Another reason why Dan24's finals system if flawed

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Clearly Dan24's pet gripe is the unfairness of the AFL's current finals system; particularly in regard to the apparent lack of reward for the minor premier (is it just a coincidence that Dan24 is an Essendon supporter?). Anyway, plenty of valid criticisms of Dan's system have been posted which have been rebuked with the same old tired and oft-repeated arguments. Well I know Dan is bound to drag out his well worn spiel - and at the same time skirt the real issue - in response to this post but I'm going to give it a burl regardless.

Here's a point that I don't think has yet been raised: If the AFL is to raise the reward, importance and profile of winning the minor premiership then surely all 16 teams competing must have equal chance of winning this prize. Currently the draw does not allow equality. Teams do NOT play each prospective combatant at home AND away each season. The 22 week long preliminary rounds only cater for each team to play seven opponents in both home and away matches. The fixturing of so-called 'traditional blockbusters' ensures that this inequality cannot be made up over subsequent seasons.

The beauty of the English Premier League (an example which Dan24 oh-so-often raises) is that the draw is fair and the 'minor premier' has every right to claim that they are the best performed team. This is not currently possible in the AFL - either the season must be extended to 30 rounds or the number of teams must be reduced, both options can be rightly argued against. Take this scenario as an example, at the end of 22 rounds the teams sitting first and second on the ladder are separated by only a few percentage points. The McClelland trophy (or whatever) is awarded the team with the higher percentage - as is proposed in Dan24's system. However a review of the draw reveals that the top team played seven of the bottom eight teams twice, whilst the team finishing second played seven of the top eight teams twice. I don't kow about you but the argument over which is the best performed team for the year in this hypothetical example is not so straightformward.

Finally, Dan24's assertion that the 'general public' will accept any system put forward by the sports governing body is countered by his own (and other's - including myself) vociferous opposition of the current system. This ‘I-know-what’s-best-for-you’ attitude of his is getting on my nerves – I don’t know about you guys….

(P.S. Although Dan24’s arguments are full of holes, I do admire his tenacity to stick by his guns and instead of answering criticisms with logical argument, unleashing a personal tirade against anyone who dare disagree with him. In fact, I would feel rather insignificant if I did not receive a torrent of abuse form his quarters. Come on Dan 24 get cut-and-pasting with that same old rebuttal and hit me!)

[Razza]

So change the draw to play all teams twice (one home , one away) problem fixed!!!!

[Bloodstained Angel]

Yes and then (and only then) will Dan24 have a credible arguement for paying due regard to the top team.

At the moment with 22 rounds, the Minor round is a 22 week long qualifying tournament for the finals. Thats all, not a true H&A 'round-robin' series like that played in the English Soccer (for example)

The Dan-man has a good point, forcefully and at times quite eloquently argued, but, lets get the inequities in the draw sorted first before we move on to considering ideas like Dan's

[Dan26]

To Indian in the Cupboard (Servo, I think) and Bloodstained Angel,

I have gone over tis point so many times, even I am tired of it.

I have stated time and time again that the draw is uneven, right ? Yes, I have.

But IMPORTANTLY, I have stated that the home and away season, whilst uneven, is a more accurate reflection fof who the best team is than a 4 week tournament.

The way you speak, it's as if you think the current system is fair. The current system overrides 22 weeks, and deems it irrelevant. It then decided the premiership based on only three matches agaisnt three different opponents. Luck aso plays a factor, due to the "one-off" nature of the matches.

Yes, you heard right. To win the finals series, you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalists. Is that fair ? The answer is no.

Now before you go jumping up and down, you must realise that under my proposal, the finals will still be there. That will keep you happy. You will still have to win those "three" matches, and by doing so you will be declared "finals series champions"

But you will also be able to win the "home and away" premiership, by winning more games than any other team over 22 weeks.

Sure, the H&A isn't totally even (I never said it was), but you still have to play all 15 teams at least once, and you play your 22 matches over a 6 month schedule. Now whilst this is not perfect, it is still a far better reflection of who the years best team is than the finals series, which both of you are defending !!!!!!!

So, by all means, keep the finals. Aspire to win them, thats great. But also reward the years best team, and make that achievement separate to the finals series.

I don't even se it as that big a deal, becasue the Grand Final will still be there as it as always been, as will the finals series (except it would revert to knockout, with all teams being treated equally)

And Indian in the Cupboard, don't ever imply I feel this way becasue my team is sitting on top. That's got absolutely NOTHING to do with it. In fact, I'd be saying the same thing, if ths Bombers were 9th, or 16th.

[Dan26]

Indian in the Cupboard,

Would you like to to raise a topic about the un-evenness of the finals series ? After all, you raised the topic about the un-evenness of the H&A.

Perhaps the fact that you only play 3 teams in the finals. Or that, despite being the best team, one loss can eliminate you.

Or perhaps that injuries can occur in ONE match, and you could be eliminated due to those injuries, when you were really the years best team all along.

Or perhaps that you can avoid a particular opponent, becasue you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalists.

I dont suppose all of this un-evenness has occured to you, has it ?

And you have the nerve to criticize the H&A !! Sheesh !

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

Your statement that the current finals system, “…overides 22 weeks and deems it irrelevant.” Is nonsensical. Even if we assume that each team has a 50/50 chance of winning each finals match (this according to your assumption that ‘luck’ determines the outcome of finals matches) the team finishing first has a far greater chance of winning the flag than the team finishing eighth, or even fifth does. Although, I do concede that the probability of each team winning the flag is not as fair as in the previously used McIntyre Final 8 system.

