Talk:2010 AFL Grand Final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Network/Announcers?[edit]

Umm, there's many more television, radio and other mediums covering this game, not just Channel 7 and their two mentioned announcers, this is non-NPOV and more balanced indication of coverage should be included, if any. This is an encyclopaedia, not a setting for commercial advertisement. Nick carson (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: one article or two?[edit]

Hey all,
Straw poll: by its own en.wikidefinition, the AFL Grand Final is "an annual Australian rules football match, traditionally held on the final Saturday in September at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in Melbourne, Australia to determine the Australian Football League premiership champions for that year". This would suggest that the 2010 AFL Grand Final result would be from the replay. Is the 2010 AFL Grand Final one ongoing concept or two separate matches?
--Shirt58 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

111 times (if you include the VFL ones too) it is an annual match etc etc, 3 times it refers to the match and the replay. 1 winner. 1 article.The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it should be contained within one article. I think it is considered an ongoing concept, as if the game had gone into overtime, it's just the overtime had to be played a week later :) Also the there is precedent (albeit not high quality precedent) if you look at 1948 (carn the dees) and 1977. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is wikilinked twice in the article at the moment, but because of the redirect it simply links back to this article anyway so it's pretty pointless at the moment. Can we at least remove the wikilinks, until a concensus is reached? Jenks24 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably my fault - as I changed the stub replay article to a redirect, but didn't follow up with any what links here changes.The-Pope (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1977 and 1948 are both contained within a single article, and I think it reads better as a single article. Also, both the GF and the Replay are effectively within the same "round" of the finals, and it would be consistent with the treatment of (for example) seven-game playoff series in the US to keep them all in the same article. Aspirex (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of semantics, still think two matchs = two articles. My !vote is one article, based on the discussion above, especially the 1948 and 1977 article precedents. Wow, what a corker of a match, though! Made 2005 and 2006 look pedestrian by comparison. <heresy>I'd even go so far as to say it was almost as good as any run-of-the-mill State of Origin game.</heresy>--Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nothing could beat those Tuesday afternoons at Subi watching Michael, Peake, Bucky, Rioli et al, until Mick killed it off. That's what you really meant, wasn't it? And last week's WAFL GF was just as good too!The-Pope (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Your Goaliness, I actually meant the Queensland rugby league team versus New South Wales rugby league team matches.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was trying to apply a little bit of WP:SARCASM. Also, as a Queenslander, it may interest you to note that the 2010 State of Origin series is one article, rather than three. Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have used a ;) or similar, but they were great games - better than anything any other code could even think of matching. Back to the original issue, I don't think that there will be enough extra info from game 2 to overwhelm the article, especially if there isn't much organised outside of the actual game. Linking them in one article could make a lot of things clearer than separating them.The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated I agree :) but on a slightly related issue, some folks over at List of Australian Football League premiers have been changing the grand finals tally in the premiership tally section to count the drawn grand final as having played in two grand finals rather than one. I think it should be counted as just one grand final. (I'd raise it on that talk page but I don't think I'd get a lot of response) Opinions? Jenks24 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about grand finals, you would count it as two games. In an article about premierships, you would only count it as one, and you would change the columns to say 'runners-up' rather than 'grand finals', or something like that.Aspirex (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. The one Premiership (which I sincerely hope is not a cakewalk) will be decided by two games. Despite stare decisis and all that, just because the 1948 and 1977 Grand Final plus Grand Final Replay are covered in one article, doesn't mean that's right. Perhaps we should apply WP:VERIFIABILITY and go with what the consensus is in the media. The Age is calling the 02 Oct 2010 game "grand final replay", for example.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to include the two in one article rather than two is that it will be more straightforward to categorise information such as: other events that are rescheduled, the debate over whether players from the first game get premiership medallions if they don't play in the second, etc – into the one article. This stuff is information which can't properly be apportioned to just one of the two games, and it would be more elegantly presented within a single article. Aspirex (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote would now be for the article to have two main sections, one entitled "2010 AFL Grand Final", and the other entitled ""2010 AFL Grand Final replay"... and well before I even wished this, it's already been done. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly leaning to two separate articles. They are separate games, and should be treated as such. Combining both games in the same article is going to make for an overly long article, and the article also ends up being misnamed because half of it is not about the Grand Final, but about the replay. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one event, the Grand Final. Happens to be spread over more that one day, like a Test Cricket match. No harm in that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were two different games and deserve to have their own page. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Jenks24 and Aspirex rightly pointed out, one article is the best way to cover the 2010 AFL Grand Final and its replay. One event or two? A single game of 8 quarters? Semantics. I think we can declare the poll closed, and that 2010 AFL Grand Final replay has lost its deposit.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many Grand Finals has Collingwood played in? 42 - winning 15, losing 25 and drawing 2. You can close this poll using a temporary advantage in numbers if you choose, but the issue is not going to go away. Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand final medals[edit]

