Why Melbourne skipper Cameron Smith’s reaction to criticism doesn’t ring true
Cameron Smith’s duplicitous reaction to criticism of his wife receiving a ring from the NRL shows the Storm skipper has no idea why league fans were outraged in the first place writes PAUL KENT.
Storm
Don't miss out on the headlines from Storm. Followed categories will be added to My News.
TONGA: Boycott would be a disaster
NO MORE: Tigers can create their own history
Cameron Smith is confused and, in some cases, his own worst enemy.
The deep thirst that drives Smith to break records in rugby league like no one ever has before, and that we probably will never see again, revealed itself again this week.
Smith reopened wounds and went for victory again when he attacked my story about the expensive diamond ring the NRL gave his wife Barb for his 400th game.
He dressed it up as part of the “northern conspiracy” to bring down the Storm as they attempt to wrestle their way to a third premiership in eight years.
Smith is the greatest to have played the game. His bad decisions seemingly come only off the field.
You can’t see the Tigers v Sharks blockbuster on Channel 9 this Sunday, but you can on KAYO SPORTS. Stream it live & On-Demand on your TV, computer, mobile or tablet. Get your 14-day free trial and start streaming instantly >
With a gentle nod to Barb’s diamond ring Smith was asked Thursday about “personal criticism”, when it was nothing for the sort. Rather than say the ring was a gift from the NRL, and entirely their decision he said something else altogether.
“When they try and drag family into it I think that’s pretty low journalism. At no point should any athlete’s family be brought into media or trying to drive agendas.”
It is a comment that will draw fast support from the shallow thinkers or those not capable of thinking much at all.
Good on you, Cameron.
It overlooks the fact it was the NRL who brought Smith’s wife Barb into it. They gave her the ring.
When Smith finished his 400th game and celebrations popped up on the field Smith had her join him. She posed for photos, kissing his cheek.
She has not been kept invisible.
The story of Barb’s diamond ring leaked because people in the game were angry.
Somebody at some other club heard about it and could not believe it was true. But if it was true he was angry at the unfairness of it all. He heard it from somebody at another club, who was also angry.
It is important because if the ring was not disclosed, what else is the NRL not disclosing?
The game does not have to look too far to see the dangerous territory it courts.
Wests Tigers chairman Barry O’Farrell lost his job as NSW Premier because he did not disclose a $600 bottle of wine, calling it a “massive memory fail”. There was no suggestion O’Farrell did anything wrong but the nondisclosure raised the public concern of politicians being bought.
LISTEN! Matty Johns and Paul Kent are joined by Balmain champion Steve ‘Blocker’ Roach, talking up the big eighth place battle at Leichhardt Oval Sunday, look at some of Manly’s best ever hit men and the time Kenty got completely jammed by Mark Geyer.
O’Farrell, a man of deep integrity, knew he had no choice but to resign.
For $600.
He understood transparency is important for public faith. Without trust there is nothing.
Why the NRL did not disclose the ring, worth significantly more than $600 and still a point of conjecture as to its true value, soon became apparent.
There was outrage among NRL clubs, concerned at both the cost and the secrecy surrounding it.
Beyond that, battling clubs in the bush struggling to keep afloat could not understand why the game needed to spend so much on somebody already so well rewarded, so anger spread across the game.
This outrage was the human side of the story, though. Resentment, anger and confusion from the greater population of the game, many feeling invisible and under-appreciated.
The journalistic side was simply why the ring was not disclosed.
If the NRL was so comfortable giving the game’s most rewarded player’s wife a diamond ring why not disclose it for public consumption?
By not doing so, the NRL brought Smith’s wife into it.
Embarrassed by its disclosure, the NRL tried to spin it another way.
“Given Cameron already had a ring for his 300th we gave a matching ring to Barb for his 400th,” NRL boss Todd Greenberg wrote in a column explaining the gift.
“Matching” is a curious term. It was not matching, certainly in the sense the rings were identical.
