Open Mike with Jason Akermanis

[Silent Alarm]

I like Aker.

His column was fair. Gay footballers will face issues and this is why none of them have come out, and why one probably won't ever while playing – players are too immature and the crowd especially too bogan to ever sensitively deal with it. It would cause distress, it would make splinters, and that's not right but it is the reality of an Aussie Rules club – just like it'd happen in an English soccer change room or a Canadian hockey arena.

I always thought what he said was interesting, harsh and truthful, but fundamentally just interesting and entertaining. You get a grasp of the politics and way AFL clubs work. Reading between the lines, not many people like the guy and it's very sad such an awesome player comes away from the game with barely any mates. Especially when you're an important part of a simply forceful, intimidating, amazing side like the Lions of the early 2000s.

Very interesting to hear his position on Bob Murphy too, a person most footy followers like.

 

[ManOfClay]

Another "poor me" off between anti-aker people and no one.
Monocle wearing flogs are why we have the most dead boring personalities in the game about and not people who might say something controversial.

As opposed to the "poor me" off Aker has with everybody who'd listen?

Why do we care what players' personalities are like? We watch them play football, not converse with them in day to day life

 

[ManOfClay]

I like Aker.

Well there's a nail in Aker's coffin if ever I saw one.

 

[skilts]

Footy went to shit when the first psychologist/urger/motivator/ was employed by a club. I think Barassi was the culprit, when he introduced Rudi Webster to North.

 

[DangerSloane]

Yep and that someone who was there -is it possible he has a vested interest, a biased perspective? Yes it is. is it also possible that his recollections of events is blurry/tainted/incorrect/biased/coloured by...? -yes it is.
Sheahan questioned Aker's recollections of several other incidents within the first 5 minutes of his interview. Sheahan disputed them, because there were other versions of these events. Turns out Aker's recall was flawed. Doesn't that tell you anything about Aker's relationship with the truth?
Yep enough already.

Yet for the bulldogs one there are NO other versions.
Could it be that Mike, or the people that recounted the event are, in fact, recalling it incorrectly?

If you cant apply the same logic to both sides of the coin, then really you shouldnt be commenting.

 

[DangerSloane]

As opposed to the "poor me" off Aker has with everybody who'd listen?

Why do we care what players' personalities are like? We watch them play football, not converse with them in day to day life

Has nothing to do with him calling out your club for the leaderless rabble it was?

 

[romeoh]

Yet for the bulldogs one there are NO other versions.
Could it be that Mike, or the people that recounted the event are, in fact, recalling it incorrectly?

If you cant apply the same logic to both sides of the coin, then really you shouldnt be commenting.

Haha your blind faith is pretty amusing-When Sheahan recounted 'other versions' which can obviously be corroborated by more than one other party, Aker conceded.
And that is really it for me because we aren't getting anywhere.

 

[Sedat!]

I'm still here. Anybody, anybody??? Attention seeking whore.

The bond between teammates is a very special one - Akermanis will never understand this, which is why he is persona non grata in the footy industry. Shame as he is one of the very best players I've ever seen, but his sublime abilities as a footballer will forever be overshadowed by his selfish, narcissistic demeanour. One of the great insults in relation to him came from Leigh Matthews, who labelled him a 'consultant' - the ultimate insult for a player in a team environment.

The most grating thing for him is that the Bulldogs relationship was going according to plan right up until the 2009 PF but unfortunately he couldn't get a kick in a street fight and became a complete and utter onfield liability. Hindsight is 20-20 vision but it was a horrendous decision to reverse his retirement in 2009 and give him another year in 2010. He was completely cooked as a player already, and 2010 simply reinforced his liability on the ground not to mention his distracting tendencies off the ground. There's topping up while still in contention but then there's being ridiculous - in 2010 we gave 1 year deals to all of Hahn, Akermanis, Johnson and Eagleton. Johnson was brilliant in 2009 but the golf cart saw to his demise the following year - the other 3 were as cooked as you can get.

Akermanis was a more than worthy punt when we drafted him, but his downward spiral on the field in late 2009 effectively killed our chances to have him as the cream on the cake. The cream was particularly sour in the 2009 PF when Stevie Baker destroyed him. That night was go-time for him and he miserably failed to deliver anything - even 1-2 small contributions from him might have been enough to get us over the line that night but alas father time well and truly caught up with him.

