|
As regular Troppo rugby tragics know, I’ve been on the case of the most reviled journalist in Wallaby history, the Sydney Morning Herald‘s appalling Greg Growden, for some time. Thanks to my vast rugby spy network, the mystery about why Growden hasn’t been sacked has been solved, and is here exclusively revealed.
First, a quick reprise. Greg Growden is misleadingly referred to in print as the SMH‘s “Chief Rugby Correspondent”. The truth is, he has never played rugby, he has no interest in rugby and he has no idea what rugby is about. His title is 100 per cent crap. Growden is actually paid by the SMH to sniff Wallaby bedsheets and publicly beat the minutest of stains up into capital offences. Gregs obsessiveness over all things trivial off-field is in perfectly inverse proportion to his abject lack of interest in the game itself, which is, of course, why he is so reviled.
Last week saw classic Growden. Two 29-year old Wallabies stayed up drinking with friends in their hotel room till 5 am, in their own time, with no obligations the next day, like all free 29-year olds do, at the least, if you’re lucky, on a slow and responsible night. Because they were subsequently found to have unknowingly been in the proximity of some people who were subsequently in the proximity of an incident with a taxi driver, Growden sniffed their sheets and demanded that they be sacked.
Yes, the coverage was barking mad and directly against the interests of Australian rugby, not to mention offensive to the inalienable human rights of all free 29-year olds everywhere. In an earlier Growden discussion, I raised the question of why the SMH would pay someone to rubbish the game to the extent of him becoming intensely despised by Sydney’s rugby fans (and I think only Sydneysiders can really know how intense Growden-hatred is, at least among the fans in these eastern parts):
Anyone who writes about rugby without a genuine feel for and love of the game may just as well not bother writing, if he is aiming to write for the games fans; full stop. If he is not writing for the fans, who is he serving? Rugby league fans? His stupid self? Perhaps he is on the take from somewhere? Who knows.
Well folks, the word is now out, and it’s two words – David Kirk. Who’s David Kirk? David Kirk replaced Fred Hilmer as CEO of John Fairfax Holdings Ltd, the owner of the Sydney Morning Herald, on 17 October 2005. David Kirk is also All Black No. 843. David Kirk played 17 Tests, 11 as captain – the highest office under the Silver Fern. David Kirk was the captain, half-back and one of the three try-scorers in the final of the only All Black World Cup victory in 1987. Captain Kirk is, in other words, a de facto Kiwi Governor-General, an NZ President in absentia, an All Black Immortal, the only man in the history of the land of the long white cloud to have ever led the most fanatical rugby nation on earth to a World Cup. Australia has won two World Cups. All Black No. 843 now runs Fairfax, which employs Greg Growden.
Case closed. My sources are mixed on whether Growden is an unknowing tool in the Fairfax-All Black conspiracy to disrupt the 2007 Wallaby World Cup tilt. In any event, for the tournament’s duration, the paper should be called the All Black Morning Herald. Everyone I know is planning on switching to the Australian. The serious concern is over John O’Neill, who some claim has a media vanity highly susceptible to dangling the Wallabies at the end of a confected David Kirk-Greg Growden rope.
Update: David Kirk profile (the SMH, but dig the giveaway pic!). About Fairfax NZ.
CS
The poor guy is trying to earn a living in a pretty speicalist area. If he gets the boot he’s probably left without a job forever. You shouldn’t be so harsh on him. It’s not as though he is a politcal columnist..
Go easy on the guy.
CS, this is utterly classic. Really good :D
Sprung! Growden is seriously flattered in Spiro Zavos’s recent book, How to Watch the Rugby World Cup, which surprised me as he’d always seemed such a curmudgeon.
“Growden is seriously flattered in Spiro Zavoss recent book”
Ah, well! Zavos is actually a Greek New Zealander who grew up in Wellington……the conspiracy theory gains traction…………….
I just love a conspiracy. We only needed to piece it together.
some of the best sport writers have not played the game they write about. So what.
That there is discipline problems in the wallabies sides is undeniable. So is the case that it involves drinking hence O’Neills action.
Growden can write what he wants. it is the p[lay on the field that matters and on that score how many tests have the Wallabies won away from home?
Case closed.
Growden can write what he wants.
Only someone silly enough to call themself “Bring Back CL’s blog” could be so thick as to believe this. The truth is that Growden, like all Fairfax employees on individual contracts, can only write what Captain Kirk allows him to write, or he will be out on his arse, and his mad anti-Wallaby copy is why he’s not.
some of the best sport writers have not played the game they write about. So what.
