- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Matthew Knights during the AFL Round 03 match between the Carlton Blues and the Essendon Bombers at the MCG, Melbourne.
Matthew Knights’ response over the weekend to the contents of Matthew Lloyd’s new book was described by the Herald Sun’s Mark Robinson as “a withering attack on Lloyd” and “a character assassination of unprecedented levels in regards to captain and coach”.
Another report from the same paper said Knights had “savaged” Lloyd.
From these descriptions, you’d expect what Knights said to have been unjustified, out of line and merely the bitter comments of an ex-coach. I know I did.
That was, until I actually listened to Knights’ comments.
The first thing to be noted was that the tone of what he said did not come across as savaging. It sounded more like a measured response to some very public criticisms of his coaching.
The second thing was that Knights and the Bombers had actually offered Lloyd a contract at the end of his career that would’ve seen him remain the highest paid player at the club. This was interesting for reasons we’ll get to in a moment.
But first, let’s back up.
Knights was Essendon coach at the time Lloyd retired and the perception has been that Knights was responsible for forcing the full forward from the game.
The book, which was launched last Thursday, does nothing to douse this theory. Lloyd writes that Knights effectively pushed him to retire with a plan to marginalise him as a support act to young forwards Jay Neagle and Scott Gumbleton, according to AFL.com.au.
Knights’ reply came on ABC radio on Sunday, where he claimed this suggestion was “utter crap” – perhaps the only choice of words that could be considered responsible for the colourful journalism we’ve seen since – and put the spotlight right back on Lloyd for putting his own needs above the team’s.
Said Knights: “When you sit down in a room with Paul Hamilton and Matthew Lloyd and say, ‘Listen Matthew, here’s a great contract – you’ll still be our highest paid player, here’s your role for the year, you’re going to play a lot up the ground you’re also going to play time deep and the reasons are we want Naegle, Ryder, Gumbleton (and) Hille (to develop), we want the airtime shared, we want flexibility … and then the question still comes across the room, ‘Well do you want me to play’?”
Also: “That’s where we [needed] to head as a footy club. The multi-pronged attacks are difficult to combat. So in the end I think Matthew decided that wasn’t for him, to play a team role in the forward line.”
Lloyd’s response since has been that him playing at full forward was in the team’s best interests. But on this front, it’s hard not to side with Knights – with Lloyd nearing the end of his career, time had to be given for the next generation to develop.
On top of that, recent times have shown that a forward line reliant on solely one man – especially an ageing one – is bound to have its struggles.
And on top of that, the success Matthew Richardson had moving up the ground late in his career – which resulted in an unexpected run at the Brownlow one year – would’ve no doubt been in the back of Knights’ mind.
The size of the contract Lloyd was offered showed he was still a valued member of the team. In fact, it literally showed he was valued more than any other player at the club.
So we know that Knights was not being unappreciative of what Lloyd could bring to the team or what he’d achieved in his career or his standing at the club. His only crime, seemingly, was asking a star player used to being the focal point to play more of a team role.
Lloyd might be by far the more popular figure with the footy public but in this debate, it’s difficult to do anything but side with Knights.