If the current finals sytem actually ‘overided’ and made ‘irrelevant’ the 22 week home and away season then the AFL would simply pull eight teams out of a hat, or even better Collingwood could appear every year because they could draw larger crowds than a successful team like the Kangaroos. If your minor premier (aka best performed team) cannot win a match - at home- against the 4th placed team (aka the 4th best performed team) and follow that with defeat –at home- against one of the teams placed 5th to 8th I doubt anyone would believe that team was the best team of the year. Y’know I view the finals system as a way for the minor premier to CONFIRM their supposed superiority gained over a flawed home and away series. If the minor premier is indeed the best team they should be able to prove it against lower ranked opposition.

And all your talk about injuries ruining a premiership dream in one match, what about injuries suffered during the home and away rounds? A major factor in finishing minor premier is having a good run with injuries, particularly in this current climate of creating competition equality (salary cap, draft, draft concessions, etc.). So if you have no injuries during the home and away rounds, finish first, then suffer a few come finals time (Essendon 2000 perhaps) - and lose, how is that unfair compared to a team who is decimated by injury throughout the 22 week season and narrowly fail to make the finals (Richmond 2000 for example)?

And by the way, you can’t honestly believe that your system wouldn’t lessen the value of the Grand Final? Using your logic we might as well play the Ansett Cup as an exhibition competition at the end of the season. Or even better give the minor premier a holiday and let the remaining seven finalists play amongst themselves! This scenario for the Grand final really gets my heart pumping!!

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

You must understand that the reason we have a finals series is to determine who is the best team. You appear to think that the finals series should be an after-party celebration for the minor premier. One of the great things about finals matches is the pressure and atmosphere far exceeds that experienced in home and away matches. It is enthralling to see whether teams that dominate throughout the season, like Essendon this year, can perform when the stakes are at their highest. Surely this type of pressure is the true decider of who really is the best team. Unfortunately your system diminishes this excitement. By shifting the accolade from the Grand Final winner to the home and away champion the spark of the final series is effectively extinguished. The minor premier enters the finals cpmpetition having already secured the major prize.

[The Ball]

Indian,

You say that finals determines the best team of the year and that the higher ranked team should perform when the stakes are at their highest and that the pressure associated with those stakes determines the best team.

However, you fail to mention that in many finals and grand finals the pressure is usually on one team and not both, the higher placed team on the ladder.

Let me give you an example.

Last year, Essendon had all the pressure on them to win the premiership. However, any other team that Essendon played during that finals series did not have any pressure on them because no one expected them to win against the minor premier.

When Essendon played Carlton in the preliminary final Carlton had no pressure on them whatsoever. They could have lost and even Carlton supporters would have been happy that they made it that far. Essendon, however had all the pressure and everything to lose. If the bombers won it would have been no big acheviment since everyone expected them to. If they lost (which they did of course)they got blasted, deservedly so.

Well the point I'm trying to make is that some teams have all the pressure going into finals games and others don't. While I'm not trying to excuse higher ranked teams losing to lower ranked teams it is just an observation I'd like to discuss.

Also, like Dan24 said any team can lose a one off match.

[The Dutchman!]

600+ posts Dan?!?!?!

Damn, I'm impressed...

Everybody knows the finals system is flawed, but this is secondary to the regular season shambles.

There are only 2 ways to make the competition fair, either make the season 30 weeks long or 2 conference system. Thirty weeks is a very long season indeed but if teams were limited to using individual players for a maximum of say 24 weeks it might be feasible.
My preference is the conference system it is by far the most equitable system around, but I fear due to a money hungry AFL and some clubs this would never get off the ground.

The finals in a conference would be 2 top 4's
a system that when there was a top 4 worked pretty damn well. I fully realize that there is a lot of work to be done to accomodate all involved but if the AFL ever cares for the fairness of the competition something has got to change.

[Westy Boy]

Just thought I would give my useless, drawn out opinion.
I agree with both arguments- to some extent.

I would like to see a fair system (30 rounds), and the "idea" of the leader at the end declared the champions. However, I, like most Australians, love the idea and experience of sudden death finals series'ss's's (how the hell do you spell series in plural????) for all codes.
I've only been logging on to this forum for the past couple of days, so therefore don't know the full details of Dan24's idea, but something was mentioned about likening it to the system employed by the English Premier League.
Frankly, Australians would not be able to cope without a finals series or just a notional finals series for that matter. The prospect of a runaway Manchester United (Essendon) being uncatchable (I know it's not a word but it's late) mid way through a season, therefore effectively ending any interest in the rest of the season is the last thing the AFL, clubs or public want. I know its fair but, it significantly loses appeal, interest, and reduces income, doing more harm than good for the future of the game. Look at this year. Essendon is the best team going around, but suddenly because of last week's loss to the mighty doggies, interest has escalated because there is a 1% chance they might lose in the finals. Had it been a minor premiership scenario, there would have been a 20,000 crowd and minimal media coverage thinking "who gives a shit who wins, Essendon has won the premiership anyway", with most teams just looking forward to next year.
Australian culture needs the excitement of finals to look forward to. Look at the NSL. Equitable draw, yet the only soccer league in the world with a finals type system (I'm pretty sure).

[Pessimistic]

The plural of series is series'

For the one who complained about the pressure on essendon last year compared to carlton - That is what finals are all about !

Carlton withstood it in '95, Hawthorn in '88/'89 and West coast blew it in 1990

Pump up the Pressure !

Continuing my anti-essendon vein. Essendon moved to Colonial, Made a packet etc but now expect to play all their finals at the MCG

For those interested the MCG is now the home of Hawthorn, Melbourne, Richmond and Collingwood. They should have first call on the MCG for home finals (if they qualify)

Essendon should play the final which is contracted to colonial

[Roylion]

Yes, most (not all) of the points that Westy Boy and Indian in the Cupboard are making about Dan24's flawed finals scenario are exactly the ones I made in another thread. For all the reasons given above, Dan's proposed two seperate competitions are NOT the way to go.

