Leo Barry, you prophet. The 21st century’s most iconic AFL moment has also proved to be one of its most instructive.
When Dean Cox wheeled onto his left foot and sent the ball forward one last time in the 2005 grand final, Barry ascended and made the preceding 72 years of anguish seem a mere prelude to ecstasy for Sydney Swans supporters.
He also looked to the future, though, and his defensive leap forecast a new trend for the game.
The 2005 grand final is not something that will ever be labelled as progressive, modern or revolutionary. It was a slog, and that’s what made it so special.
But elements of today’s game were inherent in its performance, with clusters of players around packs, congestion aplenty, and traditional one-on-one match-ups difficult to find. Indeed, when one looks at the evolution of the AFL since the turn of the century, the initial West Coast-Sydney grand final classic is the competition’s first, most perceptible hinge point, the bridge between the dominance of Brisbane and Port Adelaide to the dynasties of Geelong and Hawthorn.
The game is prettier now than it was on that overcast Melbourne day 11 years ago. Teams fast break in 2016 with a freedom and grace that Sydney didn’t allow Chris Judd, Ben Cousins or Daniel Kerr. But many of the same motifs have carried over. Contested ball is the lifeblood of the sport, and if you can make your defensive 50 a no-fly zone like Barry did in the dying moments, you’re a significant step closer to victory.
With zoning all over the ground and a growing absence of isolated marking contests, the floating defender has become more crucial to the game than ever before. He is the glue that holds structures in place.
Playing as the loose man in defence has always been football’s most difficult position. There’s a perception, largely crafted by the people in the crowd who yell ‘ball!’ the instant any player gets tackled, that playing loose somehow lacks integrity – it’s not as ‘honest’ as sticking to a man.
But anyone who has played football will tell you that the easiest thing to do is just be responsible for one other player. It’s not neuroscience chasing around one other body. But when you play loose, you’re responsible for every player that enters the attacking zone.
Last Sunday at the MCG, we saw the quintessential no-fly zone game. The two most influential players on the ground were Easton Wood and Jeremy Howe, each quelling opposition attacks by owning the airspace in their defensive 50s.
Collingwood’s defence for most of the year has been a farce aspiring to be a train wreck. But the past three weeks have seen the Magpie defence revolutionised by Howe’s move into the back 50. Jack Frost, Adam Oxley, Alan Toovey and co are limited defenders, but they’re not bad defenders. They just need to be put in a position to succeed.
When Howe and Ben Reid are controlling the defence as two aerial forces, taking 24 combined marks as they did on Sunday, and making every high ball in less a threat and more an opportunity for a counter attack, the limited players around them are made to look much better.
After allowing St Kilda, Melbourne and Carlton to kick 18, 16 and 15 goals against them, the Pies in the past three weeks have held Brisbane, Geelong and the Bulldogs, two of which are top four contenders (after the past fortnight, you can decide whether I’m including Geelong or Brisbane in that mix), to ten, 11 and 11 majors.
Even with all their injuries, Collingwood’s defensive renaissance likely would have resulted in a resurrected season Sunday if not for Easton Wood becoming a Sky God himself. Wood took 13 marks on the weekend, 17 of which were from errant Brodie Grundy kicks forward.
In a depleted defence, Wood papered over all the cracks by throwing them into the sky and catching them like he caught everything else. He was the game’s most dominant player, dictating airspace like an airport traffic controller with delusions of Nat Fyfe. Fittingly, it was his booming goal from 50 that gave the Dogs breathing room in the final stages. If your teammates can’t get it past your counterparts, you might as well kick it over their heads yourself.
Wood’s value is appreciated in football circles, with a best and fairest and All-Australian selection last year to his name. But still, even then, do fans appropriately value Wood’s importance? In a team with Jake Stringer and Marcus Bontempelli, isn’t he the Bulldogs’ best, most valuable player?
The same arguments can be found across the league. As good as Dustin Martin is proving he can be, Alex Rance is still Richmond’s most indispensable player. Jeremy McGovern is probably rated by most as the next tier down from Matt Priddis and Josh Kennedy at West Coast, but should he be? What about Josh Gibson’s standing at Hawthorn, a team that has valued him enough internally to name him the best and fairest winner in two of the past three premiership years?
The Bulldogs beat Collingwood largely because Wood was slightly better at his role at one end than Howe was at the other. In a sumptuous Bulldogs-Eagles match-up this weekend, with plenty of tantalising narratives floating around, it would not be surprising to see the result determined by who has the greater influence between Wood and McGovern.
Defenders are famously underappreciated, in all sports. The glory, the drama and the gets-the-girl cinematic appeal of goal scoring will always be most treasured by the public. But in an era where field position and counter-attacking are more essential than ever, the players that can turn defence into offence with a single leap should be valued more highly.
Leo Barry is appropriately lauded in AFL history – it’s time to accord his disciples the same respect.
Gecko
Guest
Not sure whether it's the most difficult position but it's certainly a much more important avenue to goal than it was 12 years ago. Actually I'd attribute the rise of the interceptor not to Leo Barry but the great Geelong teams of 2007-2011, which were jam-packed with amazing intercept markers. They didn't even have to win the clearances if their defenders could just win the ball back and launch counter attacks from half back.
Gecko
Guest
Actually the whole year was dodgy, with Crick and Cousins given far too much leeway by the same coach who has now taken the reins of Essendon.
