The 2013 Finals Thread

[DeeZee 7,445]

Happy to see Ricky and Jared play finals.

What an absolute dud Jack Riewoldt is isnt he?

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Anyone think Mitch Robinson is available? Or that Malthouse is not a fan? I don't think so!!

EJ Holden......mmmm....

[beelzebub 23,383]

Richmond were unlucky to the nth (or is that 9th) degree !!

[rjay 25,091]

Saw this in an article in the Age

A shocked Buckley lamented his side's shoddy disposal, including 27 Collingwood kicks ending with Port Adelaide, which he said must be a "world record". "Our use by hand and by foot was deplorable, and that's as bad as we've been all year," he said. "I didn't see that coming".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/shocked-buckley-says-pies-must-leave-past-behind-20130908-2td55.html#ixzz2eIC4DFTR

Where have I heard that before????

Must be a pre requisite at the collywobbles.

Made me laugh.

He's used that one during the season as well, it must be a Collingwood thing. Their current and past coaches seem to have a problem seeing things coming. Mick must have been the only all seeing coach at Collingwood.

[DemonOX 8,800]

Richmond were unlucky to the nth (or is that 9th) degree !!

Geez bb that's very corny.

What were u thinking???

[DemonOX 8,800]

He's used that one during the season as well, it must be a Collingwood thing. Their current and past coaches seem to have a problem seeing things coming. Mick must have been the only all seeing coach at Collingwood.

They might need their eyes checked I reckon or its in the handbook they receive when they are inducted.

Edited September 8, 2013 by DemonOX

[beelzebub 23,383]

Often when finals roll around its much of a .....well we all know

But this is a great year of watching footy in finals.We dont KNOW the outcomes we have to watch. Its not a given,

GreatFooty ( bugger Carlscum though )

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Of course it's possible, either scenario is possible, that is my point and always has been.

In 5 years time we may watch Toumpas running around at Casey and Ollie winning the Norm Smith medal; alternatively Toumpas may go on to have a stellar career and Ollie may never improve. But on their first year efforts you'd have to say Ollie's in front and perhaps the reason the port midfield is good is because of him not the other way around. There are always alternatives its not just cut and dried.

Oh and the personal stuff, you know exactly what I mean so let's not play dumb.

Right. So, if you accept (as you do) that this year isn't determinative of the issue, then making statements as many are doing that we made a mistake in taking Toumpas is unfair, given that Toumpas could yet end up better than Wines. This has been my point all along, and comments like bub's frustrate me endlessly because they speak as though the matter is done and dusted, we mucked up and it's end of that story.

Your part about Port's midfield being where it is because of Wines is a pretty weak argument. They have Boak, Ebert, Hartlett and Cassisi as well. Boak and Ebert are true A-grade stars, Hartlett's not far behind. They have a much more complete midfield and Wines has been a valuable addition to it, rather than is the core of it.

As for the personal stuff, I'm not playing dumb - I'm genuinely not being personal about any of this. If you're referring to the past, feel free to enlighten me (by PM).

[DemonFrog 1,356]

So when do you think Collingwood will sack Buckley?

[Guest]

So when do you think Collingwood will sack Buckley?

When Eddie McGuire is no longer president/engaging in a sexual relationship with him

[titan_uranus 25,043]

I don't want to get in this argument but Essendon were demoted because they cheated, it's assumed that if they didn't, they wouldn't have performed well enough to make the finals.

If an athlete is found to have used drugs then his placing is revoked because it was gained illegally.

I don't think this is correct. Essendon were demoted because they breached the rules regarding bringing the game into disrepute and conduct unbecoming. They didn't necessarily need to cheat in any way to breach those rules, and the general consensus is that the breached the rules through their inept standards of governance and their disregard of their players' safety in not being diligent and pushing the boundaries.

As far as I know, there's not once this year been an argument that any substance Essendon took in 2012 has affected their performance in 2013. As it stands, there is still no charge that there was performance enhancement in 2012, either, but that's another issue.

Essendon was punished by the AFL for what happened last year, and the AFL saw fit to banish them from the 2013 finals, as is their right. I don't think it's fair, though, to say that the punishment was because it is assumed that Essendon had an unfair advantage in 2013.

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

Role players are vital, but I have my concerns about Richmond. Jake King, Dan Jackson, Chaplin as the second tall defender when he's very much a float off man, Morris, Petterd, Tuck. No doubt the expansion sides have hurt their depth of talent. Carlton are much the same, especially when they run Armfield, Bell and Curnow through the midfield. But a guy who was really in as a role player did a tremendous job in Duigan.

