A memo to Mark McClure and Grant Thomas

by MICHAEL STEVEN

A VICTORY for the champion team Sydney has been much maligned this year. Their back line comprises Bolton and Barry in the tall department. Its on ball brigade is largely unknown except for Williams and Kirk. Its only strength, it is argued, is that it has potentially one of the best forward lines with Hall, Davis, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe and a few other hardball getters. They have scored quickly sometimes, but more often they have scrambled to win.

The team has been criticized because it doesn't play attacking football. But no-one has really assessed the strength of the team. And, that is, the TEAM. They are short in the back line and rely on ensuring that the opposition brings the ball into their scoring zone under pressure, using the speed advantage of Kennelly and Barry to run the ball out. Their onballers are battlers who have survived because of their commitment and, especially after tonight, their ruckmen are two men who should stand proud as representatives of what impact ruck work skill can have on a result.

On Melbourne radio, Mark McClure has consistently, some would say boringly, abused the Sydney game plan all year for not being attacking enough. He has argued that Sydney's forward line warrants unrestricted long kicking through the centre and that by not adopting this strategy he has hampered the success of the Bloods (I can't call them the Swans because the only white swan on this planet comes from the other hemisphere).

Week after week McClure has failed to acknowledge that Sydney's back line is short (just imagine Craig Bolton against Anthony Rocca in a grand final), their on ball brigade is honest but anything except brilliant and their forward line is better at defensive accountable football rather than blowing other teams away. Two weeks ago he was almost hyper ventilating because Sydney refused to attack for the mid field ascendancy against the Eagles who just so happen to have Judd, Cousins, Kerr, Fletcher, Embley and a handful of others who would get a game with Sydney. Under McClure Sydney would have been thrashed rather than be robbed by the umpires.

Tonight's match showed the advantages of having a real football brain at the helm. Firstly, Roos surprised by attacking through the middle on all occasions. But after forty minutes St Kilda was in front and unless Sydney resorted to their much-maligned style of play they were in for a shellacking. They closed it down and wore the opponents down.

In the second and third quarters, St Kilda looked as though they might resurge. But, once again, the ridiculous umpiring was distorting the scoreboard. Hall had made an indiscreet jab to the upper mid drift, McGuire squealed for minutes and the umpires decided to punish big bad Barry for almost an hour. It was only at three quarter time, when Roos wisely told Hall to advise the umpires of their favouritism that they, the umpires, were forced into reconsidering their subjective interpretation of the good guy and the bad guy. They are lucky that the eventual result was so convincing because their emotional decisions had a huge impact on the scoreboard during quarters one and two. Hall was crucified and there was no other way to interpret it other than that the umpires wanted to pay him back for something they missed when McGuire exposed his own soft upper belly.

In the end St Kilda's effort was insipid. Key players like Ball, Milne, Baker, Riewoldt, Thompson, and many more failed under the pressure to perform at their best. And their bottom five, who admittedly wouldn't have played if St Kilda had a full list, were simply out of their depth.

But I want to get back to Mark McClure. All year he has pested ABC listeners with his absolutely inadequate interpretations. Constantly he has told listeners that Sydney's game plan is flawed, boring and reflecting a loser's mentality. He claims credit when Sydney kick a winning score but never talks about anything except their forward line, failing to understand how well Sydney has done just to be there. They don't have a brilliant player amongst their onballers and as I have said their back line is demonstrably undersized.

MCclure, I think, used to be an aspiring coach. But he was man enough to admit on radio that he isn't because he wasn't good enough. He said it before me. The reason why he is not good enough is simple, he has a one-dimensional game plan and when that doesn't work he squeals like a wounded pig looking for others to blame.

Sydney has made it to a grand final and everyone should applaud a great coaching effort. The odds are stacked against the team, especially with a question mark about the availability of Hall and the fitness of Ball. But the fact is Roos has proven himself as a master of his craft and anybody who criticises him is either a fool or an economist.

Which brings me to Grant Thomas. Recently, I praised his dignified destruction of those northern vermin who should be called the Toads, but this week his coaching effort fell well short of the mark. In the first quarter he had not anticipated the variety of options that Sydney might present and in the long run his strategy to leave it up to his players failed. He had no options or strategies and followed Roos all night. Injuries were obviously an excuse but he has the best list and unless he wins one in the next year or so he has been a monumental failure. One which the Saints might regret for another forty years or so.

I may be a bitter and twisted person but I still remember the siren on the last Saturday in September way back in sixty-six. I kicked a silky oak in the front yard at Rupanyup and broke my big toe. But for once, 39 years later and even though it's cold here in Melbourne, I can't feel the pain.

Friday night was a victory for the champion team against the team of champions.

australianrules.com.au

Disclaimer