AFL Finals predictions

by Matthew Wood and Ben Roberts

Collingwood - undoubted number 1 chance for the premiership. Thomas missing the first week will not hurt them that much.

Matt's take:  The most fancied side to repeat since the Lions' against the Pies in 2002.  There's not a single weakness in their squad and, crucially, they have depth in their lower list - a "foot soldier" can be adequately replaced, rather than bringing in real rookies. 

Geelong - Realise I could end up with egg on my face on this one, but their second place on the ladder is a bit of a furphy promoted by a true home ground advantage at Kardinia Park. Have watched them a few times this year and they look old, coupled with being shorn of Abletts they lack the 'zazz' that made them unstoppable at times during 2007-2010. Its no shame - they have had their period in the sun and based on the AFL model may have gone longer at the top than reasonably expected. (EIC Matt currently yelling 'tag me in, tag me in!' WWF-style). That being said as Nick Davis once tried to say 'Form is temporary, class is permanent' (still not sure who he was referring to). Despite age, there is still class at the Cattery and they remain a chance. Number 4 challenger for Collingwood.

Matt's take:  I reckon the Cats have peaked for the year, but still probably have what it takes to be reckoned Collingwood's greatest threat.  They have a multitude of forward options - who never seem to fire at once, unless we're playing Melbourne/Gold Coast - and a defence which, while aging, can shut down the best.  The midfield - formerly a strength - is now the greatest question mark no matter how good Kelly, Bartel and Selwood are.  Strangely, stalwart fringe players David Wojcinski and Shannon Byrnes may be the players most vital to a successful finals campaign.

Hawthorn - I saw the Hawks last weekend and have pegged them as the Number 1 challenger for Collingwood. They are as hard at the ball as any side, their weakness is in their skills. If their skills are good, they have the best chance of beating anyone. They were awful by hand and foot on Saturday, but by force of effort just kept pushing the ball forward. Hodge is brilliant at winning the ball in close and Franklin is amazing, particularly when the game needs him to do something amazing. Then they have 20 other 'foot soldiers' playing as harder football as I have seen.

Matt's take:  If only they weren't injury-prone.  I can't agree with Ben's lack of skill comment as they are perhaps the most precise mid-to-long range kicking squad in the league.  Their trump card, as always, is Buddy Franklin and if he gets quality supply from Lewis, Sewell et al, the Hawks leap the Cats as threats.  Jam the midfield and Buddy doesn't get the chances - it's all so easy in theory, isn't it?

West Coast - Surprise packet of the season. Helped by fortress Subiaco - but only will get one final there at most. Number 2 Challenger for Collingwood. Inexperience will also count against them but they are pretty much assured of a preliminary final spot. Prelims and Granny's are far more a lottery than the other finals - in fact I don't think coaches can do much after semi-finals which is why I reckon the dogs sacking Eade is the wrong call an completely unfair. If the weather is fine, Nick Nat puts on a show for the ages they could do the business.

Matt's take:  Famously, half-way through the 1996 season, Rodney Eade was asked if his Swans could go all the way to the Grand Final.  His reply was "No, I don't think so - history says you need to have a few seasons in the finals before you make [that] leap".  The Swans surprised, but my guess it actually applies here - the Eagles have to travel and don't do that as well as in their 2004-07 heyday. If they surprise Collingwood in Week One, they're a chance to go all the way but, with Collingwood, that's a really big "if".

Carlton - For the first time in ages, a team outside the Top Four may be a decent chance (say, greater than 5%) to win it all.  And there are two (StK is the other)! Can challenge Collingwood in the midfield, but are let down by a strictly-average defence and the fact Brett Thornton still gets a game. Inconsistent as any team in the finals. On their day, devastating, but when they're not on they are abysmal and too reliant upon Chris Judd. Number 3 Challenger for Collingwood is a a choice of youth over experience (Geelong), but I'll go with it. Believe Brett Ratten (like Dean Laidley was) is a coach who can only develop a team so far, and he has hit his ceiling. Trade tip - Bryce Gibbs back to Adelaide (hometown and club needing class), for Kurt Tippett (Carlton needing a stronger key forward than Waite).

Matt's take: They'll make a Preliminary Final, at least - because one of the teams above them will slip up.  They have the beating of Essendon in Week One (cop that, Bomber!) and, should their Top Four opponent not be on the ball - I'm looking at you, Corio Bay - then they will surprise.  Partly also because Judd/Murphy is becoming the New New Judd/Cousins, replacing Ablett/Bartel.  I love Ben's trade idea, as well. 

St Kilda - When I saw the Cats play the Saints at the 'G in June, it was perhaps the most painful night of my life. They were horrible and I vowed they would never win the flag with as morose an individual as Ross Lyon as coach. They had no second gear, plan B or creative vision that night apart from setting records for the number of taggers they employed. They have improved, winning six straight, and are even showing some attacking flair. This though only rates them Number 5 Challenger for Collingwood.

Matt's take: It will take superhuman efforts from Nick Riewoldt and co. to vault them into Preliminary Final week.  In opposition to Collingwood, their recruitment policy has been shown up for its horrible flaws - they have great blue chip talent (Riewoldt, Goddard etc) but players 30-40 on their list may as well play for Balwyn in the EFL.  

