Review The Grand Final Disaster of 2017.

[Interloperer]

Im not sure about that. Blight would have seen the player unrest and the fact that a player wanted to abandon the Club already at least midway of this season.

The players took salary sacrifices to keep the playing group together.

You're right. Malcolm Blight was a big fan of player groups forcing decisions on the club.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Certainly Blight would have laid down the law one way or the other.

Lever - are you with us or not? If not, **** off.

If he decided that he was going to play him regardless though then it would have been his call and that's it. Anyone who didn't like it, **** off.

Not left to fester in the background.

Certainly as it stands it reflects poorly on the leadership of the club.

 

[CrowBloke]

Yep I had it confirmed this morning too.

I know a good journo never reveals his sources, but I'd love to have it (and the rest of your post) verified somehow.

1) Apparently the leadership group asked Pykey that Lever not play the grand final as they all knew he was leaving. It was creating tremendous ill feeling.
2) Then to cap it off Lever's father was behaving like a loud mouthed tool in front of the players before the game, bad mouthing the Club and Lever's offer.
3) Which then explains the apparent sniping and finger pointing as they went down the race at half time and the argument in the rooms at half time.
4) If this is half true, the game was lost before it started.

1) If true, Pyke was damned either way. There would have been players who supported Lever, and those who didn't. No matter what Pyke did, there was no way he could placate/satisfy the whole team.
The internal disruption would have been fatal wrt the GF. By contrast, Richmond were unified, tough as nails and stuck to their game plan even when they were down halfway through the 2nd quarter.
2) If true, then
a) the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and Lever gets his $-driven values from his old man, and
b) they should have asked him to leave the change rooms.
3) If true, then it definitively explains what the Crows players looked like every time Ch.7 cut to them at half-time. They looked dispirited and isolated from each other --- in fact to me they looked like a team looks after a game has been lost.
4) If true,
a) we need to know if List Management low-balled Lever with its first offer, and why.
b) the disunity would have become a fracture under the GF pressure Richmond put us under, and good on them for doing what I hoped we'd be doing to them.

I am comforted, albeit bitterly, that Leaver is going without a Crows Premiership medal. Stuff him.
Conversely, I'm shattered that Leaver might be a major reason why 21 other players don't have one.

P.S. with the CC news, the club has got to finalise player commitments before Finals start.

 

[CrowBloke]

Just heard, CH9 news.
CC has requested a trade to Brisbane.

 

[GROTTO]

Certainly Blight would have laid down the law one way or the other.

Lever - are you with us or not? If not, **** off.

If he decided that he was going to play him regardless though then it would have been his call and that's it. Anyone who didn't like it, **** off.

Not left to fester in the background.

Certainly as it stands it reflects poorly on the leadership of the club.

Correct, I think this is the better answer.

He would have laid down the law and considered everything then as you said tell anyone who didnt like it to f**k off.

This was in hindsight boiling in the background and no one did anything about it. Its damning to say the least.

 

[mick500]

Josh Jenkins giving a good honest interview on 5aa now.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Correct, I think this is the better answer.

He would have laid down the law and considered everything then as you said tell anyone who didnt like it to f**k off.

This was in hindsight boiling in the background and no one did anything about it. Its damning to say the least.

And of all the clubs we could've dropped him against, it was Richmond.

 

[GROTTO]

Josh Jenkins giving a good honest interview on 5aa now.

Whats he saying in summary?

 

[mick500]

Whats he saying in summary?

He covered a fair bit, will try and keep it short.

He said it was a weird feeling at qtr time because we were leading but felt like Richmond pressure was getting the better of them. They knew they had to lift.

But Richmond pressure was just to much for them in the 2nd qtr and the lead up to the game seems to take so long but you can feel it slipping through your fingers in minutes .

He said the preparation was great, he thanked whoever was in charge of all that and said they kept the club insulated from everything.

He said you find it hard to look people in the eye at the after match functions etc knowing you let so many people down and it's a dark few hours after the match but you gotta dust yourself off, and said he didn't want to trivialise the loss but we have been through worse as a club and come out the other side and we have to do it again. He said it can either fracture the club or make it better. If people start blaming each other it fractures if they stick together they get stronger, and the fact that only a handful of blokes stood up on the day actually makes it easier to stick together and work through it together because they all have to wear it.