[FreoRules]

While there is some merit in the talk that the minor premiers are not more widely acknowledged you can't have a system similar to the English Premier League as it would be boring with four rounds to go. The only reason it works in places like England is the fact that teams get relegated to lower divisions and that they are trying to qualify for the rich European tournaments. Because AFL does not have this it would not work and the season would be boring, plus you could not have GF days with player sculls etc. What would the world be coming to.

[Shinboners]

While I don't agree with Dan24's idea of a "home and away" champion and then a "finals series" champion, he has convinced me of one thing. The minor premier is not adequately rewarded.

Under the old final 4 and final 5 systems, the minor premier had a double chance to reach the GRAND FINAL. They could either make it by winning the second semi final or if they lost that, by winning the preliminary final. IT's a fair reward for 22 weeks of work, and if the top team lost both finals, then you could say that they didn't deserve to be in the Grand Final (as I painfully remember from 1983). But under the final 8 system, the minor premier only has a double chance to reach the PRELIMINARY FINAL. That is where the unfairness lies. I don't dispute that last season, Essendon were the best team over the home and away, but due to one result (and no second chance to make amends), they were prevented from making the Grand Final. I know that sport often isn't fair, but it's clear that the finals system doesn't adequately reward the top team. The top team has everything to lose (because the double chance is only form the prelminary final), everyone below them has everything to win.

There has to be some way to develop a system that gives the minor premier two chances at making it to Grand Final Day. The obvious one would be to go back to a final 5, but that's unlikely as the AFL wants to minimise the number of "dead" matches towards the end of the season and maximise the number of finals games.

[Dan26]

Couple of points,

Firstly, to West boy. If Essendon won the H&A premiership, this would not be "boring" as you implied. You see, at the moment, Essendon has wrapped up the McClelland trophy and has done for some time. We have all just been waiting for the finals to start. So, what would be the difference ? It's exactly that way now !!!!!

If the finals series was a seperate tournament (with all 8 teams treated equally in a knockout format), then we would still have the fight for the finals (which you are saying we wouldn't have), and we also reward the years best team (top spot).

It's the best way to go. I've thought of every possible scenario, and counter-argument, and everything I say on this issue makes more sense than the rebuttals.

Under MY system, if you win the finals, you are premiers of the "finals series". Currently, if you win the GF, you are premiers of the whole year. That is stupid an illogical.

I don't know why everyone is complaining. if you all think finals are the be all and end all, then great.....finals are still there for you to all drool over. You can still win the GF as per normal.

One thing that peeves me is when "Indian in the cupboard" says things like : "1st should be able to beat 4th. If thet can't, they don't deserve to be premiers"

That kind of attitude is unacceptable. Has this guy ever heard of an upset ? Obviously not. Upsets happen. The years best team can lose ONE match, and that can end their seasOn. Forget about this double chance bullsh*t. 1st can currently be eliminatd after one loss in the PF or GF right now, so don't give me any crap about so called double chances. No team is immune from having a bad day.

If you do lose a final in my system, it will still count, but it won't affect the H&A season, which will already have been "won".

As for "indian in the cupboards" stupid injuries comment, I'ver got one thing to say.

Injuries can have far more of an impact in a final (i.e a one-off match) than over a season. Over a season, you have your good and bad days with injury. It tends to even out (simple mathematics), but what if you have a spate of injuries on Preliminary final day, and you lose. Why should that represent the whole season ? Why can't it just represent the 4 week finals series ? That makes so much more sense. Then, if you do lose, all you've lost is a 4 week tournanment.

As for Roylion, he has said beofre, that if all 8 teams were treated eqully, there is no difference between 1 and 8. Look at how it is now. Whilst the top 4 get a double chance IF they happen to lose, from week 2 onwards ,it is knockout. 1st can still lose a one-off match and not get a double chance (it happened to Essendon last year). If all 8 teams were treated equally, they would be seeded, so tha 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, with 1 and 2 being drawn to play in the GF if they keep on winning.

Lat year Essendon (1st) played Sydney (8th). Essendon won and advanced to the preliminary final. Under my proposal, 1st would again play 8th (but it would be knockout), Essendon would have beaten Sydney in that quarter-final, and advanced to the "semi-final" (last year we called it the preliminary final).

No difference. Just like last year, one win from 1st would get them to within a game of the Grand Final. The only differecne is that all finals are knockout. What if 1st lost 8th and were eliminated, you ask ? Well, firstly this wouldn't be so bad as they would have allready been rewarded for winning the H&A premiership.

Secondly, Essendon got eliminated last year after finishing on top after ONE loss, so what difference does it make if the one loss that eliminates you is in the 1st week or the 3rd week ?

No difference !

There should be NO double chances. Finals are about performing on the day, not about getting second chances. I am completely mystified as to how the top team can be elimianted NOW after one loss in the PF and GF, and we all claim they have a double chance. Finals should be knockout. Anyone who disagrees, is just plain wrong.

FINALS SHOULD BE KNOCKOUT.

Roylion needs to understand that there is not really a big difference between 1st and 8th now. One team has to win 3 matches, while the other has to win 4.

I also know that it is a CRAP reward to get a double chance after 22 weeks. That's all you get after 22 weeks of hard work ? A double chance which disappears on preliminary finals day ? Puh-lease. That is a terrible reward Gees, I mean we are better of having the wghole finals series knockout. It's so close to that anyway that we might as weel do it.

A much more fitting reward for 22 weeks of excellence is to be called H&A premier. I'nve already explained about the inadequacies of the "draw" (with the finals draw being 10 times more un-even than the H&A), so don't anyone bring that up. It's allready been explained.

