It can only be a good thing that Collingwood (who did not have momentum toward the end of the game) and St Kilda (who were playing a man down with Michael Gardiner’s injury) didn’t lose the premiership under almost trivial circumstances.
Instead, both sides can accept that 120 minutes of football couldn’t separate them, take stock and go back to the drawing board.
They can address what went wrong. They can replace injured players. Players that underperformed or missed crucial shots can get a genuine chance at redemption, rather than a ten-minute window.
Then, come Saturday afternoon, they can both do battle again and see who really is the better side – not just the one with the most luck or momentum at the right time.
That’s not to say regular games aren’t decided by luck or momentum, of course. It’s just that when it happens outside the confines of four quarters of footy, it’s a different story. Players go into games – even, I suspect, games where extra time is a possibility – expecting four quarters and play as though that is what’s required.
In contrast, under the replay system, there are no excuses. That’s the true beauty of it.
The cynical among you will say it’s all about the dollars, that this is all very typical of the greedy AFL. After all, the estimate the league could earn $19 million from the replay was not denied by Andrew Demetriou.
But it has to be remembered this rule has been around since well before the advent of a national competition and TV broadcast rights. Remarkably, this was only the third drawn Grand Final in 114 years.
Which leads us to another point. If this was happening every year, there’d be a more pressing need to cast a critical eye over the system. But chances are we won’t see another drawn Grand Final for 30 or 40 years – potentially more.
There’s simply no need for the kind of urgency that some are suggesting. In fact, with this event being such a rarity, you have to question why we all can’t just appreciate it on the occasion it does happen.
After all, we’re getting two Grand Finals in the one year – how awesome is that?
There’s been no shortage of knockers this week, both from within the game and outside of it. “You can’t have a situation like this, there’s too much riding on it,” said St Kilda president Greg Westaway.
“It’s an absolute joke,” said Collingwood captain Nick Maxwell.
“It has always been bloody stupid to have a draw in a sport that should always get a result,” said Jason Akermanis.
According to others, it’s unfair. It doesn’t make sense. It’s unheard of in world sport.
But none of that changes the fact the 2010 AFL Grand Final will go down in history as one of the classics. That it will be remembered and talked about decades from now. That this can all be said confidently despite the fact, technically speaking, we’re only half-way through.
Sure, the other methods of determining a winner might be more convenient in that they decide a winner on the day.
But which would you prefer decide the AFL premiers – convenience or fairness?
Tom
Guest
You too mate. Thanks for the chat.
beaver fever
Guest
I was actually doing some work today in Leederville (inner suburb in Perth) heard some action at Leedervile oval and during smoko stuck my head over the fence, and found out that Claremont under 14's development squad were playing Subi. As a interested onlooker i noticed that the kicking of both teams was not great, but the pace of the game was frenetic, everyone was taking off for jinking runs, i can only think that the pace of the game today really has a effect on the skills, in particular the kicking skills, which at full pace or close to it are quite hard to get a good drop punt going.
Republican
Guest
TomC Skill is a very subjective term in this respect. I certainly see the skillset as evolving so yes, todays game is highly skillfull but ugly as sin to watch. You are of course correct, there was always scrappy play and the game was slower in those good old days which I do romanticise a tad, to be sure. I suppose what I am trying to convey here is to do with the skills that once defined our great game no longer being evident in todays game, despite them being mythically misapropritaed to commercially promote Aust Footy. Thanks for your thoughts anyway Tom and enjoy the GF mark 2 this weekend!
TomC
Guest
You might be right, Republican. You lived through that era and I didn't. But I have to say that from the footage available from the 60s and 70s, most of it looks pretty scrappy. Take this collection of highlights of Darrell Baldock's career, for example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmKkdNWXUSs Now, possibly the really good bits didn't survive until 1985, when that was broadcast, but it really doesn't look he was any more skillful than today's average player. And most of his play was on the ground. Like I said, you lived through that era and I didn't, but its hard to be convinced from the evidence thats still around.
