Let me first say, I don't like Terry Wallace. There. Said. He's your typical footy trog who inflates the language of football by injecting gratuitous fat-speak. Hence, a clearing kick from defence becomes "a pin-point cross-over transitional transference of play". A spoiling defender has "prosecuted a copybook Sherrin capture denial". And in a speak crime guaranteed to attract the attentions of Amnesty International [Word Dept], the team all us footy plebs refer to as the Bullies gets strapped on a rack and in Terry-Talk becomes the tortured "Western Buwdogs Footbaw Club". Although Tel's not alone with the latter example of extravagantly prolix verbosity.
Yesterday in the Herald Sun there was yet another article about the release of John Elliot's revisionist bleat book, Big Jack: I Know Nothing! My Sporting Life. One suspects there are more on the way. Anyway, in the excerpt he pots Wallace....
Former Carlton President John Elliot has claimed Terry Wallace said he could bring a $250,000 sponsor and a well known player to the club if the Blues gave him the coaching job.
The Hun sought out Wallace for a reply....
Wallace last night confirmed he had briefly spoken to Elliot about the coaching position after the Blues boss had phoned him, but described the other claims as rubbish.
"Can he get out of the eighties?" Wallace asked when told of the claims.
Cute. But it means nothing.
"There are rules in place that would not allow that (bringing players) anyway."
So what! Wallace's denial is that the allegations can't possibly be true because player transfer rules have changed. True. They have. But they don't stop Wallace convincing a player to transfer from one side to another at the end of a contract. As, for instance, Nathan Brown might at the end of this year. And what's with the "anyway" anyway? Makes his denial sound a touch open-ended. Just a thought.
What strikes me though is that it's another in a long line of Wallace denials that are staunchly offered up as a concrete defence. Each utterance accompanied by a dismissive, yet sincere and friendly, demeanour. But that don't sound particularly convincing under further examination.
Remember the furore over the match against Wet Toast when three of his players virtually assaulted Michael Gardiner. Wallace's response?
"Shucks. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was an experienced player involved."
Rubbish! It would have been front-page news if the target was a media darling such as Jimmy, Vossy or Bucks(y). However, for one reason or another, the media swallowed it and the issue went away.
What about allegations he instructed Tony Liberatore to play football like a Pit Bull Terrier? Or that the Bullies were particularly adept at staging for frees. Not that the latter's a crime, just unsavoury.
"Gee wizz. I've never spoken to the team about those kinds of things."
The team. Not individuals. I have it from a Bullies player that Wallace would regularly pull selected players aside and instruct them in how best to get under the skin of an opponent. Either with words (Fraser Gehrig) or actions (Paul Kelly).
And what about his response to suggestions he was leaving the Bullies to coach the Sydney Pinks?
"Awwww. I've never spoken to anyone at Sydney."
No one seriously believed Wallace HAD spoken directly to anyone at Sydney. Doesn't mean his people (Craig Kelly?) weren't talking to Sydney's people. Granted, a long time after the event (this year, in fact) he denied he was being payed any compensation by Sydney, or someone allied to Sydney, but it doesn't mean he, or someone representing him, have NEVER talked to the Pinks or their connections. He has never denied that someone behind the scenes had formulated a deal. And there's not a football insider in the land who doesn't believe that Wallace had the Sydney job.
He's also stated....
"C'mon fellas. I couldn't coach Sydney, could I? Roosy's there and he's doing a great job."
So what! When's the last time a newly appointed coach was concerned about the predicament of his predecessor? When's the last time a new coach was appointed to an existing team that didn't previously, for whatever reason, have a coach that needed replacing? There's ALWAYS a previous coach. But once again, a friendly and sincere non-denial denial was tendered and accepted.
There's a pattern here. Whenever Wallace finds himself in a controversial situation he always manages to sleaze out of it by using sneaky language. And he's aided in no small measure by the reluctance of the matey ex-footballer club that make up the bulk of the footy media (especially the electronic part) to adequately put him under the microscope. That's why I always read Caroline Wilson, Rohan Connolly, Mike Sheahan, Mark Robinson, etc before I come within cooey of an article by an ex player/coach. Apropos to that, if you ever bump into Caroline Wilson, ask her what she thinks of the Sydney issue.
More "fat speak":
"Meterage" for "distance" (he gains good meterage with the kick)
"goes by foot" and "goes by hand" for "kicks" and "handpasses"
"great foot speed" for "he can run really fast"
"reverse angle" for watching a kick for goal from another camera. Reverse of what?
Posted by: Os | 08/18/2003 at 11:59 AM
Don't stop there Os. In fact I might do a whole post of footy talk. There are two in particular that really jab me. See if you can guess which. I've mentioned one before, but there's one that really pisses me off that I haven't. Jason Bennett uses it all the time. I'm definitely going to do a whole post on that one.
Reverse angle is definitely up there. "Reverse of what"? Exactly! Personally I would have thought it was at 180 degrees to the normal camera. In other words, in the crowd, behind the goals looking straight back at the main camera position. Not a mirror image across the other side of the ground. At least 180 degrees constitutes the mathematical version of reverse angle.
PS: the Eags sure blew some chances on the weekend.
Posted by: Tony.T | 08/18/2003 at 12:31 PM
Nope, I can't guess. I can't do cryptic crosswords either, must be something about Taureans. You'll have to tell.
I wasn't going to mention Saturday (Johnson said "Depend upon it that if a man talks of his misfortunes there is something in them that is not disagreeable to him; for where there is nothing but pure misery there is never any recourse to it."), but there is a spring in my step as I contemplate the coming weekend. Dees at the House of Pain, Fortress Subiaco. Altho' the Eags have been such crapola for the last month at home, I hesitate to get my hopes too high.
Mebbies we can squeak a narrow win against the Dees, belt the living christ out of the Dockers and still get a home final.
Jess Sinclair is a bad lad and he has form ... in one of the early Derby games over here he did the same thing to Worsfold and he was lucky to get out of that game alive. I could see the evil glint in Woosha's eye from the back of the bleachers (when they still had them).
Posted by: Os | 08/18/2003 at 01:28 PM
Top post Tony.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 08/19/2003 at 12:32 AM
No telling Oz. And I wondered when the Eags/Dees would come up. And a bloody good spot on Sinclair. He's always been an agro player and it was only a matter of time before he did something majorly stupid. Already had enough of the press reporting how sorry he is.
And thanks Scott.
Posted by: Tony.T | 08/19/2003 at 12:27 PM