Dan24
Continuing on from that other thread, Roylion has pretty much said everything that I would have wanted to say (and might I add, with much more patience and eloquence than what I could ever muster) in regards to your arguments. However, I just wanted to take a slightly different angle, one that comes from the heart rather than from the head.
I remember from a post you made many months ago that you felt that finals football was essentially no different from home and away football. The rules are the same, so are the tactics. The only thing is that in the finals, you can get punished for an off day. You had also pointed out that there have been plenty of home and away matches that provided as much, if not more, entertainment and tension than a finals match (especially when compared to Grand Finals). All that is pretty much true. So is the fact that it's harder to finish on top after 22 games than it is to win 3 or 4 games in a month to win the Grand Final. But my argument comes mainly from the heart rather from you hard logic. You see, I'm not all that interested in a champion team being determined from a simple formula of wins and losses with percentages to come into play in case of a tie. I want a story. I want hearbreak, and I want glory. And only finals football can ever give you that.
Sport, like life, is unfair. The unprepared will be punished (the Freo recruitment department for instance) and the fates will sometimes even bring down those who have prepared properly (as I painfully remember from the '98 Grand Final). Our game is based on a ball with a shape that will often bounce in the most unfair directions of all (if you're on the wrong end of it, that is). How often are you a part of a crowd that stands to see which way the ball will bounce as it dribbles towards the goals? You cheer when it bounces your way, you moan in anguish when it doesn't. We have rules that that give the umpires plenty of scope for interpretation, and most of us will be mystified at least half a dozen times a game by those interpretations. The game, like life, is unfair. So why should the system of determining a premier remove the element of, the coin a phrase, the bouncing ball? I have no doubt that Essendon are the best team of this season. But they cannot claim the title of being the "premier team" until they win the Grand Final. If Hawthorn, the 8th side, win 4 games to claim the title, then they will rightfully be acclaimed as the 2000 champions. In the meantime, Essendon will become the punchline of endless jokes and the rest of us will look forward to the 2001 season.
But why should it be like this? It comes down to this. Finals football IS DIFFERENT from home and away football. During the home and away rounds, there is always next week to make up lost ground or to fix the percentage. But apart from a few teams in the first week of finals, there will not be a next week. Despite this fault, the players talk about wanting to play "finals football". It's the reason why Ian Dicker celebrated so openly on Friday night and why Richmond were do devastated on Sunday. Everything is on the line in the finals. Temperament is tested. Those silky skills that came so easily in April to August are now put under the microscopes of September (or August as it happens to be this year). This is why the likes of Rehn, Jarman, and Mcleod are hailed as champions while their Bulldog counterparts work under the label of "chokers". All because there is no next week.
For a footy fan, because there is no next week, every emotion is sharpened. For some, like Essendon, 22 weeks of domination suddenly become nothing and the fans wonder if the fates wil deal a cruel finals hand. I know this from North '98. For fans of clubs who have just made it into the finals, you look forward with the hope and knowledge that one win in the first week will put you on the same playing field as those teams that finished above you. Again, for me, North '97 is the source of my knowledge. If football loses its ability to stir the emotions in this way, then what's the point? Just look at this forum, the arguments and humour, spite and empathy that crop up every day. Finals football makes these emotions that little bit stronger because there is no next week.
Football is nothing without its stories, and the greatest stories and images come from finals football. As for the fans, the emotions are sharpened for the players. Did any North fan not feel for John Longmire in '96? And wearn't the emotions turned around in '99? For some, there is no second chance as Garry Lyon has often ruefully mentioned in regards to his solitary Grand Final appearance in 1988. But how about 1987 when Melbourne made the finals series? The stories then were more about Robert Flower finally getting the chance to taste finals football...the fact that it was the Dee's first appearance since 1964 faded into the background. More images. Do you remember the look of anguish on Mark Mercuri's face as his dribbled shot at goal in last year's preliminary final missed by just centimetres? Or in '85, that photo of John Kennedy holding up an exhausted Wayne Schimmelbush....our captain had just led the side to a back from the dead win against Carlton. Or in '87, that photo of an angry (to put it mildly) John Northy staring at Jim Stynes after the Irishman had given away THAT 15m penalty. There was the '95 finals where the Richmond banner simply said, "WE'RE BACK".
