Hawks best in season, but Swans better when it matters most

My memory may be off but didn't the Swans get a free kick after Rioli pushed Jetta in the back after he kicked the ball ? If you are referring to the incident I think you are then I personally thought that was the defining moment of the game, LRT drops the ball & gets away without a free when he should have been penalised for holding & the Swans kicked a goal didn't they ? That was when I thought the Swans would win it, it just seemed to say things were going to go their way.

Hawker, I'm just telling you what it looked like Hawker, what you believe is up to you. I agree Rioli is a talent but I'm not the only observer to notice that he doesn't really get a lot of the ball a lot of the time. Sure, he has good days as you might expect in a good team and with his ability - but he drifts in and out as often as not. Yes, he's a good tackler, he creates pressure on the opposition but he still needs to get more of the ball. As for Buddy he does have good days and bad days, as you say. The question is, how do you rate his good days? I suspect if Buddy kicks for or five most Hawk fans think he's done ok. The problem is, if he's had 8-10 shots to get them I rate it at the low end - dare I say, closer to a bad day. Accodingly, I think he has far more bad days than good - based purely on the result. Getting the ball, and the opportunity, has never been Franklin's problem. He gets it more than most. The trouble is he burns it more than anybody - although Nick Riewoldt runs him close. And I still think he baled out in the GF. Buddy's the 100 gamer, the star, the go to man. Gunston is, by comparison, a novice. Yes, Gunston should probably have kicked it but I bet he was a tad nervous and anxious too. He had not had a big game and now it was all down to him. I know you must be disappointed but the fact remains that Hawthorn were raging favourites with most footy fans and the media. That doesn't alter the fact that the real difference between the Hawks and the rest of the top six is, primarily, Buddy and Cyril. As you effectively pointed out - take those two out of the Hawks team and Adelaide beat them. And I still think Cyril was gifted the ball by Adelaide for a couple of those match winning goals. He took advantage as he should but it was the Crows poor play rather than Cyril's great play that got the result in those instances. Would I take Rioli and Franklin in my team - absolutely. They have fantastic upsides for any team. Last week, however, Cyril wasn't sighted, nor did he apply any significant pressure and Buddy basically kicked the Hawks out of the game. Don't worry Hawker, it all happens again next year.

The answer is quite simple. Sydney have an extra 1 million in their salary cap.

Don't forget the Swans squandered 4 shots in front of goal (arguably 5) in the Grand Final as well, three of which took place in the first quarter (LRT, Johnson, Bird).

Penguin - it may surprise you but I agree completely about all your points (apart from the disagree bit). As you have suggested, while Sydney didn't have the same talent as other sides, they have made the most out of the talent they had at their disposal and did so more effectively than the other clubs. Full credit to them for that and that was the reason they won. If any of the other teams were managed as effectively as Sydney they would have been very hard to beat.

LOL very funny indeed and yes very moot. I am thoroughly enjoying myself. Your post sounds a bit like a decree: "But the argument can end by just ‘looking at the scoreboard" - valid point. It can end this way but hasn't nor does it have to. "The grand final comprised the best two teams of the year – that part can’t be argued with" - it can and it has been here. "the two best teams of the year played off in the grand final, and the best team won the premiership. Always has been, always will be." - not always.

Hawker - I agree with everything you have said apart from the last point. You can't judge the best side based on 1 game alone. To imply that all the other games didn't matter is ridiculous. What I will say is that rising to the occasion is a very good indicator of a champion side - so if Sydney can back it up with, say, another prelim (or better) next year then they will go up even further in my estimates. On the hype issue I just think the Hawthorn bandwagon was absurd given how close the competition was to them - including some Victorian clubs. That is not to say they weren't worthy of the premiership favourites tag. On the luck issue - the fact that both games came down, to some extent, to luck underpin the absurdity of that hype around Hawthorn.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jetta preferred a skinny latte. Definitely harsh to criticise Rioli's efforts. His chase put Jetta under sufficient pressure to not allow time for an easy disposal. Hawthorn aren't the first team to squander shots on goal in a Grand Final and lose. Geelong in 2008 and St Kilda in 2009 are recent examples. Hawthorn also squandered chances in the 2011 Prelim final, costing them a chance to win a flag. Very frustrating for Hawthorn supporters.

Disagree with Deep Thinker and Andrew A. It is too easy to look at the stars. Don't judge a team by their best, but by their worst. Sydney plays moneyball, an even team with certain characteristics designed around a game plan with interchangeable cogs. Stop falling for the talent trap. These current Swans are designed and programmed to win in September. Full credit to their recruiters, coaches, management and culture. We love our Bloods! And at least for the next 12 months we are the Best, the Premiers, the Cup and Flag holders. Not the favourites, never the favourites. Just the hard nosed bastards who sit on that wall waiting for the next dogfight...

Perhaps your sarcasm is cleverer than mine JK. Swans deserved it. They kept their list pretty healthy, they arned a top 4 birth with more consistency than the other teams year, and they rose to the occasion when it mattered most. They no doubt played better than all the other teams in the finals series - across all 3 games. Therefore they deserved to win and are worthy premiers. No problem there. I still think other teams have better lists - that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree. You have every right to.

