Which game would have the biggest impact or butterfly effect on AFL history if the result was changed?

[iameviljez]

1983 is the year Fitzroy supporters moreso look back as the premiership opportunity that got away. Who knows the ripple effect if ultimate success came that year.

After some unlucky moments in prior final series during 1986 a slightly weaker Roys outfit had more fortune to make it through to the Preliminary final. Though as the side were the walking wounded by the end of the Prelim it was probably better their campaign ended that day. Otherwise Carlton would have won by the grand final by 20 goals.

For what it's worth, Walls maintained that the moment he knew Fitzroy was on the way out was in 1984, when the club was coming off its best season since the War, and membership still dropped.

 

[DemonLord]

Melbourne beats Collingwood in 1958 - for a 6peat.

DL.

 

[terrybull]

Ok this is a competitor with 2020, the roys being killed/moved

Any similar single moment for South Melbourne?

Swans were nowhere a Grand Final chance between 1946 to 1981.

They were convincingly beaten in their only two Elimination Finals in that time frame.
1970 by St.Kilda and 1977 by Richmond.

So can’t pinpoint any games that could have saved them….

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

What if Fitzroy and North Melbourne merged in 1996?

• Does this become a "SUPERTEAM" that wins several premierships?

No. In 1996 the Bears made prelims. After the merger they went backwards for a couple of years. They did eventually become a threepeat team, but not with many Fitzroy players in the side. Even Lynch had moved a year or two before the merger/takeover/rebrand/sheer bastardry. I was thinking Jarrod Molloy, but he was at Collingwood in 2001. The Lions did get back to prelim in 1999, losing to North.

On field, trying to bring the two lists together probably would have sent things backwards as well.
Off field members of both clubs may well have been more likely to drop footy than join the new club. Its quite possible 1997 Fitzroy Kangaroos would have had less members than North in 1996.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

2016 finals series. Isaac Smith misses a set shot he should have kicked against Geelong. Would likely have put Hawthorn into a home preliminary final in the hunt for its fourth consecutive premiership.

The next week, against the Bulldogs, Luke Breust lines up for a shot on goal approaching the 20 minute mark of the second quarter. The Bulldogs had challenged Hawthorn to cut the Hawthorn lead to five points, but then Hill, Hodge and Shiels kick three goals in a row to stretch the lead back to 23 points. Breust has a chance to make it 27 points (Dunkley and Johannisen had kicked a couple of points) but fluffs it. The Bulldogs then have the next six scoring shots (kicked 3.3) to make it a 1 point game at half-time, then run over the top of Hawthorn in the third quarter and the start of the fourth (Bulldogs kick nine goals in a row in the third and fourth quarters to end the game).

After Punky missed his shot on goal, the Bulldogs kicked 12 of the next 13 goals. Had he kicked straight, and made the margin that much more wider, the Bulldogs may not have been able to seize momentum and not knocked Hawthorn out of the finals.

Winning the fourth consecutive premiership may have seen Hawthorn take a different tack to list construction. They may have not felt the need to trade for O'Meara or Tom Mitchell, meaning that the list could have rejuvenated through draft picks rather than player trades. Sam Mitchell was traded to the Eagles in the 2016 trade period, and I wonder whether he would have gone had Hawthorn won the 2016 premiership. He played a significant role in the Eagles winning the 2018 premiership.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I’d say if Gary Ablett senior stayed at Hawthorn. That would have definitely changed a few things.

Hawthorn won four premierships in that time so you’d think he’d be a premiership player.

Hawks likely win more flags in this era.

As good as they both were, it’s likely Dunstall and Ablett aren’t as revered as they are now as they both couldn’t have possibly kicked over a 1000 goals in the same team.

The epic 1989 Grand Final doesn’t happen.

The father son picks go to Hawthorn. Geelong would still have been great in the 2007-2010 ere but they aren’t winning 2009. Hawthorn would have won more flags or St Kilda might win the 2009 premiership.

That’s just a few things but there would be many more had he stayed at Hawthorn.

Ablett Senior didn't see eye to eye with Jeans at all. I mean, at all. Chances are he would have had a significant falling out with Jeans and the club at some stage and would have been in the reserves or out of football altogether. I doubt he would have played enough games at Hawthorn to have his sons qualify for Hawthorn under the father-son rule.

