Such a no-brainer, that only one club seems interested in him? Even their prolonged interest is uncertain (only assumed, just as Collingwood's was), especially if Collingwood has unearthed new information. Not to mention that Ben's comeback has yet to be cleared by the AFL.DaVe86 wrote: Ben Cousins was a no brainer. He should've been in black and white in 09.
There is so much information that you do not have at your disposal (how has Ben behaved in recent months? How comitted is he to playing for Collingwood? Do all, or most of the players want him at the club? How fit is he? Any injury concerns? If so, how serious are they? What's the likelihood of him using again? ...), that to label the decision a no-brainer, is simply brainless.
Couple the facts that are unknown to us, with the more qualitative judgements to be made - what impact will Ben have on the team? Do we want the constant increased media attention, and the almost assured "crisis" periods? What will the focus on Ben mean for the rest of our group, are there any negative affects to their development? What would the almost inevitable scandal(s) mean for sponsorhip dollars? - and it's clear to see the decision is far from a simple one.
It needs to be realised that we are still rebuilding. Sure, we've had more success during our rebuild than most, but that does not change the fact that our team is too young to be expected to challenge for a premiership in the next two years. It can certainly be hoped for and played for, but not expected.
If anything, the decision not to get Cousins was a no-brainer. There are risks with picking him up, and it is a massive distraction and likely disruption to the team. Just like the other rebuilding teams, we could have ruled him out earlier. However, because of our success during the rebuild, it's possible that at least some at the club thought that picking up Cousins could have allowed us to take the next step. This thought may have been tied with picking up a quality mid-aged player during trade week. Maybe, if we had have landed Green or O'Keefe we would have continued to pursue Cousins. One man can not make the difference, maybe two could have. I don't believe this hypothetical thought line. I think Cousins was only ever looked at as a stop-gap measure, as well as Malthouse wanting to help him recover.
For those who harp on about the rebuild being interminable. It is not. We have been rebuilding since 2005, maybe 2004. For comparison, the Hawks started theirs in 2001 with the drafting of Hodge (could be argued they started a couple of years earlier). Our rebuld is perfectly on track, and 3-4 years away from seriously expecting to challenge (again, it can happen earlier, but cannot be expected to), giving a similar or quicker rebuild time as the Hawks.
Given this, how many think the Hawks would have signed a 31 year old Cousins 3 years ago? Anyone? Didn't think so. Teams just over half way through their rebuild do not sign 31 year old players, period. It's likely the only reason we even considered him was because we've lost so much experience recently, or because of Malthouse.
Signing Cousins as a short-term stop gap would not have been a bad move. I certainly supported it. But, his behaviour leading up to his comeback, his commitment to the club, his role expectations as well as many other factors, would all need to have filled the club's requirements. The club have done their due dilligence and come out with the belief that this is not the case. This is the exact approach I wanted from them - certainly look at him, but if he doesn't "tick all the boxes"
, then pull the plug. He needed us more than we needed him.I'll address your comments regarding our list in a later post, this one's already long enough.
Care to answer my queston now? Nah, too hard for you? Truth hurts maybe?
