The Biggest Myths in Football History

Remove this Banner Ad

Shane Hird

Cancelled
10k Posts A Star Wars Fan The Cult of Robbo Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
May 8, 2006
13,700
11,432
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
NYJ
Myth No.1: That the 1970 GF was the 'birth' of the free-running, play-on and handpass style of play/tactic that delevoped into the modern game we see now.

Read these then I'll explain...

He called for the stats sheets. Barassi knew that Carlton's running and handpassing was way down, and he wanted to quote the figures to the players. His eyes went straight to the hand-pass total for the first half.

He knew it must be low but he hadn't realised how low. He asked two players, Kevin Hall and Robert Walls, for their estimates.

They were both well out with their guesses but at least they understood that the team was well below the normal average of about 40. The figure, in fact, was 16.

He roared this at the players: 'A lousy, stinking, rotten 16 handballs.

They were in deep trouble and Barassi just asked each player to relax and think about his own game. He told them that the selectors and he were going to consult...in the next room.

Collingwood's tall players were causing trouble, so Barassi devised a plan to try to reduce their effort. Whenever Carlton had a kick, either a free kick or from a mark, and weren't playing on, a team-mate was to stooge around near the opposition man on the mark.

As the kicker came to take his kick, his team-mate would drift forward, the handpass would go over the head of the man on the mark and the reciever would take the ball, dash down the field and kick.

Barassi's theory was that this would leave the Collingwood big men- Eakins, Jenkin, Waters and Len Thompson- out of the marking contests. Other normal handball tactics had to come into use- the Blues just had to get their running game going.


From the book: Barassi- The Life behind the Legend. By Barassi and Peter McFarline



Nobby8-

The Carlton selectors and Barassi disagreed on one thing during that meeting at half-time. Barassi wanted to bring Ted Hopkins on at the start of the 3rd qtr and take off Bert Thornley who was playing like ####.

Hopkins was a reserve for many games during the 1970 season and was desperate for a run in the GF. In those days, once a player came off he couldn't come back on the ground, so it was a big risk to switch players unless there was an injury.

The selectors wanted to wait and see what happens for the first 10 minutes. Barrassi reluctantly agreed. But at the very last moment, just before the players were about to run out, he says something inside him said 'Put Hopkins on now'..and he got his way and Ted was on.

The play-on style that Carlton played in that 2nd half created moments of space for Hopkins. He ran around like a madman and got into position to recieve handpasses andd kicked two goals in the first four minutes and four for the half. The other Carlton players got their full confidence back with-in the first 10 minutes of the qrt and the many Carlton stars who had done nothing in the 1st half started to lift and get involved.

Carlton were still 27 points down with 10 minutes to go the final qtr but they continued to play- on and handpass over opposition players to get the ball moving towards goal. Hopkins scored a goal (his 4th) that put them with-in one point after recieving a Syd Jackson handpass from over the top of a pack of players. But Hopkins wasn't the match winner- the team as a whole just lifted and played 3 qrts of hard and fast footy.

On the day, Barassi's plan just came together and Collingwood's high marking big men were left to chase smaller quicker players who were all running around hand-passing to each other and playing-on and drilling it down the ground towards the goals.

It's not as if every team around the country suddenly started playing like this. But it didn't take long for sides like Richmond in the early '70s and Essendon and Hawthorn in the '80s to combine this modern play-on style of game with the supreme fitness of all players on the ground.


Barassi then talks about how he had been trying to introduce this type of attacking hand-passing style of game for some time before the 1970 GF but it didn't always come off well.
Teams of the time were still in the mode of taking a mark and turning your back on the play and slowly going back to take your kick-This kick would almost always be up the field to an almost certain contested situation between two or more tall players.

Barassi knew from personal experience that this type of play had been around for awhile, but to make it work on game day it needed a team that displayed total self-discipline to make it all come together.

The coach can suggest it and make them practice it at training, but it's game day that matters and things don't always go to plan on match day.
During his own playing days at MFC under Norm Smith, he was part of Smith's plan to have hard-running,agressive ball carriers who took a handpass and ran down the field to leading forwards.

