People are hard to please. A common gripe about the first round of AFL finals was that we had three poor games.
The weekend was saved, according to some, by the gripping Port Adelaide versus West Coast finale.
Perhaps people have been spoiled by a season where close games have been the norm, with many a twist and turn along the way, but good football comes in many forms.
There was a beauty in watching Adelaide dismantle GWS piece by piece in the second quarter of their clash. Their organisation was supreme, their work rate phenomenal, their ball movement clean and precise under strong pressure. They showed up the Giants who were poor in all of these areas.
In the absence of Rory Sloane and after the loss of Brodie Smith, it was easy to admire the Crouch brothers doing the heavy lifting, Tom Lynch’s tireless efforts to provide a link, and the masterful Crows defence, keeping their opponents to just six goals despite conceding 52 inside 50s.
The lowest scoring games are often the most intense, and if Geelong versus Richmond was anything, it was that.
Football matches, just like players, come in all shapes and sizes. A free-flowing shoot-out with 20 goals a side is entertaining, with offence the order of the day. But when defence is on top, pressure is high, and the game is an arm-wrestle, there is tension in every possession. Every goal is vital, and each one kicked carries the weight of many more.
The electricity of the atmosphere thanks to the success-starved Tiger army only heightened how much was stake. Their ability to turn a 100,000-seat colosseum into an intimate and intimidating cauldron was something to behold.
And once that game broke open, how could we not marvel at the sight of Dustin Martin disposing of Geelong opponents, again and again, scything his way across the field before delivering the ball to a teammate with poise and precision.
The Dusty versus Danger narrative has been a talking point for most of the year, and the Tiger champion took over as top seed in most eyes after Friday night. Composure was the difference between the two. Martin hit dangerous targets regularly. Dangerfield rushed himself too often, even when in space, and too many of his possessions ended in Richmond hands.
The Sydney defeat of Essendon was the most predictable result of the weekend, but served the Swans’ historical comeback story well.
The match was over at half-time, but that’s a fair price to pay in order to see an exhilarating 10-goal quarter such as Sydney turned on, which in a final is as rare as rocking horse shit.
Buddy Franklin only played a cameo, but what a virtuoso little performance it was, three goals in five minutes to open the term, as if to remind everyone that Dusty doesn’t have a mortgage on the title of best player in the game.
One of the great things about finals is seeing which lesser lights stand up to be counted. Callum Sinclair was superb in the first quarter when the heat was on, trouncing All-Australian Michael Hurley, and setting the tone for his team.
The Swans now have to go to Melbourne to beat Geelong, which recent history says they’ll do, and what a mouth-watering preliminary final in Adelaide awaits.
As for Port Adelaide against West Coast, well, what can be said?
The Eagles played as well as they can in that opening 40 minutes, every movement sharp, efficient in attack, miserly in defence. The Power comprehensively thumped them from that point on, yet couldn’t kick straight.
Any final that finishes with a kick after the siren of the second extra-time period can only go down as a classic, regardless of what preceded it. And in that sort of game, legendary moments are created.
Charlie Dixon played one of the great individual finals games. He was brutal in his physicality, vice-like with his marking, and as dangerous on the ground as he was in the air. But, by only kicking 3.6 from his scoring opportunities, he cost his team the game.
Charlie Dixon (Photo by Daniel Kalisz/Getty Images)
Eric Mackenzie had been in the football wilderness for 12 months from halfway through last year to mid-year this season. His match-saving effort to get the ball out of bounds without conceding a behind or deliberate free in the final minute of regular play will go down as one of the great finals moments in history.
And what about Luke Shuey. Has there been a more casual after-the-siren goal to win a game, let alone a final? He walked in and popped it through from 40 metres as if he was just having one last shot before leaving the training track.
He nailed that goal, his second, gun-barrel straight, after a tireless game that consisted of 32 touches and 11 tackles.
As for the controversial tackle and free kick. To the letter of the law, it may not have been there, but in the same situation almost all umpires would have paid it. The fact it was Shuey, a renowned ducker and shrugger, appeared to give the controlling ump a moment of pause.
Port should have been 4-5 goals to the good before extra-time was required. And then to be unable to ice the game from the position they were in, 13 points up in that extra-time period? They’ve only got themselves to blame. And now they’ve got six months to do so.
There was plenty to like about the weekend’s football, and you didn’t even need to look that hard.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I guess I have been arguing throughout this that while technically, with the benefit of multiple slo-mo replays the contact was not high, it looked sufficiently bad in real time that I don't see it as a mistake as such because every other field umpire would have blown the whistle for it as well.
Freo As
Guest
I couldn't give a stuff about that personal beef. If you still maintain that was a free, you are seeing it from preconceptions or are incapable or unwilling to join the simplest of dots.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
True, in this case all you've got to do is know the rule and watch the video. I have, and it was a free kick. But Paul and I are referring to anon more widely, and the fact that people know quite literally nothing about him yet he portrays himself as someone to be listened to, when really all he really is is just some anonymous keyboard warrior. I'm genuinely intrigued to know more about anon, but I'm not holding my breath.
Freo As
Guest
That makes no sense. Read the rule, watch the video. It's all you need (and some comprehension or objectivity, but not even a lot).
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Paul's completely right. But anon, dude, you don't even have to have played footy to gain legitimacy on this site. I've never played footy, and I've been watching the game for under half a decade, and I'll readily admit that there's certain areas that I just don't know about. I don't have the years of historical knowledge of the sport, either - I'm simply not old enough to have been involved in the game for very long. But I'm an open book. People readily know who I am, who I support, my history and all that. Seriously - when you're on a footy website, and you refuse to reveal a team you support, anything about your footy history, openly admit to being drunk during games (I think you said that once), am resistant to acknowledge you're wrong and seem to despise so many areas of the match - well, there's no wonder people get frustrated with you.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Cheers PaulD. Yep, off on our end-of-season trip this weekend! Look out Echuca, here I come!!