Well, that's pretty much everything. No doubt some fool will try to shoot me down, claiming "but the fans" don't want it (even though history shows the fans will accept whatever is given recognition), so will you people just accept that my proposal is the best. Trust me, I know. I've thought of this far more than any of you, and I know more about it. (sorry about the arrogance, but is is justified....yes I'm arrogant and proud of it)

[Dan26]

Shinboners,

Do you realy think that under a final 5, that the double chance a team received is adequate.

Sorry, but as I stated above, anything, which doesn't recognise the H&A seaosn at all, (even if it does give you two chances to make the GF) is not adequate in my opinion.

Even in the final 5, 1st could lose the GF match itself (eg 1982), and that ruins their season, even though they finished on top. If a double chance is to be there, it has to exist ALL THE WAY THROUGH (including the Grand Final).

This was how the old Argus system worked. Even if 1st lost the GF, they got another chance in the second Grand Final the next week. You can't just say : "Oh, but the double chance shouldn't apply to the Grand Final" If the double chance applys up to the Grand Final, then it should also include the Grand Final, otherwise it still comes down to one loss overriding 22 weeks, and rendering them irrelevant, which is unacceptable.

As I've said many times, a knockout format is the way to go, because that is the way the finals culminate now anyway. Since they culminate that way NOW, lets make them knockout the whole way through.

Do you see where I am getting with this ? A lot of people tend to read what I say, but not take it in.

Simply put, if the finals conclude currently with a knockout match, why isn't the whole finals series knockout ? No where else in the world is that illogical, but we are here in Australia. Surely that must tell us all something.

FINALS SHOULD BE KNOCKOUT. (but to go along with that the top team shouldbe called H&A premier and be given heaps of recognition)

[Roylion]

Dan says
"If Essendon won the H&A premiership, this would not be "boring" as you implied. You see, at the moment, Essendon has wrapped up the McClelland trophy and has done for some time. We have all just been waiting for the finals to start. So, what would be the difference ? It's exactly that way now !!!!!"

Rubbish. It's not EXACTLY that way now. What Dan has conveniently left out is that the competition does NOT finish at the conclusion of the home and away minor rounds, but goes for the next four weeks. There is huge interest left in the outcome of the competition because it isn't finished. If the competition finished at the end of the minor rounds, where would the interest be.

Dan says..."If the finals series was a seperate tournament (with all 8 teams treated equally in a knockout format), then we would still have the fight for the finals (which you are saying we wouldn't have), and we also reward the years best team (top spot).
It's the best way to go. I've thought of every possible scenario, and counter-argument, and everything I say on this issue makes more sense than the rebuttals."

Again rubbish on all counts. There would be no "finals". Finals to what..... when IN the competition there has been no selection criteria as to the make-up of the final teams IN that competition. Remember you are now talking about a completely seperate competition in the way the Ansett Cup is to the regular season. All that would exist is a seperate post-season competition made up of the best eight teams from the previous competition. Little different from the Ansett Cup pre-season, except for perhaps the higher standard, less teams and maybe a little more media hype.

Dan says, "Under MY system, if you win the finals, you are premiers of the "finals series". Currently, if you win the GF, you are premiers of the whole year. That is stupid and illogical".

Why is it stupid and illogical? There's no doubt in my mind the current season is too long, sure, but this proposal won't shorten it either. If there were 15 rounds (where each team plays each other once) + 4 weeks finals, with appropriate recognition given to top spot, but the premier of the nineteen weeks winning the competition, surely this is much the same as announcing a minor premier after 22 weeks of competition. It won't happen of course because of the revenue lost to the AFL from the cutting of seven rounds.

Dan says..."I don't know why everyone is complaining. if you all think finals are the be all and end all, then great.....finals are still there for you to all drool over. You can still win the GF as per normal".

See above. Finals would not exist. A Knockout comp like the old Ansett Cup would exist, but they defintely would not be 'finals'. It's a DIFFERENT competition, starting from scratch!!!

Dan says.."Has this guy ever heard of an upset ? Obviously not. Upsets happen. The years best team can lose ONE match, and that can end their season."

Yes, Dan that is correct. No team is immune from having a bad day. However should the top teams have a bad day in the first two weeks of the finals, then they are immune from elimination. No team whether they finish top of the ladder or not should be guaranteed the title of the premier team of the competition until they have won the Grand Final. Frankly much of the interest in the competition as it stands at tht moment is whether any other team can defeat Essendon in the PF or the GF and take the premiership, thus winning the competition. The fact that Essendon or any of the top four could be out of the competition in the preliminary final or Grand Final adds to the excitement of the competition and avoids a sense of "ho-hum".

Finals should NOT be just knockout and anyone who disagrees, especially you Dan24 is plain wrong. The finals are a continuation of the existing competition and credit must be given for teams finishing higher on the ladder.

I understand completely that there is less of a difference between 1st and 8th than there was last year. I beleive I've made a comment on that in another thread which Dan 24 agreed with. I personally much preferred last years final eight system than this years, as it gave far more assistance to teams that finished higher.

