Murray MiddletonFreewheelin' with Akermanis
September 9th 2008 08:15
After last Friday's performance the heat is deservedly on the Western Bulldgos to perform this week. They play Sydney in an elimination final at the MCG. If the Dogs win, they will face Geelong the next week. If they are to take anything out of this season they must make the preliminary final. The Bulldogs only lost one out of their first fifteen matches this season. They have won only two of their last eight matches. One month out from the end of the home and away season the Dogs had already secured third position. There is no doubt that this put them in a difficult position; where they effectively had nothing to play for. All would have been forgiven if they had beaten the Hawks. It wasn't only the loss that has put the heat on the club, it was the nature of the loss.
In round fifteen, prior to the break, the Bulldogs comprehensively beat Port Adelaide in Darwin. The win was soured by an incident that occurred after the match. Jason Akermanis, the most outspoken player in the competition, gave in to crowd pressure by producing his famous handstand. It was a seemingly minimal incident. Yet it was clear from the response of the Bulldog's senior players that the club was disappointed in Akermanis. Television footage after the match showed Akermanis being 'ignored' by teammates in the change rooms. Although the club has publicaly denied that any rift opened up as a result of the handstand, their record since (two wins, six losses) speaks for itself.
On radio Akermanis justified the handstand by dedicating it to his wife's grandfather, who passed away in the week leading up to the Port clash. It was a pathetic excuse. Footage clearly showed Akermanis being urged on by the Darwin crowd to perform the handstand. Having taken on the responsibility of playing in Darwin, it is in the Bulldogs' best interests to keep the crowd happy. Akermanis gave them what they wanted. It was not the handstand that was at fault, it was the manner in which it was condemned by the club. If the Bulldogs senior players were mature about it, they would have kept their emotions in check until they walked off the field. The club made it about the individual by isolating Akermanis in the public eye.
At the beginning of the season the Bulldogs had made Akermanis promise that he would not bring out the handstand. They argued that the gesture was a way of putting the individual ahead of the team. It was this very point that angered the Bulldog's players in Darwin. The club also sought to screen any articles that Akermanis wrote for the daily papers. If he is not allowed to have a voice, what is the point of Aker writing? The message that seems to be emanating from the Bulldogs is that they only want the on-field flair that comes with Akermanis. Clearly they do not understand the nature of the best. Akermanis plays his best football when he is freewheelin'. The Bulldogs should allow him to do the handstand and express himself if it means he will play better football.
After the Darwin incident Akermanis said on radio that he was ready to 'punch' some of his teammates. This gave an indication as to how Akermanis felt about being censored. It is doubtful that this wound has healed in the eight weeks following the incident. Aker's form has dropped considerably. Prior to the handstand, he was in All-Australian form and was even rated as an outside chance to win a second Brownlow Medal. He was kicking freakish goals and pushing up into the midfield with great effect. His drop in form has been one of the main reasons why the club has achieved such poor results in the past two months.
Akermanis was one of the few Bulldogs players who could hold his head up high after last Friday's capitulation to Hawthorn. He kicked three goals and did not appear to be overawed by the occasion. In a radio interview on Monday Akermanis revealed that he had asked the coach if he could address the players in the rooms after Friday's game. Rodney Eade denied the request; a response that clearly frustrated Akermanis. Eade should have allowed Akermanis to speak. He won three premierships with the Brisbane Lions and was recruited to the club with the specific aim of sharing his finals experience with the younger players. By censoring him, Eade denied Akermanis the opportunity to tell some home truths to the Bulldog's players. It was another example of the club shying away from the problem rather than facing it head on.
The reason Eade probably did not allow Akermanis to speak is that he is at his wit's end with the player. Akermanis is not a Bulldog's player through and through. He has only been at the club for two seasons. Eade is no longer prepared to let Akermanis address the players because it is the one medium where he cannot be censored. Akermanis again chose to go to the media to voice his frustration at Friday's incident. This would have done nothing to endear him to Eade. The Bulldogs have never quite decided what they want out of Akermanis. Did they recruit him to raise the profile of the club or to try to win a premiership? They knew what they were getting. A leopard doesn't change its spots. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulldogs get rid of Akermanis at the end of the season, particularly if they lose to Sydney on Friday night.
*Stay tuned for Middleton's top 50 players in Friday's edition. Will it be Ablett, Franklin, Judd or Fiora?
In round fifteen, prior to the break, the Bulldogs comprehensively beat Port Adelaide in Darwin. The win was soured by an incident that occurred after the match. Jason Akermanis, the most outspoken player in the competition, gave in to crowd pressure by producing his famous handstand. It was a seemingly minimal incident. Yet it was clear from the response of the Bulldog's senior players that the club was disappointed in Akermanis. Television footage after the match showed Akermanis being 'ignored' by teammates in the change rooms. Although the club has publicaly denied that any rift opened up as a result of the handstand, their record since (two wins, six losses) speaks for itself.
On radio Akermanis justified the handstand by dedicating it to his wife's grandfather, who passed away in the week leading up to the Port clash. It was a pathetic excuse. Footage clearly showed Akermanis being urged on by the Darwin crowd to perform the handstand. Having taken on the responsibility of playing in Darwin, it is in the Bulldogs' best interests to keep the crowd happy. Akermanis gave them what they wanted. It was not the handstand that was at fault, it was the manner in which it was condemned by the club. If the Bulldogs senior players were mature about it, they would have kept their emotions in check until they walked off the field. The club made it about the individual by isolating Akermanis in the public eye.
At the beginning of the season the Bulldogs had made Akermanis promise that he would not bring out the handstand. They argued that the gesture was a way of putting the individual ahead of the team. It was this very point that angered the Bulldog's players in Darwin. The club also sought to screen any articles that Akermanis wrote for the daily papers. If he is not allowed to have a voice, what is the point of Aker writing? The message that seems to be emanating from the Bulldogs is that they only want the on-field flair that comes with Akermanis. Clearly they do not understand the nature of the best. Akermanis plays his best football when he is freewheelin'. The Bulldogs should allow him to do the handstand and express himself if it means he will play better football.
After the Darwin incident Akermanis said on radio that he was ready to 'punch' some of his teammates. This gave an indication as to how Akermanis felt about being censored. It is doubtful that this wound has healed in the eight weeks following the incident. Aker's form has dropped considerably. Prior to the handstand, he was in All-Australian form and was even rated as an outside chance to win a second Brownlow Medal. He was kicking freakish goals and pushing up into the midfield with great effect. His drop in form has been one of the main reasons why the club has achieved such poor results in the past two months.
Akermanis was one of the few Bulldogs players who could hold his head up high after last Friday's capitulation to Hawthorn. He kicked three goals and did not appear to be overawed by the occasion. In a radio interview on Monday Akermanis revealed that he had asked the coach if he could address the players in the rooms after Friday's game. Rodney Eade denied the request; a response that clearly frustrated Akermanis. Eade should have allowed Akermanis to speak. He won three premierships with the Brisbane Lions and was recruited to the club with the specific aim of sharing his finals experience with the younger players. By censoring him, Eade denied Akermanis the opportunity to tell some home truths to the Bulldog's players. It was another example of the club shying away from the problem rather than facing it head on.
The reason Eade probably did not allow Akermanis to speak is that he is at his wit's end with the player. Akermanis is not a Bulldog's player through and through. He has only been at the club for two seasons. Eade is no longer prepared to let Akermanis address the players because it is the one medium where he cannot be censored. Akermanis again chose to go to the media to voice his frustration at Friday's incident. This would have done nothing to endear him to Eade. The Bulldogs have never quite decided what they want out of Akermanis. Did they recruit him to raise the profile of the club or to try to win a premiership? They knew what they were getting. A leopard doesn't change its spots. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulldogs get rid of Akermanis at the end of the season, particularly if they lose to Sydney on Friday night.
*Stay tuned for Middleton's top 50 players in Friday's edition. Will it be Ablett, Franklin, Judd or Fiora?
| 70 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
