Crows players stopped listening — they could not trust coach Brenton Sanderson
BRENTON Sanderson went to work on Wednesday morning believing the club believed in him. No Crows coach has been so blindsided since Gary Ayres in 2004.
Crows
Don't miss out on the headlines from Crows. Followed categories will be added to My News.
BRENTON Sanderson went to work on Wednesday morning believing the Adelaide Football Club believed in him. No Crows coach has been so blindsided on his place at West Lakes since Gary Ayres in 2004.
Both Sanderson and Ayres officially fell victims to “reviews” — the fashionable term in the AFL today to leave the impression a modern-day, professional football club with multimillion-dollar budgets is diligently putting every aspect of its football operations under a microscope.
But there was no report that suddenly landed on the board table at the club’s headquarters at West Lakes this week recommending Sanderson be sacked.
Nor was there a watershed moment when the Crows’ heavy hitters — chairman Rob Chapman and fellow board members Jim Hazel and Bob Foord, the so-called “Three Musketeers” — stood in a corner of Adelaide Oval after another of Adelaide’s baffling losses this season and sharpened their knives.
Nor did they plot a call to a saviour, as happened in 1995 when Robert Shaw lost the players and the Crows rushed to South Australian legend Malcolm Blight to become, as he was dubbed, the club’s “messiah”.
“There will be a lot of conspiracy theories,” says Chapman.
The reality is Sanderson — as Ayres did in 2004 — fell in a slow and ever-deepening failure to hold his players’ confidence and trust. They played for him in 2012, but as one senior Crows statesman said: “Anyone could have coached Adelaide in 2012 ... they just needed to hear a different voice (after being jaded by Neil Craig).”
Last season — when the Crows collapsed from a preliminary final appearance to rank 11th — Sanderson was coaching a divided player group.
Some, in particular the well-established players, started listening to what Sanderson was saying ... and privately questioned why Sanderson was saying things that did not ring true with them. When some expressed their concerns among their team-mates, the divisions began to form.
This season — when the Crows again failed to appear as a convincing contender for this month’s AFL finals — too many Adelaide players were disbelieving of their coach.
Just as with Ayres in 2004, they simply stopped listening ... they could not longer trust the coach.
“The message was not getting through,” says Chapman.
There is a telling statement from new board member, Brownlow Medallist and former captain Mark Ricciuto about the state of the critical coach-player rapport at West Lakes: “We spoke to all the key people you need to speak to ... the coach has to have relationships if it is going to be a successful football club.”
The erratic results as Adelaide went on the so-called “rollercoaster ride” — with a win one week and a loss the next — were an alarm bell.
So were the words of the long-standing staff at West Lakes who watched the decay unfold within the player group and linked it directly to Sanderson.
And as the pressure mounted on Sanderson with critical media analysis of his coaching — including the cutting words of Ricciuto within a month of his placement on the Crows board — the Adelaide directors made a critical observation: No player was publicly defending Sanderson.
There was no press conference nor interview in the second half of the year in which a player took the heat off Sanderson by saying the blame for the erratic results rested on their shoulders.
Once again the Adelaide players will have blood painted on their hands — as they have with every Crows coach, even the 1997-98 premiership hero Blight who lost his players’ faith in 1999 as results turned sour.
Already five — key forward Taylor Walker, midfielders Patrick Dangerfield and Richard Douglas and young Victorian draftees Brad and Matt Crouch — have been named on radio as the rebellious players who forced the board’s hand in a repeat of the demise of inaugural coach Graham Cornes in 1994.
These five are tainted, probably unfairly as they were not alone in giving the “review team” at Adelaide — Chapman, Ricciuto, football director Andrew Payze and football chief David Noble — an insight into how the critical bond between a coach and his players had broken down.
It was far more than five who delivered feedback the Adelaide Football Club’s off-field leaders could not ignore.
Dangerfield, the first player to have spoken publicly since Sanderson’s sacking, has taken exception to be linked to a supposed “Gang of Five” who supposedly issued the threat of a player walk-out at West Lakes if there was not a new coach.