Name “some” of the best rugby writers who have not played the game they write about. Boy, that was a long list. The point is irrelevent in any case, as here we are talking about the worst rugby writer, ever.
That there is discipline problems in the wallabies sides is undeniable. So is the case that it involves drinking hence ONeills action.
Unmitigated nonsense. Drinking is a legal activity for 29-year olds in Australia, and when there are no obligations on the players it has nothing whatsoever to do with discipline, except in the good sense of helping in them also having the discipline to relax, which is essential. O’Neill pandered to Captain Kirk’s press on this occasion. Whether O’Neill is ahead or behind the Kirk curve is moot at this point.
it is the p[lay on the field that matters and on that score how many tests have the Wallabies won away from home?
This is World Cup time, fool. And the Wallaby preparation is coming along just fine, which is the only conceivable reason why Kirk’s All Black Morning Herald is going berko. It is what will happen on the field that matters, not what has happened, and certainly not what hasn’t happened (in this case) off the field.
Yes, case closed.
I’ve never suggested banning anyone from any blog, but can we ban Homer for the World Cup?
CS,
I don’t follow thugby all that much but some of the best writers on cricket ( Swanton, Arlott) , football ( Moore, Glanville) even Thugby League ( Clarko ) didn’t play the game.
It may be news to you but players out an nightclub until the wee hours of the morning is a problem. Loti has a problem and so does the fat prop. Forgotten his name. Having a problem is different to whether drinking is legal or not.
Why did O’Neill impose his action???????
given the Wallabies appalling form outside of Australia plus the lack of decent players of class in the team I am wondering why any sane person could think they could get to the semi-finals of the WC let alone win it.
I dont follow thugby all that much
Do tell. They weren’t at a night club to the wee hours. They were drinking in their hotel room, like responsible rugby chaps. And you obviously have no idea whatsoever of the form of the players and the team, or even know what the World Cup is about. Every team in the world struggles in overseas Test matches, even the All Blacks, who often struggle in South Africa and were beaten in, yes, Australia this very year by the Wallabies. But that’s Test matches, which is the completely wrong topic. This is the World Cup, where every team bar one is playing overseas and the whole equilibrium is different. Quit while you’re behind, Homer.
This is fantastic – Growden haters unite.
What I find most perplexing about Growden is that he is such a truly appalling writer of the English language. Leaving aside his lack of understanding of the game and its culture and his malicious streak towards all around him, if he could construct a sentence you could take him a little bit seriously. But he can’t. And he has the gall to slam people for their supposed lack of competence in their chosen field.
And you are absolutely correct in what you say about Dunning and Tuqiri having the right to enjoy a drink until whatever time they bloody well see fit. Growden very genuinely wanted to see someone lose their contract over that pathetic beat up. He is a very unpleasant individual and I am reliably informed he is generally despised amongst the players
let me see.
CS has given up on his silly if one hasn’t played one cannot write about the game.
now he says it is okay for the players to get tanked as they were in the hotel.
No explanation on why O’Neil has taken his action.
If the wallabies can’t win off Australia then how in heaven’s name are they going to win in France. Good lord it is apparent to us cultural football types that the scrum is still hopeless.
Give up on the conspiracy CS it is so absurd. You do not like Greg Growden. bully for you.
Homer, you are a blind fool. Australians can get tanked whenever they want to, provided they have no serious responsibilities to attend to. It is an Australian birth right. Where do you live pal? Saudi Arabia?
I’ve comprehensively explained why Growden is a hopeless rugby journalist, the main reason being that he has no understanding of the game, something that he would not be guilty of had he played it.
As I’ve said, John O’Neill took action because he made a decision to pander to the Kirk press. Whether that was a good call is moot. If it went something like this: “Hey, listen Matt and Lote, we all know that it’s all Kirk-Growden bullshit, but it’s better to go out and pretend that I have given you a stern smack than have that Growden idiot rabbit on for months about it”; then it may have been a good call. If O’Neill fell for the All Black Morning Herald‘s rubbish, he’s a worry and a Wallaby vulnerability.
If the wallabies cant win off Australia then how in heavens name are they going to win in France. Good lord it is apparent to us cultural football types that the scrum is still hopeless.
The first is an appalling sentence, with even more appalling logic. You still don’t even have any idea of the topic of the thread. This is not about Test rugby, stupid, but World Cup rugby. To repeat, no rugby team finds it easy to win Tests away from home, not even the All Blacks. The beauty of the World Cup is that only one team, the host team, plays at home – and thus, with the exception of France this time, the home ground advantage is uniquely neutralised. And you wouldn’t know a scrum if it fell on you.
