Tyson Edwards battled cancer last season

[WALL-e]

Depends on the events leading up, Pete.

If Craig dropped Edwards before Tys said to him, I'm done. Then there isn't a problem. If he dropped him with the intention of him regaining form in the SANFL before returning, fine.

But if Tys said 'I'm done', then Craigy dropped him and denied a request for a farewell game, then that's very poor.

More information needed.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Depends on the events leading up, Pete.

If Craig dropped Edwards before Tys said to him, I'm done. Then there isn't a problem. If he dropped him with the intention of him regaining form in the SANFL before returning, fine.

But if Tys said 'I'm done', then Craigy dropped him and denied a request for a farewell game, then that's very poor.

More information needed.

As I understand it they had the talk beforehand. This was when Craig allegedly said he'd "forgotten," although I think it's taking liberties to pin that on him. He probably just meant with all the drama of the season he hadn't had time to sit down and discuss Tyson's health with him.

Needless to say, it should not have progressed to Tyson being omitted from the side. It should have been discussed and taken care of well before then. These are not two separate issues as Vader suggests. The omission was the source of all the heartache for all parties concerned. Omitting a guy then bringing him back for a farewell game is not desirable, that dimishes Tyson and makes the club look compromised. It's the rod Neil created for his own back by dropping him for the St Kilda game. He should not have been omitted for that game.

 

[Filthy Fielke]

Look at you all jumping off now.

I know, how silly of me to adjust my opinion according to new facts as they arise.

 

[WALL-e]

What if Craigs understanding was following regaining form in the SANFL, Tys would come back and complete the season, getting a send off in R22? Then his omission was completely justified.

But, if he was aware of Tys wanting to hang up the boots, a farewell game goes without saying.

 

[Vader]

Wrong. Many people were saying he should have been dropped early. That he was a shadow of his former self.

Turns out they were right.

So.. how is "many people saying he should have been dropped early" in conflict with my claim that decision "1A - Craig dropped him" created little controversy?

Sounds to me like everyone was in complete agreement that Edwards needed to be dropped - in other words, everyone agreed with decision 1A.

 

[Vader]

Needless to say, it should not have progressed to Tyson being omitted from the side. It should have been discussed and taken care of well before then. These are not two separate issues as Vader suggests. The omission was the source of all the heartache for all parties concerned. Omitting a guy then bringing him back for a farewell game is not desirable, that dimishes Tyson and makes the club look compromised. It's the rod Neil created for his own back by dropping him for the St Kilda game. He should not have been omitted for that game.

Not at all, it happens all the time - especially for 300 game players like Edwards.

There was simply no justification for selecting Edwards for the St Kilda game. It was never going to happen. Frankly, Edwards was luckly to be given as many games as he was before being dropped.

What should have happened is that Craig should have sat down with Edwards and had a discussion with him when informing him that he had been dropped. Edwards would, no doubt, have told him that he would be retiring, effective immediately. Craig should have (but didn't) offered him a farewell game - either our next home game or our last home game - which Tyson would have accepted.

Had this happened, then everyone would have walked away happy. Craig's intransigence in refusing Edwards a farewell game is what got everyone upset.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Not at all, it happens all the time - especially for 300 game players like Edwards.

There was simply no justification for selecting Edwards for the St Kilda game. It was never going to happen. Frankly, Edwards was luckly to be given as many games as he was before being dropped.

What should have happened is that Craig should have sat down with Edwards and had a discussion with him when informing him that he had been dropped. Edwards would, no doubt, have told him that he would be retiring, effective immediately. Craig should have (but didn't) offered him a farewell game - either our next home game or our last home game - which Tyson would have accepted.

Had this happened, then everyone would have walked away happy. Craig's intransigence in refusing Edwards a farewell game is what got everyone upset.

So you are dismissing the value of selecting him against St Kilda in avoiding the whole fiasco going public and causing the drama it did? Assuming Edwards and Craig had discussed his future prior to that, as Edwards suggests.

 

[Vader]

So you are dismissing the value of selecting him against St Kilda in avoiding the whole fiasco going public and causing the drama it did? Assuming Edwards and Craig had discussed his future prior to that, as Edwards suggests.

The problem is that the St Kilda game was an away game. If it had been a home game, then yes, it would have been a perfectly good way to end his career - but nobody has a "farewell game" away from home. OK, James Hird got a hell of a farewell by the West Coast fans - but Edwards is/was no James Hird.

The decision to drop him for the St Kilda game was the correct decision - it was right at the time and it's still right with 20/20 hindsight.

Suggesting that they should have made the decision to drop him (as demanded by his poor form), then played him for 2 more games, is nothing short of ludicrous.

 

[SugarShane]

I couldn't beleive what I heard last night. Tyson said that as the team was an 2-6/2-7 he though a bit of compassion for a farewell game could be accomodated (I don't think this is unreasonable for a 300 game player who has had cancer) but he said all NC cared about was results.

