Callum Twomey, AFL Record Writer: The Sydney Swans thrashed Geelong around the stoppages on Saturday to inflict the Cats' first defeat at home since 2007. It was a dead rubber for the Cats but how much should we read into that result?
Ashley Browne, afl.com.au writer: Hard to say. So many conflicting reports out of the game—Swans were up for it, the Cats were in cruise mode—but being smashed at the stoppages would be a concern for the Cats. They've got no hope in the finals if that trend continues.
Peter Ryan, AFL Record writer: Nothing to play for has to be a factor and the absence of Joel Corey was significant but there must be some concerns. Their touch was off and they reverted to over handballing at times. Dare I say it, they miss G. Ablett, that burst type player around the stoppages, and Allen Christensen and Travis Varcoe are not yet consistent as that type of player. Varcoe shapes as a critical player in the finals because he can turn it on and turn a game.
Geoff Slattery, Managing Editor, AFL Media: Before we get too iffy about the Cats, remember the last time they lost at Skilled — it was round 21, 2007. A last gasp goal by Port Adelaide. Geelong then beat the Power by 119 in the Grand Final. I know there is nothing to play for against Collingwood this week, but a poor performance again WILL raise questions, particularly with the Hawks likely to have a big one against the tiring Gold Coast. By the way, a Hawthorn win by 80-plus and a Geelong loss by 30-plus would put the Hawks second on the ladder. Means nothing but bragging rights.
Howard Kotton, AFL Record writer: I think this Friday night's game will provide a clearer picture of where Geelong is at. I saw a bit of that game on Saturday and the structure of their forward line is a concern. The way (Shane) Mumford controlled the stoppages on Saturday is also a worry, as the midfields they are coming up against in the coming weeks are quicker and run deeper.
Michael Lovett, AFL Record Writer: We'll be a lot wiser about the Cats after this week's game against Collingwood. Chris Scott will have to take his best 22 into this game to prepare for week one of the finals against Hawthorn. (Cameron) Mooney, (Joel) Corey and (Darren) Milburn should be back to add experience and depth. Milburn looks the best bet as a sub for finals. Not sure if there is room for Tom Hawkins as (Trent) West is a better ruckman and with Mooney and the Pod up forward, I think Hawkins will be squeezed out.
Browne: So five years after the "remember where you were debut" by Hawkins he can't get into Geelong's best 22. Question: where's he at?
Ryan: Tom Hawkins appeared to lack confidence on Saturday. He did not take the first option although he managed to get the ball OK. What to do with him is a quandary although given Mooney is retiring and Podsy is closer to 30 he has a significant long-term future and role to play at the Cattery. The best is definitely ahead of the Tomahawk.
Lovett: He's at the well-known intersection, the crossroads. He's up around the 80-game mark, has been in the system for five years as you say and has probably only been influential in a handful of those games. I agree with Peter, he still has plenty to offer but I am not sure how patient the Cats can be.
Substitute: Who?
Ryan: Raising Darren Milburn as the substitute is interesting. Travis Colyer was so influential yesterday as a substitute for Essendon. After 23 rounds, do we now have an ideal substitute player in our mind for the finals?
Browne: The best guess on the substitute is to bring on a runner who can give you 40 minutes of speed and attack on the ball. Big men and key position players don't work. I agree on Colyer - he was spectacular.
Slattery: The sub looks to be the rebirth of the old 19th man — a quick, versatile player, able to play at both ends AND in the middle. Colyer is that, and others who've succeeded there have been of that style as well. The Tigers had Jeromey Webberley who made a similar impact. Hawthorn have been using players like (Luke) Breust, (Brendan) Whitecross, (Michael) Osborne. Collingwood have used (Andrew) Krakoeur and (Alan) Didak. It's now proven. By the way, I doubt players consider the sub as the 22nd pick: he could be almost the first choice pick, if that makes sense.
