The article centers on North Melbourne's decision to ban Channel Seven commentator Kane Cornes from interviewing coach Alastair Clarkson. The ban, announced by North Melbourne's general manager Todd Viney, stemmed from Cornes' perceived harsh and personal criticism of the club, particularly players Harry Sheezel and Jy Simpkin. Viney described Cornes' critiques as "bullying", "personal", "vindictive", and "unwarranted".
Cornes countered that Clarkson's avoidance of the criticism was disappointing, suggesting a contrast between the coach's past willingness to confront criticism and his current actions. North Melbourne's decision, while ostensibly not made by Clarkson himself, was acknowledged by commentator Caroline Wilson as an attempt to protect him from potentially difficult questions.
The controversy overshadowed North Melbourne's match against Essendon, a game they narrowly lost. The podcast panellists, including Wilson, largely viewed North Melbourne's decision to ban Cornes as ill-advised. Wilson noted that the decision was likely made to protect Clarkson from potentially difficult questioning. The debate highlights the tension between media criticism and the protection of athletes and coaches.
North Melbourne’s general manager of football, Todd Viney, announced last Wednesday that his club had rejected Channel Seven’s request for Cornes to interview Clarkson in their rooms before Thursday night’s match against Essendon alongside fellow Seven pundit Luke Hodge, who played in four premierships at Hawthorn under Clarkson.
Viney cited Cornes’ repeated criticism of the club, in particular recent scrutiny of gun youngster Harry Sheezel and skipper Jy Simpkin. He said Cornes’ critiques bordered on “bullying”, saying they were “personal”, “vindictive” and “unwarranted”.
Cornes responded on Seven News that night.
“The Alastair Clarkson they thought they were getting was the Hawthorn version of Alastair Clarkson, where he was strong enough and brave enough to front up and answer that type of criticism face-to-face and man-to-man,” Cornes said.
“For him to run away from criticism like this, and essentially not be brave enough to answer it face-to-face with me in the change room, is the most disappointing thing.”
The furore overshadowed the build-up to one of North’s rare forays into a prime-time, free-to-air TV slot – a game they lost by three points.
Loading
In the discussion about the motivation for the ban on Cornes, the podcast panellists agreed it was ill-advised. They also acknowledged Clarkson and North’s insistence that the coach did not make the decision.
“It [the decision to ban Cornes] was made on behalf of him [Clarkson] to a large degree,” Wilson said.
“I think North were probably worried what might happen.”
Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more