The Adam Goodes question
In an alternate universe, Friday’s game ending controversy-free would have resulted in two largely forgettable talking points – lamenting Carlton’s continued presence on Friday nights and perhaps quietly applauding a slightly improved effort from the besieged club. However, that’s not how things unfolded. Adam Goodes’ ‘war cry’ gesture when celebrating a goal in the second quarter was supposed to make a statement and it seemingly went over the heads of everyone. Was it retort to the chorus of boos and potential racists in the crowd and at home, or an ‘aggressive’ act of celebration to some?
In the end, it was neither. Goodes admitted post game the gesture was aimed at a group of underage Indigenous players who taught him the celebration. But the surrounding furore at the laughably harmless incident and continued debate over booing directed at him prompts questions that should be posed to footy fans. First, would you start or continue to boo Adam Goodes in the knowledge that that behaviour potentially enables a racist minority? I will concede this question has no ‘easy’ answer, as everyone assembles their morality and values in different ways. No one should be forced to like Goodes either, but it is something for people to start reflecting on as individuals.
And second, is it absolutely necessary that strangers in your vicinity hear your distaste for Goodes in the chance that it provides cover for someone with more nefarious intentions? Would knowing this change your course of action and why? Again, the answers are not simple and there are obvious limitations in trying to cultivate collective responsibility in public. And this isn’t saying booing is wrong or that everyone who does it should be tarred with the same brush. There are people I’ve known that aren’t racist in their heart of hearts and would boo everything at the footy, including their own team. This is just food for thought for the average punter.
Monsters of mentality
When Borussia Dortmund manager Jürgen Klopp gave an interview in December 2012, he coined the term “monsters of mentality”. He referenced the ability of his squad to knowingly be willing to play above their limits. Dortmund played a frenetic and all-at-sea style, harassing the opponent to give up the ball and then moving it at lightning speed. Philosophically, there are links between the “monsters of mentality” concept and the current Western Bulldogs side. New coach Luke Beveridge has demanded his players conform to a level which, for the moment, is likely above them. If you look at their scattershot results to begin the year, it’s hard to argue this form of football is sustainable. That’s not saying they’re doomed either, they’ll in time find something that fits them better.
The most interesting factor in playing this volatile style is how devastating it can be when it pays off. That first quarter blitzkrieg of seven unanswered goals is where the game was won and lost. When the Giants got their hands on the ball, the Dogs laboured to weather the storm. Most of the young squad looked fatigue at every throw in and ball up, but they kept at it. They’re beginning to understand that pay off comes with persistence. They’re not ready for bigger things yet, but that level of physical sacrifice in this mindset is how successful competitors are born.
Fyfe v Dangerfield
In this age of constant rotations and player flexibility, rarely do we see two players go head to head for extended periods in the midfield. Saturday night promised and delivered on a battle of titanic proportions between Nathan Fyfe and Patrick Dangerfield. They spent most of the game breathing down each other’s necks and hunting the ball in the same vicinity. It could be telling in what were perhaps both coaches’ conclusions in pre-game planning. Maybe there was no point trying to tag, the only way to mitigate or offset the explosive damage of either player was to let their own weapon hurt the opposite going the other way.
How’s this for a set of numbers? Fyfe ended with 40 touches, 26 of those contested, whereas Dangerfield racked up 38 and had a staggering 29 of them in traffic. Fyfe finished with 14 clearances, Dangerfield on 9. Fyfe having 10 inside 50’s to Dangerfield’s 6 and Dangerfield laying more tackles 8 to 6. Of course statistics don’t paint the whole picture, but it is a genuine shame that only one of them can poll three votes. Both were consummate and complete performances of midfielders approaching their best. Maybe there are a few more knocks on Dangerfield as a player than Fyfe, but that shouldn’t be something Danger should take to heart. It’s not a stretch to suggest Fyfe has the ability and ceiling to be one of the best of his generation.
Deja Roo
It was a result that you’ve seen before. North Melbourne off to a flyer before they’re reeled in by an opponent with more resolve. The Roos steady only to be knocked off at the line. Theories of where it goes wrong could be listed for weeks. Are there too many players who can play, but suffer the same deficiencies on the list? Does Brad Scott have the ability to get the most out of his players? Are too many too timid in games at the wrong time?
This club was gone for all money at the end of 2007. They rallied and despite limitations managed to cultivate a stable base to build on for the future. The commercial side of North and other arms have been looking to improve from failings of the past. The question for many North supporters is has the football department got the same mentality? The answer is no. Despite ability, not enough at the club either want it or have the belief they can achieve it. In football or even life itself, the illusion of total improvement is not more important than the reality. That is the harshest truth of all.
How the West was won
The Eagles carried on their merry way, with errant kicking in front of goal being the only thing that stopped them from giving Geelong a pasting of a lifetime. The spread of goals in the forward half of the ground (Kennedy, Hill, Cripps, LeCras, Shuey) despite missing key players has given this team new life. Even the most optimistic person in the world wouldn’t have had them second after over two months of football. Before the bye they have three tests to come – North Melbourne, Essendon and Richmond. All three teams sit mid-table with their seasons on a knife’s edge. All three opponents would know the Eagles have a perception of vulnerability despite starting the year so well. If the Eagles can win that mental battle, they’re a long way to passing those tests.