Norm Smith got many of his ideas from his brother Len and it's Barassi himself who says that Len Smith is basically the one who 'invented' the modern style of play.



A far less dour approach to play was cultivated by Len Smith, the brother of the more famous Norm. During the 1950's Len challenged the conservative conventions that dictated how teams should occupy territory and move the ball around the ground.

He pioneered a system of play that combined possession football with a speedy, play-on style in which players were free to move outside their customary postions and rotate with team-mates.

He emphasised the rapid movement of the ball by hand and foot and the need to maintain possession for as long as possible before initiating a systematic forward thrust.


From the book More than a game- Hess and Stewart.



I'm just so sick of reading articles every finals series about how the 1970 GF changed the game over night and everything else before that game was a slow 1880s style of play.

If anyone can be 'credited' for the 'birth' of the modern style of footy it should be Chris Connelly when he was coaching Fremantle.

Rotation of mid-fielders is what the modern game is all about compared to the old days, not playing-on and handpassing.


Is the Myth busted?

Thoughts?


Next myth?
 
Interesting stuff but that game was decided by the injury to McKenna more than anything else. While he dominated Collingwood were irresistable. He got hurt in a collision, Carlton came back hard and Collingwood couldn't score the odd goal to stem the tide without their star FF for which Carlton had no answer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Myth 2
That the best team of the year, is always the team that wins the Grand Final.

Reality
Any competiton that uses a one-off game to decide the whole years premier team, is prone to the variables that exist in any given game, and quite often the years best team does not win the Grand Final.

The years best team doesn't go 25-0 do they? So, even the years best team still loses 4-5 games. Sometimes one of those 4 or 5 is a Preliminary Final or a Grand Final.
 
Myth 3
That Geelong were hard done by travelling to Adelaide in the second week of the finals in 1997.

Reality
Geelong finished 2nd and lost to 7th in the first week.

Now, remmeber, even though double chances exist, finals are basically, and are famous for being a knockout way to decide the premiers. Geelong LOST to the 7th team and actually received a second chance. That itself is an enourmous advantage that wouldn't happen in, say the NFL.

This isn't like the current system, where 2nd plays 3rd and there has to be a double chance because two top teams play each other, whereby the loser retains their higher seed in week 2 versus the winner of 6v7.

No, this was a different system, where the top-4 all had the opportunity to win. You can't use the excuse "oh we only lost because two top-4 teams were playing each other so someonje had to lose"

No, the top 4 all had the opportunity to win.

Under that system, 2nd had a theoretically easier match versus 7th. The trade-off for that easier match is that they lose home ground advantage if they fail to beat 7th. Under the current system, 2nd have a harder match versus 3rd. The trade-off for that harder match is they retain home ground advantage if they lose.

Under that 1997 system, the 4 winners in the first week were seeded 1,2,3,4. The four losers (of which Geelong was the highest placed) were seeded 5,6,7,8.

In the second week, 3rd hosted 5th. Adelaide was 3rd, Geelong was 5th. Last time I checked, 3rd is higher than 5th. Adelaide deserved to host that game.

In 2007, the trade-off for "2nd-placed" Geelong losing to the easier 7th-placed opponent was to drop to 5th seed and lose home ground advantage in week 2.

In 2010, the trade-off for "2nd-placed" Geelong losing to the harder 3rd-placed opponent was to drop to 3rd seed and have home ground advantage in week 2.

That's the reality. There is no debate or argument about it.
 
Any competiton that uses a one-off game to decide the whole years premier team, is prone to the variables that exist in any given game, and quite often the years best team does not win the Grand Final.
It's a one off game that you can only be part of if you win enough games to play finals and play well enough in the finals to beat enough good sides to make the GF. Then if you win it you get to argue the toss about whether you deserved it.

Mostly the best teams wins. Occassionaly a good team who gets it right at the the right times beats the best team in the GF and that's what tests the best team and makes the game.

Long live the Grand Final!

Dunno how you can possibly say the often the best team doesn't win. IMO they nearly always do.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Myth 3
That Geelong were hard done by travelling to Adelaide in the second week of the finals in 1997.

