And while I’m at it, managers need to take the consequences of such decisions into consideration when mapping a player’s career on and off the field. Know your player and advise them according to what is best for them over the long term.
In the most extreme cases that could mean time away from the game or choosing another path in life that makes you happier and healthier. Being a professional AFL player can be tough and a life that is not for everyone. There is no shame in admitting that.
The second component making me uncomfortable is when players – and they are in the minority – don’t appear prepared to make the necessary investment in their life to prepare well and, as a result, become unreliable teammates.
Clubs will always grapple with how best to manage their players. Credit: Joe Armao
This is not an easy subject to raise in a climate where we are all so aware of the need to prioritise individual wellbeing and are justifiably proud of the advances the game has made in this area.
But can we also have uncomfortable conversations about when a player’s behaviour and attitude makes them someone we need to support more than protect?
Loading
To be honest, it makes me uncomfortable to see the phrase “personal issues” used as a catch-all to explain a player’s absence from the game when the reasons for each individual’s absence are wide and varied.
A player who is suffering from poor mental health should be given the space to work through their issues, with all the support the AFL system can offer. This could cover a relationship breakdown, anxiety, depression, a family illness or bereavement.
But if a player’s behaviour is contributing to the issues – for example, alcohol or substance abuse, poor training habits or preparation – should clubs be able to make decisions that prioritise their interests over those of the individual?
That’s an uncomfortable question, but it needs to be addressed. I think clubs should be able to declare that players in the second category have fallen short of the expectations of their contract.
Instead, players in both categories are being painted with the same brush. I feel the focus has become so weighted to supporting a minority of players who might have done the wrong thing that the silent majority who deal with a bunch of issues in their lives at various times are often forgotten.
Let’s not neglect those who turn up and battle through pre-seasons and seasons without complaint. They take on the burden of performance and answer questions and queries about their club and their team while the main narrative seems to be to fight hard to show the greatest respect to someone living outside the team ethos who continues to be financially rewarded. Seasons might be affected and career trajectories altered as a result.
That doesn’t seem fair to me.
The balance seems out of whack at the moment, with clubs unable to do much even if a player is not doing much to help themselves.
Loading
We should be proud of the advances we have made in prioritising player wellbeing, emotionally and physically. Everyone in the game wants people to be happy, healthy and flourishing in the AFL environment.
But there is also a reality that some parts of our game are just tough and won’t change.
And while support will always be there for people, sometimes the consequences for certain behaviours should be borne by the individual rather than the club, teammates and supporters.
Mathew Stokes is a Larrakia man who played 200 games with Geelong and Essendon. He played in Geelong’s 2007 and 2011 premiership teams.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
