2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Welcome to World Footy News Monday, November 09 2026 @ 05:12 am ACDT

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights | 18 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

This site requires you to be logged in to post a comment. If you have an account already (or need to create one), please login here.

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Monday, October 04 2010 @ 10:32 pm ACDT

Some interesting stats to come out about the re-match:

- 93,853 people attended compared with 100,016 for the first encounter. That is seen as disappointing, but I'd say pretty good for a game in which tickets are very expensive and in reality most of the 6163 empty seats were apparently in the MCC members' area and would have been eaten up by the general public if made available.

- 3.6 million people were watching on average across Australia (no stats available for the rest of the world), compared with 3.7 million for the first match. Again, that has been headlined as though it was a poor result. But considering there was less build up for the repeat, and a score blow out means people tune out earlier, it's still an terrific result. I'm sure Channel 7 were happy to add the year's 2nd top rating afternoon to the previous week's 1st ranked afternoon. Incidentally, the NRL (National Rugby League) Grand Final 5 capital city average viewing was 2.1 million in a more favourable time slot, compared with 2.7 and 2.6 million for the two AFL Grand Finals.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Monday, October 04 2010 @ 10:51 pm ACDT

Further stats:

- Collingwood's win is their 2nd of the AFL era, bringing them level with North Melbourne, Essendon, Adelaide, Hawthorn and Geelong. The leaders remain West Coast and Brisbane on three. On one AFL-era flag are Port Adelaide, Carlton and Sydney.

- of the 21 AFL-era flags contested (starting from Collingwood's win in 1990), 11 of the 16 clubs have flags, 5 do not (Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, Richmond, Fremantle and Melbourne, soon to be joined by Gold Coast in 2011 and Greater Western Sydney in 2012).

- when Adelaide won back to back in 1997/98 it was widely said that it was a huge feat that was "not supposed to happen" in the more equal AFL era with the national draft. However, as shown above, it is now quite common for clubs to establish brief golden eras, such as West Coast 1992/94, Adelaide 1997/98, North Melbourne 1996/99 (and runners up 1998), Brisbane 2001/02/03, West Coast and Sydney splitting 2005/06, Geelong 2007/09 (and runners up 2008). Ironically Essendon in 2000 was lauded as possibly the most dominant team ever, but were rolled in 2001 by Brisbane at the start of their three-peat.

So, for those predicting that Collingwood are about to commence a dynasty, it certainly is reasonable to think (especially with a young side) that they could win 1 or 2 more. After that, surely the most stacked 3 sides in the history of the game will loom large - Melbourne (with many early picks due to low finishes) and the Gold Coast and GWS (both assigned the lion's share of early draft picks).

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Sam
on Tuesday, October 05 2010 @ 07:25 pm ACDT

Hi, I appreciate the work you do on this site but I have to reject the implication in your comment that 'AFL era' flags are different to 'VFL era' flags. The only difference between the AFL and VFL has been a name change.

You can't fairly claim that an historical flag is worth less than a contemporary flag because the league changes incrementally over time but all clubs compete under the same circumstances every year. There was no substantial difference between the VFL in 1989 and the AFL in 1990, yet you deny Hawthorn a third 'AFL' flag?

If we acquiesce to the view that the AFL record begin when it was renamed or every time another club enters the competition, then records should have been reset when Richmond, Footscray, Hawthorn or North Melbourne, West Coast, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle entered, or when Gold Coast enter next year, or GWS in 2012. The AFL today is a continuation of the same competition that was called the VFL in 1989 and that began in 1897. All VFL records apply to AFL clubs today. This was Collingwood's 15th AFL flag.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Tuesday, October 05 2010 @ 08:38 pm ACDT

Hi Sam,

The comment is not really meant to be about AFL versus VFL, it was mostly about comparing the modern phenomenon of teams winning multiple flags close together despite the draft etc, and a convenient division for "modern" is since the AFL renaming.