Sydney - Only the spirit that they can show when not the favourites gives them a whiff, but Adam Goodes is petulant when things aren't going his way. Number 6 challenger for Collingwood.

Matt's take: Can we play every game in Sydney?  No, not at the Olympic Stadium, at the SCG.  No?  OK, FOOTY TRIP TIME!!  Everyone remember to make sure both your girlfriends don't turn up at the same time to pick you up from the airport.

Essendon - Riddled with injury and too inconsisent. No hope. Number 7 Challenger for Collingwood.
Matt's take: As long as Hird has the team playing the way they  should, even making the finals in a strong season is reason to be satisfied.  Jimmy won't omit all his ruckmen, as Knights did two seasons ago, and nor should he as with mobile big men like Paddy Ryder and Tom Belchambers, the Dons look better set up in the middle than at any time since the late '80s when Simon Madden was in his pomp.

McGinnity and Petterd ask how far is too far

After young Eagle Patrick McGinnity's suspension and fine for allegedly threatening to "rape" Ricky Petterd's mother, it's perhaps time to examine how much we value winning and the extent to which we're prepared to go for victory.

To threaten sexual relations - especially rape - to someone's relatives is off limits and the AFL has made a statement by penalising the player alleged to have made the offending remark. That McGinnity's manager David Sierakowski effectively accused Petterd of having a "thin skin" is akin to a guilty plea. It also reflects poorly on Sierakowski as it legitimises McGinnity's choice of words. Agent or no, to attack the Melbourne player for not obeying the "code of silence" is undignified and of Sierakowski we can say, to paraphrase his own words "if he had his time over again, I think he'd do it differently."

The AFL has led the sporting world in racial vilification laws and now respect for women. Unfortunately it will take incidents where players are rightly made an example of to raise public awareness about those lines not to be crossed. 

courtesy: foxsports.com.au

In Australian sport, we have a proud history of letting what happens on the field stay on the field. The same phrase could be used to hang Ricky Petterd, saying these things happen in the name of healthy competition. But surely competition which some people believe so important that they threaten to rape an opposing player's Mum cannot be healthy? By saying such things as McGinnity has been suspended for - and Adam Selwood was accused of in 2007 - competition has ceased to be healthy and become pathological.

(Even though Selwood was proven not guilty, is it coincidence that both these incidents have come from the West Coast Eagles? He certainly said something to which Des Headland could take offence. Am I theorising too much on this? Perhaps.)

As the late Terry Jenner described "Cricket in the '70s", when he began playing sledging was something as simple as an finely-placed comment about a player's technique. Even defenders of the art suggest sport has always been full of sledging, they do so in ways highlighting the differences between eras: while W.G. Grace was renowned for gamesmanship and sledging, his most famous such utterance "They're here to watch me bat, not you bowl" still refers to on-field, rather than off-field habits. Over time, cricket sledging degenerated into the celebrated insults such as possibly-apocryphal-but-probably-not "What does Brian Lara's c**k taste like?" and it's inflammatory response "Ask your wife".

Feel free to blame Patrick McGinnity. But also look for reasons behind why he chose to use such a slur: it was to gain a competitive advantage. Rather than being a player willing to do "whatever it takes" to win, this player was prepared to - accidentally or deliberately - compromise his integrity to gain a small victory over an opponent.

So what leads such a player to this position?

Since being a second-rate sporting nation during the 1970s - a funk which came to a head with a haul of one bronze medal at the 1976 Montreal Olympics - Australia has funded successful sportsmen through social, business and government means. This has produced a number of world-class athletes and some dominant sporting teams. Moreover, it's created the expectation for results. It's a simple matter of cause and effect: you stop performing, you don't get funded/sponsored.

That expectation of results is reflected in the basest terms in professional leagues across the country. Professionalism and athleticism are perhaps the most sought-after qualities in all the major football codes. It takes incredible discipline from a young age to "make it" in any sport and successful athletes generally put more pressure on themselves than any other outside force. They do so to get the best out of themselves and to help a team win.

This is not to say that Patrick McGinnity personally felt pressure to perform or to win (though it may be the case). It simply reflects that as the dollars and time invested in sport increase, those doing the spending expect some Return On Investment. The fans and coach expect their players to do their absolute best to win - and often, if that includes "mentally disintegrating" their opponents, that's OK. McGinnity undoubtedly understands that fans and a multitude of support staff have given of themselves to a cause he values (himself or his team), so wants to do his bit to repay that favour. He just miscalculated how to effect this repayment.

courtesy: in.com

It can, however, be a slippery road. As Stephanie Rice discovered last year, sport is a business: certain brands refuse to be associated with other corporate or social identities seen as damaged goods, no matter how much short term gain there may be. In time, a "just win, baby" philosophy can backfire. Perhaps the greatest Australian example of this occurred when the TAC pulled sponsorship from AFL clubs Richmond and Collingwood as a result of several traffic offences levied against players.

