The immediate disappointment is understandable. I was slain by it too. So were the Swiss guy, the British couple and the Argentinian bartender that I had converted to the St Kilda denomination of the cult of our code over the two and a half hours.
The siren sounded in the bar in Buenos Aires just after 4am. “They don’t play extra time?¨chants the Swiss guy repeatedly. “So we’ll see you here next week” chime the British pair. The bartender now tells a handful of Pies fans to go home.
I had realised just minutes earlier after the Goddard mark that I was going to cry more if we won than if we lost. But after the ruder shock of experiencing neither I realised something greater: rarely had I been so proud of our game, or this historical quirk of it which for the first time in my lifetime had reared its little head.
Both sides went through moments a couple of minutes before the siren when they dared to believe they were about to win the flag. Being told to come back in a week’s time is very firm slap in the face.
That, I guess, is why Nick Maxwell said what he did, and why so many fans and sections of the media reacted with what was for me a surprising amount of vitriol in response to the proper application of a rule that should not have surprised anyone.
It is a rule that anyone who plays or follows the game previously seemed to treasure like a magical little piece of trivia, and one that I had never before heard seriously questioned.
Perhaps that is because away from the brick wall that our adrenalin took a run at on grand final day this year, it is superb. Rare, yes, counterintuitive to some, but so firmly ingrained as one of the rules of Australian Rules that it demands a certain respect. It is endearing because it is capable of creating legends and legendary teams in a way that extra time, tie-breakers and penalty shootouts will never get close to. In our game, the test of the premier is uncompromising.
We should embrace the fact that it bows to nothing. All over the world sporting traditions are bending over for sponsors, venues and broadcasters who want reliable products for their budgets and scheduling.
Their customers seem to be generations of fans that are now accustomed to getting their entertainment as they want it, money shot on cue, and many people seem to think it is sport’s challenge to match that.
Media coverage of the reaction of supporters after the drawn game was dominated by the voices of those incensed to have forked out for a grand final ticket but not seen the cup lifted.
They paid for blood. I prefer the view that every one at the MCG on Saturday had the privilege of witnessing an historic moment in the sport and an absolute classic of a grand final, painful and poetic. They should hold onto the moment like a treasure. God knows they won’t forget it.
We might be up against it, but we should hope that a few days of reflection settles everyone down and that the instant gratification crowd doesn’t win the day.
It is winning out in other sports. In tennis, the US Open now plays tie-breakers to determine the result of any set which reaches 6-all. Admirably, the other Grand Slams maintain the two game advantage rule for final sets, a rule which saw the names John Isner and Nicolas Mahut etched into the sport’s history this year after Isner won the fifth set of their Wimbledon match 70-68.
That set alone lasted 8 hours and 11 minutes and broke the electronic scoreboard which was only programmed to go up to 47-all.
The match consumed all the records for the sport in one afternoon. John McEnroe, talking on BBC television, called it “the greatest advertisement for tennis,” and summed up what fellow players were feeling as they jostled among spectators to get a look at what was taking place on the outside court: the feat of physical and mental fortitude made him proud to be a part of the sport. It is a match that will make the transition to legend.
At the US Open it wouldn’t have happened. One of the players might have hit an arsey shot one point and clipped a net cord the next and it would have all finished up 7-6 in the fifth, two and a half days earlier. We would have been poorer for that.
Of course, the comparison with other sports can only go so far.
The tennis match was not suspended with the players instructed to return the following week. However the example has something to say about the most honourable way to determine sporting contests that are too close to call, in the face of the convergence of sport and entertainment and the increasingly powerful trend towards prime-time driven gratification.
Money is an issue. The AFL has found itself happily working through a seven day goldmine. More tickets for club members is a start, but it would certainly be preferable to see the sport’s governing body do as much as it can to rid us of the perception that it is the biggest winner when the grand final throws up this result. But all that is a question of how to manage the replay. Just the mechanics of it.
Others have had a shot at the perceived inconsistency of the rule. A draw is a legitimate result during the season. Teams share the points for one.
You can’t share a flag. Meanwhile, we can forgive the decision to go to extra time in the first three weeks of the finals. This change, implemented after Collingwood drew with West Coast in their qualifying final in 1990 and delayed the grand final by a week, reduced the possibility of an October grand final by nine times, and the decision was celebrated by brides and auctioneers alike when the new rule prevented that contingency in 1994 and 2007.