As to the CRAP reward system that Dan keeps bringing up. The winner of the GF gets $100,000 for winning the GF. All that needs to be done in my opinion is to award the MINOR premier a substantial cash monetary award. Anywhere between $250,000 to $500,000 reward for the club finishing top at the end of the H&A + a trophy and maybe even official recogntion in the annals of the AFL is surely recognition enough and would have all clubs striving for that top spot as well as the double chance in the first two weeks of the finals. If the monetary award for the winner of the GF was kept at its current level this would be offset by the prestige of winning the competition. Part of the prestige of the AFL competition is that it is so hard to win because of the possibility of one loss in the finals and you're out. I would hate to see this diluted by a division into two competitions. (although the season should be a bit shorter)

Finally no we won't (or I won't) accept your proposal is best. I've been involved in an AFL club at a reasonably high level (leading coteries etc. etc.- though not quite at board level) at Fitzroy and regard myself reasonably qualified to offer an opinion on here, despite what you as the supporter of a successful club such as Essendon might think of anyone who was "foolish" enough to support Fitzroy. While I support and take a interest in the Brisbane Lions, I'm no longer as involved as I was, but still enjoy listening and reading to people's opinions about footy. This is one of the reasons I check out this forum once in a while. Thus I believe I am as qualified, if not more qualified that you Dan 24, to offer a valid opinion.

Even though I have have experience of the inner workings of a former AFL club and know personally many of the identities most of the public would just read about in the media, unlike Dan24 I would never arrogantly tell people on this forum to accept my ideas, because "my proposal is best, and "trust me I know."

As far as I am concerned, you don't know it all...you just think you do.

[Dan26]

OK, Rolion, here we go.

You said this: "If the competition finished at the end of the minor rounds, where would the interest be ? "

The interest would be towards finishing on top of the ladder. You say there is huge interest left in the comp, becasue the outcome isnt finished. You act as though it is good for the suppoters of the top team (whoever it hapens to be) to win every match, but thse matches don't count towrad anything. Yeah, I'm sure people LOVE that. It's ust so great winning matches, but these matches don't count unless you win the Grand Final. Gee, that makes a lot of sense.

When ManU win a H&A match they know it counts. It is one win closer to securing top spot, and the "premiership" that goes with it. Sadly, our competiton doesn't have that. The home and away season, which comprsies 95% of the season, is seen as a means to an end. Now is it fair for 95% of the season to be a means to an end ? I don't think so.

You said this : "Again rubbish on all counts. There would be no "finals". Finals to what..... when IN the competition there has been no selection criteria as to the make-up of the final teams IN that competition."

It doesn't matter whther you actually call them finals or you gie the tournament a specific name. What you call them is irrelevant. In English soccer, the European Cup is a seperate tournament to the premier leaue competiton, but you qualify for it be excelling over the H&A season.

My proposal makes the "4 week tournament" a chance for the top 8 teams to compete in a tournamnet against each other. A tournament which any of them can win in their own right. A tournament which (like the FA CUP) they can lose a match and not need to worry that it ruins their season, due to an unlucky loss.

The fact that Denis Pagan and Malcom Blight even admitted that the years best team doesn't necesarily win the G, must make us all wonder just why it is given so much recognition. You said no team, deserves the title of premier unless they have won the GF.

I disagree on the basis that the GF winner isn't always the best team. What if the best team didn't win the GF, but finished 4 games clear on top (like ManU) ? Shouldn't this team be called "premiers" ? According to the dictionary definition of "premiers", you will see that that title should be given to the top team on the ladder. The team that has been more successful than any other. The team that has won more matches over the season than any other. i.e the premier team. Premiers basically means "best"

You said this "The fact that Essendon or any of the top four could be out of the competition in the preliminary final or Grand Final adds to the excitement of the competition and avoids a sense of "ho-hum".

This scenario also means Essendon is playing menaingless matches, becasue they don't cout towa"ds anytHing (si>ce the ˆ&A isn;´ recognsed). Eƒsendon,àif theyare ann/unced H†A preieRs, coulD still Œose a m1tch in Dhe "4 w%ek touranment", and they could fail to�win tha tourna*ent. ThEre is iŽterest or the ans the2e. Ther% is tre-endus i.terest „o see i& ManU gEt elimi.ated frïm the FA CUP, e6en thouÇh that s seperate from€the "to spot" àremiersip.

I $hink I ƒan tell0how you mind w/rks. Yo… want uÎpredictábility, don't yu ? Yoe want i”, even !t the e(pense of fairneÃs. Who ares if°the top team is't recognised, as long qs unpre¤ictabli¤y is ra
pant, r©ght ?
jYou sadthis : ²The fac that E#sendon �r any o& the to four c¯uld be Ïut of te compeition i. the pr%liminar) final ¯r Grand Final a„ds to te excitement of0the com etition`and avo ds a seŽse of "¨o-hum"."

No, tis does not add*to the åxcitemet of thÅ compet)ton. Al, it doe, is ma‹e us wa)t, and gait....!nd waitàfor the finals.€Essendo. could ³till lo#e the Por GF i the se erate t�urnamenä, and ys it wo¥ld be s…perate do their H&A preMiership So wha4 ? The seperatetournmaunt is a great o*portuniâty to g…t some lory fo2 those lubs th1t WERE OT GOODENOUGH $o finisˆ on topN If you0were god enoug, then ou shou,d be regarded, !nd NO,
double€chance ys not a~ adequa$e rewar.

You #aid thi# "Final# should NOT be
ust knockout an$ anyonewho disagrees, special<y you D!n24 is lain wrng. Theðfinals !re a continuatin of th5 existi¾g compedition a.d credi must b5 given &or team# finish ng high%r on th ladder."

Yes $hey shod be kn/ckout. )f the f)nals curently %nd witha knockOut match, why aBen't thy knockut all (e way t(rough? 9ou stil, don;t eem to ave an Qdequate answer !s to wh currenly the op team@can be %liminat%d after`one los in thePF and F, but $hey can+t be el)miantedafter o>e loss n the f)rst wee. Why .ot ? Thy can b elimin
ted aftr one loss anyw!y, so w(at diff%recne d/es it m!ke if t(at one ,oss is )n the 1#t wek o the 3r$ week. !s a ran$om examle, the"e are n/ double cahance# in the NFL.