The league could take a lesson from the NBA, who suffered a partly self-inflicted black eye as a result of a late-80s "Bad Boys" publicity campaign built around then-champs the Detroit Pistons and their unsociable basketball. The AFL wants none of this. To ensure their brand integrity, prevent any recourse and hopefully, in the name of good common sense, they have censured Patrick McGinnity.

Competition has created great leagues for all of Australia's football codes. But as a sporting community, let's ban hackneyed journalistic phrases like "win at all costs" until we work out if that's actually what we want. Winning is great, but it isn't everything.

The Dawson Quandary

The other day, disgusted as I was as usual with the televisiual feast that Videotron's cable service had to offer, I delved into my movie collection and busted out the “The Club”, a 1980 film based on the play by the same name by David Williamson. It delivered quite a few highlights: a bemused Tom Hafey acting as an assistant coach to Jack Thompson; Rene Kink's “performance” as Tank O'Donohue and especially being able to spot Ray Shaw, Peter Daicos and Ronnie Wearmouth as it's best to remember them.

After the movie I jumped online briefly and the first footy headline I happened upon was “Knights-mare continues”, a stinging rebuke aimed at Essendon's performance against the West Coast Eagles. Eagle Mark LeCras slotted twelve goals, four-to-six of which were on beleaguered and probably overmatched Don Heath Hocking. Why four-to-six? Because Knights says four were kicked directly on Hocking, while pretty much everyone else says young Heath shopped six.

You can absolutely watch “The Club” substituting the Essendon hierarchy with the main characters and it makes perfect sense: a proud club that's down on it's luck with a coach who's struggling to get the most out of his men. (Except of course the subplot about The Club President punching a stripper, no-one's alleging anything of that sort here).

In that great example of Australian footy machismo, The Club coach Laurie Holden is slammed by all quarters for refusing to move his captain Danny Rowe off a hot player (Wilson) while The Club is copping a thrashing. Rowe has a stinker, The Club loses the match and Wilson is the best player on the ground. When talking with head-case rookie superstar Geoff Hayward, Holden describes his thinking in the following manner:

GEOFF: I don't want to play the devil's advocate, but you've done some pretty bad coaching yourself lately.
LAURIE: Such as?
GEOFF: Such as not shifting Danny off Wilson last week. He was getting thrashed.
LAURIE: I know.
GEOFF: Wilson was leaving him for dead.
LAURIE: (irritably) I know.
GEOFF: Then why didn't you shift him?
LAURIE: Because he was desperate to keep trying. He's never been that badly beaten before. I know it was the wrong thing to do but Danny's been the backbone of my team for eight years and I felt I owed him something. Besides, I doubt whether there's anyone in the team who could've done any better.

Matthew Knights and Laurie Holden both fell victim to the Dawson Quandary – when to move an overmatched player off a hot superstar. We can assume Knights was aware of Hocking struggling. And they're not the only two coaches to have been pilloried for arriving at the Quandary: Hawk Zac Dawson was left to stand a rampant Anthony Rocca in 2006 and the Pie forward kicked 10. Dawson, 19 at the time, weighed approximately 80 kilograms opposed to the 105 kegs sported on the 29 year-old Rocca frame. That decision and subsequent media frenzy nearly caused the young full-back's career to disintegrate on the spot and it's only in the last eighteen months that he's found redemption after barely sniffing the Senior side again at Hawthorn and finally finding his way to St. Kilda. His coach, Alastair Clarkson, said he left Dawson there to get experience; but you've gotta ask yourself when this becomes simply flogging a dead horse.

Do we hang Knights immediately or congratulate him for sticking to his guns and his show of faith? I guess it depends on his assessment of “where” Essendon are. From all accounts, Knights won the top job in 2007 with an optimistic view of the Bombers' playing list that appealed to the coaching search panel; his assessment was that major changes wouldn't be needed in order for Bombers success. His direct opponent for the job, current Richmond boss Damien Hardwick, deigned it necessary to blowtorch most of the playing group and build from scratch. In essence, the decision came down to Knights' short-term optimism and the promise of results within two-to-three years versus Hardwick's crystal ball pleading youth development and therefore future hope.

I'm not a big fan of fan-pressure forcing out coaches, but fans basically demand one of two things: results or hope. Results speak for themselves – games won, and a team in the throes of competing for a title. Hope for the future is probably an even easier “sell”: fans can stomach the word “rebuilding” for two seasons if the promise of results is there – even three years in some cases. But as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, results must follow hope and if wins are scarce after year three the coach finds himself in very warm liquid. Knights won the Senior Coach job promising results, not hope, and as such his (let's be generous) choice to leave Hocking on LeCras is either naive or negligent coaching. If, however, the Dons' recent form downturn has shunted this year from the “win now” category to“development” his decision is less damning.

I'm not privy to the goings-on behind closed doors at Windy Hill and so, like the rest of the world, I have no idea if 2010 is now pigeonholed under “results”, “hope” or “strange and cruel hybrid leaving the fans and media second guessing everything the coach says and does”. I hope for Knights' sake that Essendon FC knows this year's category: because if the players, administration and coach aren't on the same page the only way this can end is with an “I-told-you-so” smile on the face of Damien Hardwick and a dole-queue grimace on that of Knights.