Although I think at the end of it all the biggest difference was Richmond lost a runner early in Conca. Then Judd got involved and in terms of elite mids it became 2 (in Judd and Murphy) against one in Cotchin. Deledio just isn't the type of guy who says finals performer and Dustin Martin continues to be a lot of flash but not a lot of substance.

I think if you win these 4 categories (and they are all linked of course) then you often win a final:

1. The ruck. A big man at the contest and around the ground is huge.

2. Dominant mid or mids. Having that 1 or 2 guy who just keeps winning the ball is huge

3. Ability to grind, holding up when you're against play and keep on going when you have it

4. Winning the battle of depth players, the bottom 6 so to speak

[DeeSpencer 26,082]

I don't think this is correct. Essendon were demoted because they breached the rules regarding bringing the game into disrepute and conduct unbecoming. They didn't necessarily need to cheat in any way to breach those rules, and the general consensus is that the breached the rules through their inept standards of governance and their disregard of their players' safety in not being diligent and pushing the boundaries.

As far as I know, there's not once this year been an argument that any substance Essendon took in 2012 has affected their performance in 2013. As it stands, there is still no charge that there was performance enhancement in 2012, either, but that's another issue.

Essendon was punished by the AFL for what happened last year, and the AFL saw fit to banish them from the 2013 finals, as is their right. I don't think it's fair, though, to say that the punishment was because it is assumed that Essendon had an unfair advantage in 2013.

Depends on your definition of cheating doesn't it.

It's very simplistic but you can say.

A) They broke an AFL law

B) The did it in a pursuit to get better

Therefore in doing A + B that means they cheated which is the same thing as getting an unfair advantage.

But they are certainly being punished in 2013 for what they did in 2012. But if Essendon took their rightful spot in 6th or 7th it's very likely Collingwood would've knocked them off. Richmond might have beaten Port as well. And then both those 2 would've won. At the moment we have no more Collingwood, no more Richmond and I really hope no more Carlton next week. Now if someone can just do something about Hawthorn.

[beelzebub 23,383]

I don't think this is correct. Essendon were demoted because they breached the rules regarding bringing the game into disrepute and conduct unbecoming. They didn't necessarily need to cheat in any way to breach those rules, and the general consensus is that the breached the rules through their inept standards of governance and their disregard of their players' safety in not being diligent and pushing the boundaries.

As far as I know, there's not once this year been an argument that any substance Essendon took in 2012 has affected their performance in 2013. As it stands, there is still no charge that there was performance enhancement in 2012, either, but that's another issue.

Essendon was punished by the AFL for what happened last year, and the AFL saw fit to banish them from the 2013 finals, as is their right. I don't think it's fair, though, to say that the punishment was because it is assumed that Essendon had an unfair advantage in 2013.

Actually what you suppose is pretty well on the mark, but , if we go to the elephant...do we ? then it is the motive. I think it's reasonable then to go to the idea RF suggests that there was cheating in mind. Some call it pushing the envelope ,some playing grey, whatever. . I think Essendon sought an advantage beyond the fence. its the intent here that sets the picture. I think they cheated really poorly but seek to cheat. yes. it certainly wasnt a health and fitness regiment they sought.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Depends on your definition of cheating doesn't it.

It's very simplistic but you can say.

A) They broke an AFL law

B) The did it in a pursuit to get better

Therefore in doing A + B that means they cheated which is the same thing as getting an unfair advantage.

But they are certainly being punished in 2013 for what they did in 2012. But if Essendon took their rightful spot in 6th or 7th it's very likely Collingwood would've knocked them off. Richmond might have beaten Port as well. And then both those 2 would've won. At the moment we have no more Collingwood, no more Richmond and I really hope no more Carlton next week. Now if someone can just do something about Hawthorn.

Breaking a rule doesn't necessarily mean you cheat. If a player strikes another, they didn't cheat, they just did something that the game doesn't stand for and get penalised accordingly.

Essendon broke the rules regarding conduct unbecoming/bringing the game into disrepute, but that doesn't necessarily equate to cheating. There is no evidence of any advantage either (though this may change if ASADA does end up issuing infraction notices).

Actually what you suppose is pretty well on the mark, but , if we go to the elephant...do we ? then it is the motive. I think it's reasonable then to go to the idea RF suggests that there was cheating in mind. Some call it pushing the envelope ,some playing grey, whatever. . I think Essendon sought an advantage beyond the fence. its the intent here that sets the picture. I think they cheated really poorly but seek to cheat. yes. it certainly wasnt a health and fitness regiment they sought.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think this is what has happened. They definitely sought an advantage, but, until ASADA says otherwise, they did so within the rules (for doping). What they failed to do was consider the welfare of their players properly and keep records and all that stuff. They pushed the envelope, sure, but that's all. Brisbane pushed the envelope when they started doing IV drips, arguably Collingwood's pushed the envelope with its altitude trainings.

