EDDIE McGUIRE'S outrage is understandable, if overblown. Collingwood seldom fares well when the AFL hands out the gongs.
It did not make the team of the century, couldn't get an All-Australian representative in 2002 when it nearly pinched a flag, and once again, has been smacked by the team-of-the-year selectors, unable to crack the top 40, while the bedraggled Tigers have a couple of players in the squad.
Perspective is required, however. In the same week that the sixth-placed Magpies were snubbed by the selectors, it was they — and not higher-ranked Hawthorn — that were given a home final at the MCG rather than Telstra Dome. The Hawks, hence, must negotiate Adelaide's unsightly flooding at the diminutive Dome, which suits the Crows down to the ground.
Both clubs are MCG tenants and this decision was entirely based on Collingwood's greater drawing power. So, if there are downsides to being the tallest poppy in town, the Magpies should be thankful for the benefits they derive from their position as the team that wears the black hats.
Hawthorn, doubtless, would trade its four All-Australian nominees for the MCG this week.
Actually, Collingwood doesn't have a player who warrants selection in the All-Australian 22. At least one of Heath Shaw and Tarkyn Lockyer probably belongs in the top 40, but there isn't a Magpie who's done enough to make it.
Rather than seeing this as another grand, anti-Collingwood conspiracy by a coalition of ex-Carlton players (Robert Walls, Rod Austin), AFL officials and their ubiquitous servant, Kevin Bartlett, the Magpies should view their inability to produce All-Australians as a tribute to their team's industrious qualities and evenness. James Clement more-or-less took this view yesterday.
Far from being hurtful and damaging to the club's self-esteem, the latest non-selection is the kind of snub that Collingwood people really enjoy — feeding, as it does, their us against the world, manichean, black-and-white view of the competition. And, as McGuire suggested, it is a tribute of sorts to Mick Malthouse and the coaching staff.
Collingwood's lack of stand-out performers this year also can be explained by the demography of its better players, which are disproportionately young and old. Shaw, Scott Pendlebury, Travis Cloke and Dale Thomas will get their gongs in due course, with more experience, while Nathan Buckley, James Clement, Scott Burns, Anthony Rocca and Shane Wakelin have passed the stage when individual honours are bestowed. Burns, though, had claims for inclusion in the top 40.
With Alan Didak recovering from a knee reconstruction, the Pies don't have much top-shelf talent in the key 23-28 demographic which accounts for most All-Australians. Of Geelong's nine nominees only one of them, Darren Milburn, is outside that bracket.
The system of choosing a squad of 40 and then reducing it to 22 is sound, and the selectors got most of it right. That said, as with umpires, we only talk about the questionable calls, which were:
1. Roger Hayden. He's had his best year, yes, but hasn't had sufficient impact on the competition to justify a spot among the top dozen defenders.
2. Brent Harvey deserves to be in the team, as a midfielder, because that's where he plays most of the time. He has been picked as a forward — presumably, as a sleight of hand to ensure the selectors can squeeze in another on-baller. This is not as shonky as Matthew Pavlich's selection as All-Australian full-back in 2002 (a position Pav never played), but averages of 25 disposals and 1.4 goals are numbers of a goalkicking midfielder, not a small forward.
3. Jed Adcock did not play great footy in defence, really only flourishing when he was moved up the ground, into the midfield, this year. Thus, he should not be in contention for a defensive spot.
4. Matthew Richardson. While no player puts on a better show than Richo, I reckon he's pretty fortunate to be picked among the competition's top dozen forwards this year. Maybe his nomination is like the compensatory Oscar Martin Scorsese received at the Academy Awards for The Departed — given for a body of work over a career.
Players who perform well late in the season seem to be treated more favourably than those — such as Heath Shaw — who blaze early and trail off somewhat in the latter rounds.
Like umpires casting votes in the Brownlow, a strong finish seems to make a stronger impression on the judges.