Love it! Agree 100% And who are favourites for next year? Never the Swans! Go Bloods!

Cameron, Cameron, Cameron. Take your medicine. Eat some humble pie!. All year you were saying Hawks were the best, and whilst the Swans "can"win the flag, they wouldn't. Too enamoured with simply looking at the best players on the list, not the worst 6. Stop looking at teams best and start looking at how adaptable they are; Sure, at their best Hawks are unstoppable. But they only do it for 20 minutes a game, coast when they break the game open, and can't adjust to any other game style. That's why the Swans won: ferocious defence, well drilled, play as a unit, no dependency on one player, interchangeable hard as nails midfielders, adaptable, constant underdog status, rebounding into open space, excellent coaching with Plans B and C etc. Watch them change from loose man to one on one to slingshot rebounds as momentum changes in a game. Watch how they come back after a loss. Longmire deservedly won coach of the year for many good reasons! Enjoyed your articles throughout the year! Love to disagree! Great teams are even teams, and the Swans WERE the best team all year! Look at the Scoreboard! Go the Bloods!

100% correct. Game goes down to the wire. Totally unliike 2008. Better team on the day won. Simple!

You make some excellent points Hawker (and so does Bayman) and are clearly gracious in defeat as a Hawk supporter. Trivial correction though; Jetta actually is (surprisingly I know) a very good tackler. I wish I could send you some highlight snippets of recent examples, but he has really surprised me this year with his tackling abilities. Not better than Cyril I say, but better than tackling froth of a cappuccino as you say ;-)

honestly mate that is biggest load of drivel I've ever read in my life.. you're talking like hawthorn expected it be cakewalk they played one of the hardest games of the season only a few weeks before the finals I sincerely doubt hawthorn was expecting any less. As diehard hawthorn supporter I expect all out war with a small margin at the end either way. Thats exactly what I got. The winner was always going to be the side that converted their chances better when they were in the ascendency, Sydney did and they are worthy winners. "One of them can’t kick and the other just doesn’t get enough of the footy enough of the time. Their good days, of course, are simply sensational but they play like millionnaires who think chances will just keep coming." No one likes missing goals. If Collingwood had've won last year everybody would've been pointing the finger at Tom Hawkins who missed several shots in the last qtr. "In the Grand Final Cyril simply went missing and we’ll never quite know the effect of being burnt off by Jetta but we do know that he never looked like catching the Swan and Jetta absolutely knew it after the first five metres – so did Cyril. Rioli can be a killer finisher but he’s way too flashy and inconsistent for a guy who’s played 100 games and has his ability. Until this year we could say the same about Dangerfield for Adelaide so it’s not too late for Rioli but he’s got to do more than brilliant cameos." Cyril is quick , however Lewis Jetta is quicker in fact in a straight line I would say he's the fastest in the league comfortably. However he couldn't tackle the froth off a cappuccino, Cyril pound for pound is one of the best tacklers in the league, he's generally had a very very good season, his goals, goal assists, forward pressure - if people can't see this you're either biased or have no idea. Cyril had a below average game it has happened before to players in grand finals. He won us the game last week, he turned the 2008 GF. "Buddy’s give to Gunston may be explained away by ‘team footy’ but I thought he didn’t want the responsibility. I’ve always felt that if the gun player is well within range then he should take the shot, and the responsibility that goes with it. Personally, I hate seeing guys pass off inside the fifty unless the end result is practically guaranteed. I’m sure that incident lifted the Swans." What would've lifted the swans was Jack Gunston hitting the post from 20metres out. I can't believe people are blaming Franklin for this. Fancy passing to the best set shot in the team when he's 20m out ?? "Yep, the Hawks can look at Buddy’s wayward shooting and say, “That’s the difference, that’s where we lost it”. The trouble is that particular problem has been there for ever and Buddy has never tried to do anything about it. It will still be a problem next year and the year after." Oh they've tried. Dunstall, Brereton have spent time with him. He has good and bad days like any other forward.