It was a woman’s diamond ring worth significantly more than the bulky diamond encrusted rings players receive for milestones.
Plus Smith got a Waterford crystal football for his 400th, presented on the field, which most wrongly assumed was his gift in place of a ring.
And what’s wrong with giving him another ring, anyway?
Players collect rings. It is how they now measure their success.
It is impossible to believe that if Melbourne (premiers 2012, 2017) or the Sydney Roosters (2013, 2018) or Souths (2014) win this year’s premiership the NRL won’t be telling those players they already have a premiership ring so they’ll give their wife a diamond ring instead.
If the NRL does, though, the players would be mad not to take it.
The point was never Barb getting the ring.
By not disclosing the NRL added to the suspicion that the game is spending money frivolously and that some players get a better run than others. Fans find it so unpalatable Greenberg is in danger of the ring becoming the legacy of his tenure.
Smith has been on a million dollars a year for the best part of a decade.
Two summers ago the NRL gave him a testimonial game, three seasons before his likely retirement, which is absurd in itself, and just like the explanation around the ring was rushed to come up with a 10-point criteria to explain how a player could now qualify for
Smith’s supporters shouted down criticism saying the money raised for the testimonial was going to charity.
But Smith’s share was $165,000. He gave $15,000 to charity and pocketed $150,000.
The game must be kept honest. It must be open to investigation.
Smith’s comments faced no examination on Thursday. He works with a compliant Melbourne media, most of whom are unable to compete with AFL writers in an AFL city, so they’re limited to writing Storm PR.
After South Sydney boss Shane Richardson questioned Melbourne’s illegal wrestling moves last month Smith has settled on it being a northern conspiracy.
“It is expected now at this time of year for all the articles that start coming out from up north,” he said Thursday.
The Melbourne PR journos nodded.
Another reason it might happen this time of year, they could have said, is because as the game nears the finals referees are less inclined to blow the whistle for fear of influencing the result and Melbourne, already regarded the most adept wrestlers, know this and step up their wrestling, aware they will get away with more.
Smith then doubled down, saying: “We just listen to the NRL and they have got no issues about how we go about things.”
But, not quite.
Nobody mentioned the concerning act notice he got from the NRL just last month for a tackle on Canberra’s Bailey Simonsson, a tackle strongly resembling the kind of grubby tackles Richardson was referring.
The Storm defend their wrestling tackles by arguing all teams do it, which they do. They never speak to their illegal tactics, always steering it back to the general wrestle.
Again, few in Melbourne know enough to question the difference.
But the game knows, and when men like Smith can’t defend their behaviour or spin it in another direction they blame it on a northern conspiracy.
He is the greatest player many of us have seen and yet the great sadness is he is not celebrated for it like he should be remembered for it.
The benefit of the doubt has gone and, slowly, so is the trust.
GUS COULD BE MARY’S EXECUTIONER
Paul McGregor must have thought the fox has been invited to the chicken’s Christmas party with news that Phil Gould is being brought in to lead a performance review at St George Illawarra.
Gould has a brilliant rugby league mind.
Perhaps too brilliant.
Things don’t usually end well for coaches when Gould is finished doing a critical analysis.
Can the Dragons trust in Gould’s review of McGregor as head coach given he sacked Ivan Cleary because he was tired, sacked Anthony Griffin, then was unable to work with Cleary second time around, all at prohibitive cost?
So the question is what part of the Dragons’ system is he looking at?
Maybe the Dragons are emboldened because the last time Gould took on purely a performance review at a club Neil Henry failed to see out his contract as the North Queensland coach.
Gould told chairman Laurence Lancini he could not win a premiership with Henry as coach.
Henry was sacked in the same season where he earlier got an upgrade, Paul Green was brought in and later delivered the Cowboys t`heir first premiership.
Gould did a superb job restructuring the Panthers to streamline their junior pathways and set the club in the right direction but there was no doubt he interfered with Cleary during both his stints, as he also did with Griffin.
All eyes will be on the Dragons now.