THE great inconsistency between the way players are treated against the way coaches are treated was highlighted this past week.
Tim Sheens was forced to defend the morale at the Wests Tigers because the club is in the middle of a succession plan and Sheens has released some players while giving others permission to negotiate at other clubs.
Yet Kevin Moore, at Canterbury, tried to stay loyal for as long as he could to his players and has paid the price. Meanwhile, none of the players have suffered a bruise for their actions.
Earlier this year, Jamal Idris took $400,000 to leave Canterbury and go to the Gold Coast and everyone says good on him for looking after himself. How would it have played out if Moore had told him to go, that he didn't want him at that price?
We all know what we sign on for as a coach, so I'm not going to sit here and tell you how we've got a bum deal.
But I will say that sacking the coach is the easy option, and one becoming far too convenient in the world of modern football. One of the things I really question these days is how much some players care for the result.
I've experienced before my own players walking over to the opposition smiling and laughing, without a care in the world. They weren't devastated by the loss. Yet they had a few laughs with the opposition, walked off together, and then my blokes walked into our dressing room seemingly without a care in the world. I let those individuals know I don't appreciate that type of attitude.
But, of course, not long after that I'm criticised for being too tough on players. Or the new buzzwords that seem to be going around, that you've "lost the dressing room".
That's a coach killer, no matter how inaccurate.
The biggest thing I try to impress on players is to take ownership of the result. It belongs to them. Everything they do affects it.
Yet I wonder how many players truly do take ownership of the result. How many are happy as long as they're being paid?
I felt sorry for Moore when his marquee player, Idris, signed elsewhere. Why is it OK for that to happen, but it's not OK for Sheens to say to some of his players that it's time to move on?
Somewhere, the balance is out of whack.
The problem is coaches are too often the easy fix these days.
You can't replace the players because that might require too many changes, too much negotiation, and too much money.
But all boards know they have to do something, because if they don't make changes then the fans will vote them out at the next election. The coach is the one left vulnerable in the middle.
So as soon as some teams struggle for results, like Wests, Canterbury and even the Gold Coast and Roosters in recent times, they shoot for the coach.
But the problems are usually unique to each club.
The Gold Coast are hanging strong at the moment, and provided the club continues to hold their nerve they will come through better for it.
The Gold Coast's problem can basically be traced back to Mat Rogers' retirement and the lack of a playmaker to complement Scott Prince. It's a void they're aware of but have been unable to fill as there's no longer an easy fix.
In the old days, before the salary cap, you could fix it easily. You would just go out on the market and buy the player you needed.
Now, the way deals are done, it's not that easy.
That's why clubs have to always be working on a succession plan - like Sheens is at this moment.
After we played our third grand final at the Roosters, Phil Gould told me I needed to start working on our succession plan by moving some players on. He is doing a similar thing at Penrith right now.
I didn't want to at Easts because they had been good to me, but that was my mistake.
I should have, because we got old and didn't have the players to replace them, because we had let the young blokes go to keep the ageing players we had.
If players are unhappy at Wests because of what Sheens has done, as has been alleged, they should realise that you can't have it both ways, they should get on with it.
You can't take the big offer elsewhere and just say you're doing the best for yourself without the possibility it might work the other way.
If Sheens doesn't go through what he is doing at the moment then before long he'll be the one looking for a job. In fact, the only ones that will be happy are the players he should have got rid of, because they'll still be there and still getting paid.
Who cares if they aren't winning? The way it seems to be, that's for the coach and the rest of the players who are carrying them to worry about
