View Full Version : Will Aka and Leppa play this week
jmerino
17 May 2006, 12:57
Any thoughts.
Both dropped.Both played well in the reserves.
If they were going to be accurate in their dealings of this whole matter, then brad Scott should have been dropped as well.he also spoke out on Tv last week, as did Leppa and Aka.
The rules change, depending on who you are at the Lions.
We are coping a pasting in the media in Qld.In the oba column, bagging our code.Also the woeful Michael Voss speach.That has put back our code heaps with the general public in Qld.
Grimreepah
17 May 2006, 13:11
I can't see either of them coming back.
Leppitsch I think will take at least a few weeks to get back to full fitness. Indeed there are concerns that he may never fully recover, because he is struggling to regain muscle mass after his layoff with a back injury.
Akermanis I can't see getting back into the team. He would probably be picked on merit of playing performance, but the fact that he continues to create biger and bigger ructions in the team suggests has set himself back considerably, especially if the team is winning without him. If I was selector I would be telling him that he has the next 5 or 6 weeks to prove that his attitude has improved and that we be looking at giving him another chance then.
jmerino
17 May 2006, 13:17
I can't see either of them coming back.
Leppitsch I think will take at least a few weeks to get back to full fitness. Indeed there are concerns that he may never fully recover, because he is struggling to regain muscle mass after his layoff with a back injury.
Akermanis I can't see getting back into the team. He would probably be picked on merit of playing performance, but the fact that he continues to create biger and bigger ructions in the team suggests has set himself back considerably, especially if the team is winning without him. If I was selector I would be telling him that he has the next 5 or 6 weeks to prove that his attitude has improved and that we be looking at giving him another chance then.
What attitude.One rule for him speaking in media, another for the rest of the team.Thats like kinda stuff.
On NIRS pn Sunday they said that his manager said that he is not alone with problems with Lethal, that the communication and probles are from Leigh to a lot of the players.
Also on NIRS on Saturday night, mark Browing said that Gubby is NO LONGER our Footy Manager, that we don't have one now.
Grimreepah
17 May 2006, 13:44
What attitude.One rule for him speaking in media, another for the rest of the team.Thats like kinda stuff.
No one is saying that Aka can't talk to the media, but they don't want people discussing in house issues. Brad Scott's comments were in the spirit of uniting the team, whereas Aka's comments segment the team. It came across to me as an open defiance of the leadership group. Even after his punishment, he has continued to do so, which is putting himself before the team, which is completely the wrong attitude in a team sport.
On NIRS pn Sunday they said that his manager said that he is not alone with problems with Lethal, that the communication and probles are from Leigh to a lot of the players.
Also on NIRS on Saturday night, mark Browing said that Gubby is NO LONGER our Footy Manager, that we don't have one now.
A lot of people are saying a lot of things, a lot of which is untrue. Leigh Matthews has always been a distant coach (I have heard Voss comment about this) and that players tend not to get buddy buddy with him. But I can see why this (getting too friendly) would not be the best approach. Indeed the results speak for themselves.
On Gubby Allen, I don't know what NIRS stands for so I don't know the credibility of that source. But if it is true, I see no reason why he would want to hide it, so I'm sure it would become public knowledge. But I know that there are plenty of journalists out there and they have to find something to write about, and a lot of rumours get circulated as a result, and that Brisbane is an easy target at the moment. In the wash up though, most of these rumours end up being proven incorrect.
jmerino
17 May 2006, 13:49
No one is saying that Aka can't talk to the media, but they don't want people discussing in house issues. Brad Scott's comments were in the spirit of uniting the team, whereas Aka's comments segment the team. It came across to me as an open defiance of the leadership group. Even after his punishment, he has continued to do so, which is putting himself before the team, which is completely the wrong attitude in a team sport.
A lot of people are saying a lot of things, a lot of which is untrue. Leigh Matthews has always been a distant coach (I have heard Voss comment about this) and that players tend not to get buddy buddy with him. But I can see why this (getting too friendly) would not be the best approach. Indeed the results speak for themselves.
On Gubby Allen, I don't know what NIRS stands for so I don't know the credibility of that source. But if it is true, I see no reason why he would want to hide it, so I'm sure it would become public knowledge. But I know that there are plenty of journalists out there and they have to find something to write about, and a lot of rumours get circulated as a result, and that Brisbane is an easy target at the moment. In the wash up though, most of these rumours end up being proven incorrect.