The grand final replay was history’s survivor, left for the big one and the big one alone. Like something sacred. Traditions are not things we should hastily condemn during the chaos of this week.
In the hiatus, having already come so close, some people say that Saturday’s replay won’t reach the heights of the first installment. It is an awkward feeling we are forced to carry through to Saturday; not one that is instantly digestable, and certainly not on that is in step with modern day sport being peddled like it is MTV.
But I see no reason why the sequel can’t lead to a greater tale.
When the players go at it again in the replay the vindication of the premiers will be absolute and their story in the history of the game will be richer and more satisfying than any result that might have been knocked together last week.
So let’s save the chat about the rules of our game for a calmer time and we will see how all this pans out. Be patient. It will be great.
Jarrod
Guest
Where did you watch the GF in Buenos Aires? I am there this weekend and would like to know where the best spot is to watch the game...
Jarrod
Guest
Where did you watch the GF in Buenos Aires? I am there this weekend and would like to know where the best spot is to watch the game...
Collingwood
Guest
Saints failed. Collingwood owned.
Kermit is a frog
Roar Pro
Finals are super necessary when it's not really possible to fit in a 'fair' and balance full Home and Away fixture. Not every code so dominates the sporting landscape like the EPL fitting in a full H&A season for 20 teams!!! Sure, if we killed off the NAB cup and the finals, then for 16 teams we could achieve it in 30 weeks. But - just as the FIFA WC champion isn't crowned about the pool games - but, has to instead navigate and WIN it's way through the finals, there's something about the best of the best battling it out in do or die contests. Isn't there?? And it's hardly 'Australian' to run finals. I'm not sure where you're coming from there?? Although, I guess, if we look around the NRL is far from a balanced fixture, and the HAL runs 3 rounds of Home or Away and that's skewed in any given season. Perhaps you're right!!
Kermit is a frog
Roar Pro
The replay - as Eddie McGuire pointed out - is NOT compulsory. Finals as a resolution. Allows for a 'growth' over the duration of a season. It allows for a team to evolve and develop. It allows for a side to recover from an early injury set back. And it provides a microcosm at seasons end involving the best of the best (we hope) to fight it out in do-or-die winner takes all matches. The minor premier is all nice, and would Collingwood who'd been so good all year have deserved to have lost last week had Milne collected cleanly and goaled? Perhaps the finals and the replay have vindicated all. The best team won. And everyone else had sufficient opportunity to prove that Collingwood weren't. And that I reckon is the secret of the finals - it allows the best team to shut up any doubters.
BigAl
Guest
. . . Very good Scott. . .
Scott James
Roar Rookie
Thanks for all your comments folks. First things first Gilly, I am going to El Alamo (Uruguay 1175, between Santa Fe y Arenales). It is a sports bar that is more commonly packed with North Americans watching college basketball and the young Argentine things waiting to be courted by them. But you can't be picky in the middle of the night. I'll be there. Secondly, I acknowledge that the tennis parallel isn't a match on all levels. But like extra time, the tie-break it is a neat, modern way to package up a result quickly and swiftly dispense with uncertainty in sporting contests where neither competitor has proven itself superior in the conventional way. Like the tie-break extra-time denies the possibility of epic, unique,and grotesque happenings like the 70-68 fifth set or the ungainly feeling in AFL circles this week of no one quite knowing what to do. Bayman's comment is spot on, the fans who whinge about flying to see the game and not getting what they wanted need to examine themselves. Changing the rule to appease them would be precisely what I don't want to see: making decisions for entertainment value instead of the value and authenticity of The Big Prize. This little exchange between Lazza and Bayman is fascinating because what Lazza is saying challenges the AFL finals system as a way of determining the premier. I think he has a point. You can say that a home and away system is a more reliable system of identifying consistent excellence over the course of a year. So what is it about finals that we like? Once again I think it has something to do with the fact that they have always been there. The history of them has informed our sporting culture. Being the best all year but choking in a Grand Final is a legitimate way for a team to lose its mantle of excellence. People in the AFL states seem to grow up embracing that. On a player level it's the same: after last week and with no chance to redeem himself, Leon Davis will unfortunately always have his big game issues cited whenever his name is raised in any front bar around the country. For me it continues to come back to the "legend-making potential" of any system. Pure home and away systems don't have it like a finals system has it. And extra-time doesn't have it like a replay has it. And the longer that continues the stronger those arguments become.