Jay Croucher
Expert
Respectfully disagree, Cameron. I think the notion that it's the easiest position gives far too much credit to the intelligence of footballers. Over the years I've seen so many Collingwood players screw up the loose man role, Marley Williams being the most glaring of late. Choosing which contests to attack, straddling the line between moving up the ground to pressure the incoming ball and moving defensively to add another number to contest it in the air... these are delicate balancing acts well beyond most. I think it's instructive that it's a role usually given to veteran players, and usually cerebral leaders - like your Luke Hodges and Nick Maxwells, who are savvy enough to take advantage of being loose. The difficulty in the role doesn't come with the position per se, it comes with the expectation and responsibility of the position. The stakes are raised. If you take two spectacular intercept marks to quell forays forward, but fail to meaningfully affect the next four contests in your vicinity, you've probably done a bad job.
Stewart
Guest
Dreadful? Have you ever enjoyed a contest? You must struggle to watch the Swans play.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Nice piece Jay, but no way could I agree that loose man in defence is football's most difficult position. There is no doubt in my mind that it's the easiest, as it allows footballers to do what comes easiest to them - read the play to the exclusion of all else and position yourself for the incoming ball. Even playing half-back on an opponent is the second easiest position to play, particularly if you can read the play, like Wood an others can. It's why Brian Lake was my favourite full-back. He backed his judgement every time, usually while standing the oppositions most dangerous forward.
TomC
Roar Guru
Joel Patfull used to be the guy for this at Brisbane. GWS are wasting him as a lock-down key defender, but then they hardly need him otherwise.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Tom Langdon burst onto the scene for Collingwood in his debut season in no small part due to his intercept marking. Seems to have receded somewhat since then. Harris Andrews for the Lions has shown he has nous around taking intercept marks in spades as well.
jax
Guest
Yep, Sampi should have been awarded a free kick and had a shot on goal.
Michael Huston
Guest
The irony of Leo Barry being the saving grace in that grand final is that he was a dreadful player. I'm well aware I stand alone in this regard, especially amongst my fellow Swans supporters, but Leo Barry was an average at best defender. Gave away soooo many silly free kicks, rarely used his body the correct way, had shoddy disposals, and was beaten in one-on-ones so often it was incredible. He had some redeeming qualities, such as his marking skills, and his spoiling abilities. Plus, he's one of the fairest guys I've ever seen play football, so gotta love the bloke. Just never rated him. It's worth noting that even before Easton Wood and Alex Rance and co. all came along, two guys by the names of Josh Gibson and Ted Richards were absolutely phenomenal at intercept marking. They were the anchors behind their teams success in their respective back-lines IMO.
Michael Huston
Guest
I wouldn't even talk about dodgy grand finals being a West Coast supporter.
Jim
Guest
Like some hawks fans about 2012, there will always be some West Coast fans that will always whine about 2005. But given how close both GFs were in 05 and 06, there are probably some fairly strong gripes that a swans fan could raise too from '06 (to be honest I don't want to remember much of that grand final!).. In the end, 1 premiership each in my opinion was a very, very fitting split between two outstanding teams that were so very well matched across the park. Would of been an injustice in my book for one of them to have won both Grand Finals and the other neither.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Talk about blights on the game, the push out era was a dark period. Good riddance. Missed infringements in a pack like that are always going to be hard to spot though.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"The irony of Leo Barry’s mark is that it should not have occurred. Jolly should have been paid a free for hands in the back." Under the rules of the time there was nothing wrong with Cox's push on Jolly. But there was an obvious free kick missed as Leo took his mark, as you can see from this photo: http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/SydneySwans/Club%20Promos/2005-2.jpg
Blinky47
Guest
A Leo Barry mark significantly enabled by two Irish hands clenching a opposition players guernsey in direct contravention of AFL rules. Yes I am a disappointed West Coast supporter, Sampey may not have kicked the winning goal but he should have been afforded the opportunity, but that's life and nothing's going to change the final result.
Damo
Guest
I also wouldn't call it a precursor to the future when 95% of the Swans were in their defensive 50 at the end of a GF they were leading (and rightfully so).
Gecko
Guest
Good points Dougie. I'd go further and say that if a particular defender is key to their team's rebounding (as with Rance, Shaw, McGovern and Wood), their forward should only be providing 'good leading patterns' when the kicker up-field has plenty of time and is not going to 'blind bomb' the kick. If the kicker up field is under pressure, the forward should not be leading at all. The forward should be tagging the key rebounder.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
The irony of Leo Barry's mark is that it should not have occurred. Jolly should have been paid a free for hands in the back. I suppose it wouldn't have been anywhere near as dramatic though.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Dustin Fletcher was a 'modest' player, was he? Lol.
Drew
Guest
Dane rampe's been doing it nicely for the swans the last few weeks, as well as getting rid of some of the clangers that have previously marred his performance. - seeing that footage from '05 also reminds me that with LRT Sydney has a nice history of intercept markers.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
I thought Wood played a great game but some of his disposal was erratic. I reckon when a player peels off his opponent and takes an intercept mark it suggests two things: (1) other forwards aren't doing enough to occupy them and present a threat - i.e. not implementing good leading patterns, and/or (2) the kicker's delivery into the forward line is poor. Wood and Howe are great at the intercept mark and other modest players from bygone years like Nick Maxwell and Dustin Fletcher had a talent for this too. But the way to minimise their impact is to play through their opponent and make them more accountable. In today's game, because of zoning and less man-to-man defense, that's harder to do.