Growden neither understands nor likes rugby, just like you, which is why you are the only one left in Sydney who loves Greg Growden. Bully for you. As the fans are moving to the Australian for the Cup, you can read him all by yourself. Personal rants from one ignorant rugby nutjob to another.
I’m starting to agree with Patrick. Unless you lift the quality of your own game, Homer, I will be petitioning Mr Parish to ban you for the Cup. Make a start by realising that this is a thread about World Cup rugby, not Test rugby. If you can get the topic right, you might have a chance of being relevant.
“I will be petitioning Mr Parish to ban you for the Cup …”
Leaving aside the fact that you can ban people yourself, or at least delete their comments from your own posts, I reckon Homer has introduced a little colour and movement into an otherwise unremarkable thread.
Moreover, although I share your low opinion of Growden, and don’t share Homer’s low opinion of the current Wallabies or their prospects, you’re pushing the proverbial uphill in suggesting implicitly that rugby journalists should simply have ignored the Tuqiri/Dunning incident as entirely unnewsworthy. A bloke ended up in hospital in a coma, and Dunning and Tuqiri were interviewed by police. That makes it newsworthy by most standards, just as the Canterbury Bulldogs being interviewed over sexual assault allegations was newsworthy even though they were eventually found to be baseless.
Moreover, if the standard of non-newsworthiness is that chaps can engage in whatever lawful activities they like provided that they “have no serious (sporting) responsibilities to attend to”, does that mean that Wayne Carey’s porking a teammate’s missus at a party should have been ignored by the media? Not necessarily the best analogy, I concede, given that it no doubt had a deleterious effect on the team, whereas Dunning and Tuqiri staying up all night getting pissed probably didn’t. But you see the point I’m making. The personal peccadilloes of prominent sportspeople (and politicians) are generally seen as fair game for the media by most modern standards. Why should it be any different for rugby chappies? Greg Chappell’s alleged propensity for extra-marital dalliances was once deemed a fit subject for an injunction to restrain a threatened defamation. These days, such a report wouldn’t be defamatory at all (provided it was true) as a result of recent legislative amendments. We might decry this decline of standards of respect for privacy, but we can’t sensibly deny that it has occurred much more broadly than just in the rugby pages of the Sydney Morning Herald, and we don’t need to posit a conspiracy involving an ex-All Black CEO to explain its enthusiastic pursuit of tabloid smear stories.
Of course there is a case for news worthiness, given police interviews and the injury to the taxi driver. My point is that there was absolutely no case for calling on them to be sacked from the team, which would moreover be entirely against the interests of the Wallabies. Who is he writing for?
I don’t think you read Growden very closely, Ken. The one that breaks everyone up the most is his idiotic beat-up of an occasion when Mortlock got back to his hotel at about 3 pm, after not drinking, and not before a game, and had a disagreement with one of the coaching staff. He has repeated this totally non-newsworthy story a thousand times, to the unending chagrin of the fans. Who is he writing for?
I also think you seriously underestimate how much Growden is detested by Sydney rugby fans. Always, Growden gets five minutes of being cursed at the Waratah matches I go to, and I go to them all – and this is with a shifting group made up of a dozen or two fans. If, as is now being decided by fans I know everywhere, readers dump the Herald for the Australian for the Cup, who is he writing for?
All Black No. 843 is my bet. Others can place their own wagers.
I have to agree with you on this, CS. Homer would possibly be the most irritating person in blogstan at the present moment, possibly beating me. I don’t know what has got into him. He’s presently having three running arguments that I know of.
One is with you; another on religion and another argument is raging about strippers/milk quotas (I kid you not) on another thread. Ill repeat strippers and milk quotas. In case you though it was a typo
If you want to ring his neck I suggest you join the very long line.
We might decry this decline of standards of respect for privacy, but we cant sensibly deny that it has occurred much more broadly than just in the rugby pages of the Sydney Morning Herald, and we dont need to posit a conspiracy involving an ex-All Black [sic -technically, there is no such thing as an "ex-All Black" - All Blacks are numbered for life.] CEO to explain its enthusiastic pursuit of tabloid smear stories.
I’d like to just pick up the last point about there being no “need” to posit a conspiracy story involving Greg Growden’s boss, who is the only All Black Captain to have ever led New Zealand to a World Cup victory. I think this frames the question poorly. It isn’t a question of what we may or may not “need”, I would argue, but a question of what inferences can be drawn that most plausibly fit the facts.
