With a number of second-year players, including Nick Naitanui, retaining their eligibility, the race for this year’s Rising Star award is already looking like it will be the one of the most hotly-contested since the award began.

Contesting the award alongside the second-year players will be a number of 2009 draftees that look set to make an early impact.

In recent years, the award has been the domain of the first-year players. In fact, the previous three winners have all eerily been the No. 7 draft pick from the year before – Joel Selwood (2007), Rhys Palmer (2008) and Daniel Rich (2009).

(For the record, last year’s No. 7 draft pick was Brad Sheppard, who went to West Coast. He is considered an outside chance at this stage, however.)

Nick Naitanui (West Coast)
Naitanui is the one candidate most likely to burst out of the blocks early on and never be caught up to. In fact, if the award was solely for flashes of brilliance, or for simply dominating games at an age they’re not supposed to, they could hold the ceremony before the season begins.

But before you start jumping up and down yelling “why the heck wouldn’t Naitanui win it?” consider this: Since the award began in 1993, there’s only been one “ruckman” to win it, and that’s Justin Koschitzke, who never really thrived as a ruck.

That’s not to say Naitanui can’t match Kosi in the versatility stakes. He can. It does suggest, however, that winning the award mightn’t be such a cakewalk and that Naitanui will need to improve his consistency to go all the way. Still, you have to like his chances.

Dustin Martin (Richmond)
2005 was the last time a top three draft pick took out the award. It’s a long time when you consider that at the turn of the century, high draft picks were really starting to get the job done. Paul Haselby, a No. 2 pick, took out the award in 2000, as did Koschitzke a year later. Nick Riewoldt, a No. 1 pick, got it the year after that.

If pre-season form and hype are anything to go by – a scary thing at Richmond, I know – then Martin could be the drought-breaker. The No. 3 overall pick from last year has slotted straight into the team and has seen plenty of the ball already.

Better still, a bit like Rich last year and Selwood two years before that, the midfielder won’t get anywhere near the opposition’s best tagger, considering he’s got Ben Cousins and Brett Deledio to hide behind.

Tom Scully and Jack Trengove (Melbourne)
Scully and Trengove are the AFL’s conjoined twins. They cannot be separated, especially not in a column about who will win the Rising Star award. For those who think that’s a cop out, the Demons said they were too close to split when they drafted them with picks No. 1 and 2 last year and since then, nothing has changed.

They both played all four pre-season games. They both played okay, without setting the world on fire. They both improved steadily as the weeks progressed. Heck, even in that completely accurate statistical analysis known as Dream Team points, they both scored practically the same each week (one ended up with an average of 66, the other with an average of 67).

It would not surprise me in the slightest if they became the first ever joint winners of the award. Which has to be possible, given that they are set to get plenty of game time and have been talked about so highly since their drafting. Time will tell whether they can match it with the other contenders. Just don’t ask me to separate them. Ever.

Jack Ziebell (North Melbourne)
Ziebell is another of the second-year crew that (just) hung on to eligibility. The kid burst on to the scene in the first seven rounds last season before injury set in and eventually made him miss the second half of the year.

If he can re-capture that form of early 2009, it won’t take very long at all for the youngster to earn another Rising Star nomination. His pre-season form hasn’t been overly impressive, but there’s a lot to like about his chances if he gets going.

Michael Hurley (Essendon)
If Matthew Knights and whoever else at the Bombers is involved in deciding such things can ever forgive Hurley for a certain off-field indiscretion and eventually let him on the park, then he’s got to be a contender for the Rising Star award.

The versatile key position player earned a lot of praise for his phenomenal job on Riewoldt in his side’s incredible round 20 victory over St Kilda last year. Two weeks later he won praise again, this time as a forward, kicking 4.2 in the Bombers’ finals-clinching win against Hawthorn.

As if it wasn’t tight enough already, Hurley’s presence – when he is finally allowed to play – makes the Rising Star race even more tighter.

Roaring Hot

Yesterday's most commented articles

• Spot on! Sydney fitting winners of a war of attrition [29 comments]
• Rugby’s missed opportunity [25 comments]
• Waratahs sneak past Force in Perth thriller [20 comments]

Most read articles last 3 days

• We must keep Cooper if we want to win the Cup
• The real problem with Australian rugby
• We won't be second to World Cup, says Demetriou

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou last week floated the possibility of a 24-round season, an expanded finals series and the continuation of the NAB Cup once Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney enter the league.

Whilst the notion of the home and away season expanding to 24 rounds is nothing new, and seems fair enough considering the entry of two new teams, the other two talking points provide much more conjecture.

The concept of an expanded finals series, in particular, doesn’t stack up.

Like clockwork, every five or so months the AFL have been putting out this idea. Back in September 2008 they announced they were looking into it, and Champion Data came out with the best possible way a final nine could be structured. Since then, they have done their best to both talk down the idea and then talk it back up again, leaving fans uncertain as to how things will pan out.

Whilst in theory, just like the 24-round season, the idea makes sense, anyone who spent longer than five seconds looking at the Champion Data model would know there is no way the AFL should let it happen.

The model turns the finals into a game of snakes and ladders. The best sides would get more than one week off over the five-week series, even though weeks off in finals haven’t always been the most beneficial things for clubs in the past.

Worse still, the side that wouldn’t make it under the current system, the team that finishes ninth, is nothing more than a token addition. They’d have to beat the fourth-placed team in the first week, and then two top-three teams over the next two weeks, just to qualify for the preliminary final. Does anyone seriously think a side in that situation will be able to lift the premiership cup?

If the AFL move to a final nine, they can be assured of more one-sided contests that fail to capture the imagination of the footy public.

Leaving the present set-up, especially with more sides fighting for spots, is the obvious way to go. The fact the AFL keep pushing the idea, though, is worrying to say the least.

Meanwhile, Demetriou’s defence of the NAB Cup, whilst certainly not the dominant view among footy fans, did have some validity.

Responding to Matthew Lloyd’s comments that the competition should be scrapped, the AFL boss said, “I think Matthew’s entitled to his opinion but every club tells us they need preparation to get these elite athletes ready for the season.”

“They can’t just throw them into round one. I can assure you that … if we didn’t have a NAB Cup competition, particularly a NAB Regional Challenge, it would be to the detriment of the preparation of the players.”

And when you look at the chaos caused by the cancellation of the Geelong-Brisbane Lions game two weeks ago, with the Cats scrambling to arrange an extra intra-club game and the Lions even appealing to the AFL to schedule them another match, it’s hard to disagree.

The players and the clubs need preparation, so there’s always going to a pre-season of some sort.

If the NAB Cup was scrapped and the pre-season shortened, as so many have suggested, then that is likely to remove, or at least restrict, the ability for that preparation to take place in two key areas – free-to-air television and regional areas.

What other code can boast the sort of coverage footy’s pre-season gets?

And would it really be in the game’s best interests if regional centres, and even suburban grounds for that matter, aren’t able to get a first-hand taste of AFL football?

Obviously, there are constraints caused by the new clubs. But it’s not like the AFL don’t have options. You could give the previous year’s grand finalists an extra week off. You could revert to a simple ladder format to decide a winner.

Two new clubs doesn’t mean the end of the world.

But one thing is clear. The AFL shouldn’t use those two clubs as a vehicle for mass change. Sometimes it is best to just stick to the status quo.

Yesterday’s news that the Western Bulldogs will be seeking two home games at Basin Reserve in the New Zealand city of Wellington, possibly as early as next year, is a positive for the game.

I touched on the topic of teams expanding beyond their existing support bases earlier in the week, and this is a great way for the Dogs to go about doing just that.

Whilst the club has already sold home games to Sydney, Darwin and Canberra (and are continuing to do so in the latter two markets this year) the fact they are willing to forgo their existing agreements to solely go after Wellington is testament to how serious they are this time around.

It doesn’t seem like some quick cash-grab, especially considering in Darwin they are now effectively supporting Port Adelaide’s push into the region and in Canberra they are supporting Sydney. With these current games, there doesn’t seem to be much in it for them other than money.

On the Wellington plan, Dogs chief Campbell Rose said, “The fundamental idea is to establish a major event of sustainable proportions that creates a sense of occasion.” In that sense, it’s a bit like the NFL’s hosting of games in cities like Toronto, London and Mexico City, on a slightly smaller scale, no doubt.

Of course, as Hawthorn have showed in Tasmania, the key to making any foray beyond traditional club markets is to look beyond the dollars.

You’ll remember that originally both Hawthorn and St Kilda played games in Tassie, but it was the ongoing commitment from the Hawks, even after their much talked-about resurrection on and off the field, that got them the extended supporter base they now have.

So long as the Bulldogs can wrap their head around that concept, the opportunities for them are huge.

New Zealand has a population well over 4 million. The Wellington region’s population is on par with Tasmania’s and the Wellington city’s population is a fair bit higher than that of Launceston.

Kiwi teams have a presence in most other Australian leagues – the Wellington Phoenix are currently storming through the A-League finals, the Warriors are a big part of the NRL, the Breakers get decent support by NBL standards, plus of course there’s the Super 14 and netball’s ANZ Championship, which have teams across both countries.

Furthermore, as Rose pointed out yesterday, New Zealand is closer to and cheaper to get to than Darwin.

So who’s to say there isn’t room there for Aussie rules, even if it is in a minor capacity?

Taking the club out of it, any push into New Zealand should be welcomed. The fact it’s a sports-mad country not all that far away makes it intriguing more hasn’t been done already.

During the off-season, it was Hawthorn leading the charge across the ditch, putting together a grassroots program with AFL NZ, signalling their intentions to use the country as a future recruiting ground. Even the national teams from the U/16 level up will now be known as the NZ Hawks.

Both clubs should be applauded for their initiative. It’s about time the sport got more serious about New Zealand.

The Brisbane Lions’ decision to remove the Fitzroy lion from its home and away jumpers – and replace it with the much-criticized “Paddle Pop lion” – is remarkable considering just how desperate some clubs are to have a secondary supporter base in another part of the country.

Hawthorn’s relationship with Tasmania has seen a number of clubs re-think their interstate strategies. Port Adelaide are now chasing something similar in the Northern Territory. North Melbourne last year requested a home game be played in Perth.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire famously offered up the Pies’ away games to be played on the Gold Coast after the Kangaroos rejected a move north.

Heck, even the Lions themselves figured out there’s a benefit to having another market to tap in to just a couple of years ago. They started to embrace their heritage at Melbourne away games by wearing Fitzroy jumpers. The gesture was applauded by Fitzroy and non-Fitzroy fans alike.

So what has happened since? Why, all of the sudden, is that portion of their supporter base considered disposable?

Because with the way the club are acting, that seems to be how they feel about their Melbourne-based fans.

How else could you explain why the Fitzroy jumpers in Melbourne games will be no more, replaced by another unfortunate re-do? Or how the Lions’ barrister Rodney Garratt QC described Fitzroy as a club with a “shrinking if not vanishing supporter base” that sort to meddle in the business of a current AFL club?