Mark Browning is an ex Swans player, who now works for AFLQ, is to do with the AFLQ Academy and the Under 18's QLD team.
NIRS is the National Indigenous Radio Service, Australia wide coverage of football games.
If they were going to be accurate in their dealings of this whole matter, then brad Scott should have been dropped as well.he also spoke out on Tv last week, as did Leppa and Aka.
Surely Leppa was not dropped for discipline issues (ie talking to the media)? I've heard no suggestion that his demotion was due to anything but form, fitness and team balance.
That leaves Aker. Whether you agree with the decision to demote him or not, it is fair to say that he had plenty of warning that comment on in-house issues was frowned upon.
I agree though that Scott should not have said what he said about the team leak. However, we don't know how this was handled internally. Perhaps he was given a bake by Lethal, just as Aker apparently received a few weeks ago.
The difference between Aker and Brad Scott and Leppa is that Brad and Leppa were club sanctioned interviews. Aker just does his own thing. The club has always had nominated players do press interviews.
Given the trouble that Aker is currently having with the club I can't believe his manager thinks it's in his best interests to be bagging the coach.
konstas_87
17 May 2006, 18:09
Aker 50/50,
Leppa: No.
The Flying Belgian
17 May 2006, 21:47
Neither were named in the 'best players' list from that game. Not sure if that says anything or not. Then again either was Adcock and he'll be thereabouts. Reckon Aka might.
Surely Aka would be no chance? He undid any good he did playing in the hour after the match. As Matthews said, it was 50/50 form and team rules and he's made no effort to avoid adding petrol on.
jmerino
18 May 2006, 11:07
Surely Aka would be no chance? He undid any good he did playing in the hour after the match. As Matthews said, it was 50/50 form and team rules and he's made no effort to avoid adding petrol on.
You gotta be kidding right.He has kept his nose clean all weak, someone asked a question he answered honestly.thats it.
You gotta be kidding right.He has kept his nose clean all weak, someone asked a question he answered honestly.thats it.
More importantly, I heard that interview and he really tried to choose his words carefully and not cause any more drama. I genuinely think this time what came out of his mouth was not what he intended. I'd pick him tonight. I think the point has been proved and returning to the side will demonstrate that the relationship between club and player has not totally disintegrated.
As far as not being named in the best is concerned, you'd feel pretty ripped off if 5 goals and 27 possessions didn't get you in the best - I reckon the umpires might have given him 3 votes in the Grogan just on stats alone.
jmerino
18 May 2006, 11:41
More importantly, I heard that interview and he really tried to choose his words carefully and not cause any more drama. I genuinely think this time what came out of his mouth was not what he intended. I'd pick him tonight. I think the point has been proved and returning to the side will demonstrate that the relationship between club and player has not totally disintegrated.
As far as not being named in the best is concerned, you'd feel pretty ripped off if 5 goals and 27 possessions didn't get you in the best - I reckon the umpires might have given him 3 votes in the Grogan just on stats alone.
I know. I hope for the sake of decency and closure that he is back.Otherwise, it means a lot more than what has been reported.
Grimreepah
18 May 2006, 11:49
You gotta be kidding right.He has kept his nose clean all weak, someone asked a question he answered honestly.thats it.
I beg to differ. He has been critical (http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/aka-rift-with-lions-deepens/2006/05/15/1147545265044.html) of the way he was demoted. Do you really think the Lions want this sort of stuff said in the media?
I know. I hope for the sake of decency and closure that he is back.Otherwise, it means a lot more than what has been reported.
Sorry - my post might have been a bit misleading. I don't think that leaving Aker in the Reserves for another week definitely indicates the relationship has broken down...I just meant that returning him will allow all involved to (hopefully) move on.
The club has the opportunity to be the bigger person in all of this and I see a genuine desire in Aker to reach a better balance between team rules and his media commitments - his Courier Mail article from Tuesday reflects that.
I beg to differ. He has been critical (http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/aka-rift-with-lions-deepens/2006/05/15/1147545265044.html) of the way he was demoted. Do you really think the Lions want this sort of stuff said in the media?
Reepah, I think TFB made the point in relation to Lethal that quotes tend to be viewed more harshly when read in print than how they were actually delivered orally. As I said in an earlier post, in that interview Aker seemed to really be trying to temper his answers and I took most of them to mean - "I have to behave now because I am clearly in some trouble". I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his behaviour this week.