The first point in answer to this question is that the other possible reasons for Greg Growden’s anti-Wallaby copy, such as a demented penchant for ordinary tabloid sensationalism, do not weaken the conspiracy allegation. In most conspiracies, or at least any half-decent conspiracy worthy of the name, there will always be alternative explanations automatically inbuilt as part of the planning. If you have the capacity to conspire, you logically have the capacity to conspire to cover up the conspiracy. The two phenomena always go together, like a scrum and a backline. David Kirk’s intention to disrupt the Wallaby World Cup preparations does not “need” to be the only reason for Greg Growden’s crazed excesses in order to make a conspiracy case, merely one reason. Indeed, this logic is precisely why legal conspiracy cases never “need” the conspiracy’s intention to be the sole reason for the behaviour.
To relentlessly publicly highlight and attack trivial off-field Wallaby behaviour, and to meanwhile deride the administration, the coaching staff, the players, the team and its chances without any understanding, argument or evidence, is more than sufficient for me. But how can we further test this? One way to clear Kirk and Growden would be turn up an example of Greggy taking the same approach to the All Blacks. Has Greg Growden ever beaten-up an All Black scandal in the run-up to the Bledisloe or the World Cup? I cannot recall one occasion, yet the same tabloid logic should apply if operative. Indeed, if it is explanatory, it should apply more strongly, just as scandals over trivial off-field behaviour by Pommie cricket teams make for popular copy. This would combine sensationalistic tabloid values with Aussie nationalism, another tabloid value. Can anyone believe that the All Blacks never indulge in trivial off-field incidents and the Wallabies are serial trivial offenders? Hardly. This is a very highly targeted campaign.
To be clear, I don’t suggest that Growden is necessarily in the know. The popular view about the place is that he’s just a tool who laps up leaks (lots) and pats (lots) trickling from his champion All Black boss.
Coming late to such a great and monumentally important thread calls for some hopefully constructive suggestions to appease CS and all the other Growden hating masses. As a former sports writer, specifically rugby league (never played) but rugby rep (never wrote) can I vouch for the passion CS personifies as that which matches coming from ‘the sheds’ after the fulltime whistle. I once had a league manager take me aside and instruct me that the backpage story was infinitely more important than page 1 ..so I’d better get it right.
I can feel for young Greggy who at least looks like a former player. Maybe Kirky is leaning on him. Without his beat up on Lote and the useless fat one we would not have had league coach Wayne Bennett provoking John O’Neill on the ‘no cross code commenting’ rule that I did not realise was in place over such issues.
Then we have the intriguing bemusement of coach Connolly at Larkham and Mortlock’s support for a Cinderella curfew at the world cup. Maybe this John is thinking it won’t make Paris much fun.
But my suggestion for Greggy is that he offer himself as team taste tester of all hotel food in order to prevent any repeat of the All Black’s obvious food poisoning in South Africa in 1995. Kirky would go along with that one..two birds with one stone…Greggy sacrificed but triumphant, much loved, at rest forever.
CS, do some homework and look at the record of previous winners of TESTS outside their country coming into the world cup. the expurgated version is that they won quite a few.
How many tests in the last 12 months have the Wallabies won outside Australia?
You do not just start playing half decent rugby because it is a world cup.
We don’t have the pack and the back line is as slow as your punchlines. some of the forwards are fatter than me.
We fluked a a place in the final in Australia last time. on what basis do you believe this team can out perform the last world cup team?
Homer, the starting point is that this is not Test rugby but World Cup rugby. The crucial difference is that, for all but one nation, the matches are on neutral territory, thus cancelling out the single major differential in Test rugby in the modern era, i.e. home ground advantage. How many Tests the Wallabies have won away against home teams is not the significant measure in the way that it is for Tests.
Australian rugby is in good form this year, albeit our prep for the World Cup has been truncated because of the idiotic delay in sacking the hopeless Eddie Jones. The major disadvantage we carry from the Crazy Eddie era is that Knuckles and the other coaching staff didn’t have time to bring the young bloods up to speed, although much of the blame for this can be sheeted home to Ewen McKenzie, who balls-up the introduction of Beale, Holmes and Turner to the big time (and ruined Morgan Turinui’s career).
