The Third Team

Footy commentators often use metaphors borrowed from boxing to describe footy matches. Teams are described as either looking to land the knock out blow, or to get up off the canvas. Usually my team has just been struck with a knock out blow, or it is the one that cannot get up off the canvas. In boxing, the referee is nicknamed as the 'the third man in the ring'. The three umpires of a footy match, are the 'third team' on the field. They are usually hated by both sets of supporters. But, at other times the Arabic and Chinese saying: 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' applies. 'The third team' of the footy-field is a little more complex than 'the third man' of a boxing ring: for, he (there is yet to be a woman field umpire at AFL level) is three. And thus, this third team is fragmented, divided and multiple. The three members of the team, apply different interpretations to all the possibilities and variables that occur throughout a game. Moreover, if a 'bad' decision by an umpire is made in one team's goal square, with 2 seconds on the clock left, and the team that has been awarded the free-kick is down by 3 points, then, the consequences of the 'bad' decision are somewhat extreme. Such an event could be compared to a bad free-kick being awarded to X team in the middle of the ground when Y is winning by 80 points - only a pedant would notice or care.

Supporters often shout that an umpire was 'wrong'. Or, in more polite terms, say that their interpretation was wrong or incorrect. Some say that a decision was 'right' in terms of 'the letter of the law', but that it goes against 'the spirit of the law'. The one problem is, is that whether or not the umpire was right or wrong doesn't matter: his decision is final. It applies immediately. Even when a shocking decision has been made, you see the good players react immediately to change their position, rather than remonstrate with the umpire (which could give away a 50'meter penalty). The umpire performs and implements an absolute truth upon the game of footy. The umpires (all three of them!) are Macchiavellian dictators: against us at one moment, for them at the next. The umpires do not change decisions; they are irreversible, complete, final. Complaints are not acceptable. The umpires cannot be wrong because there is no alternative to their decision. To play a game of footy is to play against the oppositon and the umpires. The rules that are applied are those that are in the rule book and whatever the umpire decides at any given moment during game. Complaints regarding umpiring and poor decisions is the discourse of losers.

Coaching, Playing

Jake King is one of the players who has come to symbolise the re-emergence of Richmond as a competetive team in the AFL. He was initially popular with Richmond fans, yet over the period of a year or two, he became the source of some derision for his poor disposal. For this he was hardly unique in a team famous for its inability to kick it to their teammates. In a poor team playing poorly, supporters love to have a player who symbolises what is going wrong with their team. Jake King was not only derided by Richmond fans, but he was seen by supporters of other teams as someone who was playing beyond his grade. A player who all that had going for him was his puffed out chest and self-befief. He was further evidence for some who argued that Richmond didn't have the quality of players to make it as an AFL team.

At one point during the first half of the 2010 season, Terry Wallace commented that due to Richmond's poor recruiting, the team had been set back several years. This was quite rich coming from someone who had coached the team for five years. I don't think he mentioned in the same breath that he had made a few mistakes. (Recently Wallace has belatedly accepted responsibility for some poor decisions.) A columnist for The Age wrote that Richmond should apply for some kind of special assistance from the AFL. After win loss ratio of 0-11, Richmond beat Port Adelaide. They would also beat Sydney and Fremantle. After one pre-season and 11 weeks of playing together, Damien Hardwick had managed to create a team that looked like it was interested in playing together. Hardwick chose players he believed in. Some like Ben Nason, didn't look like much, but he played with energy and wanted the ball. Jake King played more often in the forward line.

I don't believe that players such as Luke McGuane, Jake King, Tyrone Vickery, Kelvin Moore, Alex Rance, Robin Nahas, all suddenly learnt to be good footballers the moment Terry Wallace stepped out the door and Damien Hardwick walked in. I find it hard to believe that all of these players (and others) could get to AFL level and not be able to play the game relatively well. Hardwick's contribution has been to establish a clear game plan, give clear roles to each player and to instill a great sense of purpose and ownership in the direction of the club. He also made the observation that 'we can't change a player's skills too much, but we can change the decisions they make'. Players matter, but, how particular players are used and how they are encouraged to work on the strengths also matters. A player with great natural ability like Brendan Fevola is useless if he doesn't have the ability to manage himself. A Jake King or a Robin Nahas who wants to play and to learn to get better is far more useful.