However, yes there is that whole debate about how VFL flags rank with AFL and whether they are the same comp etc. Personally I agree the VFL renamed to AFL and the competition continues, but I also believe that VFL flags should be called as such, AFL as such, and when looking at them in total it is VFL/AFL flags.

And I also don't personally rate VFL flags as highly as AFL flags, as a general rule. Sure 1989 was not particularly different to 1990, but certainly e.g. the 1960s was not a shadow in terms of professionalism or competition compared with the national competition we have today. And in my mind and I suspect that of most non-Victorian supporters, when I evaluate who the strongest and most successful clubs are, I'll always look to the modern era when all of Australia's best players were in the league.

I note that Collingwood coach Michael Malthouse said of the drawn grand final, "How often does it happen in AFL? It hasn't, has it? It has in VFL history, so it's unique and we've got to treat is as such.". Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...5929330871

So in summary, everyone is free to rate flags how they like and I don't deny it's the same EVOLVING competition, but there's very clearly a grey area where the competition emerged from a suburban one to a national one and for a lack of a better definition that's where I personally draw the fuzzy line.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Sam
on Wednesday, October 06 2010 @ 08:08 pm ACDT

Brett, I understand what you're saying but I think your phrasing has unreasonable implications. It is a touch reminiscent of revisionism pushed by supporters of recently introduced clubs, that want to diminish the historical achievements of other clubs. I don't find your perspective compelling as it puts us on a slipperly slope of subjective qualification.

You can be certain that in 2050 the AFL will have moved far beyond the current standard of competition, does that diminish the value of the last Grand Final? No. It's very probable the last placed team this year would smash the premiers of 1990, does that mean that first premiership labeled 'AFL' is worth less? No.

Within the standards, constraints and to the people of the time, a premiership won in 1910 is as valid as a premiership won in 2010. Don't you think it would be arrogant of the people of 2050 to presume that their Grand Final is more important than ours because the standard of the league has improved?

What if the AFL approves performance enhancing drugs for use at some point in the future? Given the social mores of the time it could be argued by the same logic of professionalism, that premierships prior to the introduction of drugs are not as important. You should note that the league has always had aspects of professionalism.

What if the AFL enters a club from New Zealand? As an international competition, would that devalue all the premierships won in a national competition? If federation had never occurred, wouldn't a national competition then have existed since the inception of the VFL?

Again, the name change has no bearing on the standard of the competition, and doesn't change the fact that all teams competed under equal terms. If the AFL had changed its name in 1960, would that mean another 30 Grand Finals suddenly become part of your modern era? If the name had been retained as the Rugby codes retain the name of their origin, would that mean we are yet to enter the modern era?

The AFL began in 1897 and that is the only objective and logically consistent point from which records can be compared. It is also where AFL records begin officially, and why the last Grand Final was promoted as the 114th. So with respect, arbitrary distinctions based on personal opinion don't provide clarity or accuracy.

Sorry for the long off topic post.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Wednesday, October 06 2010 @ 11:19 pm ACDT

We could open a similar can of worms and debate "what is the Port Adelaide Football Club", the one that has existed since 1870, or the one that entered the AFL in 1997, or is it the same, and the Port Magpies in the SANFL is a new club dating from 1997, or are they divisions of the same club?

Yes this has been much discussed in many places and we're not going to arrive at any agreement, so I'll try not to sink too much time into it again. Part of the lack of acceptance that the VFL=AFL comes from the entire way the national competition emerged, which was a bitterly fought struggle over decades, with state leagues at times wanting a national league, except the VFL not wanting it until they needed the money, and only under their terms, and only then creating it in the expansionist way that occurred. So while most people accept the way things are now and move on, it doesn't mean they accept what happened in the past to get to this point. To me it quite revisionist to think that flags or Brownlow Medallist etc in the past are automatically put by some on the same pedestal as modern flags or medallists. Some were no doubt as naturally gifted but it's just not comparing apples with apples.