The crux of the Essendon issue is the lack of regard for player welfare and the dangerous failure to keep records. Those serious governance issues are why penalties were laid, not because of any insinuation that there was an advantage in 2013. So, I don't think it's fair to say that Essendon was removed from the 2013 finals because they had some sort of advantage in 2013. They didn't. Their punishment was due to their breaching rules in their 2012 conduct.

[dees189227 12,398]

How do you reckons dustin martins mad monday will go?

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,408]

How do you reckons dustin martins mad monday will go?

As soon as Buddy signs with GWS he will sign with the Hawks.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,408]

Imagine if they played North.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I don't think this is correct. Essendon were demoted because they breached the rules regarding bringing the game into disrepute and conduct unbecoming. They didn't necessarily need to cheat in any way to breach those rules, and the general consensus is that the breached the rules through their inept standards of governance and their disregard of their players' safety in not being diligent and pushing the boundaries.

As far as I know, there's not once this year been an argument that any substance Essendon took in 2012 has affected their performance in 2013. As it stands, there is still no charge that there was performance enhancement in 2012, either, but that's another issue.

Essendon was punished by the AFL for what happened last year, and the AFL saw fit to banish them from the 2013 finals, as is their right. I don't think it's fair, though, to say that the punishment was because it is assumed that Essendon had an unfair advantage in 2013.

The AFL don't have any direct evidence they took drugs but they know they did, just the same as they knew we tanked; knowing and proving are sometimes different. The reason they took drugs was to enhance their players performance, why else would you, and I'm sure the AFL are aware of this.

This is the only way they can punish the club, using the governance issue as the stick and I've no doubt that they are also acutely aware of the damage this would cause if they charged the club with systematic drug abuse.

Watson admitted taking drugs and Rhiemers(?sp) went on tv saying they were injected with all sorts of stuff; they, the players, don't know what, Essendon don't have the records and Danks not talking. Put 2 and 2 together and you have a pretty compelling case to suggest that they are drug cheats, hopefully ASADa/WADA will be able to join the dots.

Under the circumstances it would have been farcical to allow them to play in the finals because no one can definitively say one way or the other what advantage they gained from the drug program. Watson was certainly a better player over the last couple of years just as Lance Armstrong was suddenly a much better cyclist,; I don't think anyone would be against him being stripped of his TDF wins.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Right. So, if you accept (as you do) that this year isn't determinative of the issue, then making statements as many are doing that we made a mistake in taking Toumpas is unfair, given that Toumpas could yet end up better than Wines. This has been my point all along, and comments like bub's frustrate me endlessly because they speak as though the matter is done and dusted, we mucked up and it's end of that story.

Your part about Port's midfield being where it is because of Wines is a pretty weak argument. They have Boak, Ebert, Hartlett and Cassisi as well. Boak and Ebert are true A-grade stars, Hartlett's not far behind. They have a much more complete midfield and Wines has been a valuable addition to it, rather than is the core of it.

As for the personal stuff, I'm not playing dumb - I'm genuinely not being personal about any of this. If you're referring to the past, feel free to enlighten me (by PM).

Of course this year is not definitive it is merely a guide to each players potential and at the moment Ollie is in front and quite substantially. Jimmy may prove to be a very good footballer and I certainly hope he is but he's got a way to go at this stage.

I was in the Ollie camp before the draft and was devastated when they didn't take him, but we have to move on, that doesn't mean it's ok with me when Ollie tears them apart and I can only think what might have been.

I'll get behind Jimmy because he's ours and just hope that all those on here that think he will be an A or B+ player are right.

I'm not saying I always get it right, I was spruiking Tapscott for all he was worth and that hasn't worked out all that well for me, so far.

[old dee 23,872]

Tapscott is IMO very lucky to have a year to run on his contract.

He has one year to prove under Roos that he is AFL standard.

Right now he would not get a game at any other team.

I doubt there would be any takers if he was put on the market.

[rjay 25,091]

The AFL don't have any direct evidence they took drugs but they know they did, just the same as they knew we tanked; knowing and proving are sometimes different. The reason they took drugs was to enhance their players performance, why else would you, and I'm sure the AFL are aware of this.