I don't really agree with that. The AFL is a business, and the business is about getting results. When we were 2-6, we were still a shot at making finals. It was going to be a hard slog, and a lot of people wrote us off, but we did go pretty close. For Tyson to say that by that stage we were done, and that his personal needs should've taken precedence to "getting results", doesn't sit right with me.
I know the old "He's a 300 gamer, he deserved it" argument will keep coming up, but how did our other 300 gamers go out? Benny Hart was told at the end of a season "Don't come monday." Roo went out in a heartbreaker. McLeod went out in an injury cloud. It just all, and still does, seem a bit selfish to me.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Suggesting that they should have made the decision to drop him (as demanded by his poor form), then played him for 2 more games, is nothing short of ludicrous.

No more ludicrous then playing him for one more game.

The word "dropped" should never have entered the discussion. If it was handled correctly it would have been a mutual agreement that it was time to go, and then the designated game where it would end. In this case Freo. Tyson wasn't hanging on - he knew his time was nearly up.

Dropping him and bringing him back was unnecessary. While I'm glad it happened (that he came back), it shouldnt have needed to.

 

[Vader]

No more ludicrous then playing him for one more game.

The word "dropped" should never have entered the discussion. If it was handled correctly it would have been a mutual agreement that it was time to go, and then the designated game where it would end. In this case Freo. Tyson wasn't hanging on - he knew his time was nearly up.

Dropping him and bringing him back was unnecessary. While I'm glad it happened (that he came back), it shouldnt have needed to.

It probably should have happened a week earlier, with Tyson's last game being against North Melbourne.

Playing one last "farewell" game is a well established tradition. There's nothing ludicrous about it at all.

I do agree though, that if handled properly the word "dropped" should never have been uttered. It should have been a mutual decision, allowing him to leave with dignity and the club to farewell a champion.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Playing one last "farewell" game is a well established tradition. There's nothing ludicrous about it at all..

I agree, and especially when a guy has spend extended time on the sidelines. But with this one, he's told he's not good enough, then a week later he's back in the 22. Neil unwittingly put himself in the very position he wanted to avoid - to not be perceived as gifting games. The situation was crying out for some flexibility and common sense from Craig. Could have saved a lot of face for himself.

I do agree though, that if handled properly the word "dropped" should never have been uttered. It should have been a mutual decision, allowing him to leave with dignity and the club to farewell a champion.

 

[crowman86]

I am glad Nth Melb didn't have the same attutude to Jason Mcartney. Appauling treatment by NC.

The situations could not be more different. Jason was a national hero who risked his own life to save others. Tyson had a lump cut out which was later diagnosed as stage 1 cancer and had not spread to any other part of his body.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Cant actually believe there are people here trying to defend the clubs handling of this situation. Both sides of the story are equally damning in my opinion.

 

[Vader]

The situations could not be more different. Jason was a national hero who risked his own life to save others. Tyson had a lump cut out which was later diagnosed as stage 1 cancer and had not spread to any other part of his body.

He was? First I've heard about it. He was unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, when the Bali bombs went off. The only thing he did which was heroic (as far as I'm aware) was to stage a recovery to the point where he was able to play 1 last AFL game, when everyone thought his injuries would prevent this from happening.

I could be wrong though. I may have missed part of the story somewhere...

 

[Wood_Duck]

He was? First I've heard about it. He was unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, when the Bali bombs went off. The only thing he did which was heroic (as far as I'm aware) was to stage a recovery to the point where he was able to play 1 last AFL game, when everyone thought his injuries would prevent this from happening.

I could be wrong though. I may have missed part of the story somewhere...

Yep you missed it.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Yep you missed it.

By so far it's not funny.

 

[Vader]

Yep you missed it.

By so far it's not funny.

Just looked up his Wikipedia page. Turns out there was a side to his story which I missed at the time.

Thanks to Wood Duck for providing me with this link as well: http://www.australianspeaker.com/speaker1624-Jason-McCartney

 

[Slippery Pete]

Crowman86's post was still stupid and unnecessary though. There's no use comparing the struggles of one to another - Tyson has been through his own tribulations and handled it in his own personal way - he deserves nothing but respect and admiration.

 

[sydney_crow]

Its all very very strange. Tyson was offered time off after his op and time to recover and take it all in and come back fresh and instead decided to train and do the full pre season. It would have knocked him around mentally more than physically surely? I mean it was a small day op to remove a lump which was later discovered to be a cancer. He decided to not undergo any other treatment so really the only physical thing he had done was a small day op. The fact that they got it so so early on means that there would have been little to no impact on his body?? Players have bigger surgeries physical wise all the time at the end of a season. Must have really knocked him around mentally. I am not convinced that his form suffered due to the cancer. I really don't want to judge because I cannot imagine the pain and suffering he would have mentally been fighting but its all very odd. The fact that they said Mandy wants the real story out, he was worried Mandy might say something to Craig, Mandy was upset with the way it was handled it just doesn't seem to sit well with me. Really interested to see if we will hear the other side of the story. She does have history being involved in trouble and scandals before. The whole thing is a hazy shade of grey right now.

Can anyone elaborate on this element of the story (is that how Tyson said it on 5AA)?

Does this mean that the reason that we're hearing about this now is that his wife wants the 'real' story out?