Look, if you want unpredictablity, that's why you will love my seperate tournament. it's unpredicatble. Anyone can win (like the finals series). If you want to see the best team rewarded for their seaosn, and honoured for 22 weeks of excellence, then that is what the "home and away" premiership is for.

This unpredictability which you claim we all love, only exists in the finals series, where all the 22 weeks of hard work are often undone.

f the Home and away was NOT seen as a means to an end (like it currently is), would you not forsee an increase in crowds. After all, crowds are flocking to H&A matches simply to see thei team earn a double chance. taht is why the fans are going, becasue that is all the H&A matches get you. A double chance. Whta if the H&A was something to aspire to in it's own right, rather than a mean to an end. ven those team that can;t make top spot, can still strie to finish in the top 8, and qualify for the seperate tournment where your precious "unpredictability" will exist.

You said this "Part of the prestige of the AFL competition is that it is so hard to win because of the possibility of one loss in the finals and you're out. "

This is the worst thing you have ever written. This is absolute crap. My friend, this makes it easier to win the flag. It means tyou only have to win, say, 11 games over the H&A, and then win 3 or 4 in the finals. Ask anyone whatis harder (especially Leigh Matthews or Denis Pagan) : Finishing on top, or wining the GF ? The answer is finishing on top. It is HARDER to finish above all others over 22 weeks, and peak over 6 months, than it is to win 3 matches over a 4 week tournamnet. That is unarguable. Part of the "prestige" (as you ut it) of the English premier League is the fact that the winner is the best over 6 months and has won more matches than any other team.........a phenomenal achievement. An achievement worthy of the title "premier"

I've said it many times, but it would be in the AFL's best interests to give more recognition to the qualifying rounds (i.e the home and away), since these qualifyng rounds comprise 95% of the seaosn. To do so, they need to make them somethign to aspire to in their own right, rather than a means to qualify for Seprember.

Let;'s just suppose that the GF wasn;t as "big" in my proposal. Frstly, I don;t think this would be the case since I am ADDING recognition to the H&A, not taking any away from the grand Final. But waut you say, I am taking away from the GF, becasue the GF only represents a 4 week tournament rather than the whols eason. That's what ypou say, right

Has it occured to you, that people see tghat as the case now. Every fan (including you) knows that the performance in finasl currently is seperate to te performance in the H&A. We all kow that you can be average in the H&A, but you can perform in the finals ans win the flag (you would be hoping for that with the Liosn, no doubt)

Ecery fan currently knows that ther team isn;t the best (except Essendon), but they don't care unless they win the GF. So, basically, a team will be happy to win on GF day, and be called "premiers", even though they know they aren;t the best.

Effectively,, what I am saying, is that the finals are really a seperate ball game to the H&A right NOW (whether you like it or not). Everyoone regards the finals as being seperate. So, why not keep that unpredictable nature of one-off matchs, yet have them as a seperate tournament ? It makes so much more sense on all fronts.

A lot of fans in England want to win the FA CUP becasue it is the biggest match of the year. As a spectacle and as a one-off match-up, it is by far the biggest But any fan will also tell you, that although it isn't as excitng, the "top spot" premieship is what counts. That is where you find out how good you are. Yet, despite this, the FA Cup loses NOTHING. It is still a great day.

Our GF would be the same under my proposal. It would be the last match of the year (like the FA Cup), which means it would always hold a special place on the calendar. And most importantly, like it has always been, it would be the conclusion of a tournament, which all fans know doesn't necessarily go to the best team.

You see, fans want to win the GF currently, not to be the best (becasure they know they aren't the best), but to have the glory of winning the Grand final match. Just like teams want to win the FA CUP, not because they are the best (which they aren't), but becasue of the glory of that last match of the season.

That glory would still be there under my proposal and would never ever change. You could always aspire to win that special match on the last day in Septemeber. The fact that it no longer represents the whole seaon is irrelevant, since the fans know that the best team doesn't win it anywyay !!

See my point ?

Finally, you said this : "Thus I believe I am as qualified, if not more qualified that you Dan 24, to offer a valid opinion."

If you only know what I've gone through. Putting pen to peper, so many times, I've lost count. Preaching to people like you and others. I've written to every AFL coach, as well as Waybne Jacskson, who I direclty corresponded with through a series of letters (back and forth) over a number of months. I've told David Parkin everything here I've told you, and he agrees with everything. Being a Uni lecturer, he listens to other people opinions (unlike you) and is prepared to think things through. If you only know what I've put up with, and the effort I've put into all of this. There is NO ONE more qualified (I don't know if thaht is the right word) than me. I can tell you the exact percentage probablities of every finals system ever invented, as well, as the systems used around the world. The fact that you occupied a position at the Lions is completely irrelevant when discussing the merits of the "top team".

That's my say.

[Dan26]

Sorry about the typos, but I was rushed. I couldn't be bothered re-reading it.

If you only take "one" thing away from my essay Roylion, please take away this point :

1.) Even though the GF would no longer represent the whole season, it would only represent the conclusion of the "4 week tournament, the GF would still be the most special day of the year. Yes it would.

The FA Cup is the greatest match on the English calendar, NOT BECAUSE it goes to the best team, but becasue a.) it is the last match of the season, and b.) it concludes a tournament, which is knockout, hence it is won "on the day". It is exciting. Our GF has those two qualities.

Our Grand Final would be like this. If Brisbane won the GF in 2000 YOU would know they weren' the best team, right ? But you wouldn't care since you won the Grand Final. In England, any fan if they could choose one match to win for the year, would choose the FA Cup final. That would be the one-off "match" they would choose to win.

But, if you aksed them whether they wanted to win the FA Cup tournament as a whole, or the "top spot" premiership, they would choose the latter, since it is so prestigious, and the most difficult thing to accomplish.