Fitzroy was forced into an unfortunate position at the time of the merger with the Brisbane Bears, but they have every right to stand up to the big boys in this instance.

As mjg rightly pointed out in his Roar of the Crowd piece last week, “Symbols and heritage may not matter as much to a new club, but tell Collingwood to change their black and white stripes and you’ll have some idea of how Fitzroy people regard the jumper.”

It’s worth more than to be discarded in the name of building a club’s brand or, somehow, boosting membership numbers.

What makes this whole mess even more remarkable is even when you take Fitzroy out of it, things still struggle to stack up.

The old Lions jumper was the one in which three consecutive premierships were won. It instantly strikes fear into the hearts of any Collingwood supporter, and indeed fans of many other rival clubs.

More importantly, it was respected by the football community. Can you honestly say that about the new jumper? Really?

It’s one thing to change the club logo. Clubs like Geelong, Hawthorn and Adelaide have done exactly that in the past few years and no one gave it too much of a thought (no matter how awful the new Crows one is). But it is another thing entirely to mess with the jumper.

Geelong still have their hoops, Hawthorn still have their stripes, Adelaide still have their tricolour design. But Brisbane no longer have their lion. Or the lion that carried so much significance to so many people, at least.

That, for Brisbane fans, for Fitzroy fans, for fans of the game in general, is a shame.

There is a reason why the football world, leaving aside the players and their agents, are up in arms about the issue of third-party payments. It’s because this issue isn’t going to stop at just Chris Judd and Gary Ablett.

Two weeks ago, all anyone knew about outside deals was Judd’s partnership with Visy. Heck, I even wrote about the deals two weeks ago and that’s all I could dig up.

Now Ablett is involved too. It was revealed he’s got a partnership with Costa Property Group, one of Geelong president Frank Costa’s companies. Then Costa made (admittedly ill-informed) comments about seeking deals for Ablett from local businesses to help keep him from signing with Gold Coast.

Two weeks ago it was Judd. This week it is Ablett. It’s only a matter of time before another name pops up.

Someone associated with Hawthorn will be revealed as a backer of Buddy Franklin or Cyril Rioli. Then it’ll be the same in Adelaide with a Kurt Tippett or Patrick Dangerfield, at Essendon with a Michael Hurley, at West Coast with a Nick Naitanui, at Fremantle with a Stephen Hill, at Richmond with a Trent Cotchin, at Collingwood with a Scott Pendlebury or Dane Swan, at St Kilda with a Nick Riewoldt or Brendan Goddard.

When is it going to end?

Even before all this happens, there’s effects in the short-term that also have to be considered, and Ablett’s situation provides the perfect example.

Sure, third-party payments from businesses in Geelong might help keep him at Skilled Stadium. But what if there are businesses on the Gold Coast putting together very similar offers as we speak?

The Gold Coast has more than twice the population of Geelong, after all. Who’s to say third-party payments aren’t going to keep pushing his earnings up no matter where he ends up playing?

And that pretty much defeats the whole purpose of a salary cap, doesn’t it?

The cap ensures that clubs without big wallets or big backers aren’t priced out of the competition. If big name players can get paid extreme amounts of money that doesn’t count against the cap – especially as we’re entering the era of free agency – then we’re failing our own system.

The more commonplace the practice of third-party payments becomes, the harder it will be to tear them down. Which is why we’ve got to act now.

During the debate over free agency, the AFL proposed a cap on third-party payments. They saw it as a way to control payments not included in the salary cap. The AFLPA and player agents were against the idea, but it does seem like the most logical course of action.

One thing’s for sure, though. For the integrity of the competition, something simply has to be done.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

Over the past few years it has become an all-too-familiar call. They need a key forward, those Western Bulldogs. They need a big-bodied warrior to spearhead their attack. They need their own Nick Riewoldt or Buddy Franklin.

And yet, when the Bulldogs finally went out and recruited that exact type of player – by acquiring Barry Hall in trade week – the cynics were still out in voice.

Hall isn’t what they need, they said. He’s too old, just like Brad Johnson and Jason Akermanis. He’s going to snap at any minute. There’s no way he’s that missing piece to the puzzle.

And on and on it went. Until Friday night, that is.

Because on Friday night, in the club’s NAB Cup game against Hawthorn, Hall was able to let his football do the talking, and the Bulldogs were able to show the world that maybe they’d made the right call all along.

He booted four goals in the first quarter, adding two more afterwards before being subbed off in the third quarter. Admittedly, he was playing on a big off-season recruit who wasn’t able to prove his doubters wrong, Josh Gibson. But not even that can detract from how imposing he looked as the main man up front.

Kicking six goals despite limited game time practically speaks for itself.

It’s early days yet, but the Barry Hall experiment looks like it could pay off big time for the Doggies.

Having said that, though, there are a few reasons for the Dogs faithful to hold back from ordering their grand final ticket packages just yet.

One man does not make a team. And one swallow does not make a summer, for that matter. Focussing solely on Hall for a minute, there are some concerns that can’t be ignored because of one NAB Cup game.

We can’t say for sure he won’t still snap at any minute. Who could forget the preliminary final Matt Maguire incident? The infamous Brent Staker incident? The Shane Wakelin incident? The triple 50-metre penalty incident against Hawthorn? The Ben Rutten incident that led to his resignation from the Swans?

This isn’t the first time Hall has switched clubs following acts of ill-discipline in search of a fresh start. That’s what got him from St Kilda to Sydney, remember. This clearly isn’t the first time he’s promised to be on his best behaviour, either.

All in all, though, you’d think the lure of a premiership would be motivation enough to keep a man focussed on the real task at hand.

His age, just like with Johnson and Akermanis, does seem like more of a worry. All three are 33 years of age, and counting. There’s no chance of all three going through a whole season without any injury concerns and there could also be worries over form and fitness, too.

These are issues will bob up, particularly as the season wares on.

There is a real opportunity for the Doggies this year, though. They’ve got a pair of great key defenders, plus a few more than handy medium-sized ones. They’ve got a midfield filled with names like Adam Cooney, Matthew Boyd and Daniel Cross.

Plus, they’ve got a forward line that, when all of them are on the park, is capable of anything. You get the feeling that this will be the one area that will make or break the 2010 Bulldogs.

But something tells me Hall isn’t worrying too much about that or looking too far into the future.

Judging by Friday night’s performance, he’d rather just let his football do the talking.

When Melbourne announce that coach Dean Bailey – who has presided over a total of seven wins in his two seasons at the helm – has been given a new contract, effectively extending his stay by a year, you have every right to question what the world is coming to.

The guy has lost 37 of 44 games. He’s collected the wooden spoon the past two years. We’re yet to see clear-cut evidence he’s the right man for the job long-term.

But underneath outside appearances, as ridiculous as it may sound, there does appear to be some method to the Dees’ madness.

You see, Bailey’s in charge of a young, rebuilding list. That fact alone, in this day and age, guarantees a coach a certain amount of breathing space.

For good reason, too. Any coach in charge of a list like what Melbourne have had the past few years would struggle, no question. Bailey’s real test will be to have his team showing signs of improvement over the next two years, not the last two.

Then there’s the pressure of being an out of contract coach, which Bailey would have been this year if not for the new deal. You only have to look as far as Terry Wallace at Richmond last year to know how intense the scrutiny can get in a short period of time.

A couple of early losses for an out of contract coach who’s yet to even take his side to the finals – that’s just asking for trouble. Trouble that Melbourne and all their inexperienced players don’t need to go through.

So maybe Melbourne had to act. Maybe what they did was actually quite smart. And maybe now a certain other club needs to do the same.

Because with Bailey now sewn up, Fremantle’s Mark Harvey remains the only coach out of contract at year’s end. Unless you’re including the already-planned departure of Paul Roos, that is.

What complicates things further is that last year an array of coaches were under the microscope because of their contracts. This year Harvey has nobody to deflect the spotlight on to.

Worse still, Freo’s first four games are big asks for a side that didn’t win in Melbourne last year: Adelaide at home, Essendon at Etihad, Geelong at home then St Kilda at Etihad.

By not signing up Harvey beyond this year now, Fremantle are asking for trouble.

Of course, a potential media circus and a rough draw alone shouldn’t be enough to land a contract extension. But just like the Demons, the Dockers have been blooding an abnormal amount of youth lately too.

The club had an incredible 11 debutants last year. During the off-season going into that year, they lost over a thousand games worth of experience.

Now, is it really fair to judge Harvey on a year with so much change?

Clearly, it isn’t. But if the Dockers drop a few early-season games – which is entirely plausible – that’s exactly what will happen.

And it isn’t as though the justification for a contract extension ends there. Unlike the Demons, the Dockers are already starting to show serious signs of progress. There have been some woeful performances over the past few years, like that insipid 1.7 (13) effort against Adelaide, but the bigger picture does not seem so broken.

As I wrote last year: “Sure, they may not be winning all that often. But rebuilding teams are not supposed to be judged on winning.

“To check the pulse of rebuilding teams, one must look for indications that young guns are in fact plugging the holes left by retirements, that there is improvement within the list’s core and, above all, that there are elite players – or players well on their way to that status – to build around.

“That describes this Fremantle team right now to a tee.”

The likes of Stephen Hill, Nick Suban, Hayden Ballantyne, Greg Broughton et al, are indeed plugging holes. The older players, as Paul Duffield and Chris Tarrant showed last year, continue to show improvement. And they have a couple of absolute A-graders to build around in Aaron Sandilands and Matthew Pavlich.

Harvey’s rebuild is on track. So just what is holding Freo back?

This time last year, St Kilda didn’t have it in them to take a punt on Ben Cousins. They met with him more than once, they researched thoroughly – all part of what was labelled a “five-month process” – and at the end of it decided he was too big a risk.

Fast forward twelve months and, well, hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

After a year in which their stance on Cousins went from understandable to a tad regrettable, the club decided they didn’t want to be left wondering again and audaciously traded away their first-round draft pick to get Essendon’s Andrew Lovett.

And just like last year, despite adopting a completely different stance, their move backfired.

Unlike Cousins, the concerns over Lovett did not go away once he joined a new club. Back in 2008, Lovett was twice suspended by the Bombers for off-field indiscretions. Just six weeks after becoming a Saint, he was arrested for being drunk in a public place.

And things hardly improved from there. He was suspended indefinitely from the club shortly after rape allegations emerged and last week was sacked in the wake of charges being laid by Police.

It mightn’t have been the right move legally. It mightn’t have been the right move financially. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the club hurt in both those areas sometime in the future. But their decision was the right move for the football club – pushing the issue aside for the playing group and coaches right before the start of the season.

Having said all that, you can’t blame them for the initial decision to go after Lovett, as some have chosen to do.

The Lovett saga, coupled with Luke Ball’s controversial departure, have clearly made an easy target out of the Saints this summer.