Scott James
Roar Rookie
Hi Gilly, I am going to El Alamo (Uruguay 1175, between Santa Fe y Arenales). It is a sports bar that is more commonly packed with North Americans watching college basketball and the young Argentine things waiting to be courted by them. But you can't be picky in the middle of the night. I'll be there.
clipper
Guest
What I should've said is that the people watching on that day would've felt cheated if they wanted a result because they probably would not have been able to come back the next day, but they experienced a once in a life time event - like the drawn AFL GF
Bayman
Guest
Lazza, the Champions League also has the same rich clubs, year in, year out, so this competition is just a separate elite group which sees themselves as above the rabble. It's more a question of whether Bayern, or MUFC, or Real Madrid, or Barca, or Inter, or - you get the idea. Not surprising there's a different winner most years but you are talking about the absolute best and richest teams in Europe. By the way, how many different clubs have won "since about 1990"? Absolutely, the AFL in not an even competition. The draft, a salary cap and the GF at the MCG. The idea is to make the competition viable and a by-product allows the Victorian teams a natural advantage at finals time, especially GF time. The old VFL had 12 teams playing 22 rounds (home and away) from 1970 through to 1986. A relatively short time frame. Prior to 1970 it was 12 teams and 20 rounds while after 1986 there was the introduction of Brisbane and West Coast which put the draw out of balance. Given the draft, the salary cap and an ever increasing number of teams I'm not surprised the draw is compromised. Whoever said anything was fair. I'd suggest to you that supporters of West Bromwich Albion, or Bolton Wanderers, or Stoke City don't think the EPL is fair either. Still, I'm sure they take comfort from the fact that United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool can afford all the players that WBA, Bolton and Stoke cannot. I'm also 100 percent positive that English fans just love the fact since Blackburn Rovers won the EPL in 1994/95 (MUFC were runners-up) only MUFC, Chelsea and Arsenal have won the title. This must be immensely satisfying for all concerned. As for joke competitions, I think the EPL has the AFL covered and by a factor. Twenty teams in the EPL and only three winners since 1994/95. Explain that to an Aussie sports fan and they would think it's a complete joke. How could that be fair?
Lazza
Guest
Soccer in Europe also has the Champions League which no-one has managed to win in consecutive years since about 1990. Why? It's a knock out tournament with Finals so luck, form and injuries play a part. The AFL is not an even competition either. The HAL and NRL are even because they only use a Salary Cap. The AFL penalise the top teams through the draft and give consessions to the losers and expansion teams. In the EPL, the big rich clubs get the best talent. In the AFL, the new teams and the failures get all the best new talent. How satisfying is it to have success handed to you on a plate? The old VFL had 12 teams and 22 rounds so everyone played each other home and away. Now, if you get an unlucky draw and play the top 4 teams twice you will be at a disadvantage while other teams who have a 'favourable' draw and avoid playing the top sides twice will most likely finish higher on the table. If you explained how the AFL works to an english sports fan they would think it's a complete joke. How could that be fair?
Bayman
Guest
Sorry Lazza, but you're wrong. What you say is partly true of course, injuries, having a bad day etc. can cost you on the day but that's the point. In Australian sport you're not allowed to have a bad day - or you lose. That's why teams at the start of the year target making the finals first, then worry about how high they may finish. And you're right, it's on the day but that's why "big game" players are more respected than the others. Why Lenny Hayes is more valuable than Leon Davis. May it always be so. I'm sure there are dozens of highly paid, over-rated players starring for ManU or Arsenal in club games against virtual minnows and just barely contributing in an England shirt. In England they may still be great players but out here they would not be great, just good, maybe! Besides, in the EPL, for example, only four teams can possibly win in any year, every year. Hardly an ideal situation. Let me know when the winner of this particular competition is not one of MUFC, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea. Given the wealth of those clubs versus the rest I'd hardly call it the "best and purest way". Just inevitable. I'm sure, also, if you look at the leagues of Spain, Italy, Germany they also have just a relative few clubs who between them share the title more often than not. Make all sporting contests between true amateurs and then talk about "best and purest". Besides, Aussie Rules, at least in the VFL/AFL has never had a pure home and away concept. Teams do not play each other twice and they no longer play home and away in the traditional sense. In Melbourne, every team plays at the MCG or Etihad (or whatever it's called today) so that even away games are home games. It matters not. If players do not step up on Saturday their reputations will be tarnished. It's one thing to be best-on-ground against struggling West Coast, quite another to do it on Grand Final day. That's why there's a special medal struck just for the day. It turns good players into legends and it is the stamp of proof of their ability and, more importantly, their temperament. And it's temperament and attitude which will win the game this weekend. Like it or not.
