- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The right team won. Yes, the Grand Final replay was an anticlimax. Yes, it had the misfortune of being both one-sided and, in the first half, low-scoring. But the team most deserving of the premiership ended up premiers – something that all the extra time cheerleaders of last week should take serious note of.
The AFL’s method of determining a winner following a drawn grand final was placed under a lot of scrutiny in the wake of Collinwood and St Kilda’s draw, but the replay rule has stood up nicely.
Saturday afternoon showed that the replay, unlike extra time, isn’t about merely getting a result. It’s about getting the right result.
Collingwood were simply brilliant on the weekend, passing the test of coming back a week later in convincing style, dominating both around the ground and on the scoreboard. It took St Kilda until half-way through the second quarter to kick a goal and by that stage, it was pretty much too late.
Come the final siren, no one was left in any doubt who was the best team of 2010.
It was interesting after the game to remember the talk last week that we needed to find a winner on the day. It was interesting because had the first grand final of 2010 gone to extra time, the final result could have been very different.
The team we now view as “deserved winners” quite possibly could have lost.
After all, St Kilda had the momentum at the end of the first game. They outscored Collingwood in the final quarter 3.3 to 2.1. The two biggest moments that quarter came from Saints players – Brendon Goddard’s mark and Lenny Hayes’ score-levelling point.
If you had to nominate a side most likely to win in extra time, St Kilda would’ve been it. The significance of this cannot be understated.
Sure, you might say if a side is capable of standing up in extra time, they can’t be all that undeserving. But there is an absolutely massive difference between a mere ten minutes of football – tacked on the end of 120 minutes of it – and an entire game a week later.
The first scenario lends itself to fluke results, the second is far less susceptible. If anything, it’s a true test of each side’s character.
Of course, finding a winner on the day is definitely more convenient. It pleases the impatient. It doesn’t lend itself to the kind of fallout we saw last week.
However, if finding a winner on the day means a compromised result, then we should not even be discussing it.
Now yes, the crowd for the second game was only 93,583 – compared to the 100,016 crowd a week earlier. But that says far, far more about the Melbourne Cricket Club and its method of allocating tickets than it does about the merits of a replay.
And yes, the game was anticlimactic and a tad uninspiring for neutral supporters. It was a letdown after the classic that was the first game.
But regardless, commercial-based arguments should always be secondary to ensuring an untainted and uncompromised premiership – something the replay on Saturday did a perfect job of achieving.
Bomb’s away
Mark Thompson walked away from the coaching position at Geelong yesterday, after 11 seasons at the helm. For bringing an end to the club’s 44-year premiership drought in 2007, and winning another grand final in 2009, he will always be fondly remembered by Cats supporters.
Now, though, attention turns to who the Cats will replace Thompson with and whether their now-former coach will head to Essendon in some kind of support role for James Hird.
The latter was a notion denied by the Cats last week, when they told the media Thompson was burnt out, but you get the sense that everything is falling into place for a move to take place. For Essendon supporters, it would mean a “dream team” coaching set-up led by two favourite sons would be complete.
Geelong supporters, meanwhile, will probably recall Thompson’s comments this season – questioning Gary Ablett for contemplating a Gold Coast move, praising Joel Selwood for staying loyal and re-signing – and scratch their heads a little.
Geelong assistant coach Brenton Sanderson and Ken Hinkley (formerly at Geelong, now at Gold Coast) are the two leading candidates for Bomber’s replacement, and both would be well-credentialed enough for the head coach role. The only argument against them would be the question of whether it’s time to bring in an outsider to shake things up.
Pies’ celebrations soured
Yesterday also brought us the news two Collingwood players have been interviewed by police about an alleged sexual assault in the hours after their premiership win. One of the two players, reportedly, was part of the team that played Saturday.
No charges have been laid and at this stage, information is scarce. Both Collingwood and the AFL released statements, but neither added much to the story.
“The club is leaving the investigation to the Victorian [sic] Police and as a result will make no public comment until it has established all the clear facts,” the Collingwood statement read.
It’s far too early to have any genuine read on the situation, other than to say it puts a bit of a dampener on the Pies’ celebrations – which were in full swing until yesterday.
More rule changes on the way
Trust the AFL to release potentially-unpopular information on the Monday after a Grand Final when two other major stories are breaking. Three rule changes will come into effect next year, the league announced yesterday.
The biggest is a change to the interchange system. Now, the four players teams have on their bench will consist of three interchange players and one substitute player (who can be introduced to games at any time, but the player they replace then cannot return to the field).
The basis for this change was an increase in injuries over recent years, however earlier this year I felt the need to ask the question, “which came first, the increase in interchanges or the increase in [average player] speed?”
Nevertheless, the AFL have pushed ahead with substitutes and many in the game (Mick Malthouse would probably be one) are grateful the idea of an “interchange cap” didn’t win out.
The second rule adopted is the advantage rule trialled in this year’s NAB Cup (whereby players determine advantage after a free kick) and the third is a clarification of the rule on head-high bumps, an at-times contentious rule in recent years.