 

[DangerSloane]

I'm still here. Anybody, anybody??? Attention seeking whore.

The bond between teammates is a very special one - Akermanis will never understand this, which is why he is persona non grata in the footy industry. Shame as he is one of the very best players I've ever seen, but his sublime abilities as a footballer will forever be overshadowed by his selfish, narcissistic demeanour. One of the great insults in relation to him came from Leigh Matthews, who labelled him a 'consultant' - the ultimate insult for a player in a team environment.

The most grating thing for him is that the Bulldogs relationship was going according to plan right up until the 2009 PF but unfortunately he couldn't get a kick in a street fight and became a complete and utter onfield liability. Hindsight is 20-20 vision but it was a horrendous decision to reverse his retirement in 2009 and give him another year in 2010. He was completely cooked as a player already, and 2010 simply reinforced his liability on the ground not to mention his distracting tendencies off the ground. There's topping up while still in contention but then there's being ridiculous - in 2010 we gave 1 year deals to all of Hahn, Akermanis, Johnson and Eagleton. Johnson was brilliant in 2009 but the golf cart saw to his demise the following year - the other 3 were as cooked as you can get.

Akermanis was a more than worthy punt when we drafted him, but his downward spiral on the field in late 2009 effectively killed our chances to have him as the cream on the cake. The cream was particularly sour in the 2009 PF when Stevie Baker destroyed him. That night was go-time for him and he miserably failed to deliver anything - even 1-2 small contributions from him might have been enough to get us over the line that night but alas father time well and truly caught up with him.

Yep its aker's fault you didnt win a flag.
Thats the issue with your club too, is that they actually thought that way.

 

[ManOfClay]

Has nothing to do with him calling out your club for the leaderless rabble it was?

We were far from a rabble at that stage.

Take your trolling elsewhere. Maybe focussing on the current leaderless rabble that is Adelaide?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I'm still here. Anybody, anybody??? Attention seeking whore.

The bond between teammates is a very special one - Akermanis will never understand this, which is why he is persona non grata in the footy industry. Shame as he is one of the very best players I've ever seen, but his sublime abilities as a footballer will forever be overshadowed by his selfish, narcissistic demeanour. One of the great insults in relation to him came from Leigh Matthews, who labelled him a 'consultant' - the ultimate insult for a player in a team environment.

The most grating thing for him is that the Bulldogs relationship was going according to plan right up until the 2009 PF but unfortunately he couldn't get a kick in a street fight and became a complete and utter onfield liability. Hindsight is 20-20 vision but it was a horrendous decision to reverse his retirement in 2009 and give him another year in 2010. He was completely cooked as a player already, and 2010 simply reinforced his liability on the ground not to mention his distracting tendencies off the ground. There's topping up while still in contention but then there's being ridiculous - in 2010 we gave 1 year deals to all of Hahn, Akermanis, Johnson and Eagleton. Johnson was brilliant in 2009 but the golf cart saw to his demise the following year - the other 3 were as cooked as you can get.

Akermanis was a more than worthy punt when we drafted him, but his downward spiral on the field in late 2009 effectively killed our chances to have him as the cream on the cake. The cream was particularly sour in the 2009 PF when Stevie Baker destroyed him. That night was go-time for him and he miserably failed to deliver anything - even 1-2 small contributions from him might have been enough to get us over the line that night but alas father time well and truly caught up with him.

I don't know...I reckon I can think of a few worse things to be called than that.

If we get to the heart of the issue, a footballer is fundamentally judged by a) whether his teams won or lost; and b) how much he had to do with that. Akermanis played in four grand finals (three premierships), won the Brownlow in a premiership year, made three AAs in those GF years and topped the Lions' goalkicking in the last grand final year in 2004. So, on those counts, his value as a footballer can't seriously be questioned.

Dig a little deeper and you'll get to the sort of things that an individual might value, or might not. As far as I'm concerned, that's where the mateship aspect of playing footy lies. Most retired players talk about how much they miss being in the changerooms, bantering with the other player, or (most of all) getting in the circle and singing the song after a win. But what if Aka didn't care about that? Does he have to? He's not the only ex-champ that probably wouldn't clear his calendar for a past player function. What if he drew his value in being an AFL player from something else? What if he couldn't give a stuff if he doesn't go to the 2001-03 reunions (I'm pretty sure he'd be welcome, to be honest...there doesn't seem to be much open hostility towards him). His record speaks for itself and I think the way his contemporaries speak about him as a player really says enough. I think he was universally respected as a player and perhaps that's enough for him.

