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.
Black Diamonds
Guest
History in 3 centuries says why change Brian. Why change?
Black Diamonds
Guest
How do you think the AFL could play a 30 round season? Haven't you noticed the "fight" between the AFL and cricketing authorities about extending the season 1 week into October next year! How could the AFL organise a 30 round season - or in future years - a 34 round season! Crazy stuff mate. There has been a finals series in three centuries now - why mess with tradition?
Black Diamonds
Guest
Exactly. the 2010 Drawn Grand Final will go down in history as one of the greats. Brendon Goddard's soaring mark to put the Saints in front for the first time late in the final quarter will no doubt be remembered as the highlight - but it wasn't enough.
Mister Football
Guest
Somewhere along the line, if not on this thread, on another one, I mentioned that there's one very good reason for keeping the grand final replay, and that is for the possibility of one day hosting the grand final outside of Melbourne (for the replay), i.e. somewhere like Sydney. Lo and behold, what do we read in today's Age, and I quote: "The fall out from the 2010 grand final rematch has ignited an angry standoff between the AFL and the MCG, with league chief executive Andrew Demetriou floating the prospect of scheduling future replays involving interstate clubs outside Victoria. "We have a contract to play the grand final at the MCG but there is nothing in the contract which talks about grand final replays" "Although several clubs outside Victoria have indicated they would look at spending a second grand final week in Melbourne, the view was that it could be fairer to look at playing a rematch - for example - at ANZ stadium if Syney was involved." What an interesting example to use!!
beaver fever
Guest
Mick Johnston said Collingwood could not handle the pressure in the first Grand Final and in the end deserved to lose. Sorry, i do not agree, the game was a draw and nobody deserved to win, there was no best team on the day under the present rules that may or may not be changed. I say keep the rule, but i can see the argument for changing it, but there enough rule changes at present, does it really need to be changed ?, when will we see the next drawn GF?.
Mick Johnston
Roar Rookie
Michael. This is an absolutely ridiculous comment. Had extra time been played and St Kilda won on the day, Collingwood would have rightfully rued their missed opportunities; just like St Kilda did in 2009 and Geelong in 2008. The very argument for extra time is that it allows a result on the day. Your argument that a replay ensured the best team won is akin to providing a mulligan for the season decider and cheapening the result more than extra time possibly could. Part of what makes the Grand Final so grand is that it has a history of the best team being upset on the big stage. Once you make it, anything can happen. Collingwood could not handle the pressure in the first Grand Final and in the end deserved to lose. It would have been a fair result that reflected that the best team on the day won. In the end the Premiership is all about the best team on the day, not the best team of the year winning. If that's not the case, then why bother having a finals series?
Kermit is a frog
Roar Pro
it wasn't an anti climax for Collingwood fans!! ;-)
Kermit is a frog
Roar Pro
The Perth to Melbourne leg is arduous compared to someone NOT having to travel. That's the point here. One 'home' team vs one very much 'away' team in this hypothetical scenario. There's also no comparison of a commute from Gosford to Central versus a flight forward in time from Perth to Melbourne. Should players and teams be able to cope neverthe less. Well, perhaps. AT least the Grand Final Replay comes minus a big street parade on the Friday.
Karlos
Guest
It was an anti-climax for sure, but it did bring in extra cash. I think the A-League might have been watched by 150,000 world wide otherwise they would be buying up AFL players and throwing cash at their quickly dying game (and I actually like the game of soccer).
pepperann
Guest
fine add him to the list i am sick of all these people who blindly accept the figures that are obviously a croc esp media who these days rarely question anything and repeat whatever they are told like parrots
Redb
Roar Guru
Dan Dan Dan, If your not a fan you wont enjoy it in the first place. It was classic comeback by the Saints, the Pies just hung on. great game, loved it.
Dan Dresden
Guest
We should celebrate something merely because it is unique? That is absurd logic. Just because something is different doesn't make it worthy of reverance, unless you count standing and staring at the bearded lady sort of uniqueness.
Redb
Roar Guru
Exactly the drawn GF is talked about becuase it is unique in sport and that should be celebrated.
Kurt
Roar Pro
There is an outspoken soccer supporter who regularly claims on this website that the last A-League GF was watched by in excess of 150 million people worldwide. I look forward to you making similar demands for evidence the next time he does so.
MVDave
Guest
AFL GF would be lucky to be watched by 1 million world wide and most of them ex pats. Check out this link for the top rated world wide sports telecasts from 2009...sorry no AFL mentioned... http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/01/31/the-20-best-watched-events-of-2009-football-nfl-f1-and-badminton-310105/
pepperann
Guest
250 million bollocks!!! do you have any proof apart from the rubbish the papers conatained. the afl final would have failed to hit 250,000 world wide and i am being rather generous there show us some evidence to back up your claims i challenge you or any person who swallows these numbers from last week infact i challenge any person who believes any viewing figures put out by any sporting body to show me the ratings from each country to back up the claims made by the likes of fifa or the irb or formula 1 et cetera union fans show me a shred of proof of the irb claim of billions of viewers throughout a world cup
aflfever
Guest
the grand final and its subsequent replay have been an enormous shot in the arm for aussie rules headline news nation wide captured the imagination of the nation especially sydney and aside fro 2 great games and an extra $30 million the AFL GF @ REPLAY BOTH ATTRACTED 250 MILLION VIEWERS EACH FOR A TOTAL OF 500 MILLION global
Brian
Guest
Since "commercial-based arguments should always be secondary to ensuring an untainted and uncompromised premiership" wouldnt a soccer style league system be the most fair way to decide the premiership. After all St Kilda were generally better than Geelong in 2009 and Geelong were better than Hawthorn in 2008. If St Kilda had won last week than everyone would have said they deserve it. I don't know why the AFL fans on this website are so passionate when even the likes of Leigh Matthews said the draw should be cancelled
TomC
Guest
MF, this is pretty rubbish logic. As of 2012, almost half the league will be based outside of Victoria. The odds are that the next drawn grand final will involve at least one interstate team. And whether that team comes from Perth, Adelaide or Sydney, having to fly home and back again will always put them at a disadvantage against a team that doesn't. If you can say that the problems of a replay matter less because it doesn't happen very often, then you have to say the same about the benefits.
ac
Guest
Nah playing another day just aint right. Playing extra time keeps the momentum going. The Saints might have won on the first day and that would have been exciting. The 2nd game was just plain boring, Actually i love AFL but it is becoming a little boring at times.