So we have a guy with a long and distinguished career and the only two (that I can remember) controversies he's been associated with have had his wife centrally involved.

 

[Allefgib]

Can anyone elaborate on this element of the story (is that how Tyson said it on 5AA)?

Does this mean that the reason that we're hearing about this now is that his wife wants the 'real' story out?

So we have a guy with a long and distinguished career and the only two (that I can remember) controversies he's been associated with have had his wife centrally involved.

I don't recall that on AA but I may have missed a sentence or 2.

To be honest, how it has come out now does seem very odd. Wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if it was driven by his wife to 'clear the air'.

Would also explain perhaps why he kept pushing himself without resting. Maybe he didn't think it was that big a deal. Maybe his wife had to convince him how much of a toll it really was having/had on him?

Not necessairly a bad thing I might add... though the whole Mandy/Rachael is/was an absolute disgrace.

 

[Filthy Fielke]

I don't really agree with that. The AFL is a business, and the business is about getting results. When we were 2-6, we were still a shot at making finals. It was going to be a hard slog, and a lot of people wrote us off, but we did go pretty close. For Tyson to say that by that stage we were done, and that his personal needs should've taken precedence to "getting results", doesn't sit right with me.
I know the old "He's a 300 gamer, he deserved it" argument will keep coming up, but how did our other 300 gamers go out? Benny Hart was told at the end of a season "Don't come monday." Roo went out in a heartbreaker. McLeod went out in an injury cloud. It just all, and still does, seem a bit selfish to me.

I really don't like the thinking 'AFL is a business, and so should be treated as such.'

AFL may generate a lot of money, and it is certainly a results based endeavour, but it isn't just a business, it's more than that. Even in its business guise it is a non-profit business and results include a lot of intangibles. Club loyalty among supporters transcends brand loyalty of the Coke versus Pepsi variety among customers.

Craig prides himself on acknowledging such intangibles and, if he's fair dinkum, notions like club culture should mean more than persecuting Johncock because he doesn't quite fit the mold.

I also don't think we can make such clear distinctions between 'getting results' and 'personal needs'. At 2-6/2-7 we had more to gain than lose by 'gifting' Edwards a farewell game. As it turned out, the farewell game was a great victory and seemed to put us back on track for the season. It also provided a rare highlight for supporters in 2010.

Indeed, I'd say that the Fremantle game showed that tangible results such as beating top 4 teams can be influenced by intangibles such as sentimentality towards a champion of the club. Yes, many champions leave the game in ignominious circumstances, but that is usually because such circumstances are forced on the club and player. In Edwards' case, the club and player had an opportunity to give a favourite son the farewell he deserved.

Craig made a mistake in his handling of the situation. He let Edwards down, he let the players down, he let the club down, he let the supporters down and he let himself down.

On the other hand, the right outcome eventuated. Edwards and the supporters got his farewell game, we beat a top 4 side and our season was back on track. If Cro Mo is right, it's because the players confronted Craig and made him change his mind.

Who was responsible for creating an environment in which the players feel empowered enough to confront the coach?

The answer might show that some of the flaming wars denigrating or defending Craig and his methods to the hilt are a bit superficial.

 

[crowman86]

Can anyone elaborate on this element of the story (is that how Tyson said it on 5AA)?

Does this mean that the reason that we're hearing about this now is that his wife wants the 'real' story out?

So we have a guy with a long and distinguished career and the only two (that I can remember) controversies he's been associated with have had his wife centrally involved.

He made no mention of it on AA, but thats very much how I saw the story on Today Tonight last night. She was being interviewed with him, he was asked did he feel after his last game like he should go to Craig and say 'you were wrong' or anything like that. He said he didn't feel like the need to do anything like that and said it was more something he was worried Mandy would do. It was also said in the clip that Mandy was more the one who wanted their side of the story out there to 'clear the air'. Sounds very very driven by the misses. Something is really not sitting right with me, I wonder if the TT clip is available on the web.

 

[Allefgib]

He also said 'we' ALL the time. Never 'me'. Forgot that when I responded earlier.

 

[icrow32]

He made no mention of it on AA, but thats very much how I saw the story on Today Tonight last night. She was being interviewed with him, he was asked did he feel after his last game like he should go to Craig and say 'you were wrong' or anything like that. He said he didn't feel like the need to do anything like that and said it was more something he was worried Mandy would do. It was also said in the clip that Mandy was more the one who wanted their side of the story out there to 'clear the air'. Sounds very very driven by the misses. Something is really not sitting right with me, I wonder if the TT clip is available on the web.

So your taking the edited clips from the most disreputable show on TV over an uncensored interview on radio with the man himself. and then "blaming the Mrs" becuase Tyson wants to publicly reveal his battle with cancer in the hope that other men might be more inclined to get checked out than to pretend like nothing is wrong. At no point did he say "Mandy made me" or it was "the wifes idea". It was a joint decision as it should be.

Its good to see that Mrs Edwards takes an intrest in her husbands career and can provide advice when necessary. Sounds like great support for Tyson, which is excatly what he would need after finding out he had cancer. Rather than other money/attention grubbing parasite WAGS that are just there to turn up on the red carpet and get their face in New Idea.