Damian Barrett wrote in the Herald Sun well before last week’s events that “those decisions – to recruit the troubled Andrew Lovett while providing ample reason for ‘Mr Perfect’ Luke Ball to leave – are the type that can result in the unravelling of years of meaningful progress.”

To an extent, the criticism makes sense. But first of all, the Saints weren’t to know Lovett would misbehave so early into his stint at the club. In fact, like with Cousins, they’d done a fair bit of due diligence. Ross Lyon has kept referring to the ten references he’d collected before going ahead with the trade.

What should be considered above that, though, is exactly what the Saints were facing as trade week progressed.

That was the week where the Ball saga blew up. His presence at the club in 2010 was growing more and more unlikely with each day. Losing him without gaining a ready-made replacement would have been far short of ideal.

On top of that, the club was super keen to make amends for how 2009 played out.

Mainly because they fell so short of winning a premiership and wanted to add that little bit extra to their midfield, perhaps with a player with a bit of “X-factor”.

But also, maybe, because of how the Cousins situation worked out.

A year ago, the Saints performed an extraordinary amount of due diligence on a potential midfield recruit who came with a few risks. In the end they failed to pull the trigger.

When the same situation came up this year, they did the opposite.

But after they pulled the trigger, things just didn’t go to plan.

There’s an issue lingering in the backdrop of tonight’s clash between Collingwood and St Kilda. And like just about everything to do with this game – the marketing, the media attention – Luke Ball is in the middle of it.

His move from the Saints to the black and white has been intrinsically linked to the debate around free agency, given the fact he was able to move from one club to another outside of trade week. (When St Kilda couldn’t agree to any trades, he left the club and entered the national draft, where the Pies nabbed him with pick 30.)

For the uninitiated, free agency is where players are able to move clubs freely after a certain number of years of service to their existing club.

That’s not to say that player’s club won’t be compensated, mind you. Just like in the next few years with the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney, clubs losing uncontracted players would receive an additional draft pick. That mightn’t be the best value a club can get for that player, but as St Kilda would undoubtedly attest, it’s better than nothing.

The main point of conjecture between the AFL and the AFLPA – who have been pushing for this for years – is perceived to be just how many years of service would be required before a player becomes a free agent.

Would it be seven years (freeing up stars like Adam Cooney at the end of the year), eight years (freeing up the likes of Brendan Goddard and Jobe Watson), nine years (freeing up the kids from the ’01 super draft like Luke Hodge and Gary Ablett) or even ten years?

Somewhere in between – either eight or nine – seems to be about right. Even if only the eight-year option have helped out our mate Ball.

But what seems less straightforward amid the AFL and AFLPA’s differences is the issue of third-party player payments. These are deals outside the salary cap that help line the pockets of star players.

The most pertinent example is Carlton sponsor Visy and its sponsorship deal with Chris Judd, which has (rightly) attracted a number of cynics.

If free agency is introduced such controversial practices could very well become far more prominent. Even if it isn’t, the fact they are happening now should be of at least some level of concern.

And that’s certainly the view the AFL have adopted. According to The Age, the league have proposed introducing a cap on such deals, however this has been protested by both the AFLPA and player agents.

Unfortunately for the players, if they want major change, something has to give.

Third-party deals, it would seem, is the logical sacrifice.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

During Friday night’s West Coast-Essendon preseason hit-out, some time in between feats of Nic Naitanui brilliance, a curious umpiring decision managed to raise a few eyebrows.

Right before half time, a goal umpire awarded a crucial six points to Eagle Andrew Embley. The decision put the Eagles in front seconds away from the siren. However watching from home, even upon first glance, it seemed as though the ball had already crossed the line before Embley kicked it.

Sure enough, replays confirmed not only had the ball crossed the line, it also managed to bounce off the post before contact was made. Worse still, the replays seemed to indicate when the ball crossed the line the first time it hit the goal umpire’s right leg – a leg which was standing over the goal line.

In short, the decision was pretty hard to comprehend.

Soon after, a field umpire sought to overturn the decision. Those at the ground noticed that before consulting with the goal umpire, the field umpire looked up at the scoreboard, which was showing those exact replays of the incident.

But here’s the thing. Umpires are directed not to make any decisions based on replays shown at the ground. Video reviews are not part of the AFL.

Even whilst downplaying the incident, umpires boss Jeff Gieschen let slip that the replay was used as a source of confirmation: “As soon as he saw the ball hit the post he started to make his way down to let the people know that it had touched the post. On his way through he’d seen that actually confirmed on the big screen as well, so he was 100 per cent certain from what he’d seen and then of course he checked just to make sure he was right.”

So there’s no question that the umpire looked up at the replay. But apparently he was “100 per cent certain” before that. Which only raises the question, why did he check “just to make sure he was right” if he was so certain?

Frankly, the incident opens up a giant can of worms. There’s the actions of the field umpire that should be considered. Then there’s the goal umpire, too. He shouldn’t be forgotten.

But perhaps the biggest issue to stem from it all is whether or not video review should be a part of AFL games.

I’ve written before about how different umpires observing play from different angles can prove a powerful way to resolve disputes over goals or non-goals. That was in the wake of bizarre calls for video reviews after an incident involving Alwyn Davey last year that was superbly dealt with on the field and yet offered no conclusive evidence through replays.

And the point still stands. How often do such incidents occur and of those, how many can be adequately handled by the umpires on the field?

Disputes like these don’t come up all that often.

The Tom Hawkins goal-that-wasn’t at last year’s grand final has put a few people on edge. Even those at AFL House are looking into the possible use of technology.

But as my Roar colleague Ben Somerford noted at the time of the Hawkins incident, “The goal umpire didn’t seem to have much hesitation in whipping out the twin fingers. So if the goal umpire had little doubt, who decides to call for a video replay? The opposition, the field umpires, Hawkins?”

There’s no obvious, clear-cut way to go about it, especially without creating (largely unnecessary considering how rarely legitimate mistakes occur) disruptions.

Which is another sticking point, isn’t it?

Disruptions in footy aren’t the norm as they are in certain other sports that have adopted technology.

We’re not talking about American football or basketball, where there the sport already has a stop-start nature. We’re not talking about rugby league, where a pause in play already occurs after a score for the conversion attempt.

In footy, after a goal it’s straight back to the middle for the next bounce.

It remains to be seen whether the “100 per cent certain” field umpire would have overturned the goal on Friday night without a glance at the scoreboard.

But what does seem obvious, though, is after nearly 152 years without them, there’s no need to rush in video reviews.

Tonight, footy’s back. It might only be the NAB Cup, but it’s back nevertheless. No longer will we have to rely on training reports and dodgy rumours to see how our teams, and the opposition, are travelling.

Of course, the pre-season competition is something footy fans tend to have a love-hate relationship with.

Whenever a fan sitting in front of a keyboard comes up with an idea to re-vamp the fixture, it is usually the first thing sacrificed. (Oddly, the next thing sacrificed is the mid-season break, which is curious considering most of these ideas tend to involve longer seasons.)

The title of an article in The Age yesterday summed up the feelings of many when it comes to the competition by labelling it, “Who cares wins.”

The motivation behind the title can’t be denied, of course. Some clubs don’t take the comp all too seriously. Paul Roos currently has 0-7 record as coach during the pre-season.

But what should be remembered is that pre-season games are never going to generate the same “care factor” as regular season games.

Maybe we need to start treating these games for what they are. Sure, a pre-season game isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it’s a game of footy all the same.

Another chink in the armour of the pre-season is the deceptive nature of good form prior to the actual season beginning.

In 2000, Essendon won the pre-season title and the premiership. In 2009, Geelong did the same.

In the eight years in between, however, Carlton twice lifted silverware in March only to fall well below – try 16th and 15th on the ladder – in the season proper. Richmond made the final in 2002 and ended up finishing 14th that year.

Geelong famously went all the way in 2006 and would soon after become premiership favourites – only to embarrassingly fade to 10th place.

Having said all that, 13 of last decade’s 20 sides to make it to the pre-season grand final went on to finish at least either top four or preliminary finalists.

So whilst the likes of Carlton, Richmond and Geelong make for good cheap shots, not all pre-season form is deceptive.

Sometimes it’s an indicator of a switched-on team. Sometimes all it can be is false hope for success-deprived supporters.

You can never really tell. Geelong and Collingwood were supposedly “peaking too early” by facing off in the NAB Cup grand final last year, a suggestion which was ultimately refuted.

But this year you might be able to put forth that exact same notion and look like a genius come September.

The lesson is simple. Sure, pre-season games aren’t of the utmost importance. They are not a showcase of footy at its absolute best. They don’t provide the most reliable form guide, even if sometimes they can get it right.

But they are games of footy all the same.

And after nearly five months without seeing one of those, right now the negatives don’t seem like such a big deal.

Kevin Sheedy is always keen on making headlines and last week was no different, suggesting that his Greater Western Sydney club will look to California to find playing talent.

If it weren’t for the fact he made good on his original promise to scour the globe by signing a South African just a few days earlier, his comments might have been written off as an act of publicity.

But it seems as though the great man is indeed headed across the Pacific. “I’ll be going to California to chase players don’t even worry about that,” he assured us all.

Where exactly he’ll be looking and whether he will find anything is anyone’s guess.

However unearthing future Aussie Rules talent in the States mightn’t be as tough a challenge as some would assume it to be, especially if you’re going in with the sort of optimism that Sheedy possesses.

Believe it or not, in the past couple of months two former college basketball players have made their way onto AFL lists.

The first to do so, Daniel Bass, was admittedly born and raised in Melbourne. But he had a limited football background even before his four-year stint at Metro State University in Denver, Colorado.

The club that recruited him – curiously they chased after him, and not the other way around – was Port Adelaide, who have a history in this area after they plucked Dean Brogan from the NBL. Brogan would go on to become a big part of Port’s premiership-winning team and one of the game’s elite ruckmen.

The other signing, Seamus McNamara, hails from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After his college stint, at Marist College in New York, he played a season of professional basketball in Germany before putting together “audition tapes” in the hope of catching the attention of an AFL club.

His CV landed at Collingwood and after a series of trials, he became an international rookie at the club. In spite of his inexperience, he was the surprise opening goal-kicker at the Pies’ intra-club game last week.

Both are around the 200cm mark and have been earmarked as potential ruckmen or, in McNamara’s case, perhaps even a key forward. Both, however, are viewed as medium-term prospects at best, so not much is expected in the near future.

It will be interesting to monitor their progress.

It’s not as if the US college system is short on athletic talent. Huge numbers of athletes don’t go on to the professional level in their chosen sport, be that basketball or otherwise.

The success of Brogan’s recruitment shows that a transition is certainly possible.

But perhaps the most enticing motivator for clubs is that international rookies are basically a “free hit” on top of the existing list. They can bypass both the draft system and the salary cap.

So whilst Sheedy coming out boldly stating that he’ll venture to California in search of talent may at first seem a tad crazy and unlikely to lead to much, there’s clearly some method to his madness.