 

[DangerSloane]

We were far from a rabble at that stage.

Take your trolling elsewhere. Maybe focussing on the current leaderless rabble that is Adelaide?

Not trolling.
You lacked leadership from board level through to playing group (at that point in time). Its no secret, and Aker isnt the first to say it and wont be the last.

Leaderless rabble? We've got 3 players who have the standout qualities to be captain in 2015. I think we're far from leaderless, and far from a rabble. You'll see when we sign a new coach and then the out of contract guys sign.

 

[DangerSloane]

I'm still here. Anybody, anybody??? Attention seeking whore.

The bond between teammates is a very special one - Akermanis will never understand this, which is why he is persona non grata in the footy industry. Shame as he is one of the very best players I've ever seen, but his sublime abilities as a footballer will forever be overshadowed by his selfish, narcissistic demeanour. One of the great insults in relation to him came from Leigh Matthews, who labelled him a 'consultant' - the ultimate insult for a player in a team environment.

Disagree. All that means is he was a little bit removed from the playing group.

You'll find theres guys at every club who treat it as work and dont necessarily see many (if any) of their teammates on their own time.
This also doesnt mean you're a bad teammate. As long as you're meeting standards at training, meetings and game day, then you're a better teammate than those who are not meeting those standards. The business is to win football games, not friends.

This was the thing that Aker highlighted in the differences between Brisbane and WB. He said there were a heap of arguements, little underlying fights etc in the club at Brisbane, however the players were professional enough to put that bs aside when the time came to train or play. It didnt seem the bulldogs had that same attitude.

 

[ManOfClay]

Leaderless rabble? We've got 3 players who have the standout qualities to be captain in 2015. I think we're far from leaderless, and far from a rabble. You'll see when we sign a new coach and then the out of contract guys sign.

Yep Adelaide is going great. Going backwards, players and drongo ex-player on the board had the coach sacked, ceo leaving a disgrace.

 

[Sedat!]

Yep its aker's fault you didnt win a flag.
Thats the issue with your club too, is that they actually thought that way.

Way to take liberties with my post. We didn't win the flag in 2009 because we simply didn't have the cattle that St Kilda or Geelong had, but we gave it an almighty shake. What is lost in the whole Akermanis/Bulldogs discussion is that he lost his abilities on the field through age, no better emphasised than in the 2009 PF. Akermanis, even at a small percentage of his destructive best, would have contributed something in that game but he was unable to. That's where the relationship should have ended but more fool to us for giving him another year when he'd already retired and was not physically capable of producing the goods on the field. The following season (2 goals in the first 10 games) only confirmed that he was completely past it, and when you're not getting a kick it is harder to justify being a distracting influence at the club off the field.

I don't regret us getting him at all - he played some absolutely brilliant games for us from 2007-2009 and those last 2 years in particular were a wild and exciting time for the club. A pity we were up against 2-3 of the best teams of the modern era who had us covered in pure talent terms otherwise we might have snagged a flag.

 

[Sedat!]

I don't know...I reckon I can think of a few worse things to be called than that.

If we get to the heart of the issue, a footballer is fundamentally judged by a) whether his teams won or lost; and b) how much he had to do with that. Akermanis played in four grand finals (three premierships), won the Brownlow in a premiership year, made three AAs in those GF years and topped the Lions' goalkicking in the last grand final year in 2004. So, on those counts, his value as a footballer can't seriously be questioned.

Dig a little deeper and you'll get to the sort of things that an individual might value, or might not. As far as I'm concerned, that's where the mateship aspect of playing footy lies. Most retired players talk about how much they miss being in the changerooms, bantering with the other player, or (most of all) getting in the circle and singing the song after a win. But what if Aka didn't care about that? Does he have to? He's not the only ex-champ that probably wouldn't clear his calendar for a past player function. What if he drew his value in being an AFL player from something else? What if he couldn't give a stuff if he doesn't go to the 2001-03 reunions (I'm pretty sure he'd be welcome, to be honest...there doesn't seem to be much open hostility towards him). His record speaks for itself and I think the way his contemporaries speak about him as a player really says enough. I think he was universally respected as a player and perhaps that's enough for him.