If Jeans had tolerated Ablett Senior so that he played regular senior footy, then he would have significantly altered the team dynamic to the point that I don't know whether Hawthorn would have been the ruthless machine that dominated the 80s. Pound for pound, other clubs had just as much talent on their lists as Hawthorn at the time, but Hawthorn regularly and routinely bullied their opponents when they were given the chance. Ablett was certainly a mercurial player, but I'm not sure whether the team dynamic would have been the same with him playing a prominent role.

So, while a few of those "what-ifs" would be the case (i.e., the 89 Grand Final doesn't happen and Geelong don't get to enjoy GAJ or Nathan), I'm not sure that Hawthorn would have won more grand finals in the 80s with Ablett and I think they could have ended up winning fewer flags in the 80s.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Ablett Senior didn't see eye to eye with Jeans at all. I mean, at all. Chances are he would have had a significant falling out with Jeans and the club at some stage and would have been in the reserves or out of football altogether. I doubt he would have played enough games at Hawthorn to have his sons qualify for Hawthorn under the father-son rule.

If Jeans had tolerated Ablett Senior so that he played regular senior footy, then he would have significantly altered the team dynamic to the point that I don't know whether Hawthorn would have been the ruthless machine that dominated the 80s. Pound for pound, other clubs had just as much talent on their lists as Hawthorn at the time, but Hawthorn regularly and routinely bullied their opponents when they were given the chance. Ablett was certainly a mercurial player, but I'm not sure whether the team dynamic would have been the same with him playing a prominent role.

So, while a few of those "what-ifs" would be the case (i.e., the 89 Grand Final doesn't happen and Geelong don't get to enjoy GAJ or Nathan), I'm not sure that Hawthorn would have won more grand finals in the 80s with Ablett and I think they could have ended up winning fewer flags in the 80s.

Jeans had one major problem with Ablett. He didn't show up to bloody training. Did the same at the cats but they were much more accomodating

 

[Todman]

Jeans had one major problem with Ablett. He didn't show up to bloody training. Did the same at the cats but they were much more accomodating

I was once told Ablett like to visit peoples houses when they weren't home. Jeans was a Cop.

 

[Todman]

1979 Grand Final.

The boundary Umpire blew his whistle to signal the ball went out of play.

 

[Liam Boy]

Seems like the league made one decision after another that hurt the Roys until they eventually shafted you.

The gap between what actually happened and the wider perception of it is crazy. Fitzroy simply didn't have to die, it was a manufactured outcome by a VFL/AFL that had decided it needed to reduce the number of teams in Melbourne just because. The more you look at it the more obvious it is, they made decision after decision designed to prevent Fitzroy from being able to continue in Melbourne, even shit like killing sponsorships, and refusing to support them selling games in Tasmania which would've been good for the league as a whole. They were willing to lose money collectively to fabricate this outcome. Yet everyone seems to buy the AFL's "Fitzroy were just a small club that couldn't survive and gee isn't it great that they were able to merge and live on" etc.

 

[Spirit Level]

2013 PF, Travis Varcoe nails his last minute goal and Geelong go on to win.

Monkey stays on the Hawthorn back which means they possibly don't win in 2014 or 2015, this also affects the tree of assistants who go on to win premierships.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

2013 PF, Travis Varcoe nails his last minute goal and Geelong go on to win.

Monkey stays on the Hawthorn back which means they possibly don't win in 2014 or 2015, this also affects the tree of assistants who go on to win premierships.

Being pedantic, the Cats would have only tied the scores if Varcoe had kicked straight. Geelong might have had the legs to run over Hawthorn in extra-time, but from memory, Hawthorn had had the week off so who knows.

 

[Roysforever]

The gap between what actually happened and the wider perception of it is crazy. Fitzroy simply didn't have to die, it was a manufactured outcome by a VFL/AFL that had decided it needed to reduce the number of teams in Melbourne just because. The more you look at it the more obvious it is, they made decision after decision designed to prevent Fitzroy from being able to continue in Melbourne, even shit like killing sponsorships, and refusing to support them selling games in Tasmania which would've been good for the league as a whole. They were willing to lose money collectively to fabricate this outcome. Yet everyone seems to buy the AFL's "Fitzroy were just a small club that couldn't survive and gee isn't it great that they were able to merge and live on" etc.

Exactly. The influx of television money over the past twenty-five years further emphasises the short sighted decisions and policies employed by the VFL/AFL.