This is the only way they can punish the club, using the governance issue as the stick and I've no doubt that they are also acutely aware of the damage this would cause if they charged the club with systematic drug abuse.

Watson admitted taking drugs and Rhiemers(?sp) went on tv saying they were injected with all sorts of stuff; they, the players, don't know what, Essendon don't have the records and Danks not talking. Put 2 and 2 together and you have a pretty compelling case to suggest that they are drug cheats, hopefully ASADa/WADA will be able to join the dots.

Under the circumstances it would have been farcical to allow them to play in the finals because no one can definitively say one way or the other what advantage they gained from the drug program. Watson was certainly a better player over the last couple of years just as Lance Armstrong was suddenly a much better cyclist,; I don't think anyone would be against him being stripped of his TDF wins.

Yep, and this is what I also believe to be the real reason, the AFL wanted them out of this years finals. Governance wasn't the reason they acted so quickly on an interim report which in itself was most unusual, they couldn't afford to have the finals series tainted. The NRL have this problem now with Cronulla.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

The AFL don't have any direct evidence they took drugs but they know they did, just the same as they knew we tanked; knowing and proving are sometimes different. The reason they took drugs was to enhance their players performance, why else would you, and I'm sure the AFL are aware of this.

This is the only way they can punish the club, using the governance issue as the stick and I've no doubt that they are also acutely aware of the damage this would cause if they charged the club with systematic drug abuse.

Watson admitted taking drugs and Rhiemers(?sp) went on tv saying they were injected with all sorts of stuff; they, the players, don't know what, Essendon don't have the records and Danks not talking. Put 2 and 2 together and you have a pretty compelling case to suggest that they are drug cheats, hopefully ASADa/WADA will be able to join the dots.

Under the circumstances it would have been farcical to allow them to play in the finals because no one can definitively say one way or the other what advantage they gained from the drug program. Watson was certainly a better player over the last couple of years just as Lance Armstrong was suddenly a much better cyclist,; I don't think anyone would be against him being stripped of his TDF wins.

It's plainly obvious that Essendon players were administered substances, the point of which was to make them better footballers. That does not automatically lead to the conclusion that they cheated. Clubs regularly give their players completely innocent supplements.

The lack of concrete evidence as to what was administered, as well as the doubt as to the medical effects of such things as AOD, leaves the possibility open that whatever was given to Essendon players, it made them worse, not better.

In the end, Essendon deserved to be punished, and it was completely fine for the AFL to remove them from the finals, but I don't think it's fair to say that they were banned from the finals as punishment for cheating in 2013. If they gained an unfair advantage at all, it would have been in the 2012 season. Under your argument, if we don't know what advantage they got, why couldn't that advantage continue into the 2014 season? Should the AFL ban them from the 2014 finals too?

Of course this year is not definitive it is merely a guide to each players potential and at the moment Ollie is in front and quite substantially. Jimmy may prove to be a very good footballer and I certainly hope he is but he's got a way to go at this stage.

I was in the Ollie camp before the draft and was devastated when they didn't take him, but we have to move on, that doesn't mean it's ok with me when Ollie tears them apart and I can only think what might have been.

I'll get behind Jimmy because he's ours and just hope that all those on here that think he will be an A or B+ player are right.

I'm not saying I always get it right, I was spruiking Tapscott for all he was worth and that hasn't worked out all that well for me, so far.

I agree with this. Your view is fair and rational.

This isn't the same as bub saying 'we stuffed up', and that's what frustrated me.

[DeeVoted 583]

I think if you win these 4 categories (and they are all linked of course) then you often win a final:

1. The ruck. A big man at the contest and around the ground is huge.

2. Dominant mid or mids. Having that 1 or 2 guy who just keeps winning the ball is huge

3. Ability to grind, holding up when you're against play and keep on going when you have it

4. Winning the battle of depth players, the bottom 6 so to speak

These are all good points. You left out one that is also important.

5. A running attacking 1/2 backline

For example O'Brien ,Hodge just name 2 The back flankers give drive ,can turn defence into attack. They should also run forward to assist the mids virtutally the same as having 6 mids in play.

Look back to the late 80's when we had B.Lovett R.Grinter nothing has changed. They need to be good overhead, run hard both ways, not be afraid to put their bodies on the line.

Melbournes' back flankers fall short , Grimes is just a pass atm. The other flanker is up for grabs.

Edited September 9, 2013 by DeeVoted

[Robbie57 2,022]

What a weekend of joy, we get a real coach, Ports win gives me hope. Collingwood lose, Geelong lose, Richmond lose the only downside was Hawthorn and Carlton won.