Allowing for the short prep, Knuckles & Co have done very well, on balance. Remember, in the international provincial tournament, the Brumbies finished with their longest winning streak in history – six on the trot, home and away. Both the Brumbies and the Waratahs won their final games in New Zealand, serving notice for those watching. By contrast, both Kiwi teams lost the following week in South Africa, underscoring the weakness of the All Blacks on the road, for those watching. The WA Farce also had its best season. The only Super 14 disaster was Queensland, because of Crazy Eddie. We have subsequently scored a major strategic advantage in having Crazy Eddie adopted by the Boks.
In this year’s Tests, the Wallabies have been competitive every outing. Of the seven Tests, the Wallabies won five, including one each against South Africa and NZ. In the two losing away games, the Wallabies were by no means trashed. On the contrary, they were fully competitive, especially against the full-strength Boks in South Africa, where they were inspiring. There was hardly anything in the Test in NZ, perhaps only a couple of refereeing decisions. The Boks lost in New Zealand. If you take away the home ground advantage in these results, which the World Cup will, we have an open ball game between these three superpowers, on form.
Wait, there’s more. As distinct from the last World Cup, where the players carried the Wallabies to the final despite their crazy coach, in this tilt we have a sane coaching squad who have the confidence of the team. Whereas the Blacks have arguably peaked, the Wallabies are still improving every outing. The main improvement has been in the scrum, where we are not dominant but now fully competitive. Much of this has been due (tks to Knucks, of course) Matt Dunning finally maturing, which is why All Black boosters Kirk-Growden are targeting him. Dan Vickerman is arguably the world’s best second-rower and line-out manager (with the exception of Victor Matfield). Nathan Sharpe is playing the best rugby of his career. George Smith is in a zone of his own. Rocky Elsom was devastating in the Super 14, although he now needs to lift. Stephen Hoiles is a potential Ray Price and increases the potency of our line-out to the world’s best. Our weaknesses are our other prop, especially now Shepherdson is injured, and a rooky hooker. The untold story in Australian rugby is what’s really behind the dumping of Jeremy Paul. Overall, however, this is a good Wallaby pack getting better. It’ll be formidable, make no mistake.
The backs are of course more exciting. What counts in Cups more than anything else is experience under pressure, and in our two seasoned halves we have this in abundance. No half in the world can put a hit on the opposition like George Gregan. No fly-half in the world has the vision of Stephen Larkham. Gits is quicksilver. Morts is an inspiration. The Coopster is an apprentice Wallaby legend. Latham of Socks Down is the world’s strongest running and kicking 15. In a way, however, Tuqiri is the key. What counts in modern rugby is the ability to suck in defenders, for this creates the openings for tries. Tuqiri is priceless, not because he scores tries – he doesn’t, except against weak teams – but because he takes at least two and often three defenders to stop, which opens the opposition up for our talent. No other nation has a Lote Tuqiri on the wing, which is why he’s been targeted off-field by Kirk-Growden.
The Wallaby coaches also have a touch of brilliance about them. No doubt they’ve much still up their sleeve, but we’ve already seen the stunning second-half switcheroo, wherein after George has got the pack organised Gits moves to 9 and Staniforth, who is a bigger version of Nathan Grey, comes on at 12. This instantly fully reshapes the Wallaby attack and may well be impossible for other nations to counter.
Don’t get me wrong. On overall form the All Blacks are entitled to favouritism, and France is entitled to be second favourite given its residual home ground advantage. The Pommies are never to be underestimated, as they can never be trusted. The Boks can’t be written off, provided they keep Crazy Eddie locked away in a dark cave. The Welsh, the Irish and the Argies are to be respected.
But are the Wallabies in the hunt for the Australian World Cup Number Three? You bet your bloody life they are, which is why the local Kirk-Growden All Black Diumverate is so hysterically freaked out.
The team flies out Thursday. Australia wins every second World Cup. It’s time. Go the Wallabies!
Way to go, cs.
I’d add that the reported team dissonance was actually a good thing. This is where Growden misses again. These blokes have not been in the Cup squad long, though each individually and in general contention have been keyed up for two years now. But they have come together fairly quickly, with a relatively new coach after a vice-like constriction on creative/fluid play thwarting the side’s spirit for season upon season, and now Connelly Cup-selected they’re fresh and fired up.
Tensions were and are bound to happen; it’s part of any representative team and Growden should as a chief correspondent know that. What these tensions do, once expressed, is ultimately force each player back into focusing on what they do best: a sort of individual centralising “this is what I am about” re-settlement within the players and staff. After all, they’re there to do a ‘job’, and any expressed tension or unease serves as a quick means to bed a new team into its shared, combined passion, born of individual focus and need.