He also said he's very close with Charlie Cameron and would like to think it's an incorrect report about him asking to leave as he would expect to know First if that's what Charlie was doing as they are very close.

 

[CrowBloke]

He also said he's very close with Charlie Cameron and would like to think it's an incorrect report about him asking to leave as he would expect to know First if that's what Charlie was doing as they are very close.

Thanks for the summary but jeez he and Eddie got that one wrong!

 

[FrustratedTiger]

Sorry, you know the ins and outs of the club, what they knew, conversations they'd had, promises they'd made to each other etc.
That players agreed to accept less cash to keep the group together.
And maybe they've had enough of guys leaving.

I did say IF. But it doesn't change the fact that you can't have the tail wag the dog. In any organisation.

 

[arrowman]

1) If true, Pyke was damned either way. There would have been players who supported Lever, and those who didn't. No matter what Pyke did, there was no way he could placate/satisfy the whole team.
The internal disruption would have been fatal wrt the GF. By contrast, Richmond were unified, tough as nails and stuck to their game plan even when they were down halfway through the 2nd quarter.

So, if it is true that the leaders/players didn't want Leaver to play - Pyke would have his own view, which apparently was the quite reasonable "best 22 for a GF" view.

In which case - you know, guys, this is a Grand Final. We are playing our best 22 and we are not dropping players for spiteful reasons. Team (Club) First cuts both ways. It is a Grand Final, and if you're going to drop your bundle / spit the dummy / risk your Club's chances in a GF because you don't want one of your teammates to share the glory - then you need to have a look in the mirror. I understand why you wouldn't want Leaver to play. You should also understand the reasons why he should. So STFU, stop trying to wag the dog, and get around your teammates and your Club.

If it is true that Leaver playing upset/divided the playing group enough to impact their performance in the GF, then it is the playing group that needs to have a good hard look at themselves - not the Coach or Match Committee.

If. Of course. Because we don't know what happened.

(Oh, and let's keep vewwy vewwy quiet about Leaver Senior's behaviour in the rooms. Don't want Melbourne to realise they're getting a Tomic before the deal is signed.)

 

[CrowBloke]

(Oh, and let's keep vewwy vewwy quiet about Leaver Senior's behaviour in the rooms. Don't want Melbourne to realise they're getting a Tomic before the deal is signed.)

VERY good point, .

 

[King Elvis]

I did say IF. But it doesn't change the fact that you can't have the tail wag the dog. In any organisation.

True, but if the behavior of Lever and/or his family was as reported, it shouldn’t have been up to the players; we should’ve dropped him and told him to get ****ed.

 

[skoobydoo]

I naively thought player contracts wouldn't impact match day but obviously they do. So how do we stop this from happening again in the future. If they haven't signed by round 20 banish them from the club?

If they are a three year 'veteran' or so who hasn't paid their dues, then yes. I mean it annoys the crap out of me that this type of player can quite possibly get a premiership and all the while dealing with other clubs to shaft out.

 

[fairfooty]

I know a good journo never reveals his sources, but I'd love to have it (and the rest of your post) verified somehow.

1) If true, Pyke was damned either way. There would have been players who supported Lever, and those who didn't. No matter what Pyke did, there was no way he could placate/satisfy the whole team.
The internal disruption would have been fatal wrt the GF. By contrast, Richmond were unified, tough as nails and stuck to their game plan even when they were down halfway through the 2nd quarter.
2) If true, then
a) the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and Lever gets his $-driven values from his old man, and
b) they should have asked him to leave the change rooms.
3) If true, then it definitively explains what the Crows players looked like every time Ch.7 cut to them at half-time. They looked dispirited and isolated from each other --- in fact to me they looked like a team looks after a game has been lost.
4) If true,
a) we need to know if List Management low-balled Lever with its first offer, and why.
b) the disunity would have become a fracture under the GF pressure Richmond put us under, and good on them for doing what I hoped we'd be doing to them.

I am comforted, albeit bitterly, that Leaver is going without a Crows Premiership medal. Stuff him.
Conversely, I'm shattered that Leaver might be a major reason why 21 other players don't have one.

P.S. with the CC news, the club has got to finalise player commitments before Finals start.

Excellent post CB. Agree entirely, particularly your comments about Pyke - damned if he did and damned if he didn't - a real Hobson's choice. I think that this is the case or about the mark will be verified at some stage but its too soon now.

