Sydney star Tom Papley has made his disdain for Essendon’s controversially aggressive style of play at the SCG brutally clear, slamming the club in a series of interviews.
Essendon coach Brad Scott had promised earlier in the week that the Bombers would play with extra aggression and intensity in a bid to kick-start a return to finals, with the style dubbed the ‘Essendon Edge’.
It manifested in a series of spotfires at the SCG, most notably a controversial first-quarter incident in which key forward Peter Wright ironed out Swan Harry Cunningham in a marking contest, for which he is expected to face major scrutiny from Match Review Officer Michael Christian.
Papley, who was arguably best afield with 24 disposals and four goals in the Swans’ 30-point win, first hit out at half time, accusing the Bombers of dirty tactics behind the play.
“They’re trying to get after us, it’s all off the ball,” Papley told Channel 7.
“We’re just worried about the ball. We’ll keep being hard in the contest and get the job done.”
Following the Swans’ win, Papley doubled down in the rooms after the match, though he described his earlier comments as being made in ‘the heat of the moment’.
“Brad Scott came out and said they want to have that effort and edge – we knew they were going to come out. Obviously Peter Wright took it a bit too far, but that’s footy and we move on from it,” he said.
“They were still getting into us and getting into us – we knew we can play four-quarter footy now.
“We all love footy being tough, but you’ve got to do it for four quarters.”
However, Papley saved his most explosive comments for an interview with 3AW shortly after, claiming Wright will ‘have a nice holiday’ for his Cunningham bump and describing the Bombers’ approach as ‘all a facade’.
“Obviously yeah, he [Wright] is going to have a nice holiday,” he said. “You can be tough and do all that stuff, but you’ve still got to be able to play four quarters.
“They were hitting us behind the play and things like that, and we stuck to it and we played four quarters and we got the win.
They’re trying to do that stuff and I don’t know if it’s them or not.
“Brad Scott came out and said it’s the Essendon way… you can pretend to be tough, but you’ve still got to win the ball and win the game.
“Just down the field free kicks… it’s all a facade I think, but anyway.”
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
Thugs as players and unpleasant, narcissistic coaches …
Cec
Roar Rookie
Wasn’t that Michaels and Lepitch.
Laurie
Roar Rookie
Yes it could backfire. I’m not saying they should target him by the way. I’m not an Essendon supporter..or Sydney. It’s just rare to see someone break the players ‘ code ‘ the way Papley did and he may get reminded about it in the same way that Collingwood jumped all over Langdon after his All duck, no dinner comment.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
yeah. funny that. that is what they have all been told will happen, they must commit to, and will be punished if they don't. and no they are not. it's a free kick against YOU if you lower your head and drive it in to another player to try and win a headhigh free (if you are tackled). and if you put your head down below another player's legs, in an unsafe way, no, it's a free kick against you even if you get a boot in the head there are many ways a player can get sconned and have no recourse under the rules. at the moment. this is not that. players flying for marks should fly for marks. others should fly, or let them fly.
Lincoln
Roar Rookie
Players are losing the skill of situational awareness and body positioning because they're trusting the rules that no matter what they do, the head will be protected.
GWSingapore
Roar Rookie
Essendon's tactics are not surprising. The coach and his brother were thugs as players. Tim Lane described their bashing of Nick Riewoldt as the equivalent of hitting someone with a car and then backing it up over them.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
rightly or wrongly, if he had kept the ball as his object and tried to mark or spoil he probably could have cleaned the Swan up - and maybe even have won the ball. at slow motion he certainly could have spoiled, such was the dip in the ball. of course he would have to accept the risk of body contact where he had less control - no bracing (not that I think he had any real risk of injury anyway, given my rudimentary non-understanding of physics). he didn't, the defence seems to be that he prioritised his own wellbeing over the ball or the other player. it is therefore effectively a guilty plea. a call for mitigation -- the interesting case that essendon should use is the Lynch one from last year. where a space clogger (with no eyes for the ball) copped a fearful whack from Lynch as he slipped/mistimed a leap with a defender at his side. i genuinely didn't know if Lynch would get off or not. it's different to this but perhaps similar enough to be Essendon's best card, if they want to play a card. me, i would be counselling a guilty, sorry, rule is confusing, no malice, we will try and be better, and just cop the 3 weeks. and a shout to Harry Cunningham.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
(interestingly... careless severe high is 3+ at Tribunal... while Intentional starts at 4... like many things, seems wrong?)