John
Guest
Rubbish first week of finals low scoring and 3 of the games weren't even close. If the point of the bye before finals is so every team is fresh and at their best well it missed the mark this year.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Here's the thing though anon, Dougie has said in the past he has played footy for decades, I think still plays masters footy - when he talks about his view of the tackle and his views on tackling in general, I'm far more inclined to listen to him because I know he's speaking from a lot of experience, and I'm inclined to trust his opinion more, because of that. But you - no name, no team, who talk of who you support, what your experience is, no articles, no personal anecdotes of what you do in your life that involves football - in short, no credentials at all to explain why anyone should listen to you.
Freo As
Guest
Lower chest because that's where initial contact was made. If you want to claim bicep, it made no difference to the way the rule is written. Watch it more carefully and you see Shuey's arm lift affecting Polec's arm directly and you can stop talking out of your shfincta. Shuey's a serial practitioner with the high free, but only really of passing interest.
anon
Roar Pro
I can see why the umpire would pay that a free kick, especially to the naked eye. I think he deserved the free. He didn't deserve the free kick anymore than a diver deserves a penalty kick because he successfully tricked the umpire.
Raimond
Roar Guru
I admit I only watched five minutes of the first quarter myself. You didn't miss much, it seems.
Mattyb
Guest
Paul's right,and some people are being far to black and white here in assuming Shuey was trying to draw a free,he has every right to break the tackle because it was he who won the ball. Everyone understands the rule,but some are just assuming what Shueys intentions were in that split second. Again Pauls right that it's Polac who needs to learn from this. In hindsight he needs to rethink his split second decision. He laid a weak tackle,that when broken moved his arm to Shueys head. What he needed to do was abandon his original poor attempt to tackle and start again,what he chose to do was continue through and apply added pressure to the head,once the strength in the Shueys arms became less of a factor. This caused Shueys head to be tackled far to vigorously and the correct to high decision to be called. It's all split second stuff and Polac was found wanting in this instance. The umpire interperated what he sore under a complicated situation. Again it needs to be emphasised we all understand the rule,it's the interpretation of what Shueys intentions were,which is awfully hard to know.
Paul D
Roar Guru
So why did you feel the need to emphasise lower chest originally if now you're coming back saying it was below the shoulder? And it wasn't below the shoulder, not once Shuey raised his arm to fend off the tackler and Polec slipped up and coathangered him
Freo As
Guest
More the fevered imagination of those having crushing grudges against Polec distracting here. The bicep, chest, care factor. All below shoulder height. The rule is there, you are dancing around it. Port did lose, care factor zero, the AFL shoulda admitted the error.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Disagree. The umpire got it dead right. Lower chest level my foot - he tackled him around the bicep. Right in line with his chest. Based on refereeing this year it's a free kick every day of the year. No mistake to admit. You'll notice that the only place it's a mistake is in the fevered imaginations of people with crazy grudges against the umps too. Reality is it was a free kick, Port lost, end of story
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
I can see why the umpire would pay that a free kick, especially to the naked eye. I think he deserved the free. I don't think it's remotely fair to say the wrong team won - West Coast were good enough to fight back and stay in the contest, whilst Port continued to spray their chances. Any team is stiff to lose in extra time, but credit to West Coast. However, if you compare that Shuey free kick to the video the AFL presented to clubs at the start of the year, which showed Toby McLean leaning slightly with his legs and lifting his arms slightly as he was tackled, with the tackle sliding above the shoulder, the Luke Shuey incident frame-by-frame was identical. Really hard to objectively differentiate between the two. And yet the Toby McLean incident was presented to all clubs at the start of the season with the instructions that this scenario would no longer be paid a free kick for too high, i.e. their interpretation of 'too high' free kicks was changing for the 2017 season. So it does paint the AFL into a corner when on the basis of its own guidelines given to the clubs at the start of the year, the Luke Shuey free should not have been paid, yet the AFL have come out and defended it. Personally, I think the AFL were foolish to change the interpretation at the start of the year. There was too much whining last year by the media and some in the public about frees given for 'too high' to blokes like Selwood, Shuey and McLean, who had all become experts at lowering their torso and shrugging the tackle above their shoulders. Players should have been coached to tackle lower and better. If you tackle low, then good players will develop the art of lifting their arms out of a tackle to release a handball - but there's nothing wrong with that either. A good tackle well-executed will still pin a bloke.
Freo As
Guest
Nice cop out. Why should I care how many games the umpires umpired? He got it wrong. This years rule gives "arm lifts" of the tackled player as one reason to call play on if the tackle slips high. It also states the starting point of the tackle. Which for the Polec tackle starts just about low chest level and is pushed up by the Weagles armlift. The AFL just don't want to lay such a critical mistake on the umpire. But they could face up to the fact of umpires falling into old habits as the season rolls on, yet again.
TC123
Guest
A lemon sucking cat. Nice
Paul D
Roar Guru
The only person who has learning to do is Jared Polec. Umpire was spot on, if it had been a Port player tackled like that and the ump called play on and the Eagles wound up winning all the Port fans would be screaming about head high tackles not being paid. There's no whitewash, and what on earth learning opportunities are there? The ump who blew the free kick had something like 287 games under his belt. I'm happy to trust his judgment over you plonkers sounding off on a website
Freo As
Guest
You don't understand the rule if you think the umpire got that call right. The AFL's whitewash of it is an opportunity to learn from the mistake is lost.