“Let me make this clear — we are not a football club that is run by our players,” Dangerfield said.
“(Sanderson’s sacking) was not a decision made by the players. It is simply incorrect.”
Chapman, who strongly tied himself to Sanderson, particularly when he paired being chairman and chief executive during Steven Trigg’s AFL-imposed suspension last year, had more than just players tug at his elbow this season to either highlight or question the coach’s ways.
“I unconditionally back my people — until I know I have to make a change,” Chapman told The Advertiser.
“And I was not short of good club people reminding me of my responsibility to the football club. It is to the club and to its members.”
And not blindly to the coach, the old guard reminded Chapman with the blood-chilling reminder of what happened at the hometown rival, the Port Adelaide Football Club, in June 2009 with the flawed decision to re-appoint premiership coach Mark Williams.
So where is the critical moment this season that pushed the Adelaide board over the edge?
Was it when Adelaide lost to the lowly rated Melbourne by three points at Adelaide Oval on May 3 — and so many questioned Sanderson’s poor tactical reactions to Demons coach Paul Roos’ gameplan?
Was it when Ricciuto on August 4 — on his TripleM breakfast show — delivered a five-point review that included the damning assessment: “There is something wrong at Adelaide either with the coach’s ability to get the players in the right mindset — or the players’ ability to get themselves in the right mindset”?
Was it when Sanderson — feeling the heat from Ricciuto’s public critique — set up an excuse in advance fearing defeat in Brisbane by questioning why the AFL would have scheduled the Crows to play under the Queensland sun in August?
The Crows won by a record 105 points — and Sanderson continued to harp on the supposed heat in Brisbane, leaving many senior Crows officials concerned. That game sounded an alarm bell to how Sanderson was handling increasing pressure from increasing criticism of his coaching.
“A few people did raise their eyebrows,” said Chapman.
“That was a wonderful win for us. We thought that day could have been a turning point. But it wasn’t — and all those things went into the mix to reach our conclusion (to sack Sanderon).”
Was it when Sanderson — who is described as a “positive, optimistic” coach — is said by some players to have become sarcastic in some of his team presentations during the last six weeks of the home-and-away season, further damaging his relationships with the players?
Was it when Sanderson appeared on the FIVEaa drive sports show on September 1 with former Crows players Steven Rowe and inaugural captain Chris McDermott to review the season — and loaded up his explanation of a failed season with statistics and answers that were classed as excuses?
In the same interview Sanderson appeared to damage the club by saying: “We have to be feared more than we are. The external perception (among opposition coaches and teams) is we are a little bit easy to play against.”
Was it when Sanderson failed to deliver an inspiring vision for next season at the Malcolm Blight Medal count at the Adelaide Convention Centre on September 5?
By that stage, Sanderson had not only lost the faith of the players — in particular key players — but had failed to hold the faith of the Adelaide board.
Chapman and his fellow directors no longer felt comfortable with Sanderson.
“There was not one thing (that led to Sanderson’s sacking),” Chapman told The Advertiser. “There is no watershed moment. But as a board we concluded there was too much risk to carry if we did not make a change.
“As a board we have a responsibility to minimise risk — and we were facing our move to Adelaide Oval being jeopardised — and losing members, sponsors if we made a bad start to the season. We simply could not afford to put next year at risk.”
In 2004, Ayres was told — after winning a home game — that the club would not renew his contract at the end of the season. He walked immediately.
That season, the Adelaide Football Club — SA’s biggest sporting franchise — felt the pressure of falling behind Port Adelaide as the Power closed in on its first AFL premiership.
In 2014, Sanderson was too risky to carry — particularly when the Crows board doubted he would change his ways — while the Power has lifted the competitive edge against the Adelaide Football Club to a new level on and off the field. While the Crows have missed the past two final series, the Power has qualified — and won finals.
Chapman does not deny he and his board have felt the pressure from Port Adelaide.
“With Port’s resurgent, it has made us step up to the plate even harder,” Chapman said.
“We have got to continue to be rigorous and have higher expectations. It’s been good for us, it’s been good for South Australia and good luck to them.”