Republican
Guest
Tom C I am an old fella admittedly but Heard, Jezza, Knights, Blight, Barker and Balldock to name a few spring to mind. Not only could all these players kick goals from set shots they could hold the pill unlike today, which is due to a predisposition to always play on. Players are obviously coached in this fashion and have absolutely no idea of how to kick a goal while standing still, 40 metres out - directly in front! We need to slow the game down a little for heavens sake. It is really not that long ago that certain players built their game around the high mark which they pulled off with monotonous regularity. There is no incentive to take speccy's these days and I would be surprised that the games nippers are even coached in this skill as the intent is to play on at all cost, often to no tactical advantage whatsoever. Our game has definately evolved into an ugly contest at ground level, rather than an aerial one and the sooner we cease our denial of this the sooner we can set about restoring some balance, otherwise what is a growing inferior product will see defectors to the true grovel code i.e. Union or what seems to be more appealing by the minute - League, which despite being a rather one dimensional affair certainly lacks the grovel of Union and Aust Footy and they appear to be taking more speccy's than in Aust Footy these days as well!
Republican
Guest
Red Intensity is all very well but fair dinkum, a bar room ball is intense and void of structure but not particularly pretty to watch either. Have you watched Summo wrestling, crickey that's intense mate. I am not being romantic at all since I am more than willing to accept certain aspects to the games evolution as positive ones but to compromise the very hall marks that define our great game, namely the aerial contests and the once open fast attacking play, is beyond the pale as far as I am concerned. I believe the Pies are an attacking side by todays standards anyway and are rare. I like watching them play the game as a rule which is why St Kilda will again set out to suffocate their style this Saturday sadly. The Pies are the highest kicking side in the comp by a country mile, which indicates that they dont rely on handball and flooding as most sides appear to. I hate watching this stuff, it's worse than Soccer and that's saying something while the AFL acronym could well be replaced with the AHL (Aust Handball League) I believe. As far as Rugby goes, I can't stand the game despite being exposed to it all my life, attending a famous Aust Union school nursery in St Eddies and following the Brumbies in their early years. This game has changed also, you are correct, or should I say has reverted to it's old Brittish Bulldog roots after a brief enlightened hiatus when the Brumbies and McQueen created the running backline dominated game which was a joy to watch. Union is all defence and an appauling specatcle which is why I have always preferred our game and why it causes me great consternation to see it degenerate to this extent. Cheers
TomC
Guest
'I recall a day when a Goddard speccy was actually a common occurance' You know, I've heard something similar from a lot of people, but I really don't know what era they're referring to. Certainly none of the historic games I've seen (which presumably were the best games) featured a stack of marks of the calibre of Goddard's on the weekend. My suspicion is that certain people look at the past through rose-tinted glasses.
TomC
Guest
Because teams don't travel home between matches on tours and road trips.
Redb
Roar Guru
Repub, Your stuck with a romantic view of Aust football from the past. Click on 7TWO and watch a few games from the 80's and 90's. Nowhere near the intensity of today. With regard to the ball release, we are seeing a variant of the play that is similiar to union where the player has to release the ball and not be caught under it. So yes there is some movement in that direction. Coaches are to blame for some of the issues you speak of, but I guarantee you this happens in all sports. Collingwood and St kilda are defense orientated teams that zone. Geelong with their attacking open style did not make it, Melbourne and Essendon well short. Geelong's play on handball game has been blown apart. St Kilda tried it in the first half and were down by 4 goals at half time. They started kicking in the 2nd half and this got them back in the game. However, a lot of those kicks were old school bomb it long, much like in the 80s and 90s Grand Finals. I liked rugby in the 1990s, these days it leaves me flat.
Mister Football
Guest
Republican there is some truth to your "stacks on the mill" assertion - a product of new tactics, fitter bodies, more tackling and huge rotations. But not only do different games pan out differently - they change within the game itself: one eternal truth remains: when the ump bounces the ball, it's there to be won, and the very best will win it.
Republican
Guest
Red My advice is to raise your bar of expectation. Your standards have sunk obviously, as with many a prosaic Aust Footy punter. My point - again is that our game when played the way it should be, does not require the 'controlled ball process' which is the beauty of it. Alas, these days it's all happening on the ground with large bodies, stacks on the mill, contesting in an ugly feeding frenzy for the pill, at the same time killing any potential spectacle. So yes - you might as well introduce some controls and structure that afford punters some semblance of poetry in motion, if thats the way the game intends to go - which it seems it does. Cheers
Redb
Roar Guru
Repub, Goddard also took a one hander, Maxwell a beauty, two of Reiwoldt's marks pure power in a pack. My advice: dont watch and convert to union if you want controlled ball processes all the time.