Interestingly, this afternoon I was talking to a pyschologist friend of mine. She's Canadian so while interested in the game her partner follows passionately, she is not as invested in the Crows as we are. She watched the game and at the time said there was something else going on here - its in their heads given their performance all season. So putting it all together I suspect she's on the money and the group fractured at the worst possible time.

 

[hey shorty]

Thanks for the summary but jeez he and Eddie got that one wrong!

So it's interesting, with Lever we came out and released a statement. Haven't done that yet although I expect it Monday.

 

[mick500]

So it's interesting, with Lever we came out and released a statement. Haven't done that yet although I expect it Monday.

Well it's different in that Cameron is contracted next yr. We can say he has to stay and play like Carlton did with Gibbs. So probably have to figure out what Brisbane are willing to offer (carn rockliff) before deciding if we will force him to keep playing for us next yr.

 

[fairfooty]

So, if it is true that the leaders/players didn't want Leaver to play - Pyke would have his own view, which apparently was the quite reasonable "best 22 for a GF" view.

In which case - you know, guys, this is a Grand Final. We are playing our best 22 and we are not dropping players for spiteful reasons. Team (Club) First cuts both ways. It is a Grand Final, and if you're going to drop your bundle / spit the dummy / risk your Club's chances in a GF because you don't want one of your teammates to share the glory - then you need to have a look in the mirror. I understand why you wouldn't want Leaver to play. You should also understand the reasons why he should. So STFU, stop trying to wag the dog, and get around your teammates and your Club.

If it is true that Leaver playing upset/divided the playing group enough to impact their performance in the GF, then it is the playing group that needs to have a good hard look at themselves - not the Coach or Match Committee.

If. Of course. Because we don't know what happened.

(Oh, and let's keep vewwy vewwy quiet about Leaver Senior's behaviour in the rooms. Don't want Melbourne to realise they're getting a Tomic before the deal is signed.)

Good post too Arrowman. But I suspect it depends on when any fracture of the group occurred. If Tex et al went to Pyke well before the grand final I think thats different to if they went to Pyke a few days before the granny. The timing of the whole scenario, if it's true, is important.

Anyway, it certainly appears that something went seriously wrong with this group in the lead-up to the Grand Final, and logically, it was probably centred around Jake Lever and his family.

And yep, Melbourne are welcome to him. He's another version of $kirt. Good luck to them.

 

[fairfooty]

Well it's different in that Cameron is contracted next yr. We can say he has to stay and play like Carlton did with Gibbs. So probably have to figure out what Brisbane are willing to offer (carn rockliff) before deciding if we will force him to keep playing for us next yr.

According to Channel 7 Rockliff is off to Pooort.

 

[skoobydoo]

I get that they had their plans and reasons for selection. Its hard to ignore that part of the loss could be attributed to lack of match fit depth. Depending on who is picked up over the trade / draft period, I really hope we start get some games into the younger blokes.

This was a theme in 2016.

 

[skoobydoo]

Certainly Blight would have laid down the law one way or the other.

Lever - are you with us or not? If not, **** off.

If he decided that he was going to play him regardless though then it would have been his call and that's it. Anyone who didn't like it, **** off.

Not left to fester in the background.

Certainly as it stands it reflects poorly on the leadership of the club.

Blight would have laid it down one way or the other and Walsh almost surely would have gone team first.

 

[mick500]

Certainly Blight would have laid down the law one way or the other.

Lever - are you with us or not? If not, **** off.

If he decided that he was going to play him regardless though then it would have been his call and that's it. Anyone who didn't like it, **** off.

Not left to fester in the background.

Certainly as it stands it reflects poorly on the leadership of the club.

I said this before the grand final and was told it would be cutting off our nose despite our face. Easy in hindsight when you lose. Would have been better if we had shown some foresight.

 

[GROTTO]

Blight would have laid it down one way or the other and Walsh almost surely would have gone team first.

Would have been interesting and very challenging if Tex wanted Lever out and relayed this to Walsh if he was still with us.

 

[skoobydoo]

Would have been interesting and very challenging if Tex wanted Lever out and relayed this to Walsh if he was still with us.

I guess I'm left with the question that how proactive would Walsh have been prior to the whole 'issue' - foresighted or responding ?