Newman walks fine line that all captains must
Garry Lyon | May 20, 2009
The onus is on players to just play but sometimes it's just not that simple.AFTER six rounds of the 1997 season, I was summoned to the offices of the Melbourne Football Club president Joseph Gutnick to discuss the relationship between the coach, Neil Balme, and the playing group, of which I was the captain. We had won one game and lost five, by an average margin of 50 points.
I was as open and honest as I could possibly be. We were decimated by injury at the time, and I didn't think sacking the coach — if that was what Gutnick was asking me — was the answer.
Three weeks later, following three further loses, "Balmey" had his contract terminated by the board. Did I agree with the decision? No. Was the board correct in taking responsibility and making their decision? Absolutely.
The fundamental responsibility of the players is to play, and the board and administration have to run the club.
From my experience, to be a captain of a club — or as is the trend these days, a member of the leadership group — at a time when your coach is under extreme pressure and his future is being debated constantly, is one of the most difficult and testing times of your career.
Chris Newman has endured the most horrendous baptism of fire as captain of Richmond that you could possibly imagine. His debut as skipper resulted in the disastrous opening-round loss to Carlton by 83 points, at a time when the expectations for the Tigers were enormous.
He has had to deal with the return to football of Ben Cousins, amid media scrutiny of unparalleled proportions, and he now finds himself at the centre of the latest Terry Wallace drama, following a most astonishing day.
At various times, Wallace and his assistant, Brian Royal, were rumoured to be sacked, after a series of player meetings of which Newman was said to be the instigator.
Welcome to the captain's role, Chris!
The question that is always asked at times such as these is: what role, if any, should footballers play in determining the future of their coach? To say "none whatsoever" is too simplistic, as difficult as it may be for some people to accept. Leaders are elected for a reason. They are the conduit between the playing group and the coaching staff, as well as the administration of the club.
We demand and accept that they are accountable and take ownership and responsibility for the performances of the team. To fulfil those duties as effectively as they possibly can, they need to immerse themselves in their football club and monitor the "pulse" of the playing group in relation to all manner of issues, including the relationship between coach and players.
That relationship between club leader and coach should not be underplayed. It needs to be one of ultimate respect borne of an appreciation for the challenges that each role demands. I have no idea of the nature of the recent talks between Newman, the senior players and Wallace. To suggest there is unrest between a player, or players, and the coach should not surprise anyone. There are always going to be members of a team, regardless of how well or otherwise that side is travelling, whose relationship with the coach is not what they would like it to be.
If Newman is facilitating discussion that brings these perceived problems out in the open and to the coach's attention then I would suggest he is fulfilling one of the core requirements of a strong leader. What needs to be avoided at all costs is an environment of disgruntled players skulking around behind the back of the coach.
Misery loves company, and as a rule these types of players gravitate to other players of a similar mindset, searching for a sympathetic ear. They generally lack the confidence, or moral fortitude to deal with the problem directly, and before you know it there is a cancerous environment within the playing group that is counter-productive to the essence of every successful sporting franchise in the world.
The overriding message that Newman needs to convey to his players is that they must not, under any circumstance, look to apportion blame to anyone other than themselves. Richmond players have been doing that for too long.
Whenever they turn on a television, listen to a radio or open a newspaper, their coach's future is being debated. But they must fulfil their primary obligation, and that is to take responsibility for their actions every time they pull on a Richmond guernsey.
As the Richmond board set about making a decision on the future of Wallace, should they speak to Newman in the process of gathering information? I think they would be derelict in their duties if they did not, for once they anointed him as captain, they demonstrated a trust and faith in his judgement as both a player and a leader. Assuming that trust is well-placed, and his opinion is respected and valued, his insights and observations must be as relevant as anybody's.
How much stock the board puts in that opinion is then entirely up to them. The fact that the very best coach/player relationships are built on fierce loyalty should be factored in. In hindsight, I had such a strong relationship and understanding with Balme that I think I failed to recognise a distance that may have opened up between him and other players.
Because I was able to communicate so well with him, I assumed that everyone could. It was a good lesson to learn. Even someone as genial and affable as Balmey could be intimidating to some.
Newman's challenge continues. My advice to him is to maintain open and honest communication with Wallace, and to implore his players to get on with the job that they all would have dreamed of one day having.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/newman-walks-fine-line/2009/05/19/1242498752172.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
