 |
| AFL grand final 2014: These are the games won between the ears |
Grand finals aren't always won by the best players, the strongest, quickest or the most skillful. They're won by those with the strongest minds.
Being able to perform on one of the biggest stages in world sport takes extraordinary mettle and not every player - no matter how good he may have been during the regular season - is capable of dealing with the pressure.
It's why clubs and coaches do everything in their power to maintain routine in the lead-up to the match. They plan the same way, put their players through the same training drills and reinforce the little things that have got them there.
Yet nothing is normal. You can't help but notice the increased presence of cameras around you and the extra fans at training. There's wall-to-wall coverage of the match from almost every media outlet in the country, with the grand final parade offering yet another excuse for a bad night's sleep before the big game.
Indeed, grand finals are a melting pot of emotions, and if you can't get a handle on the excitement, anxiety and probable fear that you'll experience before the first bounce, then you may struggle.
While statistics largely go out the window in games like these, there are three key measures that have consistently gauged the outcome of recent grand finals - inside 50s, the effectiveness of kicks inside 50 and accuracy in front of goal.
 |
| 2012 AFL Grand Final Statistics |
Inside 50s: Excluding last year, the number of inside 50s has heavily favoured the losing team in five of the last six grand finals and also Collingwood in the drawn grand final of 2010. Put simply, losing teams consistently won the ball and got it forward, but butchered their chances.
Effectives of kicks inside 50: In the same grand finals, only two teams recorded a better marking percentage from kicks inside 50 on grand final day compared to their season average. Again, it's a reflection of poor decision-making.
Playing under pressure shouldn't mean you lose your composure, but recent grand finalists have seemed intent on just bombing the ball forward, giving their intended targets little or no chance of marking the ball.
Accuracy: This doesn't need much explanation. Poor kicking in front of the sticks cost Geelong in 2008, St Kilda in 2009, Hawthorn in 2012, Fremantle in 2013, while Collingwood got lucky in 2010. I know first-hand how painful losing a grand final can be because of poor kicking. We (North) lost to the Crows in '98 because we missed so many shots in the first half. I'd much prefer to lose a game by being beaten by a better side, rather than blowing it due to basic skill errors.
As a collective, what these numbers reinforce is that players not only struggle to contain their nerves on grand final day, but they also panic. Sure, the pressure of a grand final is like no other, but should that translate into players making poor decisions?
Teams make the grand final because they usually possess some of the coolest heads in the land. Whoever best retains that composure for the big dance will go a long way towards helping their team win.
As an example, take a look at the last time these sides met in a grand final, in 2012. It's fair to say that the Hawks dominated most of the game. They went inside 50 on 51 occasions compared to the Swans' 38 times, but when Sydney got its chances, it made the most of them. Its accuracy in front of goal (70 per cent) was better that its season average (63) which was staggering. Composure won that flag for Sydney.
Fast forward to Saturday and I'm not sure we'll see the same result. Earlier this year, I suggested Sydney and Hawthorn had become clones of one another from that 2012 season and I'd argue that the Hawks - like the Swans of 2012 - are the best "team" entering this year's grand final.
The willingness of every Hawthorn player to give 100 per cent, all the time, is what has given it an edge this season, whereas I wonder if Sydney - like the Hawks of '12 - have become too reliant on too few.
There's been endless talk about Buddy and the sub-plot he has given this match and there is no doubt he will play a key role in the outcome.
Buddy has been the beacon for Sydney and its No. 1 target and easily its greatest strength, but just like the Hawks of 2012, if he misfires it could be the Swans' downfall.
Forming the other half of Sydney's new dynamic duo is Kurt Tippett. There's no doubt he and Buddy have gelled well in recent weeks, yet Tippett can also spray his kicks. He'll be looking to snag one early to boost his confidence.
The question is, have the Swans enough firepower to match the Hawks' abundant number of goalkickers? Though equally, will the likes of Jack Gunston, Luke Breust and Jarryd Roughead be able to hold their nerve and convert their chances?
Of course, any forward who takes to the MCG will be heavily reliant on his teammates up the ground delivering the ball, lace out. To that end - and getting back to my earlier point about composure - it's another reason why I believe Hawthorn can win.
The other part of that equation, as I highlighted last week, is that Sydney under Hawthorn-type pressure has been susceptible to making skill errors by foot.
And then there's the issue of the Hawks playing Cyril Rioli. We all know what Rioli is capable of and he doesn't need to be on the ground for long periods to do the damage.
Rioli has to start the match, either on the ground or on the bench. Making him the starting substitute would be too risky should he break down. It would leave the Hawks one man down, and in today's game, that's a huge disadvantage.
Whichever way you look at it, this grand final is shaping up to be a titanic struggle. The burning question is, can a team of champions beat a champion team?
.jpg)