Should a 1910 flag in the VFL be regarded as significant? Yes. Should a 1910 WAFL or SANFL flag be regarded as significant? Yes. They are all excellent achievements in their respective state leagues. But the whole concept of the modern league is different. It isn't simply a name change. It was a state league (with a handful of rich clubs dominating the rest) that made a decision over about a decade to expand to include representatives from the other major leagues/states to become a national competition, with far more competition, access to players, and national focus.

Like I said, there is no black and white line to divide those eras, but it doesn't mean they aren't different eras. I'm completely happy for Collingwood to say how many flags they have and be proud of them, be it broken down into VFL, AFL or VFL/AFL, so long as they make it clear, just as Mick Malthouse obviously distinguishes eras.

I'm sure if the league made a rapid transition to a several country international league then people will start to regard that new era as different to the current one. I'm comfortable with that. If they belittled AFL flags I would take issue. But I accept that things move on and change.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Sam
on Thursday, October 07 2010 @ 07:34 am ACDT

Brett, sorry for harping on this but it's not really a 'can of worms', you're suggesting something is obscure or blurred when it's actually quite clear. The official records for the AFL begin in 1897. Port Adelaides 'AFL' history begins in 1997. WAFL and SANFL flags are not relevant to the AFL. State, National or even International status are not relevant. Awards like the Brownlow and premier apply to the year and as such all have equal value, if you want to create a player or premier of the century award that's your prerogative.

Yes, no doubt some people in the future will fall into the trap of believing they're special and that time and history begins and ends in their lifetimes, but that doesn't make them correct and it's not a healthy or constructive view.

The VFL was by far the largest competition and always the driver of the formation of a national league, as is patently evident today, and that the other state leagues where largely recalcitrant and naive despite myths that have grown over the years, but that is another subject entirely.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Thursday, October 07 2010 @ 10:45 am ACDT

I can understand you "harping", I will too. We're passionate, just so long as we're polite. I'm way too busy for this but as you can see, my passion will over rule me.

My mention of the Port Adelaide can of worms was an example of another can of worms, which it most certainly is and is very controversial in SA and sees Port supporters themselves vigorously debating the point. It was not suggesting that Port's AFL history is ambiguous.

I believe in the context of the AFL the "Australian" stands for Australia the country, i.e. indicating the national league (as opposed to the sport of "Australian football"). You said you don't like revisionist history. Well I can assure you that when those Victorian Football League teams competed for the premiership in 1897 they most certainly were not competing for the Australian Football League premiership, regardless of how some people or organisations may choose to re-write it.

As for "the other state leagues where largely recalcitrant and naive", that's the first time I've heard that, even from the strongest defenders of the right of the VFL to consume all others.

Another example of revisionism is when there are many words said and written extolling that there are so many indigenous players in the AFL now. In fact there has always been many indigenous players at the top level in the major state leagues around Australia. However, there were apparently less playing in the VFL. I'm not sure if that was a racial issue or demographic issue. But once we had a national competition, two things happened. We had teams from the states where there were more indigenous players, and we had a draft that saw the best young indigenous players distributed across all the national league clubs more evenly. And since many of those clubs are in Victoria, the amount of indigenous players at those clubs increased. Now, since then the AFL has also instituted many comendable programs that have developed and encouraged indigenous players further, so that now they make up an impressive % of the game's players at the highest level, and that is an excellent outcome. But to simply say that x % in 1980 were indigenous and y % are in 2010 is a bit disingenous I feel, a bit of a re-write of history.

And it seems to be widely accepted that soccer was the original football and the original user of the term, and discoveries of the oldest footballs are therefore the heritage of soccer, when in fact it was just one of many football versions that emerged from a rich legacy of many varieties of football games played in England and indeed equivalents in many countries.

Plenty of people don't agree even on the name of our game. Many people won't give up Australian Rules as the name (and I still use the term Aussie Rules as often as not), despite the AFL declaring it to be Australian Football.