That tension written up so poorly at SMH happened, in fact, at just the right time.
The alternative is a fresh team swanning into the Cup unknowns – some rudely awakening, from often so-called minor teams, refs, weather, off-field shambles etc – riding an unbedded wave of insousiance. There’s precious little time to sort that out on the run. Far better to see the ‘dark’ side of the team early, know it’s there, and put it in perspective.
Then, fly out.
Some good copy at today’s final public appearance. Rod Macqueen said the All Blacks’ backs had a body shape which meant they could compete hard for the ball, but wondered whether they had enough variety in their game:
“They see that as giving a competitive edge to them. But one of the things that might be an Achilles heel is do they have a plan B or a plan C because that’s the thing which bit them in ’03. I haven’t seen them like that, I haven’t seen them play that way. The great competitive advantage Australia has is that they have a very strong mind over the New Zealanders”.
Phil Kearns:
“New Zealand won’t get through to the semi-finals. I’m throwing this out there and I hope everyone takes it out of here and tells everyone else. They’ve got a really tough pool … I think New Zealand peaked 18 months ago against the British Lions and they have not played that well since that time and I think they’re starting to worry. They expected to go and smash everyone in the Tri Nations and they didn’t and I think there are some sorts of questions, they’re going what’s going on?”
Meanwhile, good try Bernie and Socks Down:
Stephen Larkham and Chris Latham didn’t seem to know what they were supposed to be doing when, in quick succession, they forgot to shake Howard’s hand on stage.
The Rodent can’t bowl a cricket ball, let alone kick a football.
Dig this, which has to go on the record. From today’s All Black Morning Herald (not online, as far as I can tell):
John Connolly … the Wallaby coach refused to hold a media conference in the presence of the Herald‘s chief rugby correspondent Greg Growden. Connolly stunned the assembled media at the airport when he said the conference would not take place while Growden was present. After Growden said he would not leave, Connolly walked away before being coaxed back.
Go Knuckles!! What a champion, on behalf of Australian rugby fans everywhere. If the Wallabies do actually manage to win the World Cup, Growden better high-tail it right outta this town quick smart, because get square time will arrive, don’t you worry about that Bubba.
Beautiful.
what a thin skinned prat.
Yes, Greg Growden is a thin-skinned prat. No-one else is allowed to be, just him, the big blight. Growden owes a grovelling apology to every rugby fan in Australia. He owes nothing less than his resignation to the players and the coaching staff, forthwith. Knuckles for President! The campaign starts now.
Well, the coaching job’s been thrown open to non Australians. (Speaking of nons, that’s a non-Growden SMH article if that helps cs).
Hopefully it’s a political thing to quell the world’s critics – to advertise worldwide – and we stay with the Aussies for the sake at least of proving we’ve solved our own ills.
But who can explain this bit:
.
Given the extensive intrusion into the coaching of the team by support staff – if extensive is not an understatement here – is there any valid reason, for the sake of the team, to have this imposition by ARU in place? Any reason at all?
I’m not going to get cranky about the idea of a non-Australian coach until the idea looms seriously. One thing I think important is that we break the habit of appointing former front-rowers. Scott Johnson is my pick at this stage, if we have a respectable Cup.
As for O’Neill, he’s a worry. I can’t get a straight line on the geezer yet, which is the worry.
That was a great read, marred only by the sound of Homer repeatedly pressing his icecream cone into his forehead.
It’s going to be a long year.
A very long year for any wood-ducks who think the Wallabies can do anything but get drunk in a french night club at 4am.
Credit where it’s due, good to see the SMH line up a positive article. No insights, run of the mill, but welcome being on the up-beat (and don’t go a-looking there if Growden’s hopeless negativity is off-putting, with possibly the worst pre-Cup write-up ever written by an Australian).
Bring on the 8th.
Yeah, fancy having to import an upbeat asessment from the Guardian, to add a bit of balance to the hopelessly biased, bedsheet sniffing, totally ignorant, numbingly boring Greg Growden coverage in the All Black Morning Herald.
Bring on the 8th … and the Australian.
Speaking of the Murdoch media, and changing the topic to political sport for a moment, I see that both Paul Kelly and that dolt Bolt are now urging the Libs to dump Howard before the election. We can certainly treat Bolt as the lightweight halfwit that he undoubtedly is, but Kelly’s intervention is a bit more interesting IMO. Could there be late moves afoot?
