What are some of the biggest pieces of revisionist history in the AFL?

[Chadwiko]

See I reckon that’s a bit revisionist. Check his 2011 season, the year before Dank. He was leading the Brownlow after 7 rounds on 11 votes. Then in the eighth game he went and pulled his hamstring, in the end that cost him six weeks out and he struggled to regain full strength in the muscle. 2012 was a continuation of that 2011 form, without the injury. Average votes per game until his injury in 2011 was 1.5, superior to the 1.36 he achieved in 2012. He was clearly on an upwards trajectory, having improved his fitness and disposal.

You just proved my point.

 

[Im New]

You just proved my point.

Nope. You’re suggesting he wasn’t good enough to get votes “without the druggzzz” when he clearly was. Why was he polling so strongly the year before? Just answer that.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

That Jobe Watson earned his Brownlow, and he deserves to have it returned.

Absolutely not.

I feel like history has forgotten that the most common knock against Watson for years was that he was talented but couldn't run out full games. That he was always gassed in the 4th quarters and looked like he was gasping for air. That lack of fitness was such a common complaint that it basically became a meme.

Then in the offseason before the 2012 season, the Essendon supplements program started, and all of a sudden Jobe Watson was fitter than he had ever been. It seemingly changed overnight. He doubled his career-high Brownlow votes in 2012, and earned his first All Australian nod. What a coincidence!

No, I'm sorry but the Essendon saga punishments were deserved, including Watson losing the Brownlow. History should never undo that.

I would add to this, that it is revisionist history that Essendon were punished heavily or even adequately for running a systematic doping regime.

They were fined $2million, chump change for the Bombers, and taken out of two drafts. They were apart of negotiations for the punishment. For their troubles they got first look at 10 of the best state league players/players outside the AFL, whilst retaining their best players who they still had the option of trading. They then got first pick at the best kid in the country.

The players copped it far worse and it is disgraceful how they targeted individuals. When everybody is in on it that is a club issue.

 

[Jukesy85]

Holy shit the “goals kicked as a wingman only count if they’re kicked 80m+ while on the wing” guy is actually a numpty.

Do we not count Errol Gulden’s disposals as being accumulated while playing on the wing (and therefore taking him out of the running for AA winger) if he gets them inside the 50s or the centre square?

 

[Chadwiko]

Nope. You’re suggesting he wasn’t good enough to get votes “without the druggzzz” when he clearly was. Why was he polling so strongly the year before? Just answer that.

He polled half the Brownlow votes in 2011 than he did after the doping program in 2012. Got his first All Australian in 2012, too.

It's literally revisionist history to try and paint Jobe Watson as if he wasn't the largest beneficiary of Essendon's doping scheme.

 

[Captain_Bender]

See I reckon that’s a bit revisionist. Check his 2011 season, the year before Dank. He was leading the Brownlow after 7 rounds on 11 votes. Then in the eighth game he went and pulled his hamstring, in the end that cost him six weeks out and he struggled to regain full strength in the muscle. 2012 was a continuation of that 2011 form, without the injury. Average votes per game until his injury in 2011 was 1.5, superior to the 1.36 he achieved in 2012. He was clearly on an upwards trajectory, having improved his fitness and disposal.

The only year when Watson played every game was 2012

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I would add to this, that it is revisionist history that Essendon were punished heavily or even adequately for running a systematic doping regime.

They were fined $2million, chump change for the Bombers, and taken out of two drafts. They were apart of negotiations for the punishment. For their troubles they got first look at 10 of the best state league players/players outside the AFL, whilst retaining their best players who they still had the option of trading. They then got first pick at the best kid in the country.

The sanctions were negotiated because the AFL was on very shaky ground and they knew it.

It wasn’t about punishment, it was about pre-judging the AFL-ASADA investigation for PR purposes, that being removing Essendon from the 2013 finals (a sanction you seem to have forgotten) to ensure they were not a PR risk for the AFL in September.

There was no due process. It was simply about removing them from the 2013 finals.

The AFL needed Essendon to play ball so it was negotiated. Even still…

• Kicked out of a finals spot that they’d won (first time ever)
• Fined $2m (the biggest fine in AFL history is apparently “chump change” )
• Senior coach suspended for 12 months (first time ever)
• Lost three Round 1 & 2 draft picks

“Not punished heavily”

I mean, the heaviest sanctions imposed on any club in the history of the league are, by definition, heavy. It is actually revisionist to say they aren’t.

But we know what the problem is here. Carlton were a smouldering pile of burnt shit after their own sanctions for cheating the salary cap… and their supporters hurt that Essendon, although being quite shit since, weren’t left in quite the same wooden spoon-collecting state.