What happens with the awarding of Grand Final medals? Does everyone who played for the winning team in both games get a medal? or just those who play in the replay? - 120.20.127.96 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Dean[reply]

I'm guessing that officially only those in the replay will get one. It seems that in 1977 the Roos played the same team in both matches, so we don't have a precedent. I have a long memory, so I won't be upset if Gardiner misses out.The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Word in the press is that official rules state only the 22 players in the team that wins on the day get medals, but there's some speculation that the rule will be relaxed to incorporate all players from either Grand Final.Aspirex (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the "Policy-on-the-run" commission has decided to give everyone a medal. Won't be long before they'll give one to all 30-ish players who played during the year.

Teams location in article[edit]

Given that we are likely to have significant coverage of the team changes or lack of chanes for the replay, I think the article would flow best if it is in a basic chronological order, hence why I moved it to before the game report. At the moment it jumps around a bit, and it will only get more confusing as next week's teams are announced. Consistency is only good if it's right, and like the infobox, I don't think we have it right yet.The-Pope (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the teams are almost ancillary information - strange as that may sound. To me, it's a big, clunky pair of tables that doesn't add the sort of information that I would be looking for in a Grand Final article. I'd be satisfied to have the teams for both games down the bottom of the page in one section out of the way.Aspirex (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The-Pope. I've already tried to move the teams above the game report once myself and it got changed back almost immediately. I think that the article would flow better if the tables were included above the game report and if you're worried about the clunkiness I think that if enough good quality prose was included then it would look fine. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information from the intermediate week[edit]

At the moment we have the debate on Replay vs Extra Time, the rescheduling of other events, and the rule change surrounding premiership medallions lumped in the 'aftermath' section with Lenny Hayes' Norm Smith Medal. I'm quite confident that this is not the best way to do it, and I think the Norm Smith should be in with the overall statistics, and the info about the Interregnum should be in its own section located between the two games. Aspirex (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. As Gramsci wrote,

The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in the interregnum many morbid symptoms arise.

Should this all be discussed at talk:WikiProject AFL?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than not understanding anything of the above, there is no reason to call for more discussion. I agree that the Norm and the BJ Goddard controversy should be in the results section. I think that at the moment everything is in a bit of flux, we should keep jotting down relevant info, either in the article, here, you user/talk/sub page... whatever. Lets just make sure we don't edit war amongst ourselves. Then next week, when it's all done & dusted, we'll work out what fits best where. Time order, or most important first? The comments above re teams were good - lets see how many changes are made tomorrow/Sat and see if we need two "blocks of text. Can they be put side by side? Can someone make something pretty like rugby/soccer teams have. The-Pope (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nihil obstat, Your Goaliness--Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Bit More About About The Replay[edit]

I think an explanation about the rules necessitating the replay might be helpful here. October First (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they've only been used 3 times in 114 years, so other than "it's a complete replay" there isn't much more to say. Anything in particular you want clarified? As listed above, other details such as who gets medals were made up during the week by the commission.The-Pope (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nothing complicated at all. If there is a draw in a Grand Final, they replay it the following weekend. Been that way for the whole life of the VFL and AFL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just where it says that it has to be replayed. It's probably a number in the AFL rule book somewhere i'd guess. I can look around, but I was wondering if any of you knew. Figured that might be interesting information. October First (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other rules we don't list here. It only became interesting because a lot of younger people hadn't studied history and didn't know the rule. How many other rules that you don't know do you want added? (And can you see how silly that question is?) HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how silly that is because of the rudeness of your reply, particularly in your attack against "younger people". It's a very obscure and rare rule since it's only happened three times in VFL/AFL history, it would be incredibly informative to casual fans as to why there was a replay. October First (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing[edit]