Ken, the logic has been there for some time now. I don’t think the poll numbers for Costello are meaningful, as the overwhelming number of Howard-Lovers will simply switch their affection. The change would induce a honeymoon and tighten the race, be more likely to save more LNP furniture, and to rescue the remnants of Jack’s legacy from a humiliating defeat, which is likely to include losing his own seat. If Costello combined his ascension with some discrete policy changes on Iraq, Greenhouse and WorkChoices, we’d have a horse race.
The main barrier, I am guessing, is that Jack & Janet hate Costello. Having not even once invited him to dinner, it’s hard to see the two Old Queens vacating Kirribili House for the Smirker. Coupled with the Smirking One’s own lack of ticker to mount a challenge, the LNP appears stalemated.
Still, the Newspoll was a real ballbreaker for the government. The marginal backbenchers will be going stark crazy as I type.
Nothing can be ruled out.
It’s smack in the realms of wild punditocracy now, Ken, but interesting nonetheless – moments come along which say Howard really should walk, he hangs on, that moment passes and Howard seems to be the best chance again for a bit, then along comes another, worse, moment, and yet again it appears it’s not too late and Howard should walk.
The polls are one thing, and when Kelly as said takes a bead on Howard to go.. it doesn’t get any bleaker than that. Other than maybe Laurie Oakes to add, if anything.
Personally, I’m more confident that Costello would rise (in public opinion) to the occasion, with the inevitable makeover and media flurry, than most. Costello doesn’t seem to be pushing, and we don’t know what’s on behind the scenes. But it’s clear Howard won’t budge for that. My reasoning is simply that Costello in the role throws the game into a whole new arena, new conversations and perspectives, with “uncertainties” becoming a major issue of itself – which could work against Labor and the new guy as voters really get spooked and go with a Costello known and a team known. It’s a poor tactic to suggest, though, and all reasoning suggests it’s too late for a change.
What is worth considering is whether Costello would want the Opposition Leader job, and why. He’d have a sniping, cruisy role there, but would lose stature and job satisfaction: two things he’d obtain in a big way in private enterprise. He may wish for a break as Opposition Leader, yet there are no guarantees he’d be a chance after a first term Labor Govt. So is Costello wanting to go down with the ship? Is he expecting Howard to walk (if there is real support growing behind the scene)? Is he expecting Howard to win, and he’ll take over later?
For Howard, the argument he loves a fight and lives for politics has to be weighed against the ignominy he’s facing. He’s either delusional, or he’s confident in his assessment the public will come around, albeit with even just one seat enough to win. He may use the platform of APEC to announce a foundation of sorts for the future of the country – that he’s laid out and “there you have it for you” – and go out while the economics back him. News Limited are positioned for that but it defies belief that Howard would have confided any hint of a walk to anyone at all, nor would he have to to achieve a golden send off. Bracks and Carr both walked without a hint, too, of course, and showed how effective that is. The common sense is that Howard believes he can win and has booked himself into the ballot.
Against the ignominy is the one thing Howard craves: being seen as a winner against the odds. What a hero he’d be if he won this one. That may be too tantalising, too well-fed by mountains of previous write-ups, for him to go. Not accounted for in those write-ups is that he’s not faced a credible alternative in the entirety of his tenure and that would suggest danger for him to rely on past achievements now.
And to be really wild here, a thought as to whom Howard might wish for as successor throws up someone quite scary: the one person who has followed a similar path of rise and fall, ignominy and respect, similar attitudinal regard for constituency and reign, is loyal to Howard in every way, is similarly misunderstood but achieves, and might in Howard’s mind go on to prove himself in the way Howard did, from a place of poor regard, is Downer. It’s wild, but it could be Downer whom Howard wants to see as his successor, given those similarities and loyalties – two things which may mean something very deep to the inner Howard. If any of that has a smidge of truth, Howard would I think go down with the ship rather than give to reigns to an antipathetic Costello. And I think hate does drive Howard to a significant extent.
In short imho, it appears way too late for a change, yet it has before and the moment comes again when it’s the better option. APEC is the platform upon which Howard can go. Costello isn’t pushing, and remains the wild card, as his future is so uncertain and not clarified any by himself. Howard is counting the seats, only wants one extra, he’s got his beloved negatives to come in spades, and the pluses and minuses as he may see it don’t speak of a clear path of reason for staying or going.
In short imho, it appears way too late for a change, yet it has before and the moment comes again when its the better option. APEC is the platform upon which Howard can go. Costello isnt pushing, and remains the wild card, as his future is so uncertain and not clarified any by himself.
