Swoop On Swans Has Nothing To Do With Integrity

Sydney Morning Herald

Monday March 3, 2008

Richard Hinds

THAT the Swans did not want to win their first NAB Cup match against Hawthorn in Launceston was a secret about as well concealed as Paris Hilton's social life.

Coach Paul Roos's public misgivings about continuing in a competition where a trial rule restricts interchanges to just 64 per game was one fairly obvious clue. A team sheet missing 13 first-choice players including superstar Adam Goodes, who was fit and eager to play but spent the weekend in Tasmania performing ceremonial duties, was an even less subtle statement of intent.

So you can understand why there may have been some misgiving among the Swans' coaching staff as a team set for a programmed loss trailed by just two points in the dying moments. At a stretch, you can even imagine Roos telling Jarrad McVeigh to, "Go forward, but don't kick a goal", as an interchange steward has reportedly alleged.

You can even see how some might believe this has compromised the integrity of the NAB Cup. Except, of course, the pre-season cup does not have any integrity.

Not the integrity that comes in real games when teams are compelled to select their strongest line-ups. Where stars play as many minutes as possible in their most effective positions. Where the scoring system is not changed to enliven what are, after all, just dress rehearsals - practice matches in which clubs can and often do manipulate their teams to gain an outcome that often has little to do with the numbers on the scoreboard.

Real integrity belongs to the regular season. Which is why, if the AFL really is concerned about results, it should thank the interchange steward for his report and instead spend its time reviewing tapes of some of Carlton's matches last season. The Blues lost just enough games to gain the priority pick used to draft young star Matthew Kreuzer, which also proved useful in the trade negotiations for champion Chris Judd.

As the league considers punishing the Swans for not running on their merits, it could rightly argue that, in a competitive market, it must protect the sponsors. It could also say that it is in the club's own best interests to participate fully in the NAB Cup pantomime - if you don't take it seriously, at least pretend you are so the bankers get their money's worth.

Equally, in the week after it was revealed that the AFL's chief executive officer Andrew Demetriou earned $1.4 million last year from an performance-dependent contract, the Swans might counter that while they are merely doing what is necessary to succeed on the field, some benefit more than others from the game's corporate arrangements.

Regardless of the outcome, the investigation has further damaged relationships between the AFL and the Swans, which had already been strained this pre-season by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick's sudden acceleration of the timetable for a new team in western Sydney. While the Swans' opposition can be dismissed as self-interest, they were particularly bemused that even the mayor of Blacktown had been briefed on a possible 2012 start-up before they were told of Fitzpatrick's thoughts the evening before they appeared in the Herald.

The Swans were also angered last year by what they perceived to be an AFL threat to withdraw funding for the SCG redevelopment if Roos continued his public complaints about the hastily introduced hands-in-the-back rule, while the ill-feeling caused by Demetriou's derogatory remarks in 2005 about Roos's supposed ugly tactics has never been fully resolved.

In an interview with the Herald last year, Demetriou said he had made peace with Roos. But the Swans still don't believe the AFL chief has properly apologised and were disappointed he was not carpeted by the commission for causing potential damage to the brand.

At the same time, the Swans have wondered if it is coincidental that so many recent rule and interpretation changes - the hands-in-the-back rule, which makes life difficult for shorter defenders such as Leo Barry, and the trial interchange rule - have a negative impact on their tactics or personnel.

Believing you have been singled out by the lawmakers might seem fanciful, even paranoid. But no more fanciful than punishing someone for not trying to win a match in which the result is irrelevant.

© 2008 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home