Lazza
Guest
Finals may be Australian but they are not the best way to identify the 'best' team. All you get is the best team on the day (i.e. Hawthorn). The first past the post system where everyone plays each other home and away is the best and purest way to find the best team of the season. A few injuries, one bad day at the office and the entire season means nothing when you leave it to Finals to decide the Champion team. It may be Australian but it aint the best.
Bayman
Guest
I'm more than happy to have a replay instead of extra time for the Grand Final. Finals are, after all, the traditional way Australian sport has identified the best players and the best teams. No matter the sport, those who perform in finals are more highly thought of than those who do not - regardless of how those players and teams may perform in the home and away season. Or, in Collingwood's case, the home and home season! Hence, Leon Davis will always be considered a disappointment despite the admirable achievement of 200 AFL games. Andrew McLeod will always be a legend because of those two Norm Smiths. Port Adelaide were considered chokers until they saluted in 2004. As for those, and I've heard/read the comments, complaining that they travelled all the way from Perth/Sydney/Brisbane and paid all that money and didn't get a result - spare me! It's not all about you. I prefer to think that some who missed out last week finally get to a Grand Final and see their team win. I agree with Scott James, the draw and replay is a good thing. Too many times, these days, the pure sporting aspect has had to take a back seat to commercial reality and opportunity. Games are scheduled based on the requirements of television rather than what's best or fair for the participating clubs/players. Of course, in this instance, television also stands to make a fortune based on the sheer popularity of the event. Likewise, the AFL. Last week, had there been extra time the game may have been decided, like several over the years, by the bounce of the ball (er, actually, it was anyway when Lenny's shot bounced at right angles for a behind instead of running straight on for a goal - or sitting up for Milne to grab and goal). This week, it starts again at nil all and the team which has digested the drawn result best, and adjusted their thinking better, will prevail. Again, this is typical of why we have finals in this country for our sport. It might be hard to keep going for extra time but it's even harder to prepare for and play a replay - and win. As a footnote, I am reminded that during the war my father played in a footy competition in Darwin. His RAF squadron (British pilots, Aussie ground crew) team played against teams from the RAF, RAAF, army and navy. Interspersed throughout these teams were fellows who had played VFL, SANFL and WAFL and represented their states so it was pretty competitive. My father's team drew the Preliminary Final and then won the replay by a point. They then drew the Grand Final and won that replay by, you guessed it, one point. Now that's tough! Mental strength and, no doubt, a lucky bounce here and there. I cannot wait for Saturday. I don't support either club but may the best team win and may that team be the Sainters!
Gilly
Guest
Hey Scott, I'm an Aussie currently in Buenos Aires who's dead keen to watch the replay tomorrow. Do you know where I can watch the game?
Holty
Guest
ummm yes that's right......
Mister Football
Guest
Leon Davis has been dropped for the pies.
clipper
Guest
They had to come back the next day at the tennis match, so they didn't play there and then until it was decided.
Mister Football
Guest
Should the MCG be left vacant all year long till we get to the grand final?
Mattay
Guest
While I get the appreciation that the replay rule "bows to nothing", I find it hard to take it seriously when the final contains one team who plays a disproportionate amount of home games at the MCG in the name of ratings. The AFL are no angels when it comes to selling out, in fact the uneven draw would make them one of the world's worst offenders, so claiming some sporting moral high ground because the AFL decides to stick by it's replay rule is a bit ridiculous.