The likes of Port and Collingwood may only be scratching the surface of what could be a much bigger talent pipeline.

It wouldn’t be a surprise to see other clubs making similar moves in the not too distant future.

Pre-season predictions are fraught with danger. I doubt there was anybody last year who didn’t have Hawthorn pencilled in for a top-two finish. Some of us even thought Richmond were on the verge of September action.

On many fronts, the expectation and the reality were worlds apart in 2009.

Even though some calls pay off, it is very easy to look silly by coming out and stating what will happen before a ball has been bounced.

But hey, where’s the fun in worrying about that?

Speculation is just another part of the warmer months for footy fans, so why not just live in the moment and just get it off your chest?

With that spirit in mind, here are a few fearless predictions for the year ahead. Hopefully they won’t look too bad looking back in 12 months, but footy’s a funny game. Feel free to add your own predictions afterwards.

The breakout stars…
Every year a handful of players “break out” and take their game to a new level. Some we see coming, some we don’t. Last year we saw it happen with Brisbane’s Mitch Clark, Adelaide’s Bernie Vince and the Bulldogs’ Shaun Higgins, to name a few.

After injury-ravaged second seasons, young guns like Richmond’s Trent Cotchin and Fremantle’s Rhys Palmer are prime candidates for breakout years – provided they stay on the park. Other young midfielders to watch include West Coast’s Chris Masten and the Bullies’ Callan Ward.

Up forward, Cyril Rioli from Hawthorn and Tom Hawkins from Geelong look like two much-hyped youngsters that will really start to deliver on their potential this year. Robbie Gray from Port is another to keep an eye on.

And even though you could say this last year, and the year before that, and maybe even the year before that, if perennially-injured key forwards Scott Gumbleton (Essendon) and Sean Rusling (Collingwood) actually manage to string a few games together, watch out.

The big storylines…
As the Gold Coast footy club move closer and closer to their AFL debut, they’ll continue to make the headlines. In fact, Karmichael Hunt might even become a walking headline once he returns to Australia. A lot of attention will be attracted if he lines up in the VFL side as expected.

There’ll also be a strong focus on which players switch to the new club and, more specifically, if a big name player takes the big money they’re offering. My tip for that player, however unoriginal it may be, is Gary Ablett.

The coaches mightn’t be in the news as much as last year, but one that will be under pressure is Fremantle’s Mark Harvey, the only coach (the outgoing Paul Roos aside) out of contract at year’s end. He’s got a horror draw to start the year – early losses are not good for men in his position.

The premiers…
As I’ve explored previously, a pack of seven sides are all making strong cases for premiership glory early on. Sides like Adelaide and Hawthorn, and to a lesser extent Brisbane, could put together good campaigns, although they aren’t at the top of too many lists just yet.

Geelong and St Kilda certainly are, yet they have managed to strangely mimic each other in the off-season. They both lost talent in trade week, they both have now gone through major off-field scandals (courtesy of Andrew Lovett and Mathew Stokes).

Of course both are still genuine contenders at this stage. But for the sake of narrowing it down, both have been up there for a while and, for mine, are finding it hard to shake the vulnerable tag.

The Western Bulldogs could be anything, which tells me their streak of comfortably making the top four yet admirably falling short of the grand final is going to end.

Sure, they’ve got Barry Hall, but that also now means that three of their best forwards – Jason Akermanis and Brad Johnson being the others – have a combined age of 99. I can see them lifting the premiership cup, but I can also see them falling apart.

That, for me, leaves Collingwood, if for no other reason than their downside doesn’t seem quite as bad as the other top four teams from last year. And their upside?

Well, they’ve corrected the biggest concern towards the end of last season, their midfield, by bringing in two fantastic new recruits, Darren Jolly and Luke Ball. It might just be enough to take them to a premiership.

Then again, September 25 is a long way away.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

Troy Taylor was one of the feel-good stories of the draft. Nabbed by Richmond at pick 51, the 188cm teen from the Northern Territory had made it to the AFL despite his troubled past. At the beginning of last year, it would have looked like an impossible dream.

As The Age reported prior to the draft: “Taylor and his mother Tania spoke openly about the trouble he had gotten into: latching onto the wrong mates, helping them rob a service station in Darwin, breaching a good-behaviour bond by sneaking out at night and getting into fights, the last of which resulted in him being placed in the detention centre for four months.

“He walked out in February determined to never go back and since then has moved to Alice Springs with his mum, been welcomed back into the Territory team, starred, played a handful of games for the senior Territory team in the Queensland league and been invited to last week’s draft camp in Canberra.”

His journey was not a typical one. It was his motivation for an AFL career that ultimately brought about a change in attitude and a new focus.

The fact he started the year in a detention centre is truly remarkable.

Unfortunately, reports of how he ended the year have now silenced a lot of the optimism that came from his drafting.

Richmond confirmed on Monday that Taylor will face court after being charged with assault following an incident that took place at a street party in Alice Springs on New Year’s Eve.

“The Richmond Football Club has a professional network of support helping Troy address his issues but we have also advised Troy that he needs to take personal responsibility for the decisions he makes,” club CEO Brendan Gale said in a statement.

It hasn’t taken long for supporters of other clubs – some of whom desperately wanted to draft Taylor in spite of his off-field concerns – to start jumping up and down about Richmond’s decision to take him.

Others have been quick to place this in the “footballers behaving badly” file, right next to a couple of other high-profile incidents in the past few months. Some have condemned the youngster for not acknowledging the great opportunity he had in front of him.

Worse still, the term “career in doubt” has been thrown around in the reporting of the incident.

But instead of being critical or overreacting, we should remember where he came from, and also where he is.

New Tigers coach Damien Hardwick has to date portrayed himself as a no-nonsense coach who is willing to put time and effort into young players.

The eldest player on the club’s list, Ben Cousins, is someone who knows all too well what having your AFL career in the balance feels like. And what it feels like to win it back.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Richmond sounds like the perfect place for Taylor to be right now.

Indeed, the club’s handling of the incident – supporting Taylor but certainly not condoning his decisions – seems to be the best way to handle things. The support systems at an AFL club may just be exactly what he needs.

For a raw talent of his size, on the field the term “work in progress” comes to mind. It seems as though it also applies off the field, too.

Remember, it was his motivation for an AFL career that got him here. Let’s at least give him the chance to find out how much further that motivation can take him.

The NAB Cup is now less than three weeks away, which is welcome news for us footy-starved fans. An exciting season is just around the corner, and the pre-season competition offers our first taste of it all.

For all the criticism the competition cops, it will always have that going for it.

But for the first time in a long time, we’ll be going into the NAB Cup not knowing if it will be back a year later.

Next year will see the introduction of the Gold Coast, and Greater Western Sydney will enter a year later. With the added teams, the current format is pretty much unworkable.

On top of this, the likely expansion of the home and away season because of these new teams – a 24-week season has been heavily mooted – provides another complication. It could squeeze out room in the calendar for any more than two or three weeks of pre-season matches.

Even one of the competition’s biggest advocates, AFL chief Andrew Demetriou, has admitted it may come to an end.

Responding to a question a couple of years ago about whether the new teams spelt the end of the tournament, the league boss said: “I would think so.”

And as if the bells weren’t already ringing, NAB’s five-year partnership with the AFL conveniently wraps up in 2010.

So things aren’t looking bright for the future of the pre-season event, at least in its current set-up.

Some supporters wouldn’t mind hearing this, of course. A lot of people view the tournament as unnecessary.

But realistically speaking, there’s always going to be pre-season matches. There’d be very few professional sports leagues out there that don’t have them in one format or another. It’s no different for the AFL, and there’s no way these matches will disappear completely.

It just may be that the current system of holding the matches as part of a tournament can’t go on.

So what options are there?

A knockout system like the present set-up simply cannot work with 18 teams over four weeks, let alone anything shorter than that.

The only way it seemingly could is if you take two sides out, like the previous year’s grand finalists, for example, who would in theory have shorter pre-seasons than the other clubs. But that could make things a bit messy.

Perhaps all we’ll see in future years is three weeks of practice matches and a ladder at the end of it – with tie-breaking done according to a team’s percentage determining a winner.

Or perhaps all we’ll see in future years is just practice matches – nothing more, nothing less. No frills. No competition. No overall winner.

It’d be boring, and you wouldn’t think it’d get the sort of TV coverage we’re used to, but it’s a genuine possibility.

One gets the feeling the AFL may comment more once the tournament begins, but right now, it’s hard to tell what may happen.

So you might as well enjoy this year’s NAB Cup. It could be your last.

Aside from the token gesture that was the Hall of Fame Tribute Match held in 2008, the concept of State of Origin footy has been outside the AFL landscape for over a decade now.

The last true Origin clash was in 1999, when Victoria defeated South Australia by 17 points. In front of only 26,063 fans.

The small turnout at that game, and sub-20,000 crowds in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth the two years previous, gave a clear indication that it was time to push the concept aside for a bit. To be fair, it just had to happen.

But that shouldn’t mean state football should remain in exile.

Even back in ’99, the official line out of the AFL was that an Origin game would not go ahead in 2000 due to the Olympic Games. They never fully shut the door on Origin.

Even now, the door still seems open. Andrew Demetriou said back in 2008 that he didn’t “think we could kill it off,” adding: “We’ve got to consider how it can be best-used, how effective it could be if we have it perhaps on a cycle.”

Since those comments, however, talk of the concept’s return from AFL House has dropped off.

And it’s unfortunate. Because what’s left to stand in the way of Origin’s return?

Perhaps it’s the idea that it will only lead to the same problems that surfaced in the 90s, but how relevant are those problems now?

Interest in state football began to slow around the same as the VFL went national with the introduction of West Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide. Fans all of the sudden had “their” team represented nationally. More importantly, “their” players were playing against the Vics week in, week out.

These days, the argument that a national competition takes away from state football seems far less relevant.

Support is now well and truly divided in South Australia and Western Australia, just like it was in Victoria during Origin’s stronger years, and players are becoming more and more dispersed.

Just look at some of the AFL’s star forwards – Brisbane’s Jonathan Brown and Brendan Fevola are Victorians, Fremantle’s Matthew Pavlich is a South Australian, St Kilda’s Nick Riewoldt moved to Queensland (from Tasmania) at age nine.

The list goes on. And it will continue to go on, given the amount of transplanted players the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs are going to require.

Of course, the national competition wasn’t the only issue that brought down Origin.

Dermott Brereton’s revelations in his newspaper column a couple of years ago provide an obvious example of the other flaws Origin matches.

“After playing for Victoria twice, I did my best to withdraw from them. I played in nine by the end of my career and probably withdrew from at least four or five,” Brereton wrote.

And his reasoning?

“It was born out of dedication to my club. Why should you risk injury to yourself for a group of teammates you would be trying to decapitate seven days later?”

