B
Bill James
Guest
There is an article in the West Australian today decrying the booing of these players. I don't know either of the players nor have I booed them. That said I can understand why crowds do boo them.
Watson is in the invidious position of having been injected with substances by his club and not being able to substantiate exactly what he was injected with. While he was under this regime he won the competitions premier individual award. Your average Joe thinks the reality is what it is. Watson, or Hird, or Essendon, can't prove what he took and should put their hands up and say so. Watson is a massive media asset, and lets remember the media makes up 50% of the revenue of the whole AFL. The media, led by his father (of the year 1993), have mounted a serious sympathy defence for Watson as one of its better assets. I don't think this sentiment is shared by your average punter. The booing public thinks the whole situation is a little disingenuous and voices opinion in the only medium they have.
Goodes is a different but similar case. Your average punter is undecided whether the AFL career is promoting the indigenous heritage or other way round. The suspicion is that Goodes benefitted from affirmative action on Monday and Tuesday nights throughout his career. He demonstratively highlights that he is indigenous to the crowd, but is not receptive to the crowd highlighting the same fact. Again he is a massive media asset and the media is sympathetic to his first Australian (of the year 2014) heritage but less sympathetic to the less advantaged sitting in the outer. The booing public again thinks the whole situation is a little disingenuous and lets everyone know.
The crowds are not so much booing the players, who are both fine young men and undoubtedly very good players, but are booing the exaggerated media defence of two prime media assets. The media would do well to remember who the real asset is that provides a return on its $250M investment each year. If they listen they will hear them booing. If they are smart they will stop talking about it.
Watson is in the invidious position of having been injected with substances by his club and not being able to substantiate exactly what he was injected with. While he was under this regime he won the competitions premier individual award. Your average Joe thinks the reality is what it is. Watson, or Hird, or Essendon, can't prove what he took and should put their hands up and say so. Watson is a massive media asset, and lets remember the media makes up 50% of the revenue of the whole AFL. The media, led by his father (of the year 1993), have mounted a serious sympathy defence for Watson as one of its better assets. I don't think this sentiment is shared by your average punter. The booing public thinks the whole situation is a little disingenuous and voices opinion in the only medium they have.
Goodes is a different but similar case. Your average punter is undecided whether the AFL career is promoting the indigenous heritage or other way round. The suspicion is that Goodes benefitted from affirmative action on Monday and Tuesday nights throughout his career. He demonstratively highlights that he is indigenous to the crowd, but is not receptive to the crowd highlighting the same fact. Again he is a massive media asset and the media is sympathetic to his first Australian (of the year 2014) heritage but less sympathetic to the less advantaged sitting in the outer. The booing public again thinks the whole situation is a little disingenuous and lets everyone know.
The crowds are not so much booing the players, who are both fine young men and undoubtedly very good players, but are booing the exaggerated media defence of two prime media assets. The media would do well to remember who the real asset is that provides a return on its $250M investment each year. If they listen they will hear them booing. If they are smart they will stop talking about it.
