Freddy jumping at shadows?
By Paul Kent
September 10, 2008 THE Captains Call was notable for his absence. No Craig Fitzgibbon.
The Sydney Rooster remains a leader, if not a captain. When Fitzy was sacked a fortnight ago it came so suddenly that some players found out only when they turned up for the game.
Fitzgibbon won't detail his hurt.
He has refused all approaches to be drawn into it.
Coach Brad Fittler explained afterward he wanted to put more responsibility on his halves Braith Anasta and Mitchell Pearce.
He wanted Fitzgibbon to concentrate more on his own game, while acknowledging the hurt.
It was all as simple as that.
Or was it?
Fittler has the toughest job in rugby league. At Monday's Captains Call, host Andrew Voss raised the magnificent job Fittler has done.
In his first full season he has guided the Roosters into the top four.
It was a statement that led to a question to new captain Anasta who, in a small irony, confirmed the whispers that have filled rugby league since Fitzgibbon's sacking.
"When he lost three in a row he looked like he felt the pinch a bit, and the players got that off him as well," Anasta said.
"But we've won the last two weeks."
Everybody noted Fittler's change in mood during the Roosters' consecutive losses to Parramatta, Melbourne and Cronulla.
Free-wheeling Freddy was gone as he suffered three in a row for the first time in his career.
The most glaring change in behaviour was Fittler's demand for early-morning training sessions.
Some saw this as a sign of panic.
The players grew concerned.
How much pressure Fittler was under at that point is not certain. And not just self-imposed pressure, but how much pressure externally?
Concerned about the changes, Fitzgibbon, as captain, approached Fittler on behalf of his players.
Fittler did not take it well.
The next day, Fitzgibbon and Anasta were called in by Fittler who, there in front of both men, told Fitzgibbon he was no longer captain and Anasta he was.
Fitzgibbon's class prevailed and he took the decision with no argument in front of Anasta.
The following weekend, the Roosters beat Souths but were unconvincing, and when the players all boarded a bus to watch Anthony Minichiello play for Newtown, among them was Phil Gould.
Gould berated the players. It was an old-fashioned rev-up. He does this from time to time, not always after an invitation. He once walked into a Ricky Stuart session and asked to speak to the players. Stuart said OK, then Gould let rip.
He told Fitzgibbon he was no longer captain and appointed Luke Ricketson.
Once he left, Stuart told the players to ignore all of it, told Fitzgibbon he was still captain, and there went another fracture in that relationship. Stuart and Gould never recovered.
Anyway, after the Newtown game, Minichiello approached Fittler and reinforced the fears Fitzgibbon raised before he was sacked.
This time Fittler called his assistants in for an honesty session.
It was honest, all right.
Fittler took it all on board, gave his assistants the afternoon off, told his players to train themselves and went home himself. Since then it has all turned around. That is good coaching.
But is it merely a co-incidence the shadow of Gould still looms over this?
Not Graham Murray, Stuart or Chris Anderson will say Gould's presence or influence enhanced their own stints at the club. Does Fittler need this interference as well?
Gould has long been a confidante of Roosters chairman Nick Politis. He values his knowledge. But at what cost?
Since Gould resigned, but never really left, in 1999, every successor's tenure has ended the same way, rotting from the inside out.
Gould has acknowledged his mentor role with Fittler, but what part he played in Fittler's recent decisions is unknown.
But it is accepted he often buts in, uninvited. What role has this played in Fittler's recent confusion?
This is a question Roosters officials have to address.
Fittler should be given the chance to succeed or fail on his own merit.
They gave him the job. Nobody else