The former Hawthorn star’s comments contain two important lessons. The first is that Origin in the past has suffered from overexposure. The second is that players are always going to be conscious of injury and the effect their involvement may have on their clubs.

The solution here is to simply learn from the lessons of the past.

If Origin is brought back, there’s no need for it to be held annually. The novelty – for fans and players – will wear off otherwise.

Likewise, there’s no need for it to be held mid-season. The AFL has put a lot of effort into International Rules, which works well enough because of the timing of it all – it’s held after the season’s finished.

Funnily enough, this also suits both players and (footy-starved) fans.

Origin can provide a (non-hybrid) representative form of the game. It can provide a way to expand the AFL calendar. It can provide an opportunity for rival fans to watch a game supporting the same team. It can provide a homecoming opportunity for players who’ve moved interstate. It can provide further talking points for the media.

Perhaps more importantly, it can provide the return of the Big V, the Croweaters and Sandgropers to the elite level.

Giving the concept a break had to happen. But maybe bringing it back does too?

Off-seasons are normally dull, uneventful things. Rarely do they involve actions that will have any dramatic effect on the ensuing season. Or at least that’s how they are supposed to play out.

Needless to say, this off-season has been different.

The Coleman Medallist found himself up for trade. A much sought-after midfielder from the minor premiers found himself in the draft. Recycled players were in vogue like never before.

Heck, there were even trades taking place during trade week. They weren’t all backlogged until the Friday for once.

The past few months have been a complete contrast to years past. The end result is that anticipation levels for the 2010 season are growing larger by the day.

A sizable batch of premiership contenders has already formed, and who’s to say there isn’t a dark horse or two hiding behind the pack?

At the top of the list, for obvious reasons, are last year’s grand finalists.

Sure, both Geelong and St Kilda have a slight air of vulnerability about them. Both sides first rose to prominence with their preliminary final appearances in 2004. They’ve been up for quite some time, and it’s natural to ponder when they’ll fall.

But this year the Cats were able to do what they did despite being decimated throughout the season with a wave of injuries. Even in that environment, they were still able to win 18 games in the home and away season and go on to claim the premiership.

As for the Saints, they’ll be hungrier than ever. And it’s not as if the likes of Leigh Montagna, Nick Dal Santo, Brendan Goddard and Nick Riewoldt are close to hitting 30.

Add to that Ross Lyon’s annual influx of recycled players – which seems to unearth a gem or two every year – and another season at the top is a very real possibility.

Then there are the preliminary finalists from last year.

Historically, teams that fall one game short of the grand final don’t rebound well. That wasn’t the case this year, however, and if we’re using off-season recruitment as an indicator, we may yet see a repeat of that.

The Western Bulldogs caved in to the largest criticism of their list during trade week, by bringing in a key forward – Barry Hall. It’s a risk, sure. He’s well past 30 and his on-field attitude problems have been well-documented. But if it does pay off, it will be huge for the Doggies.

The other side to fall short, Collingwood, also made a splash during the off-season. Multiple splashes, actually. They plugged a glaring hole by bringing in ruckman Darren Jolly from Sydney. They also plugged a glaring hole by bringing in midfielder Luke Ball from St Kilda. The moves may take the Pies up a level.

Then there are the 2009 semi finalists, Adelaide and Brisbane.

The Crows have stuck by the youth that largely drove their improvement last year by returning to the draft table. The Lions, meanwhile, picked up Brendan Fevola, signed a bunch of recycled players and traded away a number of their own players.

Michael Voss is building his list his own way, and only time will tell if the large turnover of players was worth the risk.

Not to be forgotten, of course, are the 2008 premiers, Hawthorn. They, like Collingwood, set out to plug some holes, and they did that through the signings of defender Josh Gibson and midfielder Shaun Burgoyne.

Everything that could’ve gone wrong this year seemingly did for the Hawks, and a return to prominence next year would not be unexpected.

At the opposite end of the ladder, the “new coach factor” at Richmond and North Melbourne, and the expected improvement at Melbourne, makes the wooden spoon race pretty intriguing, too.

It’s still a few months away, but 2010 is looming as an exciting season all round.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

Andrew Demetriou’s comments on Monday, in which he said an AFL season could be under threat if Australia is successful in its World Cup bid, have caused quite a stir. Some out there are even starting to think Demetriou is plotting to bring down the bid.

Or that he’s merely an insular, narrow-minded fool.

Or that his comments were, as journalist Ray Gatt put it, “just the AFL boss’s idea of stirring up the rabid masses in the aerial ping pong game.”

But one thing has been missing from all the uproar – some context.

Demetriou was speaking in response to a newspaper report that the MCG could be unavailable for nearly an entire home-and-away season.

What’s the significance of that?

Well, it means his comments were not some baseless pre-planned media assault designed to coincide with the announcement of the draw for the 2010 World Cup, for starters.

More importantly, however, it means 40 to 50-odd games (around a quarter of all games) will need to find new homes should plans for the ground’s reconfiguration go ahead. And that’s just the outcome of the MCG’s unavailability.

Given the FFA are now relying on the occupation of Etihad Stadium for the World Cup – despite the stadium’s protests – another 20-odd games on top of that will need to find homes.

This isn’t about derailing another code’s bid for a massive global event to be held in Australia. This is about making sure that event isn’t detrimental to that code’s rivals.

If the MCG is wiped out for a season, and Etihad is a World Cup venue, then Demetriou’s claim that a season will not go ahead does not actually seem far-fetched.

With no MCG or Etihad, where are Collingwood and Essendon – who both average over 50,000 spectators to home games – going to play? Where are Hawthorn – who have over 50,000 members – going to play?

Right now, the only forthcoming answers are Geelong and Launceston.

When talk of the bid began, it was assumed that the MCG would be out of action for only four weeks, and that Melbourne’s second venue would be an expanded version of the new rectangular stadium. Etihad Stadium would be left to the AFL.

That arrangement seemed fine. It could’ve worked well.

Then came the talk of FIFA needing an extra four weeks at each venue to replace signage and bring the pitch quality up to standard.

Then came the talk of a “design bungle” at the rectangular stadium, meaning expansion would supposedly cost more than the venue’s initial construction.

Then came the talk that the AFL season would be classified as a “major event” by FIFA and would have to shut down for up to two months.

Then, on Monday, came the talk that the MCG might actually be out of action for a whole 16 weeks.

Is it any wonder Andrew Demetriou started talking to the press?

At some point the AFL had to draw a line in the sand and say that enough is enough. The FFA have become increasingly reliant on the MCG and Etihad since the bid process began.

Now, there needs to be some sort of compromise.

For example, if the MCG is indeed going to be taken for 16 weeks, then Etihad should absolutely be left for the AFL. At the very least the FFA should ensure that the AFL season is not given major event status.

It shouldn’t be too hard, mind you. No matter what words I punch into Google, I cannot find a single article outlining any sort of conflict between Major League Baseball and those behind the United States’ World Cup bid.

Which provides a whole different kind of context, doesn’t it?

Maybe we’re all just jumping at shadows. In the States, there is no debate over major event status. It seems as though a repeat of 1994 – when the baseball season continued despite the World Cup – is expected.

Don’t get me wrong, a World Cup would be great for Australia.

And hey, even Andrew Demetriou agrees. He’s been supportive of the bid, much in the same way that the AFL was accommodating of the Olympics and Commonwealth Games.

It’s just that there is a tipping point. And if Etihad is taken for two months, and the MCG for 16 weeks, then that tipping point has been reached.

That’s why Demetriou had to speak out.

The FFA must rise to the challenge of forming a bid that isn’t detrimental to the other codes. To do that, they’ll have to compromise.

Even if it means negotiating with the aerial ping pong game.

Last night marked the first year of the national draft’s inevitable move from the virtual oblivion of a Saturday morning to the bright lights of a primetime Thursday night slot. And if last night was anything to go by, it’ll be the first of many.

It wasn’t perfect. There were glitches and awkward moments, like you would expect. Fox Sports could have given more attention to picks beyond the first round.

But all things considered, last night was a welcome break from the tedium of the warmer months.

We got to see Melbourne end up with a swag of promising young talent. They were always going to look like the big winners on draft night.

Tom Scully, the highly-rated midfielder from the Dandenong Stingrays, became the latest young lad to be given the title of number one draft pick. He handled his interview with confidence and gave no reason for Melbourne fans to be disappointed.

The Dees selected the similarly-rated South Australian prospect Jack Trengove at pick two. They also did well to land Jordan Gysberts and Luke Tapscott with picks 11 and 18.

Then there was the human headline of the last few months, Luke Ball.

The former St Kilda player had nominated Collingwood as his club of choice, warning off other sides. Several clubs threatened to call his bluff.

In the end, Ball ended up falling to pick 30 and the Magpies. The others decided not to take the gamble.

Richmond ended up with seven new draftees, the pick of the bunch being ball magnet Dustin Martin. The only downside is he’ll probably get lumped with Trent Cotchin-esque expectations.

Midfielders were definitely in vogue early on, with Fremantle landing Anthony Morabito with pick four and North Melbourne nabbing Ben Cunnington a pick later.

Port Adelaide also had a bit of a splash, thanks them having two first-round picks, and they weren’t afraid to go tall. With those picks they grabbed John Butcher and Andrew Moore.

In terms of recycled players, Matt Maguire found a new home at Brisbane, Rhan Hooper is off to Hawthorn and both Jesse Smith and Adam Pattison will go to perennial recyclers St Kilda.

Of course, as was expected, the evening was somewhat spoilt by the AFL’s dumbfounding decision to reveal the top ten selections in reverse order.

In the search for some kind of climax, the countdown idea ended up taking a lot of the suspense out of the first round. One of the most exciting aspects of drafts for supporters is seeing which players can “slip” to your club’s pick.

That element was sadly missing last night.

On the whole, however, we shouldn’t be too critical of the league. They took the overdue step of moving to primetime and, relatively speaking, it worked.

Now the focus turns to next year. To Scully and the new-look Demons, to the likes of Morabito and Cunnington, and to the likes of Collingwood and Brisbane and their new mature-age recruits.

2010 is already promising to be a cracking season. Last night gave us more reasons to be excited.

The Karmichael Hunt and Kevin Sheedy experiments may very well end up unmitigated success stories that go on to revolutionise the way we look at both recruiting and coaching. But something tells me the main reason they’ve been snapped up isn’t all that football-related.

Consider that Hunt, the rugby league convert signed to play for the Gold Coast, will line up in just two of his side’s VFL matches next year after returning from his stint playing union in France.

A bridging season in the reserves seemed like the perfect avenue to gradually facilitate his code switch, yet it seems he’ll be largely on the sidelines instead.

Consider also that Sheedy, the legendary coach signed to steer the new Greater Western Sydney outfit, will not be in charge of the team that lines up in the TAC Cup next year, despite it being the first year of his contract. He will take the helm in the team’s VFL preparatory season and their first AFL season.

Then his contract expires. And already people are speaking about possible succession plans and post-2012 replacements.

