, especially if they want their teams to achieve true greatness.
When it is all said and done, the onus is on the player to present himself in a fit and ready condition when he fronts up to training. If he doesn’t then there must be consequences.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
So are expectations in different workplaces different or the same? And the question is not whether it's right saying lay off the p!ss on a Sunday, it's saying do not drink at all, anytime, anywhere. I thought you were saying they should do whatever the club asks them to do, no matter what, because they've got a privileged position? My argument is that there is a limit and that limit is probably rightly linked to what is going to affect your contribution to the team and I don't think being allowed to decide if you have a drink, if responsible, would be something that would affect that (in fact the reverse).
Gecko
Guest
The actions of Harley Bennell, Brandon Matera and Trent McKenzie show that the Suns are lacking in leadership and professional ethos. If those three mid-experience players don't have professionalism, it could easily spread through the whole club so Eade's right to crack the whip now.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think that's just the way you've read it. Go back and read everything I've said more carefully and you'll see that's entirely consistent with what I've been saying.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Are are you going for an argument? But yes even if the infield group sign up to it, depending on how it has happened some may feel pressured to do so and it doesn't necessarily have the agreement from all the players in that case either. If it has come from the whole (at least a substantial majority) then that isn't an arbitrary ban, but something the players are much more likely take ownership of.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
So you see a footy play eat some pizza? Wow, stop the presses..
Penster
Guest
Sounds like they didn't stick to moderation. Even in an office, rocking up to work stinking of grog is a no no. Don't like the leadership group's rules? Leave. Plenty of others lining up for a crack at the big time. 6 months off the grog for a crack at AFL rewards is an opportunity plenty of blokes would line up for.
XI
Roar Guru
I think normally most clubs wouldn't care if you have a drink or two. If you turn up smelling of alcohol then there's no hope of you getting away with it. I think in this case it's Rocket trying to get the playing group to show their commitment to the club: give up the booze until you start playing with effort every week, then the restrictions will be eased. Since there are quite a few players who seem to not be willing to give up alcohol (which suggests some sort of problem either with their urges or self-control), I have a feeling that Rocket might be keeping these restrictions in place for a while.
Christo
Guest
Hardly arbitrary when the on-field leadership group (I.e. the players themselves) agreed to it.
Josh
Expert
The coach/club doesn't have to make these bans, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to if they think it's the best thing for their team. Discipline, self control, focus - arguably some of the most important factors in becoming a successful footballer. Asking players to forego a drink during the season (or in this case, a drink within six days before a game) is about as reasonable as asking players to diet properly, or to not smoke, or to maintain a fitness regimen. Clubs invest a lot of money in their players - not just in terms of the wage they pay them but the world-class facilities and training they provide them with. If a player signs a contract saying they'll follow the club rules - which every player on an AFL list has - then the club can and should expect those rules to be upheld. These lads would all have been asked before they were drafted, 'are you going to follow the rules? will you go with out a drink?' and wouldn't have been picked up if they hadn't said yes.
spruce moose
Guest
And on the not eat what they want subject - complete bull. Many of us have seen footballers at night time, after a night on the piss (which is worse than a bad meal mind you) tucking to a pizza or a kebab. I live near a footballer (who will remain nameless) whom I often see at the local pizzeria. You haven't a clue.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Sure they have the choice. But is it the best way to manage the playing group with arbitrary blanket bans? The coach is also making these choices, they don't have to apply it. I reckon it's not the smart choice.
spruce moose
Guest
That comment I partially agree with. I'll overlook the fact that it is contradictory to every other comment you've made today where you say the players are chained down in the cotton fields and have to make herculean sacrifices to play football. All I can think of right now is the AFLPA getting together, crying arm in arm chanting "We shall overcome!"
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
That's exactly the example Franko was looking for me thinks.
spruce moose
Guest
And of all this is their choice at the end of the day. It's what you constantly forget. They choose to do it and they are financially compensated handsomely for it. A cyclist, a runner has to give up more, and for less money...but they do. They choose to. Choice. A jockey has to give up the most. But again, they choose to. Choice. The very first comment was about that blokes choice not to pursue that career. He wasn't forced into it, he wasn't forced out of it. He saw the lifestyle and said "not for me". The footballers have that choice to, they have chosen "for me". The end. We are not slaves. We have choice. Please try to see that.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I take a practical angle anyways. There's not an endless parade that could offer what these guys offer, so you're best off trying to harness what you've got in the best way possible. I'm not sure a drinking ban is all that effective when imposed arbitrarily. Sure it can be used as part of a commitment players come to together as a tangible reminder of the costs they're prepared to make to get maximum team success, but I'd say it could be any number of enjoyments they could give up and would have a similar effect. When it's imposed, you can just as easily end up with an unnecessarily fractured playing group that sends a club backwards for a very long time. Perhaps Eade has tried to get the players for a total commitment using other ways, but it does seem like a follow-the-numbers-approach, with little engagement or imagination.
jax
Guest
"hey have a hardcore minority of talented recalcitrants who aren’t signing up to the professional standards demanded" I'd like you to name these current WC players also Paul.
spruce moose
Guest
Bingo.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
The question of the topic is whether you it is right to implement a drinking ban arbitrarily across a playing group. Sure a player who turns up to training stinking of alcohol isn't making the best decisions in the interest of the team and himself. This is a reasonable disciplinary issue, but that is an instance, different from placing an arbitrary ban on drinking 24/7 across a whole group.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
They aren't able to eat what they want, they're not really able to pull the rip chord. They have to develop a extraordinary level of fitness. They aren't really allowed to make some of the basic mistakes their age peers regularly make without it being a federal case.
jax
Guest
trading time for money is work whether you like it or not. An astronauts workplace doesn't look like a 'normal workplace' either but that doesn't mean that it isn't one, same with footy.