Every finals story has two sides. My choice is the 1997 prelminary final between the Dogs and Crows. Half time and the Dogs have the Crows on toast. Adelaide come out and Rehn has removed his knee brace. It's a statement that they had nothing to lose....if the knee goes, it goes...but they won't die not knowing. The knee didn't go, the Crows went on to make history, but who could forget the footage of Rohan Smith smashing his fists into the ground in frustration? Or the stony look of Terry Wallace after the siren went? All these things would fade into nothingness if it wearn't for the fact that it was finals football and that for the loser, there was not going to be a next week.
Yes, sometimes the best team over the year won't win. Up until about 3.45 of Grand Final day 1998, North were the best team. By 5.15, the Roos were roadkill. But all that did was make 1999 that little bit sweeter.....redemption always is. Often life doesn't have a happy ending as the 1997 Saints will testify. But for North, the fates smiled on us.
All this would be lost if the finals became nothing but an end of season showcase. There can only be one champion team at the end of the year. Not two, not one "home and away" champion and one "finals" champion. One, and one only....otherwise it would become as ridiculous as all the competing boxing titles.
I don't know how much you know about European soccer, but fans of that sport talk about seasons and teams. The United team of 98/99, Arsenal 97/98 etc. But they rarely talk about moments, the defining moments that I've mentioned above. All of these stories and moments that I've mentioned haven't been looked up in a book. They're all etched in my memory, and I suspect, in the memories of most of you reading out there. I'm sure there are plenty of similar incidents in home and away games, but they soon fade from memory under the weight of games. But in the finals, their rarity ensures permanence of memory. We have these stories because they come from finals and a system of determining a champion team that doesn't allow for next week. It only allows for next year.
Continuing on from that other thread, Roylion has pretty much said everything that I would have wanted to say (and might I add, with much more patience and eloquence than what I could ever muster) in regards to your arguments. However, I just wanted to take a slightly different angle, one that comes from the heart rather than from the head.
I remember from a post you made many months ago that you felt that finals football was essentially no different from home and away football. The rules are the same, so are the tactics. The only thing is that in the finals, you can get punished for an off day. You had also pointed out that there have been plenty of home and away matches that provided as much, if not more, entertainment and tension than a finals match (especially when compared to Grand Finals). All that is pretty much true. So is the fact that it's harder to finish on top after 22 games than it is to win 3 or 4 games in a month to win the Grand Final. But my argument comes mainly from the heart rather from you hard logic. You see, I'm not all that interested in a champion team being determined from a simple formula of wins and losses with percentages to come into play in case of a tie. I want a story. I want hearbreak, and I want glory. And only finals football can ever give you that.
Sport, like life, is unfair. The unprepared will be punished (the Freo recruitment department for instance) and the fates will sometimes even bring down those who have prepared properly (as I painfully remember from the '98 Grand Final). Our game is based on a ball with a shape that will often bounce in the most unfair directions of all (if you're on the wrong end of it, that is). How often are you a part of a crowd that stands to see which way the ball will bounce as it dribbles towards the goals? You cheer when it bounces your way, you moan in anguish when it doesn't. We have rules that that give the umpires plenty of scope for interpretation, and most of us will be mystified at least half a dozen times a game by those interpretations. The game, like life, is unfair. So why should the system of determining a premier remove the element of, the coin a phrase, the bouncing ball? I have no doubt that Essendon are the best team of this season. But they cannot claim the title of being the "premier team" until they win the Grand Final. If Hawthorn, the 8th side, win 4 games to claim the title, then they will rightfully be acclaimed as the 2000 champions. In the meantime, Essendon will become the punchline of endless jokes and the rest of us will look forward to the 2001 season.