Thing is though, the sanctions didn’t do that to Carlton. They didn’t help, of course, but the list and the club were an absolute train wreck before the sanctions. That was the problem.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

The sanctions were negotiated because the AFL was on very shaky ground and they knew it.

It wasn’t about punishment, it was about pre-judging the AFL-ASADA investigation for PR purposes, that being removing Essendon from the 2013 finals (a sanction you seem to have forgotten) to ensure they were not a PR risk for the AFL in September.

There was no due process. It was simply about removing them from the 2013 finals.

The AFL needed Essendon to play ball so it was negotiated. Even still…

• Kicked out of a finals spot that they’d won (first time ever)
• Fined $2m (the biggest fine in AFL history is apparently “chump change” )
• Senior coach suspended for 12 months (first time ever)
• Lost three Round 1 & 2 draft picks

“Not punished heavily”

I mean, the heaviest sanctions imposed on any club in the history of the league are, by definition, heavy. It is actually revisionist to say they aren’t.

But we know what the problem is here. Carlton were a smouldering pile of burnt shit after their own sanctions for cheating the salary cap… and their supporters hurt that Essendon, although being quite shit since, weren’t left in quite the same wooden spoon-collecting state.

Thing is though, the sanctions didn’t do that to Carlton. They didn’t help, of course, but the list and the club were an absolute train wreck before the sanctions. That was the problem.

Certainly the heaviest sanctions for an AFL club because no AFL club has gone near something so massive. For what went on Essendon the club were not punished hard enough. A few individuals took the fall when everybody top down knew of and partook in the program in one way or another. Club sanctioned. On the world scale it was a nothing punishment.

Nothing to do with my mob. Carlton thought they were too slick when other clubs had tightened up by then.

 

[t_94]

That Ken Hinkley is a good coach, that Port has played finals in just about year that he's coached.

That he's selfless, that he's this loveable Kenny bloke.

When Port lose its always the players fault. That the inaccuracy of the team is a reflection on the players and not his game plan.

That supporters' expectations are unreasonable and based on relative dominance in the SANFL.

There is a subset of port supporters (usually older) for who the bolder is very much true. Think they are ‘hard nosed’ who ‘ don’t accept anything but premierships’ when in reality they can’t face the fact that it’s not 1983 anymore and they are a battler club in the scheme of the AFL.

Hinkley is a dud though.

 

[revo333]

Footy was better 10-15 years ago, or in the 80s. It wasn't. It was very good comparatively in the 90s though.

I think 90's football gets overrated mainly because one season (1993) was one of the best and most memorable seasons of all time.

 

[revo333]

That Hawks were underdogs v Freo in the 2013 GF

They were quite a pronounced favourite

Can't remember a Grand Final that got forgotten about so quickly and never even gets recognised now.

My memory is the media and Hawthorn fans did well to make people think Freo were a fighting chance.

Hawthorn fans are pretty good at trying to make it out like every flag they won has been backs to the wall and against all of the AFL.

The final score line made it seem a closer game then it actually was, I thought Hawthorn were always in control.

 

[terrybull]

Footy was better 10-15 years ago, or in the 80s. It wasn't. It was very good comparatively in the 90s though.

Footy is always going to be better when you are a kid. You have more passion, it’s life or death. That’s why every oldie are always gonna say it was better in their days…

 

[Teen Wolf]

Speaking of people ruining everything with their inflated reverence for the '70s-'90s, the VFL/AFL Team of the Century is rife with revisionist history.

And despite having dumped on Carey in my last post, ain't no way Glenn Archer was the "Shinboner of the Century".

Regardless of whether you think it was race-fuelled, "Adam Goodes started getting booed after pointing out the Collingwood girl" is a lie. His ability and output as a player is also woefully underappreciated by the public and media imo, though I can't prove that part.

An even more recent distortion is the notion that the mean AFL strong-armed poor innocent Tasmania into building the new stadium. The truth, of course, is the Tassie-funded ~$300m investment was recommended by the state govt-backed Taskforce Report.

I've also heard it said that a portion of South Australians have foggy memories about their "support" for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment at the time.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Fyfe cost freo the 2013 flag
@21 he was the best midfielder on the ground by a country mile.
It was freos fwds not kicking goals that cost the flag

Fyfe was spraying them in the first half.

Pav didn't make the distance from about 30 or 40m in the first half.

Ballantyne kicking them everywhere except to a team mates or through the goals for the whole game.

Hawthorn were no better, it was Gunston and Lake that saved the day.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Gotta say , this is the first time I've ever seen it suggested that the narrative was only we had injuries .
I was only a young fella at the time but amongst everything I was told and heard both teams would have struggled to put together decent teams the following week ( if it was required )
Even the doco's or stories on it I've seen in general are pretty consistent with that .

