cimm1979 wrote:
Manchego Cheese wrote:
Just watched the Max Bailey doco on Fox. Not a bad watch, but not worthy of the acclaim and 'gee whiz, how good was that' rhetoric that'll run on fox tonight.
The one moment that stuck out for me was when they discussed Clarkson, Russell (their fitness guy) and Bailey meeting to outline what they'd have to do to get him through to the end of the season, knowing full well it'd be his last hurrah.
The club did everything they could to get a guy that had been through some tough times as good a send off as possible.
It's just one small instance. One small circumstance.
Contrast that with how Ratts left Brad Fisher - not a tremendously talented footballer, but one with a fair bit of heart who'd battled serious injury, in a poor era - stranded on 99 games. For a game in which the result would not affect our finishing position. It was spiteful and pathetic.
It's just one small example, but I think it a microcosm of why they've been a good team and we've been an ordinary one.
Max Bailey considered vital for a premiership.
Brad Fisher not good enough to play 100 games, lucky to play 50, would not have played 1 at the Hawks.
Where's the scandal Mr Cheese?
Its all about how you treat people who've given everything they could for the club. If you think it acceptable to behave that way, all power to you.
Fish had battled through terrible injury playing in a terrible team and had given it everything at AFL level. He should have been given the one game necessary to have his name on the locker - one of football's great traditions and recognitions of hard work. Especially since it was well known that it would be his last year in the game.
Remove names and ability from the equation (not for one second am I saying fisher > bailey) and you see an embarrassing contrast in how clubs conduct themselves and cultivate a good culture. From all reports Fish was well liked down at the club and had a good relationship with most of the playing group.
Awful treatment of a good clubman, I maintain.