Tweet
What complete dribble. From a 'leading' NRL journalist?:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1226486173054
Paul Kent
The Daily Telegraph
October 02, 2012 12:00AM
I HAVE watched the Swans live only four times, but any time soon I expect my life membership to arrive in the mail.
The Swans, it seems, can't afford to do without me.
The first time I watched was 1996, a preliminary final at the SCG which most of you will remember was the night Tony Lockett kicked that after-the-siren behind to steer the Swans into their first grand final since moving to Sydney.
It is still regarded as one of the greatest wins in the club's history.
I didn't go to the grand final the following week, expenses being what they were, and they lost.
The second time was in 2005, when confidence was everywhere that their time was now and so I was there to see them beat West Coast by four in the Grand Final.
Up to then it was the club's greatest win.
The third was 11 days ago, another preliminary final, when the boss heard of my once-a-decade good fortune visited upon them and absolutely insisted I go to the Collingwood final, which they naturally won.
The fourth was Saturday, against raging favourites Hawthorn, when what else could they do but keep the streak alive and win only their second grand final.
As good sporting streaks go, I'd prefer it to be the Melbourne Cup, but so long as they don't start rubbing me for luck before games then being the Swans' talisman isn't all bad news.
For one, Saturday's AFL Grand Final was one of the great contests seen on a football field, an absolute pleasure to watch.
It was a clear points winner over Sunday's NRL decider.
The NRL has serious problems in its game, which it took the Swans victory over Hawthorn to highlight.
The Swans looked gone at the end of the first quarter.
They played nervously the entire first 30 minutes and stayed in the game through a combination of dogged defence and poor accuracy from the Hawks, until Hawthorn kicked clear with three late goals to lead 4-5 (29) to 1-4 (10).
Then came quarter-time, and something special.
Raising their commitment to defence -- nothing but an effort play -- the Swans played their way back into the game by attacking when Hawthorn had the ball.
They went after the Hawks, and their commitment changed the game.
The Bulldogs tackled just as gamely in the NRL, but the rules are such now that once the momentum starts to swing against a team it is like batting back an avalanche with a tennis racquet.
Craig Bellamy acknowledged as much after the game, saying Canterbury used up so much juice during that period it dulled their attack when possession eventually turned their way.
The NRL's concern should be, though, that the Dogs did everything they could have been asked to do but got no reward for their effort.
Once a team establishes dominance under current NRL rules, they win the game.
Because the opposition can't get a crack with the ball, it is virtually impossible to fight your way back into the game.
In past days, defending teams could win the ball against the feed in a scrum, or steal it from a loose carry, or rake it back in the play-the-ball to even the share of possession.
They're either discouraged or illegal under modern rules.
Not so in the AFL, where turnovers are many, and the game benefits because of it.
Saturday's Grand Final ebbed and flowed, rising with the efforts of the players, until the bravery of the Swans won through.
The Bulldogs got no reward for their bravery. They had no option but to soak up tackle after tackle, and no opportunity to take back the ball and fight their way back.
When a team is near perfect, the game is over. And as the weekend proved, so is the spectacle.
Throughout this whole NRL finals series, an anticlimactic series despite the applause for teams one and two winning through to the decider, not a single team fought its way back to win once they lost the early grind.
NRL grand finals were always famous for two teams punching themselves to a standstill, the bravest left standing.
Now it is about completions.
The AFL is where it's at now.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1226486173054
Paul Kent
The Daily Telegraph
October 02, 2012 12:00AM
I HAVE watched the Swans live only four times, but any time soon I expect my life membership to arrive in the mail.
The Swans, it seems, can't afford to do without me.
The first time I watched was 1996, a preliminary final at the SCG which most of you will remember was the night Tony Lockett kicked that after-the-siren behind to steer the Swans into their first grand final since moving to Sydney.
It is still regarded as one of the greatest wins in the club's history.
I didn't go to the grand final the following week, expenses being what they were, and they lost.
The second time was in 2005, when confidence was everywhere that their time was now and so I was there to see them beat West Coast by four in the Grand Final.
Up to then it was the club's greatest win.
The third was 11 days ago, another preliminary final, when the boss heard of my once-a-decade good fortune visited upon them and absolutely insisted I go to the Collingwood final, which they naturally won.
The fourth was Saturday, against raging favourites Hawthorn, when what else could they do but keep the streak alive and win only their second grand final.
As good sporting streaks go, I'd prefer it to be the Melbourne Cup, but so long as they don't start rubbing me for luck before games then being the Swans' talisman isn't all bad news.
For one, Saturday's AFL Grand Final was one of the great contests seen on a football field, an absolute pleasure to watch.
It was a clear points winner over Sunday's NRL decider.
The NRL has serious problems in its game, which it took the Swans victory over Hawthorn to highlight.
The Swans looked gone at the end of the first quarter.
They played nervously the entire first 30 minutes and stayed in the game through a combination of dogged defence and poor accuracy from the Hawks, until Hawthorn kicked clear with three late goals to lead 4-5 (29) to 1-4 (10).
Then came quarter-time, and something special.
Raising their commitment to defence -- nothing but an effort play -- the Swans played their way back into the game by attacking when Hawthorn had the ball.
They went after the Hawks, and their commitment changed the game.
The Bulldogs tackled just as gamely in the NRL, but the rules are such now that once the momentum starts to swing against a team it is like batting back an avalanche with a tennis racquet.
Craig Bellamy acknowledged as much after the game, saying Canterbury used up so much juice during that period it dulled their attack when possession eventually turned their way.
The NRL's concern should be, though, that the Dogs did everything they could have been asked to do but got no reward for their effort.
Once a team establishes dominance under current NRL rules, they win the game.
Because the opposition can't get a crack with the ball, it is virtually impossible to fight your way back into the game.
In past days, defending teams could win the ball against the feed in a scrum, or steal it from a loose carry, or rake it back in the play-the-ball to even the share of possession.
They're either discouraged or illegal under modern rules.
Not so in the AFL, where turnovers are many, and the game benefits because of it.
Saturday's Grand Final ebbed and flowed, rising with the efforts of the players, until the bravery of the Swans won through.
The Bulldogs got no reward for their bravery. They had no option but to soak up tackle after tackle, and no opportunity to take back the ball and fight their way back.
When a team is near perfect, the game is over. And as the weekend proved, so is the spectacle.
Throughout this whole NRL finals series, an anticlimactic series despite the applause for teams one and two winning through to the decider, not a single team fought its way back to win once they lost the early grind.
NRL grand finals were always famous for two teams punching themselves to a standstill, the bravest left standing.
Now it is about completions.
The AFL is where it's at now.
Comment