Our AFL experts tackle some of the burning questions ahead of Round 22.
Is Toby Greene treated unfairly by the MRO and AFL Tribunal?
Rohan Connolly: Consciously? No. Sub-consciously? I'm confident the name and the length of the rap sheet plays a part in the sort of penalties Greene attracts. He's not the first and won't be the last to suffer that fate. But I do think that knowing that, he could help himself more by curbing some of the excesses of how he plays, and by that I mean the raised arms and legs in contact situations, which he might argue are self-defence but others seem to be able to survive without.
Jake Michaels: Is there really any doubt? Whether or not you're a fan of Toby, you have to admit he cops more than just about any other player (certainly any other A-grade player) when it comes to the AFL's judicial system. Now, he does bring a lot on himself by the aggressive way he plays, but we simply don't see others slapped with the same sort of penalties for the same actions. Very strange.
Matt Walsh: Surely Toby must be thinking it! To be slapped with a two-game ban for what was an (albeit aggressive) football act, while in the same game, Joel Selwood lines up a vulnerable player and only gets a fine, there may be some unconscious bias against Toby by the MRO! Thankfully, the Tribunal tends to iron out any inconsistencies.
Jarryd Barca: There's no doubting Greene has prior form when it comes to on-field indiscretions, but I don't think he is treated unfairly. In this specific case, I can see why a two-week suspension was handed down, given the 'high impact' rating, albeit I don't agree with it when it comes to precedents set from similar actions this season (ala Bayley Fritsch, Buddy Franklin, or even Danger in last year's decider). I do believe Toby is treated fairly, but if the AFL Tribunal doesn't let him off tonight, I may change my mind...
Can the Bulldogs win the flag without Josh Bruce?
RC: Yes. It's a huge blow, no doubt, the Dogs suddenly losing an average 2.5 goals per game from their key forward target. But unlike 2016, when they really had to cobble together scores, this year there is more depth and options. Jamara Ugle-Hagan could go up a cog with more responsibility and there's also the option of Tim English spending more time forward. The Dogs also get a greater volume of goals from their midfield group than do most of their finals rivals.
JM: I think they probably can but it's certainly going to be far tougher without their spearhead, though I'd argue key defender Alex Keath might be even more important to this side's Grand Final aspirations, given the vulnerability of the backline. Back in 2016, when the Dogs went all the way, the Bulldogs managed plenty of goals from the midfield, I think that's going to have to happen again if they are to repeat the dose in 2021.
MW: Yes, they can, but it doesn't make the news any less heartbreaking for Josh, who has had a wonderful season. Ugle-Hagan, Josh Schache - it's time for one of you to step up!
JB: I think they can still win it, so long as they find the right reinforcements, which right now are also sitting on the injury list. The fitness of key defender Keath now becomes an integral piece of their premiership bid - it could mean the end of the Schache down back experiment. Through Aaron Naughton and Ugle-Hagan, enough avenues to goal still exist, but it is a brutal blow this late in the season.
Should Taylor Walker play AFL football again?
RC: Tough one. I'd hate this to be seen as minimising the damage done, but I think he should have that opportunity, while at the same time believing a six-game suspension was an inadequate penalty. I think we also have to take education seriously, and allowing him to play again at least offers a chance for some meaningful atonement. If I was Adelaide, I'd be attaching some very stringent conditions to that opportunity by way of some serious welfare work and public advocacy, not just the lip service to the cause we see too often.
JM: Nope. The only way to stop this behaviour is to make an example out of anyone found to have done it. I'm all for second chances but some things you just can't come back from, and this is one of those. Tex said himself he needs to go away and educate himself. Educate himself on what? Isn't it common sense?
MW: Is it time to reset the precedent on blatant acts of racism and just say it's a blanket ban for any player at any level? It seems extreme, but we're so far beyond protecting 'casual' or 'non-casual' racism that it's time to move the goal posts. Don't do it. Say racist crap at AFL level? Banned. Amateur level? Banned. But bring in that ruling only before an incident, not after ... Walker is the last straw.
JB: Tex made a mistake -- an inexcusable one -- owned it, and will rightly cop his whack as there is no place in our game and society for any kind of racial vilification, although I don't believe six weeks was a severe enough penalty. There is no sweeping this issue under the carpet, but people, humans, deserve a chance to redeem themselves, so I think an eventual return to the field is acceptable.
Is there any merit in the phrase 'the loss they had to have'?
RC: Not these days, I reckon. It might have had currency in 2000, when Essendon won 20 games straight before being upset on the eve of a finals series. But there are so few standout teams now, and the competition so even top-to-bottom, that no team ever wins so long that it can leave them complacent. The reminders about having to be your best are screaming at you in many of the nine games played each week. You don't need to lose to be aware of them.
JM: Give me a break! Players and teams are never happy with a loss and it can never be good for morale and momentum, particularly close to a finals campaign. If I was a player or coach, I wouldn't really consider any loss one we needed to have.
MW: Ha - I love this question because I'm a superstitious guy. All the pressure of just winning and winning leading into cut-throat finals? Surely it plays a mental toll on some (superstitious) players. Not even the great Essendon 2000 side could manage it - and perhaps that was the loss they 'needed' to have. I think losses like that are healthier for a playing group than we give them credit for.
JB: Ah, when losing is really winning. There is 100 percent merit in that phrase, as there is no doubting the learnings a team can take out of a loss can prove more influential than those taken out of a win, particularly for the top teams who end up facing each other for the second or third time in a single season come September. Sides with significant winning streaks don't possess the dangerous 'nothing to lose' mentality, and they're less likely to tinker with what they believe is a winning game plan. Losing can be important, not that a team would actually do so intentionally.