It makes you wonder just how serious both these signings were.

It’s not as if league players defect to footy all the time. It’s not as if Sheedy is the most in-demand coach, either. He wasn’t deemed suitable for Melbourne’s coaching gig two years ago. This year, he was unwanted by North Melbourne and farcically entered then withdrew from the Richmond race.

As far as the football side of things go, Hunt is just another cap-exempt rookie – a gamble.

As for Sheedy, he’s just another experienced coach placed in a mentor role. It’s the same as Ron Barassi at Sydney in 1993.

In other words, Hunt – despite his salary – will not be an integral part of his side’s list. Sheedy’s role, too, may not be the be-all and end-all for his side. He’s not expected to guide them to a premiership, which would’ve been the case if he’d ended up at a Richmond or North Melbourne.

After all, despite the fact it is looked back on positively, Barassi’s three-year stint at the Swans saw that team finish 15th, 15th and 12th.

So what’s all the fuss about? Why would the AFL try so desperately to land a player who has never played at the elite level and a coach that has been written off by the existing clubs?

Well, the answer should be obvious. They both have a value to these new teams that goes beyond their playing and coaching abilities.

They attract publicity.

And for two brand new clubs without much of an identity at all, that publicity is worth its weight in gold.

Front pages around the country featured the Gold Coast’s newest recruit holding up a jumper with the team colours and logo. Newspapers ran with the story of Team GWS and its first coach as if it were the killer blow that knocked out the NRL for good.

The stories filtered through TV sets, radio sets and the internet. They were major news. Major enough to put two teams that hadn’t even entered the AFL yet well and truly in the national spotlight.

Because of that, the signings have already paid off.

According to the Sport Confidential section of the Herald Sun yesterday, research has revealed the Sheedy signing “would have cost the AFL $6,414,200 in advertising if it had to pay for the coverage.” Hunt’s signing was valued at $7.5 million.

Whether or not that’s entirely accurate is irrelevant. There’s no doubting the value of the publicity caused by the signings exceeds what the two teams will be paying for the two men in salaries, and their journeys have only just begun.

Hunt’s every step will be monitored by the media from here on in. Even in his later years, Sheedy was spruiking his way into news bulletins. It will be the same up in Sydney’s west.

From a marketing perspective, both moves were masterstrokes.

From a football perspective, time will tell.

But something tells me they’ve already made good on the investment made by the AFL and its two new clubs. Anything from here will just be a bonus.

What is going on here? Trade week begins today and we’ve already got Brock McLean moving on, Barry Hall hanging out at the kennel, Josh Gibson and Shaun Burgoyne looking almost Hawthorn-bound and even Brendan Fevola has made it onto the market.

Last year, only six players moved clubs in the trade period. The big, blockbuster trade that pushed the 2pm deadline to its utter limits was – wait for it – Robbie Warnock moving from Fremantle to Carlton!

This year, you can already name five likely trades before the week has begun.

And that’s without having to throw in the ruckmen that could be moved on, like Darren Jolly and Mark Seaby, to name a couple. Or names like Andrew Lovett and Bradd Dalziell, or the host of others discontent at their current clubs.

So put away your free agency protest plans, forget the annual whinge over player movement and go grab that copy of the AFL Prospectus you bought in March purely because you thought you had a chance of winning Dream Team this year.

Because it’s trade week, just not as you know it.

McLean’s move from Melbourne to Carlton in exchange for a first-round draft pick is likely to be the first trade rubber-stamped. Hall’s move from Sydney to the Western Bulldogs could follow, although it doesn’t appear as though an agreement has been struck between clubs just yet.

Moving the likes of Essendon’s Lovett – who is seeking out for the second year in a row – and Brisbane’s Dalziell – who wants to return to Western Australia – may be dependent on what other trades take place.

The same can be said for Fremantle’s Marcus Drum, who appears Victoria-bound, and Richmond’s Andrew Raines, who wants to head back to Queensland. St Kilda’s Luke Ball is another that could be thrown into the mix, depending on what’s being offered.

As for Hawthorn, well, they are a club that can certainly talk the talk. But following on from last year’s failed attempt to nab Ryan O’Keefe from the Swans, you have to wonder if they can walk the walk.

They are in need of a key defender and Gibson tends to fit that bill. North’s new coach Brad Scott has confirmed that he won’t be around next year, and although saying no deal had been reached, president James Brayshaw conceded a week ago it was “highly likely” Gibson would be a Hawk next year.

The acquisition of Burgoyne appears less certain. The Port Adelaide midfielder has nominated Hawthorn as his club of choice, but the deal must be sealed both financially with the player and trade-wise with Port, and other clubs continue to circle.

Of course, the headline-maker this week will be Fev.

He might go to Collingwood. He might go to Brisbane. He might be the subject of an elaborate “this really is your last chance” message and end up staying at Carlton. His situation might put a lot of other deals on hold as clubs wait to see what happens.

Right now, it’s all a bit murky. Rumours have been flying all over the place about where he’ll end up. Who knows how this one will play out?

And as if things weren’t complicated enough, fans must accept the other uncertain aspect of the week ahead – the trades we don’t yet know about. Nobody saw the McLean-to-Carlton move coming, who’s to say there aren’t more deals in the works right now?

One thing that is known for sure is that this trade week is offering something that those in recent years haven’t. It’s called a sense of excitement.

Maybe it is the apparently-shallow draft. Maybe everyone is scared about the Gold Coast. Maybe everyone is scared that the Gold Coast’s access to 17 year-olds is the reason for the apparently-shallow draft.

Whatever it is, trade week hasn’t been this anticipated for some time. I, for one, can’t wait to see what happens.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

They dominated the inside 50s. They had more scoring shots. They’d had the better season, but couldn’t get it done on the big stage. And even though I could be talking about St Kilda here, I’m not. I’m talking about Geelong in last year’s grand final.

The Cats had 20 more inside 50s than Hawthorn last year. They had 34 scoring shots. The weather conditions were perfect for footy. Yet they finished with 11 goals and a whopping 23 behinds.

This year was all about redeeming themselves from that loss.

In an ironic way, they did that. On Saturday, Geelong – in the first half especially – were getting dominated in the inside 50s statistic. They didn’t have the most shots on goal, either.

But there was one area of difference that proved crucial. They managed to – not wanting to get overly technical or anything – kick the ball in between the two big sticks.

Fittingly, thanks to Max Rooke’s major after the siren, the Cats finished with one goal more than they did against the Hawks. And this was in far more atrocious conditions and in a low-scoring game, remember.

Not that any of this should take away from St Kilda’s performance, of course. There’s a reason why they were able to send the ball to their forwards more often.

They applied defensive pressure all over the ground and got brilliant output from guys like Jason Gram (30 possessions) and Lenny Hayes (18 contested possessions) as well as a host of others.

They definitely were worthy of being there on grand final day. In fact, in a lot of other years, efforts like that would have been enough to get over the line.

For Geelong, however, the task of attaining redemption for their poor showing last year is complete.

To come out of this three-year stretch with just one premiership to their name would have cruelly deprived them of a significant place in history.

They got the job done, but it wasn’t easy. The Saints led going into quarter time thanks in part to the actions of Hayes. The star midfielder racked up 11 possessions and five clearances in the first term, which was enough to overcome the Cats’ strong start to the game.

In the second quarter, the Saints saw a lot of it again. They won the inside 50s for the quarter 18-8, but couldn’t capitalize as their five behinds – as well as Stephen Milne’s dribble attempt that didn’t make it – meant both sides finished with four goals for the term.

The small forward trio of Milne, Adam Schneider and Andrew McQualter combined for a total of six behinds in the match. Schneider was the only goal-kicker out of the three. Had they been more effective, it could’ve been a whole different ball game.

There was plenty of controversy in the second, too. Tom Hawkins was awarded six points for a shot that was later revealed to have hit the post. At the other end, the Saints got a double goal after Darren Milburn was penalized for “demonstrative abuse” of an umpire.

Thankfully, the two incidents somewhat cancelled each other out and they didn’t end up deciding the game.

In the second half, the goals dried up and the contest became a true arm-wrestle. The third quarter featured a staggering ten-minute stretch where scores remained level. The Saints entered the final term with a seven-point lead.

Only three goals were scored in the fourth quarter, and all went to Geelong. Hawkins’ set shot laid the foundation, but it wasn’t until late that the match-winner came.

Matthew Scarlett’s neat little toe-poke in the centre square set up space for Gary Ablett, who managed to send it deep into the forward line. The ball spilled, Travis Varcoe mopped it up and dished it off. Chapman was on the end of it.

He turned. He snapped. And he put it through the big sticks.

The Cats ran it out, ultimately winning by 12 points. The premiership was theirs.

For St Kilda, their brilliant season wasn’t rewarded with September glory. It was a heartbreaking loss. Their attention now turns to next year and the possibility that they, too, can bounce back and go one better.

For Geelong, they are redeemed.

Not just from last year, but even from the criticism that amassed as this year rolled on. They were written off in some quarters because they started to lose a few games and were only able to just grind it out when they won. Injuries meant players were coming in and out of the side constantly.

The truth was that after a top two spot was assured, the Cats had bigger fish to fry. All their planning went towards winning on Saturday. And all that planning got the ultimate reward.

As Tom Harley said, “two out of three’s a pretty good effort.”

Here it is. The game we’ve been waiting for. A goal with around a minute left was all that separated Geelong and St Kilda back in round 14. Nearly three months on, they’re set for a re-match – only the stakes this time are much, much higher.

This time they’re not playing for bragging rights. They are playing for the premiership.

St Kilda came up trumps in their game last week with a tight seven-point win over the Western Bulldogs. Geelong had an easier run a night later, overcoming Collingwood by 73 points. Both sides, it seems, got what they would have wanted out of their respective preliminary finals.

The Saints got the perfect tune-up for the big one. Their thriller will give them an indication of areas that need some work, much like Geelong’s near-loss two years ago did for that side.

The Cats got the kind of win they haven’t had in some time. Their dominant display – reminiscent of victories in 2007 and ’08 – will provide plenty of self-belief.

The stage is set for yet another epic clash between these two.

We’ve been schooled all year on what makes St Kilda so good. It’s their ability to win the contested footy. It’s their ability to defensively ‘strangle’ opponents. It’s their pressure.

And it’s also their captain.

Riewoldt is shaping as one of the most important players in this game, simply because a strong showing from him goes a long way towards St Kilda securing a win. He’s kicked 77 goals this year, nine of which have come in the Saints’ two finals to date.

What may end up being equally important, however, is the performance of the other forwards.

Justin Koschitzke, Stephen Milne and Adam Schneider have registered just five goals between them so far in September, only one of which came last week. More output is needed from the trio on Saturday.

The Saints can’t get through the game with an unhealthy reliance on Riewoldt. Given how important his goals are, this could very well shape the result.