Ryan: Bring on the running player as sub, though, presumes you have no injuries. A speedy midfielder can do some damage but Geelong could have done with Milburn on Saturday when Taylor went off. It's still a quandary who to play for every match committee. Geelong might be the exception because they need all the runners that they can muster.
Twomey: Travis Colyer probably is the perfect sub, but the dilemma for Essendon is that he's also in the best 18 who start on the ground. Do you keep him up your sleeve and see if he can make an impact like he did on Sunday or in round 15 against Geelong? Or do you start him like he probably deserves? I spoke to him after the Cats game and he said a challenge of being the sub was not running too fast and then past the contest. He seems to have got the balance right.
Ryan: Certainly more exciting to have a running player come on the ground then a defender. It's a bit like Adam Gilchrist being thrown up the order versus Michael Clarke.
Kotton: A substitute needs to have an immediate impact ... in most cases a quick runner is the ideal replacement, as Colyer showed on Sunday. But a mobile taller option can also be devastating - as Jack Dyer once said, a good big man will always beat a good little man, unless the little man is very, very good.
Ryan: David Hille as sub in week one against Carlton, Howard?
Kotton: Don't know about Hille. His form was pretty good yesterday. I think Essendon and Carlton will think about playing the three ruckmen in the final—Bombers to exploit Blues' lack of size in defence and to provide more height and another option in attack. Hampson will be in the mix for sure for Carlton. Maybe Kreuzer as a ruck-rover.
Ryan: Kreuzer v Nic Nat as ruck rovers might happen in second week of finals if results go according to script. That could change football as we've known it.
Finals = Match-winners
Twomey: Speaking of finals and match-winners: Adam Goodes and Lance Franklin are so hard to stop when they are going? What is the 'match-winner's' role in an era where team defence and team mechanics sit at the forefront? Are consistent gun midfielders as valuable?
Browne: I think they are. Modern footy is won or lost in the midfield. Control the stoppages and you win the game, as we saw at Geelong on Saturday. Chris Judd is the key to the Blues in the finals, and even though Hawthorn won comfortably, Sam Mitchell's clearance work and organisation was missed. The gun forwards are important, no doubt, but they need supply.
Ryan: I was inclined to think that Ash, but the modern forward as good as Franklin and Goodes can play through the middle too as they are so athletic. When Franklin went on the ball late against Collingwood in the middle of the year, the contest effectively over, it changed in an instant. They also can be unstoppable and create something out of nothing, which in tight finals is so valuable.
Lovett: You only have to look at the performance of class midfielders like (Scott) Pendlebury, (Jimmy) Bartel, Judd and (Brendon) Goddard in recent years to realise how important they are. I agree with Ash, Mitchell is the key to the Hawks at the stoppages and he had great back-up in the form of Lewis and Hodge. Hawks are a definite threat!
Slattery: The match-winner will always be a match-winner. Team games are split apart by the unexpected. I remember one of Dennis Cometti's one-liners about Franklin last year. He said: "You can't teach that." It's true, these guys — Franklin, Goodes, Rioli, Naitanui, Thomas, Pendlebury, Varcoe, Ablett, — just do things that break open the game. The very best of them have you shaking your head with wonder: always have, always will. They break apart structures: they do the unthinkable.
Ryan: Are your match-winners any less valuable sitting in the forward half?
Slattery: Match-winners are match-winners wherever they play. Think of Matthew Scarlett's toe-poke in 2009. You can win a match by stopping another champion, by using remarkable common sense, by driving the ball from stoppages. Forwards as match-winners are headliners, because their magic is usually accompanied by a goal of the year — as per Buddy's pair of gems against Essendon last year (and his first quarter shimmy and shake against the Dogs last week). Rioli's third-quarter tackle and grab against the Cats in 2008 was not an attacking match-winner, but it sure as hell set up the game for the Hawks.
That annoying topic: Collingwood's coaching set-up
Twomey: The suggestion that Mick Malthouse won't be at Collingwood next season in the director of coaching position has raised the issue again of whether a coaching director can work. Is such a position viable in AFL football? What is the best outcome for the club?
