Canberra Raiders: The search for a new coach and the Ricky Stuart conundrum

I have read with dismay a growing wave of rumour and innuendo that Ricky Stuart will leave the Parramatta Eels at the end of the season and sign a contract with the Canberra Raiders for season 2014. As a long time Canberra Raiders fan I can not think of a worse decision those in power at Canberra could make. Here are Stuart’s statistics as an NRL coach:

Sydney Roosters:

Games: 130
Wins: 79
Losses: 50

Cronulla Sharks:

Games: 74
Wins: 33
Losses: 41

Parramatta Eels:

Games: 23
Wins: 5
Losses: 18

In both the case of Stuart’s tenure at the Roosters and his tenure at the Sharks, the teams he was coaching got worse over time given that the Roosters went from winning the competition in Stuart’s first year to not making the finals in 2005 and 2006 and the Sharks went from making the preliminary final in 2008 to again being out of the finals in 2009.

Since Stuart has been at the Eels he has, simply put, not been successful and the player moves he has made have not been successful. The Eels will win the wooden spoon this season.

There is a bigger problem for me though: what kind of message does it send to a player group reeling from player behaviour issues and players breaking contracts early to engage a coach who has been in trouble for behavioural breaches (2008 World Cup for example) and who, assuming he makes himself available to coach the Raiders, has broken his last two contracts before they were up.

The Raiders’ players need a coach that they can look up to and aspire to be like and the fans of the club need a coach they can trust after season that has been in 2013. Forget that Stuart is a legend of the club for a moment: the numbers and his conduct just do not stack up to being the coach needed to take the club forward.

Canberra Raiders: David Furner released from his contract

The Board of Directors of the Canberra Raiders have confirmed that they have today terminated the contract of coach David Furner and appointed Andrew Dunemann in his place for the rest of the season. The link to the official confirmation is here: http://www.raiders.com.au/news-display/Raiders-board-decision-on-Coach-David-Furner/82437

As a long time Raiders fan to say this is saddening would be an understatement. In his 5 years at the helm the Raiders may only have won 43% of their games. Terrible seasons in 2009 and 2011 were dovetailed with finals appearances in 2010 and 2012 against expectations and the team is still in the hunt for the finals this season. There are plenty of other coaches going around that would be very happy with that record given the player list Furner has had to work with.

There has been no other coach who has had to deal with more idiocy from within his own player group than Furner; such idiocy reached its epoch this season with the conduct of Josh Dugan and Blake Ferguson and their clear lack of respect for him is a disgrace to say the least. Through all of that he acted in a reasonable and responsible way and always had the best interests of the club at heart.

I am stunned by this decision and can only hope now that the Raiders lift under Dunemann for the last games of the season and make the finals. Otherwise sacking the coach now has all been for nothing and could be considered nothing more than a disrespectful end for a wonderful servant of the club.

Canberra Raiders: Ferguson, Milford and the quest for players who want to play

Is there a week that goes by in the NRL at the moment where there is not some off field “news” about a Canberra Raiders player? Of recent weeks, whilst the team that I have followed for nearly two decades has been in the midst of playing the top 5 teams back to back and losing, the only news one seems to read is of players wanting a release from their contracts. Coming after the Josh Dugan debacle of earlier in the season, this constant cloud over the Raiders is almost becoming too much for this lifelong fan to bear.

I am not going to rehash all of the news of recent weeks save to say that it seems pretty clear that Blake Ferguson and Anthony Milford do not want to be at the club. In Ferguson’s case, whether he was on the grog at the weekend or not, he has shown nothing that could even be considered as resembling interest in being at the club since his return to the fold following his suspension over sexual assault allegations. The club stood behind him and now he, seemingly, not only wants to leave but cannot be bothered to watch a whole game that he was allegedly too injured to play? What a fine way to repay the faith the Raiders showed in him.