Down back, the defence must produce more of the same. Sam Fisher, Zac Dawson, Sam Gilbert, Jason Blake and Stephen Baker may have only combined for one Brownlow vote, but they do work incredibly well as a unit.

That’s part of the reason why the Saints have conceded the least amount of points of any team since the introduction of the 22-round season. And why they out-marked the Dogs 33-8 in the defensive 50 last week.

The Cats are a brilliant side who have been at the top of the pack for three seasons now thanks to their slick ball movement and quality around the park. They’ve got a superb midfield and a strong backline.

But one of their biggest criticisms this year has been their forwards.

Much has been said of Cameron Mooney’s ‘yips’ kicking at goal and young Tom Hawkins’ lack of presence and confidence. The long-term absence of ruckman Brad Ottens as a third-option tall, and niggling injuries to Paul Chapman and Steve Johnson, complicated matters further.

In round 14, such was the plight, there was a reliance on defenders pushing up the ground to score goals. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since, though.

Mooney is still a concern, but he isn’t as off his game as mid-season. Hawkins has been far more active and involved of late. Ottens and Johnson – who didn’t play in that mid-season game – are both back. And they are having a real impact. Chapman, meanwhile, bagged five goals last week.

The changes will, at the very least, avoid the round 14 situation.

Those defenders will have a busy enough afternoon as it is. Harry Taylor should start on Riewoldt. He can claim big scalps, but does on occasion succumb to nerves. A lot is riding on his efforts, as the Cats won’t want to see Matthew Scarlett having to push up the ground to take Riewoldt.

The battle in the middle of the park is seemingly impossible to split.

Whilst the hit-outs may end up swaying in the Cats’ favour, the Saints’ rucks should do better around the ground.

And just like that famous round 14 encounter, watching the likes of Lenny Hayes, Nick Dal Santo, Leigh Montagna and Clint Jones throwing themselves at Gary Ablett, Joel Selwood, Jimmy Bartel and Cameron Ling – and vice versa – will be fantastic and enthralling.

But determining the team that will win the midfield isn’t easy.

Heck, right now, determining the team that will win full-stop isn’t easy. They’ve been locked into positions one and two on the ladder since round 4.

Geelong has an added advantage with their prior grand final experience. The predicted wet and windy weather should also help them out.

St Kilda will hate to let such a brilliant season end with a loss and they do go into the game with an extra day’s rest.

But the Cats might be just too much to overcome, so I’m going tip a reverse of the round 14 result. Geelong by six.

Why the AFL hasn’t fixtured more than one Geelong-Collingwood clash during the past two home and away seasons is beyond me. There’s a pretty good recent rivalry between the two sides.

It began the last time they met in a preliminary final, two years ago. That epic match went right to the death, with the Pies really taking it to their opponent. The Cats held on though, to win by five points.

Last year, the Pies got some revenge by shocking the Cats in round nine with a thumping 86-point win. It was the only loss Geelong suffered in the home and away season.

Throw in a NAB Cup grand final and a healthy win to the Cats in round three this year, and the stage is well and truly set for another cracking final.

If we’re going by the theory that these two teams play one genuinely memorable game per year, then tonight’s going to be a cracker.

What effect will injuries and returning players have?
Scott Pendlebury cracked his fibula bone two weeks ago, yet he’s somehow made it back on the team sheet. He mightn’t yet play – and Mick Malthouse wasn’t giving anything away yesterday – but it’ll make interesting viewing if he does. Josh Fraser’s an emergency, but if he actually is out, he’ll be sorely missed in this game particularly.

Steve Johnson went in for hip surgery three weeks ago, yet he’s somehow defied the odds to make it back this week. The Cats will hope to see him back to his dangerous best. Add that to the inclusion of Max Rooke and you’ve got perhaps the best team – on paper at least – they’ve had all year.

What effect will last week have?
Geelong players would’ve enjoyed sitting in the comfort of their living rooms watching the Pies and Crows go at it in 29-degree heat last weekend. The game went right to the death, and a perception developed in some people’s minds this week that the Pies had already played “their grand final”.

But think back, if you will, to two years ago. Collingwood were returning from an extra time game in Perth going into that famous prelim. It didn’t slow them down then. In fact, if anyone was off-colour it was Geelong, who lacked intensity backing up from the week off. There’s only so much one can take from last week.

Who will win in the middle of the ground?
The forward lines of both sides have had dubious and inconsistent years, albeit with some promising signs in recent weeks. Winning the midfield will be crucial in this contest. As mentioned earlier, the presence of Brad Ottens and the absence of Fraser tips the ruck battle in Geelong’s favour.

Cameron Ling on Dane Swan should be an enthralling battle. Ling will be attempting to deprive the ball magnet of possessions, and Swan will look to run his opponent off his legs. The remainder of the Cats’ midfield is full of class, so Collingwood will be looking to apply as much pressure as possible, à la round nine last year.

Will the Cats make their third-straight grand final?
Their entire season has been structured to peak at this time of the year. As the injury list has shrunk in recent weeks, Geelong has been playing more and more, well, Geelong-like. Their 14-point win over the Western Bulldogs two weeks ago showed extended glimpses of this progress.

Collingwood would be confident after their five-point win last week over Adelaide, but the Cats should be able to win this one – even if it’s another close one.

When St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs meet tonight at the MCG, there will be an unnerving sense of familiarity in the air. St Kilda has been to a preliminary final three times in the past five years, but they’re yet to capitalize.

They lost their prelim last year to eventual premiers Hawthorn. They lost one in 2005 to eventual premiers Sydney. And the closest of the lot came in 2004 against Port Adelaide, who also went on to claim the premiership.

However in their favour this time around is the fact the Western Bulldogs, too, have an uneasy relationship with preliminary final weekend.

The Dogs also fell short this time last year, losing by 29 points to Geelong. Historically speaking, the club has made it to a total of eight preliminary finals. They’ve won only one of them – in 1961.

It’s enough to make supporters of both clubs that little bit more nervous going into the game.

Come the first bounce, though, it’ll be up to the players to make their own history.

Will the Bulldogs be able to handle the Saints forwards?
Last week, the Dogs let Jonathon Brown and Daniel Bradshaw bag three each. The last time they faced the Saints – who were without Justin Koschitzke – both Nick Riewoldt and Stephen Milne bagged five. And now they meet again, just two weeks after Riewoldt silenced doubts over his ability to stand up in finals.

It’s a dangerous mix, and without the luxury of a Tom Williams return, All-Australian Brian Lake becomes especially crucial. He’s more comfortable in the full back role, where he’ll probably face Kosi, but there will be a temptation in Rodney Eade’s mind to move him up to Riewoldt.

How will the battle up the other end of the ground pan out?
This match pits the team that scored the most points all season up against the team that conceded the least points all season. It’s hard to judge which way this will go due to the “even spread” both teams have. St Kilda’s renowned for their defensive pressure, and they’ll need to produce that tonight.

However the Dogs can come out on top here, especially if the likes of Brad Johnson, Jason Akermanis and Shaun Higgins are all firing. Despite the criticism their forward set-up cops this time of the year, they can still do some damage.

Who will win the midfield battle?
The Bulldogs are ranked second in the competition for disposals – two spots above St Kilda – but have been comprehensively beaten in this statistic on the two occasions they played the Saints this year. The Saints have been able to restrict them from playing their usual free-flowing style of play.

Both sides have quality players running around in the middle, but line them up mano a mano, and the Saints would be ahead. Matthew Boyd, Daniel Cross, Adam Cooney et al will need to bring their A-game to outdo the likes of Nick Dal Santo, Lenny Hayes and Leigh Montagna.

Will St Kilda continue their good record against the Dogs in ‘09?
The two teams met twice in the home and away season, and St Kilda was impressive on both occasions. They came away with a 28-point victory in round six, and come up trumps by 45 points back in round 17.

That win streak looks likely to continue. The Bulldogs won’t be out of it tonight, but the Saints are in the best position they’ve been in all decade to march on for one week more.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

The AFL’s top eight system cops a few whacks every now and then. Like this week, for example, in the post-match digestion of Adelaide’s 96-point thumping of Essendon. Or like last year, when poor crowds turned out in Adelaide and Sydney.

No one can shy away from the fact the top eight system has its flaws. Anomalies will pop up from time to time.

This year it was bound to happen given the on-again, off-again relationship certain sides had with eighth spot.

Last year with the crowd issues, sides like Adelaide and Sydney were perceived to be at the end of their run of finals. So you would expect interest to be weaker than it was, say, this year with the Brisbane Lions – or with the born-again Crows for that matter.

But let’s be honest. At the end of the day, it is the best system out there in terms of keeping the high standing of the finals in tact at the same time as attaining the AFL’s goals of high attendances and TV ratings.

For every Adelaide-Essendon, there’s a Brisbane-Carlton.

For every year of dubious crowd figures (2008), there’s a year of record-nudging figures (2009).

The flaws in the current set-up aren’t overly prevalent, they just simply bob up every now and then. If there’s any system on the cards at the moment should be given a whack, it sure isn’t the current one.

Expansion is immanent for the AFL, and so there has been talk, naturally, of expanding the finals series in line with the introduction of new teams.

This is an example of something that sounds okay in theory, but looks horrific in practice.

The likely final nine system, which is explained in detail here, would give the minor premier an awkward path to grand final day, as they receive a bye in week one and then – should they keep winning – another one two weeks later.

Not every side thrives with the week off. You can’t tell me Geelong have been at their best during their last two preliminary finals. Other teams struggle to fire in the first half of the game after the break and are susceptible to being caught out.

Perhaps more dumbfounding, however, is the fact that ninth place – the team that otherwise wouldn’t make it – will act merely as a token addition. Their finals run would include: a first-up game against the fourth-placed side, then a clash with either the second or third-placed side, then a clash with another top three side after that.

And if they are some how able to pull off the impossible and win all those games, what is their reward? A spot in the preliminary final. That’s it. They’re still a game away from making the grand final.

It’s hard enough for the eighth-placed side in the current system to make an impact. So how would it be possible for ninth to do it with that run?

It’s difficult to see the AFL’s justification. Wouldn’t two extra teams compliment the current system?

The final nine alternative would be disjointed. It would be a mess. Worse still, it would exacerbate the flaws of the current system, to the point where they can no longer be passed off as “anomalies” that appear “from time to time”.

Having fourth play ninth isn’t going to avoid one-sided contests. Over-rewarding home and away season form – and restricting those benefits to the top three – isn’t going to avoid one-sided contests.

The confusing system of snakes and ladders – with only one extra “elimination” final – won’t help reduce the number of games that fail to ignite the kind of public interest befitting of a final, either.

The league has been going back and forth on this idea ever since they first floated it this time last year. In April, Gillon McLachlan came out saying the AFL was content with and sticking with the status quo.

“We are pretty happy with the finals system we have got in place, and there hasn’t been any work going on to review it,” he said.

