THE week began with a fleeting image that depicted the brotherhood of sport to perfection. It was the moment in the rugby World Cup final when the video-referee ruled "no try" against England. A television cutaway revealed the heir to the British throne, William, and kid brother, Harry, beside themselves with frustration at the near-miss. It was an endearing picture that spoke a thousand words.

For an instant, royalty was every sports fan. Moreover, this was a moment when the desperate, disempowered, unemployed and AIDS-stricken of South African townships had something that two of the most privileged people on earth desperately wanted.

This was sport as leveller. For a couple of hours, people from different continents, from the furthest extremes on life's spectrum of opportunity, were united by the sight of two groups of blokes trying to stop each other from carrying a bag of wind over a line. Yet, as is usually the case with sporting contests, within the togetherness there was division. There were two factions, each wanting directly opposite outcomes.

We're good at that in this part of the world, too. We do it even when there's no football in progress. In fact, it's possible we do it best when the game is out of season. Lately, there's been the Ben Cousins issue, and this week an unlikely polemicist emerged in Anthony Koutoufides. In the case of Cousins, seemingly everyone, from the Prime Minister to the bloke at the pub, has a view. And the view of the bloke at the pub is just as valid. Truth be known, it is probably less self-interested and better informed.

Surely, it's unthinkable that Cousins be run out of the game. Thugs, thieves, alcoholics, adulterers and many worse have been involved in elite-level football. And that's just the administrators. Yet in yesterday's Age, Caroline Wilson reported that the AFL is considering a process that could lead to Cousins being suspended for a year. You get the feeling the powers-that-be would love to be rid of him. This is one controversy that is certain to continue.

Meanwhile, Koutoufides has started one with the published extracts from his book, which will be launched tomorrow. The Carlton legend has taken the rare step of tipping a well-filled bucket on a former coach, Denis Pagan. That Koutoufides is by nature a man who did his talking on the field makes this assessment the more significant.

As ever, there is division of opinion. On one hand, support has come for Koutoufides from many teammates who played under Pagan at Princes Park. Apart from the gang of four, who in 2006 approached then-Carlton president Graham Smorgon, requesting the coach be relieved of his commission, there are many others lining up to support the former captain.

However, there are those who have criticised Koutoufides. The critics argue he and his mates were simply using their coach as a scapegoat for their inadequacies. They also assert that to approach the club powerbrokers about the coach, rather than confronting the coach himself, showed a lack of courage. I would ask the critics, particularly those who work as journalists, how they could possibly object to a major player providing a version of an institution's history at the end of his period of involvement. Koutoufides was a Carlton champion, captain, best and fairest, and a player through both the best and worst of times at the club. His opinion, particularly one as candid as this, has to be of value. As for his assessment of the Pagan era, I suspect it's a fair and reasonable account.

There always was something of the blunt instrument about Pagan. Blunt instruments are useful in some situations but can be destructive in others. The list of those who resented his methods at Carlton is too long for the criticism to be dismissed. If too many truly disliked and feared the coach, what were they to do?

Pagan was emphatic that he never doubted himself or his methods. Clearly, he regarded this as a personal strength. Inevitably, though, it was a weakness. How were those under him to ever confront their coach if he couldn't admit, even to himself, that he may have it wrong?