I absolutely copped it for this but stand firm in the belief that Shaun Johnson is/was not a top 5 NRL halfback. Yup, last season was great and he had moments of freakish brilliance, but that's just it- they were the exceptions and not the norm.
He was at the helm of our attack throughout the mid 2010s when we were diabolically bad at times. Throughout that time he was the epitome of an 'almost' player- he's ready to pop at any time into greatness: he never really did.
The greats find ways to win regardless: Cronk winning a grand final on one shoulder, JT carrying the Cowboys to a title, even DCE this year leading about a Manly-Warringah team that is bad on paper and was written off by plenty pre season. Yet, he has dragged them into the 8.
Unfortunately, for me, his meltdown after the test loss to Fiji, his leaving when he wasn't offered a massive contract and the 'insider' quote that "he's the highest paid but he's never the first one here and he's never the last one to leave" will always sully his career.
I still love him for the fact he's given so much of his career to the team and he should be celebrated, but the praise he's received from some quarters is hyperbolic IMO.
In regards to SJ, it's an incredibly hard career to encapsulate. Won a Golden Boot, could've/should've won a Dally M, huge rookie year, POTY at Warriors and Sharks...but some not so good stuff in between times. Was he a great of the game? Probably not. Was he exciting as hell? Yes. Was he frustrating as hell as a Warriors fan, and often a lightning rod for our poor form? No doubt.
Revealing stat this year, of the last 14 games we have won 0/7 with Shaun, and 5 of 7 without him (close losses to Raiders + Dogs). 112 points for in those 7 games he played, 180 without. There's a significant case to say TMM should be playing 7, for a host of reasons. But on sentimentality, I guess Shaun will get the spot for the rest of the year.
How hard is it to press a very recently retired player like Sam into revealing genuine and insightful thoughts regarding difficult times like the ones endured with Fozzy?
In terms of the writing process, I'm interested in how you view the relationship between writer and subject, and whether it is a tightrope between building rapport and a bond that earns trust (and potentially more offers as an author), but also staying neutral/incisive enough to produce the content that the reader wants (ie the provocative stuff). I understand this would be hard with people still connected to their industry, potentially not as much with Carl Hayman or someone who has very little to lose.
I ask this, having read books like Dan Carter's, Dan Vettori's, Stephen Fleming's etc that were so line and length and monotonous, they were akin to Ewen Chatfield running in all day on a Basin featherbed. I loathe biographies that are a bunch of match reports strung together with a touch of bland off-field stuff tossed in.
What did you differently with this book compared to the first, or others you have done of this type in the past? Was that due to the subject this time, or how you have developed your skills, or a bit of both?
When I interviewed offenders in my previous life, you inevitably got to the crossroads. The point where you both knew they were boxed into the corner - confession or denial the only points left on the map. Sometimes you got the coff, mostly the denial.
After a denial, you both continue the charade. He knows that I know, but I ain't saying.
When you got the coff, a bond is formed. They'll tell you things that they've never told another; they trust you to protect parts of that secret.
In a process like this, how much do you get to push into getting the juicy content, the real yarns we don't hear about? Is there the ability to dig deep and pull out some real sizzle?
When ghost-writing in the first person, do you try to get "in character" of the subject or are you writing their comments verbatim and adding literary touches?
I absolutely copped it for this but stand firm in the belief that Shaun Johnson is/was not a top 5 NRL halfback. Yup, last season was great and he had moments of freakish brilliance, but that's just it- they were the exceptions and not the norm.
He was at the helm of our attack throughout the mid 2010s when we were diabolically bad at times. Throughout that time he was the epitome of an 'almost' player- he's ready to pop at any time into greatness: he never really did.
The greats find ways to win regardless: Cronk winning a grand final on one shoulder, JT carrying the Cowboys to a title, even DCE this year leading about a Manly-Warringah team that is bad on paper and was written off by plenty pre season. Yet, he has dragged them into the 8.
Unfortunately, for me, his meltdown after the test loss to Fiji, his leaving when he wasn't offered a massive contract and the 'insider' quote that "he's the highest paid but he's never the first one here and he's never the last one to leave" will always sully his career.
I still love him for the fact he's given so much of his career to the team and he should be celebrated, but the praise he's received from some quarters is hyperbolic IMO.
In regards to SJ, it's an incredibly hard career to encapsulate. Won a Golden Boot, could've/should've won a Dally M, huge rookie year, POTY at Warriors and Sharks...but some not so good stuff in between times. Was he a great of the game? Probably not. Was he exciting as hell? Yes. Was he frustrating as hell as a Warriors fan, and often a lightning rod for our poor form? No doubt.
Revealing stat this year, of the last 14 games we have won 0/7 with Shaun, and 5 of 7 without him (close losses to Raiders + Dogs). 112 points for in those 7 games he played, 180 without. There's a significant case to say TMM should be playing 7, for a host of reasons. But on sentimentality, I guess Shaun will get the spot for the rest of the year.
Agree. Shouldn't be in the team. TMM and CHT should be the halves.
How hard is it to press a very recently retired player like Sam into revealing genuine and insightful thoughts regarding difficult times like the ones endured with Fozzy?
In terms of the writing process, I'm interested in how you view the relationship between writer and subject, and whether it is a tightrope between building rapport and a bond that earns trust (and potentially more offers as an author), but also staying neutral/incisive enough to produce the content that the reader wants (ie the provocative stuff). I understand this would be hard with people still connected to their industry, potentially not as much with Carl Hayman or someone who has very little to lose.
I ask this, having read books like Dan Carter's, Dan Vettori's, Stephen Fleming's etc that were so line and length and monotonous, they were akin to Ewen Chatfield running in all day on a Basin featherbed. I loathe biographies that are a bunch of match reports strung together with a touch of bland off-field stuff tossed in.
What did you differently with this book compared to the first, or others you have done of this type in the past? Was that due to the subject this time, or how you have developed your skills, or a bit of both?
When I interviewed offenders in my previous life, you inevitably got to the crossroads. The point where you both knew they were boxed into the corner - confession or denial the only points left on the map. Sometimes you got the coff, mostly the denial.
After a denial, you both continue the charade. He knows that I know, but I ain't saying.
When you got the coff, a bond is formed. They'll tell you things that they've never told another; they trust you to protect parts of that secret.
Did he coff?
In a process like this, how much do you get to push into getting the juicy content, the real yarns we don't hear about? Is there the ability to dig deep and pull out some real sizzle?
When ghost-writing in the first person, do you try to get "in character" of the subject or are you writing their comments verbatim and adding literary touches?