Grimreepah
18 May 2006, 14:34
Reepah, I think TFB made the point in relation to Lethal that quotes tend to be viewed more harshly when read in print than how they were actually delivered orally. As I said in an earlier post, in that interview Aker seemed to really be trying to temper his answers and I took most of them to mean - "I have to behave now because I am clearly in some trouble". I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his behaviour this week.
I understand the importance of context, and I believe TFB when he says that things sound a lot worse in print. But I still think the following comments are the in house issues that Leigh and the leadership group have said they don't want discussed in the media. These comments cast doubt on whether he is prepared to allign himself with the team. The trust has dissipated, and if I were him I would be moving heaven and earth to prove that I'm on the straight and narrow.
"The coach now has me where he wants me. If I upset him, he can say we will do what we did this week"
He added that he learned of his demotion only "five minutes" before captain Michael Voss read out a statement declaring Akermanis had been dropped. Akermanis said he had been "sentenced without a right of reply".
"The fact that it went to Thursday with nothing being said to me is truly worrying to me"
I understand the importance of context, and I believe TFB when he says that things sound a lot worse in print. But I still think the following comments are the in house issues that Leigh and the leadership group have said they don't want discussed in the media. These comments cast doubt on whether he is prepared to allign himself with the team. The trust has dissipated, and if I were him I would be moving heaven and earth to prove that I'm on the straight and narrow.
"The coach now has me where he wants me. If I upset him, he can say we will do what we did this week"
He added that he learned of his demotion only "five minutes" before captain Michael Voss read out a statement declaring Akermanis had been dropped. Akermanis said he had been "sentenced without a right of reply".
"The fact that it went to Thursday with nothing being said to me is truly worrying to me"
So would you play him this week? Or leave him out? I guess the fact that the Twos don't have a game this week might be influential.
Grimreepah
18 May 2006, 16:01
So would you play him this week? Or leave him out? I guess the fact that the Twos don't have a game this week might be influential.
Out!
Out!
Fair enough but on what basis could he earn a recall?
konstas_87
18 May 2006, 16:21
he has to:
-make NO media comments about the situation
-truly convince the coaching staff that he is prepared to do the team things in matches and not just sit on the back of packs and receive handballs running past
-try and act like a leader on the field, not a juvenile that whacks blokes whenever he is frustrated (although i dont particularly like Crouch myself and didnt mind it at the time)
my opinion this week: NO.
we looked a better side without his undisciplined crap, and one week isnt enough to get the message across. If he plays 'for the team' id love him to play, but IMO he needs more time than simply a week off. Bring him back for our next home game.
Grimreepah
18 May 2006, 16:29
Fair enough but on what basis could he earn a recall?
By apologising to the leadership group for undermining their authority, having faith in the group and agreeing do what is best for the team.
He has already convinced me that he warrants a spot on form. But his comments this week have given me serious worries about what his inclusion does to team morale. How long it takes to overcome that - I don't know, but I would have thought it would be a few weeks at least.
What I would do is set him a task. Say "You've got 4 weeks to show that you're committed to the team". That way he has something to work towards, rather than wondering where he stands all the time and growing more and more discontented with the club each week.
Reepah and Konstas, you make good points about needing to see a demonstrable improvement in Aker's attitude. However, I am of the opinion that too long in the Reserves (particularly for this week when there is no AFLQ footy for him to play) will do more harm than good to the situation. If he spends 4 weeks in the reserves, I would be concerned irreparable damage will be done to the relationship between he and the club. Neither of you appear to want Aker to leave the club but leaving him out of the side for more than 1 week might really p... Aker off, to the extent he walks on us at the end of the year.
Here would be my solution:
Aker is selected this week on the understanding that he promises stricter compliance with all the team rules. Further breaches of the team rules will result in him being returned to reserves footy with no guarantee of return.
As I said earlier, the club has the opportunity to be the bigger person in this and I hope they take it.
Grimreepah
18 May 2006, 16:51
...leaving him out of the side for more than 1 week might really p... Aker off, to the extent he walks on us at the end of the year.
I don't believe this is a good criterion for a selection policy.
In a sense it has become a bit of a lose/lose situation. If you play him, you risk disrupting team morale. If you don't, you risk losing one of your best ever players.
I'm only commenting on what information I have available to me. If he was to make a passionate speech to the players that he will do what it takes to regain the respect of the players, then, no worries, welcome back. But his mindset seems to be 'poor me', and that concerns me.
The Flying Belgian
18 May 2006, 16:53
If he gives a verbal agreement to the coach and/or senior group then that's enough for me.