The Milford case is a sad one given his father’s illness. I would have more sympathy though if his manager was not in the press last week spruiking that his player, Milford, would consider boycotting the whole of the 2014 season if the Raiders did not grant him a release. It is important to note here three things:

1. Milford is a young man and is obviously close to his family. It is entirely understandable, as a human being, that he would want to be close to his father.

2. The Raiders have invested significantly in Milford given that they gave him an opportunity in their SG Ball side, after he had played with feeder club Souths Logan as a junior, and then the under 20 team before he hit the big time in the NRL this season. What I am saying is, this is not a player developed by another club who had been swooped upon when disaffected by the club. Simply: he was developed by the Raiders into the player he is.

3. It is pretty obvious that he does not want to be at the club next year.

That last point is the real issue for me: I just want to see a Raiders 17 on the weekend that wants to play for the club. Not one that is filled with players on the way out, wanting to be out or focused on their own agendas ahead of what is best for the club. If Ferguson and Milford do not want to play in the green jersey, then surely the best thing for all involved is to cut them lose and get players in that want to play for our proud club.

I know that is a painful suggestion given the players that the Raiders have had to give up in recent times but, in time, to have developed a squad of players who actually want to play in Canberra into a winning line up would surely be more satisfying that having to put up with the rabble we, as fans, have to put up with now.

I will always be a fan of the Canberra Raiders. It is striking though that this is the first year in my recent memory when I have not made a trip to Canberra from Brisbane to watch my team play. Indeed as close as two seasons ago I would travel to Canberra Stadium two or three teams a year. Maybe my disaffection with the NRL in general is colouring my love of my team but maybe, also, this seemingly constant wave of player disenfranchisement is also having an impact.

I crave the week, then month and then season where the team running out for the Raiders is one entirely united to cause of winning for the club and the fans. At the moment it feels like that week is a long way away.

NRL: Another week and another snub for the Raiders (and other top teams) by Channel 9

I wrote last week about Channel 9’s woeful conduct in its attempted stewardship of the game of rugby league in this country.

If you need any further convincing just have a look at the draw that Channel 9 has set for this week. The following games will be played on host broadcaster:

Storm v Rabbitohs
Eels v Tigers
Broncos v Dragons

Any fan of the NRL will be able to tell you that two of those games have combatants that have no hope of making the finals. None of the Eels, Tigers, Bronco nor Dragons can make the finals yet when Channel 9 set the draw only weeks ago they deigned these games more important than the following fixtures all of which involve teams either BOTH in the top 8 or on the precipice of it:

Roosters v Raiders
Sharks v Knights
Sea Eagles v Warriors

To say that Channel 9 is failing in its stewardship of the game because of its steadfast failure to play the teams actually in the running for the finals during its air time would be an understatement. Surely the fans want to see the best teams and teams competing for the NRL trophy rather than the 14th, 15th and 16th placed teams who have no way of making the finals. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Rugby League: Hey Channel 9, why do you refuse to play the Raiders?

I am a Canberra Raiders fan of some 28 years standing and, if you follow my twitter feed, you will know my absolute disgust with the way this mighty club is being treated by the funder of the competition: Channel 9. For those who have missed it, the Canberra Raiders will be shown once this year on Free to Air Television by Channel 9. That is right: from 22 possible games this season the Raiders will be shown in 4.17% of those games on Channel 9. Now many fans out there are probably thinking: “who cares, the Raiders are crap anyway!” but that thinking belies the fact that with 6 rounds to go the Raiders presently sitting in 7th spot and have a real chance of making the finals.

For those wondering how their team fairs by comparison to the Raiders, the table is instructive:

NRL 2

Some very interesting trends flow from the table:

1. The games on Channel 9 that include a team in bottom 3 of the draw (33) account for more games than those of Sea Eagles, Sharks, Raiders and Knights (all of whom are in the top 8) combined.
2. The Eels may, depending on results, end up playing as many games shown on free to air TV as the number of points they win during the course of the season.
3. Statistically, if your team has historically hailed from the Sydney (Rabbitohs, Roosters, Dragons), Western Sydney (Bulldogs, Wests Tigers, Eels) or Brisbane (Broncos) areas you have a statistical probability of seeing your team play 52% of the time on Channel 9 (88 showings out of a possible 168 games) versus a probability of 29% if your team hails from areas outside of those historical geographic locations.