But last month, Andrew Demetriou threw the idea out there once again. “If there’s a final nine, the top team might get a bye, you might get a five-week finals series,” the AFL boss openly pondered.

It’s all a little bit mystifying, to be honest. But it’s also quite fitting, in an ironic kind of way.

Following what the AFL are saying about the final nine is about as confusing as, well, following the final nine itself.

Having footy games broadcast live on TV has been a recurring topic this week. With two of this weekend’s finals – both featuring two Victorian teams – being shown on delay in Victoria, Geelong president Frank Costa kicked it off by pushing for all finals to be screened live.

The talk continued yesterday in the Herald Sun, with the small paper belatedly reporting that “rogue websites” have been offering live streaming of AFL games online without cost. The article said that the AFL’s Gillon McLachlan was trying to have the streams blocked for this weekend.

But the most interesting piece of news came from Caroline Wilson, who wrote in The Age that live Friday night football could become mandatory from the next broadcast deal onwards, as it is part of the prospectus handed to potential rights-holders.

The trade-off to the broadcasters in such an environment would be the extra revenue that can be attained by linking up with a betting agency to show live odds. TAB Sportsbet’s Gary Davies told The Age that a fierce bidding war would occur for an exclusive deal with the Friday night broadcaster.

So are we finally nearing the day footy fans have been waiting for?

Does this mean the AFL will fall into line with pretty much every other major sports league around the world?

Well, only so much can be taken from Costa’s comments. They simply offer further proof of just how irked the footy public are by the delaying of games. Every time there’s a big game that looks like not being shown live, there are calls for change.

A little bit more can be taken from the rebellious live streams, though. They are a haven for fans who are either Foxtel-less or simply can’t stand the delays and the possibility of having the result ruined because they chose not to completely shut themselves off from the world for four hours.

Another factor at play would be that the AFL’s power to block them would be limited. Just yesterday you could tune in to live NFL and college football online, as well as US Open tennis. The EPL also has a strong presence on such sites.

That this week’s article implied that McLachlan was only made aware of the sites on Thursday is in itself mystifying.

These streams don’t yet have a massive audience for footy games. Having seen the sort of numbers they attract, they wouldn’t yet be making any dints in ratings, that’s for sure. But they are an indication of where things are headed if nothing is done.

Above all, however, Wilson’s article provided the brightest light at the end of the tunnel for shut out fans.

Up until now, it was considered to be all about the money. The reason we haven’t had live footy on Friday nights is because Channel Seven can squeeze an extra hour’s worth of advertising dollars by showing Better Homes and Gardens.

Recently, however, the landscape has changed. The AFL now receives dividends from major bookmakers on bets made on footy. The bookies now have greater abilities to advertise. This has all come about since the last broadcast deal was signed.

Nothing’s official yet, of course. What was reported was just part of a prospectus. But all of the sudden, it seems as though there is money to be made out of live footy.

All of the sudden, a shift towards more live football doesn’t seem all that impossible.

At last, there is hope for fans. And even that is overdue.

A couple of Hawthorn fans stood outside AFL House the other night, just before Lance Franklin was set to face the tribunal. They held up a banner carrying a message of support. “Fight the good fight,” it read.

Their message expressed a sentiment that many football fans – Hawthorn and non-Hawthorn followers alike – would’ve felt.

Buddy’s hit on Richmond’s Ben Cousins had more implications than just the Hawks’ chances of beating Essendon this weekend. It opened up the can of worms that is the bump, and whether or not it has a place in the game.

Cries of “they’re killing off the bump” have been familiar this week.

“They’re taking physicality out of the game” has had a decent run, too.

“They’re turning the game into netball” – no matter how old it’s getting – was trotted out as well.

The latter two are exaggerations, of course. Toughness, strength, physicality and all sorts of similar traits have been a feature of footy since the game began. They aren’t the kind of characteristics that can simply be killed off, and the bump is only one of the on-field actions that embodies them.

It’s the former comment, more specifically, that rings true.

If the rules as they are presently set up continue, then yes, by all means – the AFL are killing off the bump. That much can’t be disputed.

Under these conditions, any player with any sort of height about them cannot possibly justify the risk involved with bumping an opponent. If they get them the slightest bit too high, they will get rubbed out.

Interestingly, in previous years what happened with Franklin and Cousins probably wouldn’t have resulted in a suspension.

Indeed, Nick Maxwell’s jaw-breaking bump on West Coast’s Patrick McGinnity in this year’s NAB Cup was the catalyst for a change in rules. Maxwell was facing a four-week ban, before Collingwood had it successfully overturned. That forced the AFL to act.

Now, if the bump is to have any hope of surviving, it is up the rules committee.

The committee makes all of its crucial decisions in the off-season, and each year there tends to be an issue that really goes under the microscope. Last year it was rushed behinds. This year, in all likeliness, the bump – and whether or not it deserves to be saved – will be at the top of the agenda.

Franklin was caught in an unfortunate situation, and he’s paying a hefty price for it.

Whilst there certainly was the opportunity for him to tackle, the circumstances were against him. According to the Hawks’ tribunal defence, he had 0.4 seconds to react to the situation – a situation that was complicated by Cousins and his fumbling of the ball.

Perhaps his biggest mistake was simply not responding quick enough and being caught out. Understandably, a lot of people don’t see much of a crime in that.

For the rules committee, however, there will be other factors at play.

Is the bump a loophole in the push to protect players’ heads? Are the current rules too restrictive? What’s the risk of a player ending up with more than a broken jaw?

How these questions are answered will decide the fate of the bump.

Michael Gardiner, Jason Gram, Farren Ray, Zac Dawson, Adam Schneider, Steven King and Sean Dempster all arrived at St Kilda via a familiar path. All of them, for varying reasons, were in search of a fresh start, a second chance, or simply a new home, when the Saints took them on board.

All of them have gone on to establish themselves in the Saints’ best 22.

And now all of them – all seven of them – are in a position to win a flag.

Whilst some clubs declare that recycling players is an area they don’t want to touch, St Kilda are happy to go down the path of giving guys a new club. It’s one of the great little side stories behind their success so far this year.

Had they not gone down the path they did, it’s unlikely their list would be as strong as it is today.

The core of the team that came within an inch of playing grand finals in 2004 and 2005 is basically still there, with a few adjustments.

But because of player recycling, they’ve now also got a much stronger ruck division (thanks to Gardiner and King) and have plugged holes all over the ground (thanks to the other recruits).

One flow-on benefit is that Justin Koschitzke hasn’t had to spend anywhere near as much time in the ruck, giving them an extremely potent forward line.

Another flow-on benefit is the increased competition for spots. You only have to look at last weekend’s win over Hawthorn, in spite of eight outs on the team sheet, to know how eager fringe players are to land a place in the team.

Things like that can only help a side.

The only wonder is why more clubs don’t look at exploring avenues like the rookie draft, or trade week, or even take the time to look further into fringe players at other clubs. There are gems hiding all over the place.

Even Hawthorn last year benefited greatly by the addition of Stuart Dew – who was hiding away in retirement, of all places.

At the beginning of that season, and even later on in the year, there were question marks about whether or not the Hawks were “ready” yet. But the subtle addition of Dew proved to be a masterstroke.

He brought premiership experience to the team, played a handy role and, most important of all, put in a standout performance on grand final day.

The Hawks were a better side because they took that gamble.

St Kilda at the end of ‘06, after a disappointing finals campaign, knew that they probably needed that little bit more to taste success. A new coach, Ross Lyon, brought with him an open-minded attitude as to how they could bounce back and compete for a premiership.

The results weren’t instant, but they’re clearly showing now.

Before Lyon came in, Gardiner was at West Coast, Ray was at the Bulldogs, Dawson was at Hawthorn, Schneider and Dempster were at Sydney, and King was at Geelong.

Now, all these guys feature in the Saints’ best 22, a side that’s sitting at 19-0 with a genuine shot at a premiership.

Clubs should follow the lead of St Kilda. They should dig deeper for talent. They should consider actually doing something at trade week. They should go to whatever lengths necessary to bolster their list.

Because there are some gems hiding out there, and if they can find them, they’ll be a better club for it.

Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
SPONSOR

The Sydney Swans are set for a major coaching shake-up, with the club yesterday announcing that senior coach Paul Roos will step aside at the end of next season. Long-time assistant John Longmire has been named as his replacement from 2011 onwards.

The move follows the lead of Collingwood, who just two weeks ago announced a similar succession plan with current coach Mick Malthouse and favourite son Nathan Buckley.

The move also carries broader implications for the coaching search at North Melbourne, the former club of Longmire, where he was reported as a front-runner for the vacant senior coach position.

Roos’ tenure began half-way through the 2002 season as a caretaker, after the Swans parted ways with Rodney Eade. Just three years on from that ten-game stretch, he delivered the club’s first premiership in 72 years.

Prior to this year, there hasn’t been a full season he’s coached that didn’t end with finals action. Going into round 20 this weekend, there is a (very) slight chance that streak may yet continue.

But despite all his success, Roos has reiterated on many occasions that he did not consider himself a “career coach”. Indeed, his exit will come a year earlier than when his contracted term was up, and in his press conference yesterday he labelled it “primarily a family decision”.

He wants to spend more time with his teenage sons before they move out, and has stated in the past his desire to spend more time in America, where his wife hails from.

The other factor weighing on his mind and, more specifically, the club’s minds – one that may have in fact altered the timing of this decision, if nothing else – was John Longmire.

Longmire had played 200 games and won a premiership at North Melbourne. He joined the Swans coaching staff as an assistant in 2002, and was recently promoted to the role of coaching co-ordinator.

Given the success of former (and at the time of his senior appointment, less-touted) Sydney assistant Ross Lyon at St Kilda, you can understand why he was getting attention from Melbourne-based clubs.

Longmire has essentially been groomed to succeed Roos (which is one reason why we’ve seen Roos on the boundary line so much this year) and yesterday’s announcement makes it formal.

It’s a win for Roos, who gets to bow out in the manner he had intended to.

It’s a win for Longmire, who at long last gets to shake the “coach-in-waiting” tag and have a senior job locked in.

But above all, it’s a win for the Swans. They were always going to lose Roos at some point, but to have lost the man they’d pinned their succession plans on so close to that point would’ve been a cruel blow.

Like Collingwood, they didn’t just get their guy – they got their guys.

Even better, they managed to do it avoiding some of the potential stumbling blocks that surround the Magpies’ handover.

Roos has no interest in coaching beyond next year; Malthouse’s interest has shown no signs of waning and he’s still aiming to win premierships.

Longmire and Roos have an obvious history of a working relationship as coaches; it is unknown whether any tension will exist between Buckley and Malthouse.

At the very least, it’ll mean the media won’t be on their back as much.

The next challenge for Sydney going forward is to rebuild in order to return to being a player in September. It only makes sense that a rebuild of sorts will take place in the coaches box, too.

But after a drought-breaking premiership and a sustained finals-making run, it has to be said Longmire has some pretty big shoes to fill.