Were the Hawks the best team all year? They threatened to be.....but were they really? I suspect that when we look at Hawthorn all we really see is Buddy and Cyril and wish our team had them as the cream on our cake. We might then take in Mitchell, Sewell and, maybe, Lewis and Burgoyne and think, gee, that's a pretty good team. As for the rest they are no better than any other team in the top six. And even Hawthorn's top six have some competition. Is the Hawks midfield really any better than Sydney, or Adelaide, or West Coast, or Collingwood or Geelong? Probably not, so that leaves us with Buddy and Cyril. One of them can't kick and the other just doesn't get enough of the footy enough of the time. Their good days, of course, are simply sensational but they play like millionnaires who think chances will just keep coming. Of course, in Buddy's case, they usually do but for every game he kicks an absolute bag, e.g. vs North Melbourne, he has a dozen games like the Preliminary and Grand Finals. With Buddy it is simply a given. He is the greatest 'what if' player in the recent history of the game. In the Grand Final Cyril simply went missing and we'll never quite know the effect of being burnt off by Jetta but we do know that he never looked like catching the Swan and Jetta absolutely knew it after the first five metres - so did Cyril. Rioli can be a killer finisher but he's way too flashy and inconsistent for a guy who's played 100 games and has his ability. Until this year we could say the same about Dangerfield for Adelaide so it's not too late for Rioli but he's got to do more than brilliant cameos. Last week some people, like Macca and Cameron, stated Adelaide had been belted by Hawthorn and tended not to believe my assertion that, maybe, the game had really turned on a few key moments when the Crows gifted Hawthorn, via Cyril and Buddy/Bruest, at least three goals. This week the Hawks played exactly the same but the opposition were less generous. Cyril didn't get the easy pickings and the Swans kicked their goals and, generally, hit their targets. Buddy destroyed Richards early but burnt the footy like a man who knew his team was better and it didn't matter. The trouble is, the Hawks aren't that much better than anyone else especially if Buddy is having an off day and Cyril is nowhere near it. near the end of the game, with it very much on the line, Richards won a couple of important duels with Buddy despite his earlier reversals and despite the fact he was clearly carrying an injury from last week. When the game was there to be won the Swans stood up, to a man, and bloody made sure they won it. The Hawks tried their best but their best was not good enough - when it counted. The Hawks had the more feted individuals but the Swans were the better team and they didn't crack under pressure. Buddy's give to Gunston may be explained away by 'team footy' but I thought he didn't want the responsibility. I've always felt that if the gun player is well within range then he should take the shot, and the responsibility that goes with it. Personally, I hate seeing guys pass off inside the fifty unless the end result is practically guaranteed. I'm sure that incident lifted the Swans. Yep, the Hawks can look at Buddy's wayward shooting and say, "That's the difference, that's where we lost it". The trouble is that particular problem has been there for ever and Buddy has never tried to do anything about it. It will still be a problem next year and the year after. It helped keep the Preliminary close, it helped the Swans win the game on Saturday but that's Buddy. Every team knows that Buddy will more than likely burn the ball. North were just unlucky this year because thirteen from Buddy is certainly not typical - just an indication of his capabilities. Why will next year be any different?

Jeesh, what a funny debate. 'Best team of the year', ‘Easy draw’, ‘Luck’, 'Injuries’, etc. etc. Clubs don't decide which team they play each week. If there's a problem with that, then take your case to the AFL and good luck! These points are all moot, and people can believe what they want when it comes to the best team of the year (whatever they might mean by that). BTW, Hawthorn's draw in the home and away season was the eighth most difficult, the Swan's was tenth. But the argument can end by just 'looking at the scoreboard’. Those who say that the Swans were lucky to draw Adelaide in the first week of the finals are mute when considering that Hawthorn barely scraped over Adelaide. There is a grand final system in the AFL (since 1898!) and it's the way the best team of the year is decided. Otherwise, to paraphrase Churchill, everyone could just keep saying 'my team was the best for the year, except for all the others'. That sort of argument isn't going to win you any points. The grand final comprised the best two teams of the year – that part can't be argued with. The grand final is regarded as a brutal test of skill and stamina and the only teams that can be considered lucky to win, are the winners in close grand finals – Sydney in 2005 and 2012, West Coast in 2006, Geelong in 2009, Brisbane in 2002. Conversely, the losers in those grand finals were unlucky, but would definitely have been worthy winners. It's probably best to say that the two best teams of the year played off in the grand final, and the best team won the premiership. Always has been, always will be.

Nobody remembers the 'Minor Premiers'. That's why it's called the Grand Final. However, Hawthorn were also right in it to the bitter end, and should be remembered. It was a great match. Moreover, there was no burning of flags and jumpers afterwards, as happened elsewhere in another world, but sadly, same country. Best GF in ages I reckon.

You've thought deeply Deep Thinker and make some valid points. The premiership team quite often isn't the best team in a particular year. The uneven draw allowed Sydney and Adelaide to gain an extra 4 and 8 premiership points respectively by virtue of extra games against the new clubs in GWS and Gold Coast, thus helping them finish top 4 and gain home finals. Hawthorn and Collingwood were arguably better during the year considering their tougher draw. It used to be fairer when every team played each other twice. Until the uneven draw is rectified, we will continue to have sides such as Adelaide, North and Sydney that finish higher on the ladder than they should if the draw was fair. A final in any sport can be won by a less talented team.

"You have clearly missed my point. It has been about how fickle this “Hawthorn, Hawthorn, Hawthorn” hype has been because they are not as dominant as they’ve been made out to be. " Mate its just media hype to sell more papers/get more traffic onto their websites, the big Melbourne clubs are always going to be pumped up more than Sydney makes commercial sense. "And more than that, they were lucky to get through the prelim." If they were lucky to get through the prelim they were just as unlucky to lose the GF. It can't be one or the other. "Cam has got it absolutely on the money: Hawks were best “in season”. Swans better “when it matters most”. Can’t argue with that. Does that mean overall they are the best sides? Perhaps…" FFS they won the only game that matters they are best side