The flaw in your argument above is that Akermanis is still pining for the spotlight and attention. It is obvious that the resounding universal rejection of him post-career by the entire football fraternity (not just Brisbane and the Dogs) eats away at him - he really is a fascinating case study in human behaviour.

 

[DangerSloane]

The flaw in your argument above is that Akermanis is still pining for the spotlight and attention. It is obvious that the resounding universal rejection of him post-career by the entire football fraternity (not just Brisbane and the Dogs) eats away at him - he really is a fascinating case study in human behaviour.

Akermanis was asked to be on the show.
Also thats really irelevant to the discussion...as we're talking about 7 years ago....not now.

 

[DangerSloane]

Yep Adelaide is going great. Going backwards, players and drongo ex-player on the board had the coach sacked, ceo leaving a disgrace.

We upgraded our CEO
We're going to upgrade our coach
And Riccuito is far from a drongo...just shows what you know really.

Going backwards you say...?
We have one of the best lists of young players in the league. All our best players are under 26.
Yeah like any team we have some areas that we need to work on and recruit.

Lucky your young players are one of the groups that rivals ours so I cant really sink the boot into your side, but you know I would look back at your last premiership and wonder which club is genuinely a basket case...

 

[_Mike_]

I always liked the way Akermanis played the game but I didn't like his off field inability to know when to talk and when not to talk, it was his mouth that got him sacked from the club.

His articles on gay players staying in the closet was the start, leaking information to the media about player meetings was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Dazb86]

I think my teams attitude was pretty poor regarding Aker. It seemed they believed every little thing had to be perfect to win a flag.

 

[DangerSloane]

I always liked the way Akermanis played the game but I didn't like his off field inability to know when to talk and when not to talk, it was his mouth that got him sacked from the club.

His articles on gay players staying in the closet was the start, leaking information to the media about player meetings was the straw that broke the camel's back.

His article on gay players was 100% correct, and has been proven to be. AFL fans and even some of the staff/players would not react well to it. Yes, thats their problem, obviously...but its also a problem for the league to deal with. Its no co-incidence that there is still no current player who has come out during their career.

Leaking info from team meetings is not on...and fair enough he got the sack for that.

 

[Butane]

Akermanis actually told people at a function that he was paid to be at that a certain Bulldogs player was gay. It wasn't true, Aker just thought it because he had some camp attributes. (A classic homophobic trait)

Imagine playing along side a bloke that was going around country speaking at events and telling people you were gay when you weren't. Sure, in the real world not many of us would care because we know it's not true but in the football world you'd almost feel you'd have to address it but then you'd be weighing in on the gay debate and saying you were straight would comes across as homophobic because you've a addressed a none issue. Just a pain the arse.

But yeah, Akermanis would tell journalists, off his own bat, what was going on inside the club just to get back at players.

He's such a pathetic bloke it's hard to imagine why anyone would argue otherwise. Especially after being sacked by 2 clubs and the whole Jim Stynes stuff that has banished him to the rural football club circuit as opposed to prime TV which would have been a lock for somebody of his character.


(The gay article was last the straw - and it wasn't just what was written in it - it's him lying about what was written by him in it. If you're arguing what was written was fine and Aker was right then you're missing the point on why he was sacked)

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The flaw in your argument above is that Akermanis is still pining for the spotlight and attention. It is obvious that the resounding universal rejection of him post-career by the entire football fraternity (not just Brisbane and the Dogs) eats away at him - he really is a fascinating case study in human behaviour.

I don't get that impression from him at all, to be honest. 'The spotlight and attention' is essentially about the individual, not the team. It has nothing to do with 'the bond between teammates'.

Another thing I will disagree with is your argument that it's somehow been 'lost' that Akermanis wasn't the same player, by the time he got to the Bulldogs. I can't imagine anyone thought that he was. No longer a top 10 player in the league, but clearly a top 10 player at the club, until that last season.

 

[Wes Tiger]

Bloody good watch. Don't mind aka. Controversial figure who'd always speak his mind. The campaigner could back it up too.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Has nothing to do with him calling out your club for the leaderless rabble it was?

How many rabbles come top 4 three years in a row??