We had the farcical situation of Mike Sheehan presenting the best 50 footballers of all time (or was it the last 50 years) and only considered VFL/AFL footballers, when any decent thinking player from that era knew damn well that there were many champions from other states. Fortunately people like Barassi (if I recall correctly) have clearly stated as such, acknowledging they played against some of the best they had seen in interstate matches. But lists like Mike Sheehan's tend to get far more coverage and will stay in the popular memory. Unfortunately it cheapens our game's heritage. There are many who think that the game crept out of Victoria in the 1980s. It certainly doesn't help promote it to people in QLD and NSW who happily repeat that view, dismissing the obsession with the game as a Victorian disease, whereas in fact it has been the sport of Victoria, SA, WA and Tasmania for a long time. I believe the first formed league was in 1877 in SA. The SANFL claims roots back to the 1840s I think (perhaps dubiously - they didn't provide any evidence when I enquired).

Speaking of the culture of the game, I would guess the Brownlow was inspired by the Magarey, first awarded in 1898. The Sandover Medal in Western Australia followed from 1921 and Brownlow Medal in Victoria from 1924. There's a rich cultural exchange that gets obliterated by the concept of one AFL that has always existed. It's a shame the VFL didn't use red behind posts as SA did, to distinguish from the white goal posts - might have saved a few players those embarassing moments when they kick to the wrong side of the post under pressure not getting a sight at which post is which. To be uniform with the AFL they all got painted white.

To reiterate, I'm not disputing the worth or existence of the VFL flags of the past, they were great achievements and they are what they are. In general, although not always, they were probably the best teams in Australia. I just disagree about their relevance or equivalence to the modern AFL era which sees the very best Aussie Rules players from anywhere in Australia, and in fact the world. NZ may have a team one day but right now I don't think anyone is claiming that there are AFL level champion players running around the Auckland AFL, if there were there's 17 AFL clubs that would like to give them a trial (no offence guys, and I'm sure there is some young talent deserving a chance to get into the system who could be developed to somewhere around AFL quality, I'm just saying there are unlikely to be ready made AFL players, let alone AFL champions). If the Auckland AFL expanded to professional status and then included a team from Wellington in 2012, then Christchuch (2013), then Port Moresby (2020), then Tassie who had been snubbed for too long (2024), Cape Town (2030), then Cairns (2032), then the AFL got in a financial hole and Collingwood and Essendon jumped ship, and by 2070 we saw the comp renamed the World AFL, would we and should we cherishingly admire the AAFL flag of Takapuna in 1986? Perhaps. But should we hold them up as equivalent to the 2070 World flags? I don't think so. And if they renamed the AAFL to the World AFL next week, does that matter in this context? No. It's about the reality of the competition - somewhere it would have changed from local suburban to world, and the line would not be clear, but it would clearly have happened. And yes Collingwood could still proudly display their VFL and AFL flags, they are what they are.

Anyway, don't worry too much as history really is often written by the winners, so in the longer term it doesn't really matter who is right on this one. Onward and upward. We have a vibrant national league. We have record TV audiences, attendences, money, player wages, and a league that is increasingly interested in supporting international growth, which is the primary focus of this site. And whilst not perfect by ny means, they even don't get upset and have a go at us when I dispute the whole VFL-AFL thing.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Michael Christiansen
on Thursday, October 07 2010 @ 11:16 am ACDT

Gee, fans of North, Footscray and Hawthron reckon a few of those pre-1925 pennants ought not be counted.

;-)

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Thursday, October 07 2010 @ 09:38 pm ACDT

They all count Mick, it's just a matter of where you count them. 8)

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Sam
on Friday, October 08 2010 @ 08:20 am ACDT

Brett,

You are leading us further into the areas of subjectivity which I have demonstrated are logically inconsistent.

Obviously a contemporary team will easily beat a team from history, but that is not a worthwhile or honest apples-to-apples comparison. What you seem to missing in all I have written previously is an appreciation that for each given period of time the people of that time are doing the best they can in the circumstances, they valued the premierships won in their time just as much as we value ours. Even though the standard or breadth of the competition will continue to grow on the shoulders of those involved today, the value of a premiership won today is worth just as much as a premiership in fifty years time.

