Carey’s critics are quick to highlight a litany of incidents | Graham Cornes

Should Carey lose everything – his jobs, his standing in the football world and a reputation that he had steadily rebuilt, asks Graham Cornes.

There was a time when Wayne Carey would have been described as a “man’s man”.

Strong and charismatic, he had a powerful presence, both on and off the field. Mates enjoyed his company and most women, looked twice.

He exuded leadership, mainly because of his positive masculine traits, his size and his footballing prowess.

But masculinity can be a double-edged sword and being described as a “man’s man” these days is not necessarily a compliment.

The term “toxic masculinity” is increasingly working its way into contemporary vernacular.

It has a broad meaning that condemns the less pleasant realities of male behaviour, but put simply, it encapsulates “certain male behaviours that are associated with harm to society and men themselves”.

In the wake of Carey’s most recent brush with controversy – a zip-lock bag filled with “a white substance”– his critics are quick to highlight a litany of incidents that are offensive to society, and in particular, women.

Wayne Carey. Picture: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images

He claims it was a legal, crushed-up form of pain-relieving medication, but in the absence of any police intervention and forensic testing, that cannot be confirmed.

Nevertheless, one of the game’s most astute commentators, he has been stood down from most of the media positions that he holds.

Despite his denials and threat of legal action to defend himself, it is assumed by most it was an illicit substance.

Should he lose everything – his jobs, his standing in the football world and a reputation that he had steadily rebuilt?

Are illicit substances in zip-lock bags as prevalent in society and the corporate world as some would say? Is that an excuse?

Regardless of legalities, Carey already has paid a significant price for a serious lapse of judgment.

Given the exposure and the public humiliation has already been significant, a period of suspension would seem most appropriate. After all, most of us (but not all) are entitled to redemption.

I fear, however, he will pay a bigger price and there will be many women who will rejoice at that.

A fair price to pay for failing to cop it?

Josh Worrell may just as well have painted a target on his back.

Does he really think that complaining about spectator behaviour is going to change it?

He whacked the umpires as well. “The abuse I’ve copped from the sideline this season has been unacceptable,” Worrell said.

“It’s time the league took a stand on these fans who come to the footy and do the wrong thing, because umpires feel the pressure and it has an impact on them.”

Wow. Good luck when you’re resting in the back pocket in front of the opposition’s cheer squad. Good luck getting that 50/50 free kick that could go either way.

The first time I saw Josh Worrell play I really liked what I saw. It was the way he moved, the way he attacked the ball and especially, what he did with the ball when he had it.

He was skinny, well, maybe lanky is a better description, but tall, skinny kids eventually will either fill out or grow into wiry, tough competitors. But he did stand out.

Astute football judges would have liked what they saw. He had been drafted in 2019 as a key forward, but seemed best suited in defence.

Worrell didn’t play at all in 2020, his first season. The Covid-19 restrictions put paid to many a young footballers’ ambitions.

He played only one game in 2021. That game, against St Kilda, was memorable for the spectacular Riley Thilthorpe overhead match-winning goal, but not so much for Worrell’s form. Two kicks and one handball with 62 per cent game time was not enough to keep his spot, and the following week he made way for the returning Luke Brown.

Disappointingly, we didn’t see him again until round 20 this year, after which he played out the last four rounds of the season.

Josh Worrell. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe

Nevertheless, despite only five games in three seasons, I still like what I see. Spectacular at times, he can take a mark and he possesses one of football’s great weapons – a raking left foot.

There is a gaping hole in the Crows defence for a third tall defender. Hopefully he can fill it. The coach could probably throw him forward on occasions as well.

So Worrell has spent most of the past two seasons playing in the SANFL in front of smaller, more intimate crowds, whose comments can be easily heard and have caused him to be upset.

The first reaction from those who played through the generations is to “toughen up kid”.

Did he ever have to rest in the forward pocket at Alberton in front of the Port Magpies cheer squad; endure the abuse of the fans who would lean over the coach’s box at Unley Oval; suffer the taunts of the Bulldogs cheer squad at Elizabeth; dodge the spittle and other bodily fluids when running up that wire race at Alberton?

Ah, those were the days.

However, there are two issues at play here.

In one respect, Worrell is correct. He shouldn’t have to endure personal abuse from ill-mannered, disrespectful bogans.

But it’s a sign of the times when a younger generation, emboldened by social media platforms, seems increasingly disrespectful and abusive.

Is there any difference between an anonymous keyboard coward and a loud-mouthed, abusive football supporter hidden in a crowd?

However, Worrell is also of a generation of entitlement and privilege. Coaches can’t raise their voices any more or move players out of their comfort zones. How dare those spectators talk to me like that.

Unfortunately, there is not much the SANFL can do about it, other than have security officers patrolling and ejecting those who descend into foul, abusive invective.

What makes it worse is the SANFL is dealing with a majority of its supporters who resent the presence of the Crows and Port reserve teams in its competition.

We are uneasy – fearful even – at the thought that a team bolstered by AFL-listed players and the resources that they enjoy, could claim the SANFL’s greatest prize.

It is understandable, although not acceptable, that the Crows players would bear the brunt of that frustration.

There is unlikely to be a resolution, but two things should happen.

One: SANFL football supporters should be more respectful to Worrell and his young teammates, who are simply trying to do their best. And two: Worrell and his teammates do need to toughen up. They are going to face greater hurdles in their football journeys than ill-mannered, abusive spectators.