To this, I would add my comment:
The main barrier, I am guessing, is that Jack & Janet hate Costello. Having not even once invited him to dinner, its hard to see the two Old Queens vacating Kirribili House for the Smirker. Coupled with the Smirking Ones own lack of ticker to mount a challenge, the LNP appears stalemated.
The deep current subtext of the stand-off between Howard and Costello is working a real treat for Labor. With the Old Queen refusing to go, and Prince Smirker refusing to challenge, there is a sense in which Kevin Rudd has positioned himself as the Third Way. I reckon this thread should get back to the real world of rugby, and this should just about do that, or kill it off forever. Let me recall Gramsci’s definition of the Third Way in terms of political power:
Gramsci observed how Caesarism (or “Third Wayism”) recurred in a catalogue of historical events as an expression of “a particular solution in which a great personality is entrusted with the task of ‘arbitration’ over a historico-political situation characterised by an equilibrium of forces headed for catastrophe.”
He concluded that the phenomenon appeared whenever it seemed that forces A and B were so balanced that they could not defeat each other and risked bleeding themselves to mutual death, which seems to me to describe the LNP’s current leadership predicament. In these circumstances, wrote Gramsci, “a third force C intervenes from outside, subjugating what is left of both A and B.”
Here, it is important not to get caught up with ideological labels, for what we are actually analysing is power relations. Gramsci defined his concept of the Third Way in detail and with examples, identifying progressive and reactionary versions, insisting that it was a “polemical-ideological formula”, not a coherent political philosophy or canon of historical interpretation, and, characteristically, that the significance of each manifestation can only be established from a close study of the actual circumstances in which it appeared.
He noted the effects of changes that followed the advent of the modern political systems; along with making distinctions between qualitative and quantitative Third Ways, intermediate and episodic forms, and politico-historic movements where Third Ways emerge in gradations, until the genuine Third Way finally fully emerges, and he made other qualifications and cautions.
In sum, Rudd does not have to defeat Howard, he merely has to position himself between Howard and Costello to take them both down. Let’s see.
Now that’s got me really thinking. Maybe what the Wallabies should be thinking about is not the All Blacks or the French, but developing an alternative to both.
Acknowledging the above comment, and this quote in particular for the thread. Couldn’t agree more with this supposition. I know it’s poor copy to mention the E, but he failed spectacularly by subjugating the Wallaby style – which is running, creative, expansive, even risk-taking (Ellas, Campese) rugby – to playing to other styles laid down by other top ranking teams. It’s mentioned because the damage done takes a long time to repair, and we are still suffering that mindset.
The reason as we know that this has occurred is because the statistical element has worked itself deeply into the international coaching consciousness. Assessment of a team’s performance, and the other team’s strengths and weaknesses, through statistical data is a modern development. Where the Wallabies came unstuck was having these assessments rule the play.
The “Third Way” in an environment of data-Rugby is, I’d suggest, to forget about the current normality of standing forwards in the backline and hitting up, looking for a break after a minimum dozen phases, and instead to spin the ball wide from the start. Set the running standard. Open the game up. Break opposing forward dominance and pattern comfort, stretch the defense, pass and back up. This performs a similar function as mentioned re Rudd. The “middle” ground resides in effect between the opposing team’s expectation due to patterned thinking, and the unpredictable, unsettling if not frightening reality of the known devastating power of running rugby. Opposing players are caught, unnerved, between patterned expectation and (stretched) expansive running rugby and defeat themselves.
It would be electric. And with today’s mobile forwards, probably hectic and more akin to sevens rugby but with several differences – the Wallabies would be aware of what’s going on, where to be, what balls to give and how and when, the extent to commit to breakdowns, quick ripping and going again, and when to set the solid platform on your call for your reasons; the opposition would be playing catch ups continually; and any heavy forwards otherwise deadly rendered ineffective.
Likewise, if there are to be upsets this tournament, it will be the team which runs it wide, stretches the opposition, runs off each other, and takes risks which will nail a top ranked team for the minnow.
Rugby, no matter the modern developments, until players can pass forward or there are two balls on the field, works on simple principles. One of these, among many, is the power and heightened joy a player has when running with the ball, and the panic and at times fear it strikes in opponents. Add natural creativity to that, and the modern game is there for the taking.
No other nation is better placed than ours to capitalise through this, on where the game is currently at.
Very nice article there mate. Growden haters of the world unite!
http://www.petitiononline.com/bonegreg/petition.html