The league that is called the AFL today was formally constituted in 1897. This is where official records begin, everything else like names, medals, proportions of players of given backgrounds, degrees of professionalism, Port Adelaide's history, the circumstances of national expansion, Mike Sheehan's opinions, champion players in other leagues or inclusion of new clubs are entirely irrelevant to that objective fact.

I can see that we are not going to persuade each other to the others point of view, so I will leave it here. Hopefully some others may have gained some amusement or insight from the discussion.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Friday, October 08 2010 @ 12:51 pm ACDT

I won't comtinue the debate either, but I will just clarify that where you said because you say I'm missing the point but the point you re-state I have mostly never disagreed with:

"Obviously a contemporary team will easily beat a team from history, but that is not a worthwhile or honest apples-to-apples comparison. What you seem to missing in all I have written previously is an appreciation that for each given period of time the people of that time are doing the best they can in the circumstances, they valued the premierships won in their time just as much as we value ours. Even though the standard or breadth of the competition will continue to grow on the shoulders of those involved today, the value of a premiership won today is worth just as much as a premiership in fifty years time."

I have stated repeatedly that I don't disregard earlier premierships and that they should indeed value their premierships, my point is that they were from, in my opinion, effectively different competitions, and if I am to compare the nature of those flags e.g. around 1900 then the appropriate comparison, if any, would be with other state leagues of that era, not the very different beast that is a national comp. Just like I won't consider a suburban Auckland flag on a par with a World AFL flag if it happened that the Auckland AFL evolved into the World AFL. It's still a worthwhile flag and it's still part of the heritage of the given club, but not particularly relevant to the hypothetical World league 50 years later. That's my point, we disagree.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Thursday, October 07 2010 @ 01:23 pm ACDT

Sam, The VFL was always the largest competition Yes.(because of Melbourne's bigger population) but don't delude yourself that the VFL was always the driver of a push to a national competion. It was NOT always the driver, in FACT it was quite the reverse for many years. In the late 60's and early 70's I think the competition that was actually called the AFL at the time was played between the top 3 or 4 teams from the SANFL, VFL, WAFL, and the Tasmanisn Football League many games played at Norwood Oval. At one point the VFL pulled out of the competition (no reason given, but most believe it was taking some of the emphasis away from the VFL) and that renegade (and loathed by the VFL) organisation the VFA took their place. That "national" comp died partly due to cost and the fact that the VFL couldn't accept or wouldn't play in a comp that might have become more relevant as Australian Football in Australia than the VFL.
And when North Adelaide defeated Carlton (I might be wrong with the defeated team) for the Championship of Australia in about 1980 or thereabout, the VFL very quickly stopped playing that "National" competition too.
The actual move of South Melbourne out of Victoria to Sydney was not a move to start a national competition either but an experiment to see if footy would be watched in Sydney and at the same time save Sourh Melbourne from disappearing forever from the face of Aussie Footy. It did actually work to much surprised of many in the VFL and Victoria. Let's face it the name change to AFL didn't happen till a couple of years after the Swans moved and they continued to be South Melbourne when they played in Mwlbourne for quite number of years.
The VFL always the driver for a national competition?
You're buying a Monty Python arguement with that assertion, Yes it did, No it didn't. Yes it did. No it didn't. This isn't an argument. Yes it is. No it isn't. You have nil cred to back your arguement.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

2010 AFL Grand Final Re-match Highlights

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Thursday, October 07 2010 @ 01:33 pm ACDT

By the way the move of South Melbourne came after a match played in Sydney (don't remember who between) could have been North Adelaide(Barrie Robran Broke his leg),( might have been an interstate match) demonstrated that there was an audience for Australian Football if played at the top level in Sydney.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

RSS news	RSS events
Twitter	Facebook

World Footy News

Search

Translate

User Functions

Events

Featured Sites

Older Stories

Friday 11-Apr

Sunday 30-Mar

Thursday 27-Mar

Friday 21-Mar

Thursday 06-Mar

Wednesday 05-Feb

Tuesday 04-Feb

Socials

Who's Online

Random Image

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks

Advertisements