Now, the apologists for Channel 9 will say two things:

1. They have paid for the rights and they can show whomever they wish on their channel; and
2. They chose at the start of the year the teams that they thought would go well this season but they were wrong so stop whingeing.

The first argument shows the difficult conundrum that arises when the influences of commercial imperatives collide with the trusteeship of the game that goes with being the rights holder. I accept that there are commercial benefits to Channel 9 in showing the teams that they are showing however surely that commercial benefit outweighs the importance to the standing of the game and the future of said game that is secured by showing all of the teams that play it rather than just the chosen few that currently get airtime.

The second argument is a fallacy. That is because, whilst the Channel 9 had to set the schedule for games to be televised for the first 20 weeks of the season in October 2012, they have recently, with the knowledge of position of the teams on the ladder and their form had the ability to set the schedule for the last 6 rounds of the competition. It is that setting of the schedule armed with that knowledge that raises the question in the title to this post and the hackles of fans of the Raiders (and some other teams).

For the six games that Channel 9 got to choose who they showed on their station armed with factors such as position on the table and form line this is who they chose:

NRL 3

Can anyone explain to me why Channel 9 would decide to show the bottom dwelling Eels in 4 of 6 games on their channel? It just beggars belief that they would chose to show such a team instead of the Raiders who are in the top 8 or the Cronulla Sharks for that matter who are also in the top 8. The Broncos have received six games out of six on free to air television despite their woeful form and position on the ladder but that is understandable given the parlous state of the Queensland teams in this competition at the moment and the fact that Channel 9 have to show something watchable for Queensland fans (they can not all be fans of their original team still like me).

Some will argue that the Eels are being shown on Channel 9 because they are playing teams from the top 8 and thus Channel 9 showing the top teams despite their lowly position. That argument does not wash though when you consider the road to the finals that the Raiders face. Again, in case you missed it, the Raiders will play the Storm, Roosters, Sea Eagles and Bulldogs in the space of four consecutive weeks.

I know I am a strident Raiders fan, but can any fair minded NRL fan like me in the eye and say that the allocation of the games by Channel 9 on free to air is good for the game or, even, fair?

So with all of the facts above, I will finish by posing the question in the title again: Channel 9 … why do you refuse to play the Canberra Raiders on your channel? I, as a fan of the Raiders and the game, would love to know … and I am sure many others would like to know too!

Shumpty’s Punt: weekend multi and racing

Another weekend and another massive amount of sport to enjoy. Here are this weeks tips:

Horse Racing:

Doomben Race 1: Number 2 Bribie (win) ($3.80)

Doomben Race 6: Number 3 Clangor (each way) ($8.00/$2.90)

Randwick Race 3: Number 4 Prettyfamous (win) ($4.00)

Caulfield Race 3: Number 11 Text’n Hurley (win) ($4.00)

Sport’s Multi:

Leg 1: Washington Nationals to cover the line against the New York Yankees (-1.5 runs) in the MLB. ($2.08)

Leg 2: Crusaders to cover the line against the Chiefs (-3.5 points) in Super Rugby. ($1.92)

Leg 3: Canberra Raiders to cover the line against the St George Dragons (-1.5 points) in the NRL. ($1.92)

Leg 4: Fremantle Dockers to defeat the Adelaide Crows by 1-39 points in the AFL. ($1.95)

Leg 5: Brumbies to cover the line against the Bulls (+8.5 points) in Super Rugby. ($1.92)

This multi will pay $28.70 for ever dollar invested and I have invested $25.

As always: please gamble responsibly and only bet what you can afford to lose.