Now getting back to Brisbane, if they won the GF in 2000, you'd be happy. You would NOT be happy becasue Brisbane was the years best team (as they weren't), but instead you would be happy becasue your team won the "glorious" season finale that is the Grand Final.

Teams don't strive to be the best in the AFL. They don't care as long as they win the Grand Final. They strive to win the Grand Final. Making it a seperate tournament wouldn't change a thing because everyone knows it doesn't necessarily go to the best team anyway. That's the pertinent point I'm trying to get across to you ...... one which you're finding it hard to accept.

You continully say "Oh, but it's more exciting now because you can be the best, but still lose the Grand Final"

That would still be the case under my proposal, and I can tell you, no one would care if the GF winner was only "champions of the 4 week tournament", rather than whole season champions. As I said, teams don't play to be the best team in the AFL. They play to have the glory of winning the GF, even if it means they were the third best team of the year.

That's why we should have a home and away premiership, and a 4 week-tournament, both seperate fro each other, where the glory of winning the GF can be obtained and all the un-predictability that goes with it, whilst rewrading the best team for finishing on top.

If you get one thing from my essay, read that.

[Roylion]

Yes Dan if Brisbane won the 2000 GF I would be happy. Why? Because they were the premier team in the competition that started in March and ran over 26 weeks. They've striven for something worthwhile, a goal, the Holy Grail whatever you want to call it and achieved it. We won enough matches during the Home and Away season and won all four matches of the finals.

However under the current system, should they make the finals, Brisbane's chances of winning the Grand Final and the competition are much harder than say Essendon's. As it should be! If we finish eighth we have to travel, we play a team finishing 5th, who are probably won 1-2 matches more than us and if we lose, we're out. If we win, we still have to travel and are faced with same scenario. Essendon on the other hand play at home and if they win go straight through to the preliminary final for a week's rest. Yes, I know this happened last year and this is no guarantee of winning. Fair? Well in the strict sense of the word maybe not. " Exciting? Yes. Rivetting? Yes. As someone who dislikes both Essendon and Carlton and who would have taken little if any interest in last years "PF" if it had been a match in a four week competition, personally I found last year preliminary finals rivetting because of the high stakes that were being played for. Remember my team, the Lions, lost the other preliminary final also and we thrashed Carlton by 70+ points two weeks before they humbled Essendon. Season over in one fell swoop, after two easy victories in the finals, after we finished the home and away season in third position. As far as I am concerned, so be it. That's football. Fair to the Lions? I believe so. The only unfairness that year to any team was forcing the Eagles to play in Melbourne against Carlton, after they won and Carlton lost the week before.

If Brisbane won four matches in a competition that was completely seperate from the Home and Away I would feel that this was less of an achievement. It's like Brisbane winning the Ansett Cup Grand Final. Sure the money is nice and yes there's a nice trophy and plaudits for winning say two out of three preliminary matches and the quarterfinals, the semi-finals and the GF, but so what. I don't think there is anyone who would suggest ever that they'd rather win the Ansett Cup than the Grand Final of the main competition. Likewise if you reduced the finals series to it's own little seperate competition, the value of the GF (despite it being the last game of the season) and the title of premier team of the competition, (now only four weeks long under your proposal) would be reduced. How many people would argue that winning the Ansett Cup Competition (even over 7 weeks) is a greater achievement than winning the main competition over 26 weeks. None of course. And yet you're proposing that we have a short, four week post-season completely seperate knockout competition, that would play second fiddle to the Home and Away competition, would be shorter in duration than the pre-season competition, purely on the basis that this sort of thing works in England, where they have international competition and a system of promotion and relegation. I follow Aston Villa as well, but the FA Cup dosen't generate the same passion in me as the AFL GF does.

This is no matter who is playing whether Essendon, Carlton etc etc. Tbe stakes are high, the reward is great, the loser comes away with little if nothing. That's part of the fascination. Even if it were Brisbane finishing on top at the end of the H&A and eventually losing the Grand Final, I would accept that we had not won the competition and should not have won the competition. A little more public and monetary recognition of the Lions finishing MINOR premiers would be welcomed however.

Your opinion is no more valid than mine or anyone else's is. Please accept that there are other people on this forum with footballing backgrounds who have also over the years studied various footballing issues, such as implementation of final systems, etc etc. David Parkin has his opinions, as do all people involved in football. Parkin is an extremely knowledgeable man, of that there is no doubt, however I haven't in the past agreed with everything he has said about the structure of the competition or off-field matters (He used to coach Fitzroy remember). I have read everything you have written on this forum and while I agree with some things you have written, others I totally disagree with. On this issue you haven't convinced me, just as in your arrogance anything I have written on ANY discussion is unlikely to have come close to convincing you. Who's the one not listening?

I don't have an issue with the top team at the end of the Home and Away getting much more recognition than it currently does. Never have. Yes top spot should get more recognition, I agree (see I've read your arguments and have been convinced!!!), but no, seperating the Home and Away Season and the finals system into completely different competitions is NOT the way to do it.

Let the people decide.

Hereth endeth the lesson.

[Shinboners]

Dan24, you wrote, "I've thought of this far more than any of you, and I know more about it". Well, Karl Marx also spent a lot of time thinking before writing Das Kapital, but that didn't mean he was right either.

Anyway, I will reply to your essays later.

[This message has been edited by Shinboners (edited 05 August 2000).]

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,
history shows the fans will accept whatever is given recognition

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

Could you just clear a few things up for me? First you say that, "history shows the fans will accept whatever is given recognition". Aren't you contradicting yourself with your own lack of acceptance for the current system? Or are you somehow different to the other 'fans' you refer to?