 

[Mr Meow]

Ablett Senior didn't see eye to eye with Jeans at all. I mean, at all. Chances are he would have had a significant falling out with Jeans and the club at some stage and would have been in the reserves or out of football altogether. I doubt he would have played enough games at Hawthorn to have his sons qualify for Hawthorn under the father-son rule.

If Jeans had tolerated Ablett Senior so that he played regular senior footy, then he would have significantly altered the team dynamic to the point that I don't know whether Hawthorn would have been the ruthless machine that dominated the 80s. Pound for pound, other clubs had just as much talent on their lists as Hawthorn at the time, but Hawthorn regularly and routinely bullied their opponents when they were given the chance. Ablett was certainly a mercurial player, but I'm not sure whether the team dynamic would have been the same with him playing a prominent role.

So, while a few of those "what-ifs" would be the case (i.e., the 89 Grand Final doesn't happen and Geelong don't get to enjoy GAJ or Nathan), I'm not sure that Hawthorn would have won more grand finals in the 80s with Ablett and I think they could have ended up winning fewer flags in the 80s.

Still, let's just be silly for a second and imagine Hawthorn with GAS, GAJ and Nathan Ablett (who decides he loves the idea of an AFL career). Then they pick up Selwood too when they had the chance. Nothing else changes (I realise this isn't how it works, but play along).

Hawthorn might have another 6-8 flags to add to their already incredible run.

 

[Billy ray]

The end of season game when the SUNS beat Carlton and Ratten was sacked?

 

[BigVic]

Being pedantic, the Cats would have only tied the scores if Varcoe had kicked straight. Geelong might have had the legs to run over Hawthorn in extra-time, but from memory, Hawthorn had had the week off so who knows.

Hawks had the week off. ET would've favoured Geelong had Varcoe goaled.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Anything before 2000 being changed would've had next to no butterfly effect. Maybe a different premier that individual year, but it wouldn't result in much else changing.

It was that 2000-2004 period where the game started to change more so from tactical battles between coaches, to strategic battles between coaches. And 1 result changing would lead to other teams going down a different path, hence the butterfly effect.

So if anyone has mentioned something in the 19th or 20th century - They're an idiot (other than MAYBE some old VFA game which effected who even made it to the VFL). And unless you could make a compelling argument for something in 2000-2004, I'd probably think the same too.

But the more and more I think about it, I come to the 2006 Grand Final.

In 2005-06 we had 3 great strategic coaches in Craig-Roos-Worsfold. Most teams after this adopted parts of these 3 gameplans, and I feel most went with a mesh of the Neil Craig defence and the John Worsfold Offence. Whereas a couple (Lyon, Malthouse) more went with the Craig/Roos path.

But I do wonder, had Sydney gone back to back, would it have influenced more teams to incorporate more of the Roos gameplan instead of the Worsfold gameplan? Geelong in particular. They were the heaviest on the Worsfold influence in their gameplan. (It was an evolved version, so not the exact same) had Sydney beaten West Coast, could THompson have gone through a different path, which completely changes everything going forward? Geelong had an amazing, skillful team which could really lean on the attacking tendencies evolved off the West Coast gameplan. Had they tried repeated stoppages like the Sydney gameplan, would they have grinded out wins as well?

And if they didnt, that dynasty doesn't happen, defensive footy takes hold, and who knows what happens from there.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Having just read this thread.

I think the only 2 other games which I like are the 2013 Prelim and 2005 Semi.

 

[terrybull]

Anything before 2000 being changed would've had next to no butterfly effect. Maybe a different premier that individual year, but it wouldn't result in much else changing.

It was that 2000-2004 period where the game started to change more so from tactical battles between coaches, to strategic battles between coaches. And 1 result changing would lead to other teams going down a different path, hence the butterfly effect.

So if anyone has mentioned something in the 19th or 20th century - They're an idiot (other than MAYBE some old VFA game which effected who even made it to the VFL). And unless you could make a compelling argument for something in 2000-2004, I'd probably think the same too.

But the more and more I think about it, I come to the 2006 Grand Final.

In 2005-06 we had 3 great strategic coaches in Craig-Roos-Worsfold. Most teams after this adopted parts of these 3 gameplans, and I feel most went with a mesh of the Neil Craig defence and the John Worsfold Offence. Whereas a couple (Lyon, Malthouse) more went with the Craig/Roos path.