Under pressure from so many angles, the Crows board this week had to answer one question: Did it still believe Brenton Sanderson was the right coach for the Adelaide Football Club?
Nine months ago, the recommendation to the board was to maintain the faith and strengthen Sanderson’s position with a two-year contract extension.
On Wednesday, that faith had dried up in the board room — just as it had in the changerooms many weeks earlier.
PLAYERS REFUSE TO BE TAINTED BY SANDERSON’S SACKING
ADELAIDE’S player are said to have blood on their hands again — as they have been accused with the demise of every Crows coach since inaugural mentor Graham Cornes was sacked in 1994 on player feedback to key board members.
A supposedly rebellious group — the “Gang of Five” named by Crows ambassador David Penberthy on his 5AA morning show as Dangerfield, key forward Taylor Walker, midfielder Richard Douglas and young Victorian pair Brad and Matt Crouch — are reported to have issued the ultimatum: “Either Sanderson goes or there is a walk-out.”
There is no doubt Sanderson lost the support of key players.
The Advertiser cannot find any evidence to support the naming of the five as a group who loaded a gun against Sanderson — and the Adelaide board.
But there is enough substantiated accounts of key Crows players revealing their unease with Sanderson and telling of how the vital bond between player and coach had broken along the critical line of trust.
Against a telling back drop of silence from the players — with none declaring dismay with Sanderson’s sacking — Dangerfield was forced to defend his reputation on the Channel Nine Footy Show on Thursday night. The appearance was booked before Sanderson was dismissed on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is simply incorrect ... this was not a decision made by players,” Dangerfield said.
“And when our club chairman (Rob Chapman) refers to key stakeholders in discussions, players are certainly a part of that ... but that happens every season. Players are always consulted on how we can get better.
“That is what good businesses do. The board has made this decision in the best interests of the football club.”
Dangerfield dismissed he and former captain and current board member Mark Ricciuto — who gave Dangerfield his famous No. 32 jumper — had discussed the need to sack Sanderson while Adelaide’s season failed to live up to expectations.
“We had conversations throughout the year about how we were playing, but we never specifically discussed, ‘Should we sack the coach or not?’’’ Dangerfield said.
“Absolutely not. It is not how we do business. It is not how ‘Roo’ does business.”
Dangerfield does not hide from the players’ responsibilities to have delivered better results this season when Adelaide had an 11-11 win-loss record and ranked 10th, two spots outside the AFL top eight.
“You do think to yourself what could have we done better as players,” he said.
“This is a performance-based industry ... and we have not had (favourable results) for two years.”
Dangerfield is one of three high-profile Crows players who fall out of contract next season and would eagerly be taken by every rival AFL club in the 18-team competition. Walker and co-captain Rory Sloane are the others.
Dangerfield’s remarks on Radio FIVEaa last week that he was in no rush to talk a new contract sent a chill through Crows fans — and quickly was taken as a vote against Sanderson.
While Dangerfield spoke to Sanderson after his sacking, he would not publicly declare his feedback to the coach.
“I have a really good relationship with ‘Sando’,” he said.
“I’m not going to go into what we discussed. But I have a huge amount of respect for him.
“No one wants to see (a coach) lose his job because it affects more than just that individual.
“But at the same time, it is an industry is about performance.”
Dangerfield’s future remains clouded while he declines to declare his loyalty to Adelaide beyond his contract that expires in October next year. But the player who has been seen as a future Crows captain did call on his team-mates to stand together.
“We have to stay unified if we are going to get back to the performances of what we reached a few years ago,” Dangerfield said.
“We must stay unified — and we will stay unified.”
Originally published as Crows players stopped listening — they could not trust coach Brenton Sanderson
Young star’s huge show of faith in the Crows
After what he showed late this season, many think Riley Thilthorpe will explode in 2025 – and the young Crow will remain at West Lakes a lot longer than that.
Finals, finally? The key to Crows’ September return in ‘25
Adelaide talked the talk last summer – but failed to walk the walk when it mattered. Will the next six months be different? For Matthew Nicks’ future, it has to be, writes SIMEON THOMAS-WILSON.