DTM
Roar Rookie
Don't forget the Scott brothers attack on Nick Reiwoldt. There's a pattern.
DTM
Roar Rookie
I'm not a fan of Papley - he's like a lot of small forwards. However, allowing him to get under their skin would be a big reflection on Essendon. If the Bombers do target Papley in their next match, he's likely to kick 6 and we'll see another Essendon player taking a holiday or paying a big fine. I'm sure the coaches and players are already focused on their round 3 match against St Kilda. Then they have Port away so if they are not careful, it will be 1-3 and another year of mediocrity.
Bangkokpussey
Roar Rookie
He should get 4 to 6 weeks. The same as maynard should've got. To be allowed to play in a grand final imo was disgusting. Absolutely no consequences. Melbourne can rightfully feel there was an injustce and imo it tarnishes collingwoods premiership.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
And he was on the wing. In space. And he ran an angle to intercept the ball. That’s what intercepting players do. They run into the path of other players as a matter of course. It’s not a road with lanes where “x” has right of way. It’s like you want to blame the victim for Essendon either not weighting the ball correctly or not seeing how the defence was zoned. And therefore the Swan should allow the Bombers to get the ball - because Wright is either leading, a forward, or big. Or choose to spoil. Or bump, himself. It’s just laughable. The ball is the object. The players are incidental especially when the ball is in the air - hence the various rules that prioritise the player trying to mark. Nothing the Swan did was reckless in that Jono Brown Crazy Brave manner. Just normal footy and a poor response from Wright. All is talk about Wright’s right to defend himself. From what? A guy not even looking to make contact with him, who is about 80% his size and with no momentum. It’s just wrong analysis. That doesn’t mean I think that Wright intentionally clouted him. Only he can respond to that. He doesn’t seem a “dirty” player to me. It was careless. It was severe. If it was seen as intentional we would be in 8-10 week territory. Wikipedia’s message to all - stop the bumping of vulnerable players. It’s weak. Bump a guy who expects the bump or should expect it, and can bump back. Executed well, a brilliant part of the game. Big guys taking freebies on smaller ball players when they are wide open - it looks like what it is…
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
Merrett is the hardest player on their list, and one of the few I actually rate as footballers. No wonder they’re so mediocre, and have been all century. Luke Parker exposed them on field and now Tom Papley has exposed them off field. I’m sure the Bloods are trembling at the expectation of their next hard game against the Bumblers … :laughing:
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
Not tough enough to have won a final this century … :laughing:
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
You’ve obviously never played the game, Lincoln. It’s easy being an arm chair tough guy. The player going for the mark has his eyes on the ball. The player coming in late to spoil has a duty of care not to recklessly clean his opponent up like this. 4 weeks to the big galoot …
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
— COMMENT DELETED —
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
A player with eyes on the ball marking the ball gets smashed high from behind by a much larger player, knocked out and carried off the ground, and you think it’s not even worth a free kick? Are you umpire #6 who was right in front of the incident who didn’t pay the free? What a joke you and the umpires are …
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
The Bumblers have been soft for the whole century, having not even managed to win a final in this time. Zac Merrett is about their only current player I rate …
Cec
Roar Rookie
So andy if that was your kid taking a shot to the head like that you’d be ”okay” with it “play on”? You’d tell your kid to “get up…you should have done better” to protect oneself? “Your fine son it’s all part of the modern game”. Yeah…nah that doesn’t pass the pub test and won’t pass the tribunal. It’ll be a 3++ week holiday for Wright. I think the AFL are about to set a new standard on duty of care and nil tolerance on head contact in that type of contest scenario.
Cec
Roar Rookie
You can play with an “edge”, that’s fine, but there are consequences. Plenty of cameras around, higher expectations & rules protecting the head and duty of care, resulting in greater potential to losing players through suspension. Scott May be asking something from his players that doesn’t come naturally for some and that can be a distraction perhaps. What does this change in style of play say to his playing group? Scott stated in the post match something like “we can sit and watch an athletic contest or compete”. As a player how does one interpret that from their coach? - “we’re not good enough…our coach doesn’t back our skills to improve”? Is Scott’s old school approach really suited to modern day footy?