Reality
Geelong finished 2nd and lost to 7th in the first week.

Now, remmeber, even though double chances exist, finals are basically, and are famous for being a knockout way to decide the premiers. Geelong LOST to the 7th team and actually received a second chance. That itself is an enourmous advantage that wouldn't happen in, say the NFL.

This isn't like the current system, where 2nd plays 3rd and there has to be a double chance because two top teams play each other, whereby the loser retains their higher seed in week 2 versus the winner of 6v7.

No, this was a different system, where the top-4 all had the opportunity to win. You can't use the excuse "oh we only lost because two top-4 teams were playing each other so someonje had to lose"

No, the top 4 all had the opportunity to win.

Under that system, 2nd had a theoretically easier match versus 7th. The trade-off for that easier match is that they lose home ground advantage if they fail to beat 7th. Under the current system, 2nd have a harder match versus 3rd. The trade-off for that harder match is they retain home ground advantage if they lose.

Under that 1997 system, the 4 winners in the first week were seeded 1,2,3,4. The four losers (of which Geelong was the highest placed) were seeded 5,6,7,8.

In the second week, 3rd hosted 5th. Adelaide was 3rd, Geelong was 5th. Last time I checked, 3rd is higher than 5th. Adelaide deserved to host that game.

In 2007, the trade-off for "2nd-placed" Geelong losing to the easier 7th-placed opponent was to drop to 5th seed and lose home ground advantage in week 2.

In 2010, the trade-off for "2nd-placed" Geelong losing to the harder 3rd-placed opponent was to drop to 3rd seed and have home ground advantage in week 2.

That's the reality. There is no debate or argument about it.

When people say they were hard done by, do you think they mean the finals system wasn't adhered to properly, or the system was unfair?

Because if it is about the system being unfair then they are right.There is no debate or argument about it.

Any side that finishes 2nd should get their 2nd final at home even if they lose their 1st.I don't care if they play 7th 8th or 16th.If you win more games then 14 other teams then you deserve that right.

The fact the game was in Adelaide was correct according to the system. That is why that system got the tijuana brass.
 
Demetriou is doing a great job. Sheesh where do you start.
1. only got the job because everyone else above him moved on. And why he has useless underlings to maintain his power base.
2. fell ass up into the bidding rights and screwed the networks.
3. introducing a team in an area nobody wants and ignores Tasmania because its not economically feasible. shit how much money is GWS going to cost us for the next 50 years.

Kevin Sheedy is a great bloke.
would sell his grandmother to win a game of football. and would screw over every other team in the comp to achieve "his" purpose.

John Nichols was a great champion of the club.
great player but talk to any one from that era and ask them about "big Nick" and see what sort of response you get.
 
Myth: The AFL has "clubs".

Reality: There are 18 AFL franchises and a lot of deluded fans. You want a club, get out and support and/or volunteer for your local, country or suburban footy club. Those are real clubs. AFL teams are franchises one and all.
 
The city of Melbourne is capable of supporting, in both sponsorship dollars and crowd numbers and without league charity, 9 AFL franchises in isolation - let alone after you take out the sponsorship dollars (and some amounts of non-overlapping crowd from other football codes) from the Storm, Rebels, Victory, Heart, Vixens, Bushrangers, Tigers, Rangers and Aces, just to name a few season sports, plus the F1 and Australian Open tennis.
 
Now, remmeber, even though double chances exist, finals are basically, and are famous for being a knockout way to decide the premiers. Geelong LOST to the 7th team and actually received a second chance. That itself is an enourmous advantage that wouldn't happen in, say the NFL.

In the NFL, Geelong would have had a first round bye.

Hard-done by is probably overstating things a bit. I think where Geelong supporters (me included) are coming from is North were always much better than their seventh position on the ladder indicated; from memory they'd been decimated by injuries until they came good in the lead up to the finals (5-2 over the last seven weeks to get them into September action). A couple more goals kicked by Geelong during the season, or a couple less opposition goals and they would have been playing against a 10-11-1 Brisbane in the first week.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Biggest Myths in Football History

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top