Danny
Guest
A whole host of sports have rolled over and changed their scheduling - racing and football amongst them. I'm not saying AFL can't compete and play games or have replays whenever they want. Other sports have to compete and no-one guarantees their existence - but just don't expect other sports to be happy about it. In Melbourne the AFL will be able to get away with riding scheduling roughshod over other sports but that's a two way street and the boot will be on the other foot when it comes to AFL expansion in rugby dominated NSW and QLD. Fans and VICs wont care about that but AFL moneymen I'm sure will have a different position. The replay rule ignores the scheduling balancing act that goes into planning for every major or minor sport or other event whether it be corporate, personal, family or whatever.
Republican
Guest
Fully Loaded Man and Red One mark does not make a game special. I would hazard to say that Goddards mark, albeit a crucial one, was the exception in a game that was predominatley contested painstakingly at ground level. Aust Footy has degenerated into something very ugly over the past couple of decades and only seems to be getting worse and I assure you I am not alone in holding to this sentiment. I recall a day when a Goddard speccy was actually a common occurance however these days every one wets themselves when one of these is manifest and whats worse, one seems to be all that is required in satisfying the dumbed down punter that has evolved with eyes fixed to the turf. Perhaps it's time to introduce the scrum, because the loose ball contest as you like to call it Red is about as dynamic and sophisticated as a mob of ten year olds chasing the possum hide around the paddock on the weekend. I don't enjoy Union or any form of Rugby for that matter, which is my point however perhaps it is you and those of your persuasion that are most likely to take to Union, given your support of our codes devolution to this style of contest. I sense a hybrid of the two is in the offing the way things are going - to be sure. Cheers
Kurt
Roar Pro
Exactly which sports are being expected to roll over and take one for the AFL? Other sports can choose to do whatever they wish. Soccer could have gone ahead with its derby game but rescheduled it in order to gain greater media exposure. You can argue the toss either way on that decision, but its hardly the AFL's fault that other sports are far less popular and won't get any attention due to the replay. No one says to Myer - "I'm sorry but you've got to reduce your advertising to give David Jones a chance, it's just not fair on them." I tend to agree with you regarding economic activity by the way, but that's true of the claims made by most lobby groups - if you add up all the amounts claimed to be added to the economoy by the various sports, industries, sectors etc. you get a figure several times Australia's GDP which tends to show how false they are. Almost as false as the claims made about the economic impact of events such as the world cup and Olympics.
Danny
Guest
Unless the AFL windfall is completely new money that wouldn't otherwise have been spent next Saturday, it looks to me like "beggar thy neighbour". My guess some extra economic activity will result but the replay will mainly re-route economic activity away from other events where it would have been spent to the AFL and associated businesses. So the AFL can delight in its windfall, but make no mistake it comes largely at someone elses expense. I'm not saying the AFL has no right to compete for economic activity - just don't expect everyone to be happy. And don't expect other sports to roll over and take one for the AFL. This replay is a fiasco for all but fans and Victorians. As a part time but steady fan with a union bent, I felt absolutely ripped off last Saturday. I don't invest 3 hours of my precious Saturday lightly, and if I'm a target for AFL's national expansion then Demetriou should know I won't be watching the replay nor the sport again until the rule is changed and I get over the theft of my previous Saturday afternoon. Good riddance I'd expect to hear from the fans, but I bet the AFL moneymen won't be so quick to dismiss my viewpoint.
Art Sapphire
Guest
If thats enough to settle an argument for you, I'll ask him on to the Roar to settle every argument :)
Whites
Guest
If a replay is so great after one tied grand final why have the rules been changed so that there is no replay after a second tied grand final. I'm predicting the evil scurge of extra time on Saturday.
Joel
Guest
Well, all I can say is I think you're elevating the issue of travel to the point of absurdity. I refer to my earlier post- "I don’t see the Socceroos, Wallabies or the Australian Cricket team complaining about playing successive ‘big’ matches away from home and they have it much harder. Most professional clubs in the world go on road trips and don’t have a problem, why would this be any different?"
Joel
Guest
You raise a good point, but I think it's only a genuine replay if it's played at the same venue. A time will come when the Grand Final is shifted around like the Superbowl and every club will be subject to the same circumstances, unless they get lucky and it is held in the same city as themselves. I think all states need decent stadiums before that can happen though.