Round 4.
Moderator: bbmods
Well (arguing the first option rather than the reverse)...
I can see many reasons.
First, AFL clubs are all copy cats. They are slaves to fashion and like copying the premiers. Commentators claim, for example, that if Geebung had won one of those four failed GFs '89-'95, the game's direction would have been a lot different. Attacking flair would have prevailed over dour defence, etc.
There are lots of ways to play football, but the Richmond way has been unworthy of premiers. Not that Dimma really had a choice of game plan. His team had no skill, but it did have a Fab Four, so his hand was forced: choose a game plan that suits unskilled players. The Fab Four and a run of zero injuries propelled them to a premiership that was also helped by the carnage at other clubs and Geebung incompetence. (Geebung did their standard roll-over-and-die MCG finals routine to get Rich on their way in 2017. They also gifted Rich Caddy, while stealing Paddy from their GF opponents, Adelaide.)
I watched in horror last year as Rich continued to win ugly and have zero injuries. Our side stopped a catastrophe for the game in the PF. I do not think footy should be all about skill, of course, but it should be one important element of it. And "ugly" is an apt description not just for their game style but the spirit in which they played. Rance is a repeat diver and an unrepentant one. When he got pinged for it by the MRP, his words sounded like he was saying, "I'm just going to keep on doing it." (I realize that spoken words can come out sounding wrong.) Riewoldt is constantly screwing up his face complaining to the umpires, arguing with his opponents, etc. Cotchin was extremely lucky to be able to play in the GF. I might have said Dusty is the best behaved of the Fab Four on-field, if not off-field, but recent events suggest maybe that was only when he was playing well.
The whole credibility of the competition is under threat when a premier is dominant on its home ground and loses all the time interstate. Deep into last year, Rich had a 100% record at the G and a 0% record interstate. (GC saved them and made their interstate record 20%.) All that comes amidst unending arguments about where GFs should be played, etc. A worthy premier plays well interstate (Collingwood has a very good interstate record), which helps mitigate all the concerns of MCG GFs. Rich's success is just a disaster, when the whole competition is so unfair in so many ways.
The credibility of the competition is also under threat when the premiership is decided by injury lists. Of course, injuries are part of football. Good management of injuries is part of football too. We don't know, though, that their good injury run had anything to do with good management rather than pure luck. Do we want premierships decided purely by luck? Luck will always play a role in sport. The question is, when does it play too large a role?
I can see many reasons.
First, AFL clubs are all copy cats. They are slaves to fashion and like copying the premiers. Commentators claim, for example, that if Geebung had won one of those four failed GFs '89-'95, the game's direction would have been a lot different. Attacking flair would have prevailed over dour defence, etc.
There are lots of ways to play football, but the Richmond way has been unworthy of premiers. Not that Dimma really had a choice of game plan. His team had no skill, but it did have a Fab Four, so his hand was forced: choose a game plan that suits unskilled players. The Fab Four and a run of zero injuries propelled them to a premiership that was also helped by the carnage at other clubs and Geebung incompetence. (Geebung did their standard roll-over-and-die MCG finals routine to get Rich on their way in 2017. They also gifted Rich Caddy, while stealing Paddy from their GF opponents, Adelaide.)
I watched in horror last year as Rich continued to win ugly and have zero injuries. Our side stopped a catastrophe for the game in the PF. I do not think footy should be all about skill, of course, but it should be one important element of it. And "ugly" is an apt description not just for their game style but the spirit in which they played. Rance is a repeat diver and an unrepentant one. When he got pinged for it by the MRP, his words sounded like he was saying, "I'm just going to keep on doing it." (I realize that spoken words can come out sounding wrong.) Riewoldt is constantly screwing up his face complaining to the umpires, arguing with his opponents, etc. Cotchin was extremely lucky to be able to play in the GF. I might have said Dusty is the best behaved of the Fab Four on-field, if not off-field, but recent events suggest maybe that was only when he was playing well.
The whole credibility of the competition is under threat when a premier is dominant on its home ground and loses all the time interstate. Deep into last year, Rich had a 100% record at the G and a 0% record interstate. (GC saved them and made their interstate record 20%.) All that comes amidst unending arguments about where GFs should be played, etc. A worthy premier plays well interstate (Collingwood has a very good interstate record), which helps mitigate all the concerns of MCG GFs. Rich's success is just a disaster, when the whole competition is so unfair in so many ways.
The credibility of the competition is also under threat when the premiership is decided by injury lists. Of course, injuries are part of football. Good management of injuries is part of football too. We don't know, though, that their good injury run had anything to do with good management rather than pure luck. Do we want premierships decided purely by luck? Luck will always play a role in sport. The question is, when does it play too large a role?
Last edited by K on Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