But I do wonder, had Sydney gone back to back, would it have influenced more teams to incorporate more of the Roos gameplan instead of the Worsfold gameplan? Geelong in particular. They were the heaviest on the Worsfold influence in their gameplan. (It was an evolved version, so not the exact same) had Sydney beaten West Coast, could THompson have gone through a different path, which completely changes everything going forward? Geelong had an amazing, skillful team which could really lean on the attacking tendencies evolved off the West Coast gameplan. Had they tried repeated stoppages like the Sydney gameplan, would they have grinded out wins as well?

And if they didnt, that dynasty doesn't happen, defensive footy takes hold, and who knows what happens from there.

Just that there could be different Premiers is big enough to discuss before 2000.

And off topic how would the South Australians clubs look today if Port Adelaide had joined the AFL in 1991 and left the SANFL for good.

Would SANFL years later still create Adelaide Crows or would Norwood eventually break away as well?

 

[wagstaff]

A slightly left-of-centre choice here, but in 1993, North lost a pre-season practice match to Adelaide by 140 points - on 24 Feb 1993. North immediately sack senior coach and club legend Wayne Schimmelbusch, and current Essendon Reserves coach Dennis Pagan was installed. (I can't remember another coach being sacked pre-season)
Pagan immediately turned North around (who hadn't made finals for 5 years), and took them to 8 straight final series through the rest of the 90s, winning 2 flags.
Pagan had a reputation as a gun Junior coach - he had coached 5x U-19 premierships (at North), as well as a Reserves flag for Essendon in 1992. It is pretty clear that Pagan got the job at North because he 'knew the layout' from his 10 years coaching the U-19s there, and could hit the ground running. No one else had picked him up for a senior job in that time - eventually he left to go to Essendon Reserves in 1992 (where he won again).

So - if North stick with Schimma for 1993, and he struggles again - do North have a 'serious' look for a new coach - and if Pagan puts his hand up, well - 'No one has wanted him up to now - we need an experienced coach'. Or maybe St Kilda, the Dogs (who got new coaches in 1994) or even Richmond take a flyer on him - but that seems unlikely given no one had looked at him during his previous tenures.

No Pagan at North - no North 'Mid-1990s' era. Everything changes.

Important to note that Roos/Crows match was originally scheduled for Waverley Park but the surface was so shoddy they had to move matches elsewhere in the pre-season.

If the match had stayed at Waverley, you would think at the very least North Melbourne would've got a lot closer than they did. Enough at least to not have Schimma resign.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Just that there could be different Premiers is big enough to discuss before 2000.

And off topic how would the South Australians clubs look today if Port Adelaide had joined the AFL in 1991 and left the SANFL for good.

Would SANFL years later still create Adelaide Crows or would Norwood eventually break away as well?

That is an interesting one. It could certainly have paved the way for more traditional clubs to apply to the AFL (which might not have changed its name that early from VFL if not to placate the SANFL Crows, but a name change is a minor thing).

Would Fremantle have come in, or direct elevation of a WAFL club? If Port and Norwood were later followed by a conglomerate Adelaide team, how many Perth sides would there be balancing that out in a footy city double the size? Lower salary caps, smaller running costs for small clubs, would probably follow.

 

[iameviljez]

Being pedantic, the Cats would have only tied the scores if Varcoe had kicked straight. Geelong might have had the legs to run over Hawthorn in extra-time, but from memory, Hawthorn had had the week off so who knows.

Hawthorn ran all over the top of us in that last quarter, and to be honest, should have been five goals up by that point but for bad kicking.

 

[Billy ray]

The AFL cover-up game, last season when Mac Andrew beat Essendon after siren. The AFL and media were all complicit in covering up the disgraceful projectile throwing behaviour from Essendon supporters.

 

[Flying_as_One1991]

Very Interesting reading.

As a Crows Fan my massive one would be what if Phil Walsh was not murdered in 2015.

• Where would the crows have finished in 2015 and beyond
• How long would he have coached for?
• Would they have made the GF in 2017
• Would Dangerfield have stayed a crow?
• Would we have traded for Gibbs?

With Walsh at the helm, Would there have been No Pyke, No Camp, No rebuild, No Nicks.

 

[terrybull]

Footscray winning the 1924 VFA Grand Final.

Had they lost it would have been Williamstown taking on Essendon.

Would the Seagulls be in the AFL today? What colours would West Coast have?

Would Footscray still be let in ahead of North Melbourne?