Perhaps rephrasing here would help. Why exactly is there a replay in the Grand Final? I looked around the AFL site and couldn't find any codified rules about it, but the AFL doesn't have a great site. The Grand Final Replay article doesn't cite any references either. October First (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In sport lots of things happen "just becoz they do". Because draws are rare (I think about 1 in 80 games in the reg season) they aren't as well catered for as in lower scoring games. There has been lots of discussion in the past few weeks about whether extra-time should be used in the future, but nothing that I've seen about the past, other than "it's traditional".The-Pope (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain and Coach added to scorecard[edit]

I've added the captain and coach to the scorecard template. So I thought here would be a good place to get any feedback on this change. Have a look and let me know what you think.

On a seperate issue, I have also removed the National Anthem from the template. I don't really think that it is relevant to know which of the latest reality show contestant got up to make a mess of trying to sing our national anthem, on the scorecard. By all means add this to the general text for those who would like to know.

Cheers, Matt5AU (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm glad that the national anthem bit has been removed as I always thought it was a bit pointless to have, but on the whole captain/coach in the scorecard thing I'm fairly neutral as I don't think it adds a whole lot, but on the other hand it doesn't really detract from anything else either. Anyways that's my $0.02, Jenks24 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; that version of the national anthem really was a mess. Worst I've ever heard - and that includes Vika and Linda's infamous rendition at Optus Oval in the mid 90s. On the other change, I personally think adding captain and coach is a double-up for the teams lists below, and (in the Jock McHale Medal winner) the infobox above. Personally I'd remove it. Aspirex (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

I guess this is related to the one or two article discussion but if one is to take the first sentence literally, the attendence for the 2010 AFL grand final is 193,869. By declaring the 'Grand Final' a SINGLE, two match event, then the accumulative total crowd should be the official crowd. Of course, it's not. The attendance of the FIRST grand final was 100,016, the attendance of the SECOND grand final was 93,835. The 2010 AFL grand final was NOT a two match single event. There was a grand final which was drawn. Then there was a replay. The replay was its own, separate and independent event and the opening of this article should reflect that. Dgen (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I propose the following change from -
The 2010 AFL Grand Final was a two-game Australian rules football contest between the Collingwood Football Club and the St Kilda Football Club. It was the 114th annual Grand Final of the Victorian Football League/Australian Football League,Note 1 staged to determine the premiers for the 2010 AFL season. The premiership was won by Collingwood in a Grand Final Replay, after the scheduled Grand Final was drawn.
to
The 2010 AFL Grand final is either of two Australian rules football contests between the Collingwood Football Club and and the St Kilda Football Club. The first was the 114th annual Grand Final of the Victorian Football League/Australian Football League, Note 1 and was staged to determine the premiers for the 2010 AFL season. Due to the first Grand Final ending in a draw a second Grand Final - known as the Grand Final replay - was played a week later and was won by Collingwood.
I welcome feedback but I think some kind of change is needed because both 'The 2010 AFL grand final ended in a draw' and 'Collingwood won the 2010 AFL Grand Final' are correct. Someone without prior knowledge reading the first sentence wouldn't realise this. Dgen (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file problems with File:St Kilda FC Logo.png[edit]

File:St Kilda FC Logo.png is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:St Kilda FC Logo.png. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file problems with File:Collingwood Football Club Logo.svg[edit]

File:Collingwood Football Club Logo.svg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Collingwood Football Club Logo.svg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Grand Final Tally[edit]

This article says ‘[t]ogether they are considered the 114th annual grand final …’ Where does this concept of only counting the two games as one annual grand final come from? The articles for 1948 and 1977 count those as two annual grand finals each. Should this one not be the same? 139.218.176.4 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They should be enumerated separately and the word 'annual' dropped. Might take some reviewing across the whole set of articles before it's correct, though. Aspirex (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, both other years in which there were replays were enumerated separately, and all other article leads up until 1977 (when the season count and the GF count came back into alignment) enumerate on the basis that 1897 and 1924 don't count and 1948 and 1977 count twice. Elsewhere for statistical reasons, GFs and GFRs were counted as equal. The only things which were inconsistent were the leads of the 2010 to 2022 Grand Final articles, so I have corrected them today. Aspirex (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_AFL_Grand_Final&oldid=1202089357"