But why should it be like this? It comes down to this. Finals football IS DIFFERENT from home and away football. During the home and away rounds, there is always next week to make up lost ground or to fix the percentage. But apart from a few teams in the first week of finals, there will not be a next week. Despite this fault, the players talk about wanting to play "finals football". It's the reason why Ian Dicker celebrated so openly on Friday night and why Richmond were do devastated on Sunday. Everything is on the line in the finals. Temperament is tested. Those silky skills that came so easily in April to August are now put under the microscopes of September (or August as it happens to be this year). This is why the likes of Rehn, Jarman, and Mcleod are hailed as champions while their Bulldog counterparts work under the label of "chokers". All because there is no next week.
For a footy fan, because there is no next week, every emotion is sharpened. For some, like Essendon, 22 weeks of domination suddenly become nothing and the fans wonder if the fates wil deal a cruel finals hand. I know this from North '98. For fans of clubs who have just made it into the finals, you look forward with the hope and knowledge that one win in the first week will put you on the same playing field as those teams that finished above you. Again, for me, North '97 is the source of my knowledge. If football loses its ability to stir the emotions in this way, then what's the point? Just look at this forum, the arguments and humour, spite and empathy that crop up every day. Finals football makes these emotions that little bit stronger because there is no next week.
Football is nothing without its stories, and the greatest stories and images come from finals football. As for the fans, the emotions are sharpened for the players. Did any North fan not feel for John Longmire in '96? And wearn't the emotions turned around in '99? For some, there is no second chance as Garry Lyon has often ruefully mentioned in regards to his solitary Grand Final appearance in 1988. But how about 1987 when Melbourne made the finals series? The stories then were more about Robert Flower finally getting the chance to taste finals football...the fact that it was the Dee's first appearance since 1964 faded into the background. More images. Do you remember the look of anguish on Mark Mercuri's face as his dribbled shot at goal in last year's preliminary final missed by just centimetres? Or in '85, that photo of John Kennedy holding up an exhausted Wayne Schimmelbush....our captain had just led the side to a back from the dead win against Carlton. Or in '87, that photo of an angry (to put it mildly) John Northy staring at Jim Stynes after the Irishman had given away THAT 15m penalty. There was the '95 finals where the Richmond banner simply said, "WE'RE BACK".
Every finals story has two sides. My choice is the 1997 prelminary final between the Dogs and Crows. Half time and the Dogs have the Crows on toast. Adelaide come out and Rehn has removed his knee brace. It's a statement that they had nothing to lose....if the knee goes, it goes...but they won't die not knowing. The knee didn't go, the Crows went on to make history, but who could forget the footage of Rohan Smith smashing his fists into the ground in frustration? Or the stony look of Terry Wallace after the siren went? All these things would fade into nothingness if it wearn't for the fact that it was finals football and that for the loser, there was not going to be a next week.
Yes, sometimes the best team over the year won't win. Up until about 3.45 of Grand Final day 1998, North were the best team. By 5.15, the Roos were roadkill. But all that did was make 1999 that little bit sweeter.....redemption always is. Often life doesn't have a happy ending as the 1997 Saints will testify. But for North, the fates smiled on us.
All this would be lost if the finals became nothing but an end of season showcase. There can only be one champion team at the end of the year. Not two, not one "home and away" champion and one "finals" champion. One, and one only....otherwise it would become as ridiculous as all the competing boxing titles.
I don't know how much you know about European soccer, but fans of that sport talk about seasons and teams. The United team of 98/99, Arsenal 97/98 etc. But they rarely talk about moments, the defining moments that I've mentioned above. All of these stories and moments that I've mentioned haven't been looked up in a book. They're all etched in my memory, and I suspect, in the memories of most of you reading out there. I'm sure there are plenty of similar incidents in home and away games, but they soon fade from memory under the weight of games. But in the finals, their rarity ensures permanence of memory. We have these stories because they come from finals and a system of determining a champion team that doesn't allow for next week. It only allows for next year.