I've ever heard our players say the same . I don't know maybe it's more how you guys felt it was portrayed

I was 21 when that gf was played and this is the first time I've seen Geelong's injury list laid out like that, I was never aware.

 

[Headless]

Look, this is the wing…

Did Gary kick any from there? I can’t believe how difficult people are making this. The storytelling is quite unreal, to the point people don’t even know the sections of the ground anymore.

Why share this image that contradicts your own argument?

 

[Cleansweep17]

Why share this image that contradicts your own argument?

How so?

W (the dark green section) = Wing mate

Didn’t kick any goals from there did he?

 

[Headless]

How so?

W (the dark green section) = Wing mate

Didn’t kick any goals from there did he?

You're saying that 51 metres out = wing. That's clearly not the case on the image (or in reality).

 

[Run n Spread]

That saints would've won in 2010 if extra time was available.
After they hit the front with 7 to play game was quite even sidebottom had a shot to seal it.
Would've been 10 Min break than play so it would've gone either way.
And Maxwell himself was a bit guilty
That playing no extra time was unfair.
No.it wasn't. Rules were clearly in place. Would've been unprecedented to.change them on the spot

 

[HairyO]

The sanctions were negotiated because the AFL was on very shaky ground and they knew it.

It wasn’t about punishment, it was about pre-judging the AFL-ASADA investigation for PR purposes, that being removing Essendon from the 2013 finals (a sanction you seem to have forgotten) to ensure they were not a PR risk for the AFL in September.

There was no due process. It was simply about removing them from the 2013 finals.

The AFL needed Essendon to play ball so it was negotiated. Even still…

• Kicked out of a finals spot that they’d won (first time ever)
• Fined $2m (the biggest fine in AFL history is apparently “chump change” )
• Senior coach suspended for 12 months (first time ever)
• Lost three Round 1 & 2 draft picks

“Not punished heavily”

I mean, the heaviest sanctions imposed on any club in the history of the league are, by definition, heavy. It is actually revisionist to say they aren’t.

But we know what the problem is here. Carlton were a smouldering pile of burnt shit after their own sanctions for cheating the salary cap… and their supporters hurt that Essendon, although being quite shit since, weren’t left in quite the same wooden spoon-collecting state.

Thing is though, the sanctions didn’t do that to Carlton. They didn’t help, of course, but the list and the club were an absolute train wreck before the sanctions. That was the problem.

Biggest doping story in team sports anywhere in the world ever. It had to be heavy. It was an international embarrassment for the AFL.

Especially after the Kangaroo Court went and cleared the club.

 

[Xtreme]

That Hawks were underdogs v Freo in the 2013 GF

They were quite a pronounced favourite

Medias fault, they hyped up Freo's "manic pressure" and that Haetjorn would be unable to eacape. Similar thing happened with the Eagles Web in 2015 (but thankfully most common sense tipsters still tipped Hawthorn on the day).

2014 was worse it was all about Buddy's Swans beating Hawthorn before the game had even been played.

1 Stephen Hocking played out the game with a ruptured testicle in the second half.

Does anyone else wince whenever they hear or read about sports injuries in that area ? Just me ?

OUCH

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Look, this is the wing…

Did Gary kick any from there? I can’t believe how difficult people are making this. The storytelling is quite unreal, to the point people don’t even know the sections of the ground anymore.

I’m sorry mate, but this might be your worst take on BF, and that’s saying something.
Did you learn footy from a book?

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

That Hawks were underdogs v Freo in the 2013 GF

They were quite a pronounced favourite

Hawks were always favourites with the bookies.

But the general consensus in the media and greater general public is that how could Hawthorn withstand Freos relentless pressure that was the best anyone had seen in the prelim.

Granted this happens every year where there appears to be a groundswell for the under dog albeit a slight one but definitely from a Hawks fan point of view it never feels like your "favourites" as such when the narrative appears to be in the opposite direction despite the bookies odds.

The Age experts' grand final predictions

The Age Experts give their final tips for the year for the winner and Norm Smith medal.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Captivating]

Regardless of whether you think it was race-fuelled, "Adam Goodes started getting booed after pointing out the Collingwood girl" is a lie. His ability and output as a player is also woefully underappreciated by the public and media imo, though I can't prove that part.

He was also a dirty player at the time and used his size to his advantage to hurt people. Dermie called it out before the incident with the girl.

Dermott Brereton hits out at Adam Goodes for leading with legs against Hawthorn's Josh Gibson

Brereton slams Goodes for 'leg chop'

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Cleansweep17]

You're saying that 51 metres out = wing. That's clearly not the case on the image (or in reality).

Ok what is it 60m?

My point is the same so I don’t get the point of your post. Wing as per the image is a midfield position. He kicked none from the midfield/wing.