Browne: How many are there in AFL footy and what do they do? I know Chris Fagan has been in such a role for a few years, but I would love to know his job description and what he brings to the organisation? You would have to check your ego at the door to be the director of coaching, easy for a bloke like Fagan, but what about for Malthouse, or Neil Craig, who have both coached before? Perhaps not so easy.
Lovett: The best outcome will be to hold a press conference two or three days after the Grand Final, and announce (a) there has been a change of policy regarding Mick or (b) he's staying. If it's the former, no one will be the least bit surprised. Mike Sheahan's mail last week sounded very strong and I can't see how having the former coach (and a great one at that) working with a rookie coach is going to work. Mick can take a year off, work in the media or whatever and come back refreshed for 2013. There might be some good jobs on offer by then.
Kotton: It hasn't worked before and I'm not sure it will work under the proposed arrangement at Collingwood. I think the best outcome for the Magpies is to set Mick free and give Bucks the breathing space he needs to implement his program and achieve his goals without his predecessor looking over his shoulder. The speculation over Malthouse is obviously a major distraction and it threatens to have a negative impact on the Magpies' finals campaign.
Lovett: I agree Howard, it will be a distraction but their hands are tied until the 2011 season is finished.
Ryan: They appear to have managed any distraction well for a while now. I think the position as a concept is definitely viable and will grow in importance as the years pass. There are 140 assistant coaches in AFL, many inexperienced, many needing a career path and development of their roles. Timing, of course, is everything.
Slattery: The Collingwood position looked beautiful when it was announced. It's changed because Mick Malthouse now realises he loves working, and can't abide by the thought of retirement — even a managed retirement. The concept was perfect, but it had to be embraced by each party. Whatever the contract states, it can't work now, because Mick will feel that whatever is offered to him will be beneath his capacity, experience, history, and most importantly, his current need. The system worked beautifully at Hawthorn in the early 80s when John Kennedy was chairman of selectors, and Allan Jeans coach.
Ryan: In theory it works: What a bonus having a person take over who understands the club and the program and his strengths and weaknesses and the personalities and strengths and weaknesses of those in the footy department and is being prepared to do the job by the best and most experienced going around. In practice, of course it's difficult.
Slattery: Interesting thought bubble by Leigh Matthews on Saturday—that Nathan Buckley hands back the reigns to Malthouse. I can't see it happening. Nathan is entitled to believe the job is his. He has done everything he has required to prepare himself for the job. One other point: all I have seen of Nathan, and discussed with him (when he was writing), is that he will be a great coach for the Magpies. Fascinating times.
Power to him
Ryan: Can't let the moment pass without a comment on the Lions' Luke Power. How do we assess his career? What did we think of his decision to surprise everyone with his retirement announcement?
Browne: Reading between the lines, he was nudged out the door. It was only last week he said he wanted to keep playing. Champion player and a champion bloke from all reports. He'd be great at GWS for a year, just to help instill winning values and a winning culture.
Lovett: A first-class career and a first-class person. I was a little surprised because I was under the impression he'd play one more season. But the GWS talk has thrown up an interesting scenario given his ties with Gubby Allan and Craig Lambert. He will make a great assistant coach or administrator further down the track.
Ryan: Great player, kicked 50 goals in a year when a youngster, moved to midfield to play in a couple of flags and even played in a back pocket in one winning Grand Final. Great contribution to that club's success and I'd imagine he and Simon Black have held things together in recent seasons with their wise heads and ability to teach the young ones.
Kotton: Power has been a magnificent contributor to the Lions for many years, playing a key role in their hat-trick of premierships. In the past few seasons he has provided great leadership and guidance to his younger teammates and assisted in the development of Tom Rockliff, Jack Redden and others. He has been a professional on the field and has shown his commitment to the game and the players with his executive role with the AFL Players' Association.
Ryan: Exactly what you hope for in a No.5 draft pick.
The views on this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs
