Pride before the fall
January 29th 2010 02:22
They say theres no such thing as bad publicity, but the North Queensland Fury must be ruing the negative headlines that have been running for the last few days. This is no way for a struggling organisation to win over the public and sponsors of Townsville.
The problem began when Robbie Fowler, upset at being excluded from Ian Fergusons starting line-up, elected to skip the match entirely, preferring to play with his little son in the stands than take his place on the bench. This was interpreted as a legend of the game raising a very public middle finger to his rookie boss which, nobody should doubt, was exactly how it was intended.
Thats despite the vigorous spinning that the Fury attempted the following day. According to chairman Don Matheson, the whole thing was nothing more than an unfortunate mix-up between Ferguson and Fowler.
Ive spoken to them today and realise there has been a misunderstanding, he insisted. Ian wanted to play a particular formation and that included utilising Robbie as an impact player off the bench and Robbie believed he wasnt part of the squad and there has been an unfortunate outcome because of that misunderstanding.
If you believe that, youll believe anything. After all, its very difficult for somebody to be told Robbie, Im dropping you to the bench, only to hear Robbie, rather than including you in the match-day squad, Ive decided that you and your boy should spend some quality time together in the stands. Yet even if, somehow, something was lost in translation, as Matheson would have people believe, there would have been ample time for Ferguson to clarify things.
So why, then, has Matheson decided to accept at least officially such a fairytale? The answer is that he has concluded it is in North Queenslands best interests for everybody to pretend that nothing actually happened. In football the world over, it is commonplace for disgruntled players to rebel. Sometimes, they will storm out of the stadium if substituted early; sometimes, they will refuse to attend the game if not included in the squad; and sometimes, as in Fowlers case, they will react angrily to news that 11 teammates have been preferred to them. In response, an ultimatum is generally issued, along the lines of Apologise, or youll never be picked again. This is the clubs way of trying to regain control of the situation, and of reminding the players who is and who isnt in charge. Typically, such phrases as No player is bigger than the club are also bandied about.
If Matheson opted not to follow this well-trodden path, its because he must have feared that Fowler would refuse to apologise. For continued recalcitrance by the Englishman would have forced him to choose between two unpalatable options: sack his star import, who is by far the most talented and marketable member of the Fury; or essentially do nothing, thereby destroying the credibility of the board and the coach. Consequently, Matheson chose to hear no evil and see no evil, reasoning that looking a little foolish and weak was better than escalating a crisis that may well have ended unhappily.
With the standoff now seemingly over, it can be said that all three key participants have emerged from it with their reputations diminished. Clearly, Fowler has behaved petulantly (unless, before signing with North Queensland, he was secretly promised that he would always start if fit). When it came time to go into battle, he decided that salving his wounded pride was more important than fighting side by side with his comrades. As captain, he has set a shocking example for his teammates, while disrespecting them in the process. His was the reaction of a man who believes himself to be bigger than the club. Inevitably, some of the Fury especially the younger members, who would have hung on his every word must now be questioning their faith in God.
Where Fowler looks arrogant, his superiors appear pathetic. We now know that their authority is not as absolute as was once thought. Having so publicly lost the respect of his marquee man, Fergusons credibility has taken a battering. And having turned a blind eye to his employees disobedience, so has Mathesons. Yet it is difficult to say that they have acted wrongly.
Ferguson may have erred in trying a new formation, and he may have erred in thinking that it could not accommodate Fowler. But tactics and selection are solely the coachs domain. It is the coachs right to plump for whichever system and players he likes, for which he is then held accountable. Fowler understands this as does Matheson, who, to his credit, made a point of refusing to overturn the controversial demotion. A coach is paid to make decisions and a player is paid to obey them. If Fowler wasnt willing to accept this, he shouldnt have signed his generous contract.
However, once the crisis erupted, the Fury powerbrokers may have reasoned that although they occupied the moral high ground, backing down was the most responsible option. Yes, they may have been justified in publicly admonishing the former Liverpool legend, reminding him that a paycheque comes with obligations, and that he would therefore have to apologise or else. But would escalating a crisis that may have resulted in Fowlers axing have been in the clubs best interests?
In other words, could it be that instead of feebly caving in, Matheson and Ferguson have demonstrated strength by being prepared to lose face in order to secure the fledgling clubs future? Turning a profit in the A-League is difficult at the best of times, but when your market is small and youre sitting near the bottom of the ladder, it becomes even more challenging. Maybe, the pair agreed that although it would undermine their authority and affect the teams cohesion, finding a way to retain their highly bankable star was the lesser of two evils. If so, that would be ironic, because a crisis that was precipitated by somebody placing their ego before the club would have been ended by two men placing the club before their egos.
Such a message would not have been lost on Fowler, who has agreed to play out the season, but may well return home rather than honour the final year of his contract. It is no secret that he and Ferguson have never had the best of relationships, and now the Scotsman has irritated him further, firstly by dropping him and perhaps by then being the bigger man. Given that the imports tantrum has been indulged, and his place guaranteed for the following game, he has no pretext for angrily storming back to England. So now it is him who has been left with two options: swallow his pride and fulfil his agreement, or conceitedly run away and damage the club that he has so often declared his commitment to. What sort of man is God? Were about to find out.
The problem began when Robbie Fowler, upset at being excluded from Ian Fergusons starting line-up, elected to skip the match entirely, preferring to play with his little son in the stands than take his place on the bench. This was interpreted as a legend of the game raising a very public middle finger to his rookie boss which, nobody should doubt, was exactly how it was intended.
Thats despite the vigorous spinning that the Fury attempted the following day. According to chairman Don Matheson, the whole thing was nothing more than an unfortunate mix-up between Ferguson and Fowler.
Ive spoken to them today and realise there has been a misunderstanding, he insisted. Ian wanted to play a particular formation and that included utilising Robbie as an impact player off the bench and Robbie believed he wasnt part of the squad and there has been an unfortunate outcome because of that misunderstanding.
If you believe that, youll believe anything. After all, its very difficult for somebody to be told Robbie, Im dropping you to the bench, only to hear Robbie, rather than including you in the match-day squad, Ive decided that you and your boy should spend some quality time together in the stands. Yet even if, somehow, something was lost in translation, as Matheson would have people believe, there would have been ample time for Ferguson to clarify things.
So why, then, has Matheson decided to accept at least officially such a fairytale? The answer is that he has concluded it is in North Queenslands best interests for everybody to pretend that nothing actually happened. In football the world over, it is commonplace for disgruntled players to rebel. Sometimes, they will storm out of the stadium if substituted early; sometimes, they will refuse to attend the game if not included in the squad; and sometimes, as in Fowlers case, they will react angrily to news that 11 teammates have been preferred to them. In response, an ultimatum is generally issued, along the lines of Apologise, or youll never be picked again. This is the clubs way of trying to regain control of the situation, and of reminding the players who is and who isnt in charge. Typically, such phrases as No player is bigger than the club are also bandied about.
If Matheson opted not to follow this well-trodden path, its because he must have feared that Fowler would refuse to apologise. For continued recalcitrance by the Englishman would have forced him to choose between two unpalatable options: sack his star import, who is by far the most talented and marketable member of the Fury; or essentially do nothing, thereby destroying the credibility of the board and the coach. Consequently, Matheson chose to hear no evil and see no evil, reasoning that looking a little foolish and weak was better than escalating a crisis that may well have ended unhappily.
With the standoff now seemingly over, it can be said that all three key participants have emerged from it with their reputations diminished. Clearly, Fowler has behaved petulantly (unless, before signing with North Queensland, he was secretly promised that he would always start if fit). When it came time to go into battle, he decided that salving his wounded pride was more important than fighting side by side with his comrades. As captain, he has set a shocking example for his teammates, while disrespecting them in the process. His was the reaction of a man who believes himself to be bigger than the club. Inevitably, some of the Fury especially the younger members, who would have hung on his every word must now be questioning their faith in God.
Where Fowler looks arrogant, his superiors appear pathetic. We now know that their authority is not as absolute as was once thought. Having so publicly lost the respect of his marquee man, Fergusons credibility has taken a battering. And having turned a blind eye to his employees disobedience, so has Mathesons. Yet it is difficult to say that they have acted wrongly.
Ferguson may have erred in trying a new formation, and he may have erred in thinking that it could not accommodate Fowler. But tactics and selection are solely the coachs domain. It is the coachs right to plump for whichever system and players he likes, for which he is then held accountable. Fowler understands this as does Matheson, who, to his credit, made a point of refusing to overturn the controversial demotion. A coach is paid to make decisions and a player is paid to obey them. If Fowler wasnt willing to accept this, he shouldnt have signed his generous contract.
However, once the crisis erupted, the Fury powerbrokers may have reasoned that although they occupied the moral high ground, backing down was the most responsible option. Yes, they may have been justified in publicly admonishing the former Liverpool legend, reminding him that a paycheque comes with obligations, and that he would therefore have to apologise or else. But would escalating a crisis that may have resulted in Fowlers axing have been in the clubs best interests?
In other words, could it be that instead of feebly caving in, Matheson and Ferguson have demonstrated strength by being prepared to lose face in order to secure the fledgling clubs future? Turning a profit in the A-League is difficult at the best of times, but when your market is small and youre sitting near the bottom of the ladder, it becomes even more challenging. Maybe, the pair agreed that although it would undermine their authority and affect the teams cohesion, finding a way to retain their highly bankable star was the lesser of two evils. If so, that would be ironic, because a crisis that was precipitated by somebody placing their ego before the club would have been ended by two men placing the club before their egos.
Such a message would not have been lost on Fowler, who has agreed to play out the season, but may well return home rather than honour the final year of his contract. It is no secret that he and Ferguson have never had the best of relationships, and now the Scotsman has irritated him further, firstly by dropping him and perhaps by then being the bigger man. Given that the imports tantrum has been indulged, and his place guaranteed for the following game, he has no pretext for angrily storming back to England. So now it is him who has been left with two options: swallow his pride and fulfil his agreement, or conceitedly run away and damage the club that he has so often declared his commitment to. What sort of man is God? Were about to find out.
| 14 |
| Vote |




Add Comments


Read More






Comment by Nick Bendel
on When something for nothing isnt worth anything
Sport: The Australian Disease
The A-League is full of workhorses, average players and good players. However, there are no special players. I do believe it is the responsibility of the FFA to try to grow the game (i.e. to win over those who currently show scant interest)- after all, if a governing body isnt trying to grow its particular game, what is the point of having a governing body? And I further believe that one of the best ways to grow the game (i.e. to win over those who currently show scant interest) is to offer them something special. I think that a marquee player should be special- and if hes not special, then he doesnt deserve special treatment.
Anyway, I appreciated your comment. Thanks for the stimulus!