Also doesn't the lack of support for your proposed system (posted on the site) prove that the 'fans' do in fact care about what system of reward is in place? And didn't disaproval of the previous McIntyre Final Eight system from the fans cause the switch to the new system?

Can you give me answers to these questions instead of re-copy and pasting your regular (off-the-subject) replies for the zillionth time?

[Dan26]

Roylion,

I went over some of the things you said in my post above. You said this :

"Yes Dan if Brisbane won the 2000 GF I would be happy. Why? Because they were the premier team in the competition that started in March and ran over 26 weeks. They've striven for something worthwhile, a goal, the Holy Grail whatever you want to call it and achieved it. We won enough matches during the Home and Away season and won all four matches of the finals."

As I saod above, Brisbane would not be the "premier" team in the competiton (as you put it). They would be called premiers in name only, but no one would regard them as the best team. No one. Brisbane wouldn't care. They won the Grand Final, which is what they wanted. As I stated, teams don't care about being the best.......they only care about winning the Grand Final. That very point is EXACTLY why the 4 week tournament would lose nothing if it was a seperate tournament. Nothing. Oh sure, the winner woiuld only be called champions of that tournament. So what? For all intents and purposes it's that way now.

Even though "officially", the GF winner is currently "whole year" champions, the fact that the public accepts the fact that you don't have to be the best to win it, shows how it is regarded as being seperate to the H&A (eve if it may not officially be that way). Everyone knows that it doesn't matter how you perform over 22 weeks, it all comes down to the finals. The fact that everyone knows this and feels this way, makes it a good (and more importantly, sensible) idea to treat the finals as seperate.

You said this : "As someone who dislikes both Essendon and Carlton and who would have taken little if any interest in last years "PF" if it had been a match in a four week competition, personally I found last year preliminary finals rivetting because of the high stakes that were being played for."

These high stakes you are talking about is the "glory of winning the GF" It is NOT the high stakes to be the "best", becasue we all know the best teams doesn't always win the GF. Let's suppose Essendon was allready declaed H&A premiers in 1999. How would that affect preliminary final weekend ? It wouldn't affect it at all. It's a bit like putting ManU vs Aresenal in an FA CUP semi-final and then claiming the fans don't care because ManU have already wrapped up the "top spot" ptemiership. Of course the fans of ManU and Aresenal would care. The match would be huge. Thie 4 week tournament would pit the best 8 teams against each other to conclude the season.

You said this: "If Brisbane won four matches in a competition that was completely seperate from the Home and Away I would feel that this was less of an achievement"

It's certainly not any less of an achievement. You've still got to win the 4 matches in September, seperate tournament or not. So, you're wrong there, the achievement itself is the same. What this does is gives teams the opportunity to do the "double". Teams can win the H&A flag, and then they can win the 4 week tournament.

I still can't believe you didn't defend yourself when I criticized you (justifiably) for wanting everything exciting at the expense of fairness.

You said this: "Likewise if you reduced the finals series to it's own little seperate competition, the value of the GF (despite it being the last game of the season) and the title of premier team of the competition, (now only four weeks long under your proposal) would be reduced"

I cannot believe you wrote this after I spent about fifty million paragraphs telling you why this wasn't so. In fact I mentioned it at the start of this post I am writing now. Is the FA CUP final reduced becasue the winner is not "whole sason" champions ? No. Why ? Becasue the FA CUP (and our GF) are big events, not becasue they decide the premier team, no.....but becasue they are the last match of the seaosn, and they are a one-off match giving the winner the glory and honour of winning that match. That's what makes the GF special......... just like it makes the FA CUP special. The GF has never, EVER decided the years best team. It can't. The years best team is NOT found over one match, over 2 hours against a one-off opponent.

Let's suppose the world did end and the GF was reducd in value (which I don"t think it would be) So what ? The finals only comprise 9 games, right ? And the H&A comprises 176 games, right ? Wouldn't it be in the AFL's best interests then to make the 176 game "tournament" the more prestigious achievement ? After all, it comprises 95% of the season does it not. But as I said, the GF woldn't lack anything, becasue teams don't win it to be called 'whole year' champions, simply becasue a lot of teams that win it know that they weren't the best team for the year anyway ! They aim to win it, for the glory of winning that special match...... like the FA CUP.

At the moment, it is relatively "easy" to become the premiers. (easy is not the right word, but you know what I mean). To win the GF, you only need to win, say half your games, then win 4 finals. You don't necessarily have to be a consistently good team over the whole year.

If they were both seperate, then you would still have to win those 4 matches in September (if you want to win the GF), but unless you also finished on top and won more games than anyone else, then you wouldn't have earnt the title "premiers". Premiers would go to the best performed team for the whole year, since, in essence, isn't that what premier means ? There would also be something "new" at stake. That being the interest to see if the H&A champion can win the "double" (i.e win both trophys)

Also, please don't compare the 4 week tournament to the Ansett Cup. You might as well compare the current finals series to the Ansett Cup, since the current finals series has 7 of the 9 games knockout. The Ansett Cup is PRE-SEASON (get it ??). My 4 week tournament is NOT pre-season. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Simply put ONE MATCH odes not deserve to decide the premier team of the whole year, so a "seperate tournament concept is fantastic, becasue it keeps the GF (which wouldn't lose a thing, as I've explained), and for the first time, it would recognise the actual premiers (according to the dictionary), which has never been done before.

By the way, I do listen to you (you're implying that I don't). it's just that you are a traditionalist, and it clouds your thinking a little bit, making you wrong on this matter. (on other things you are right, however). If you believe you are not a traditionalist, by all means, have a go at me, and tell me in no uncertain terms the traits that you exhibit, but please try to keep your response directed towards the 'seperate tournament" topic.

[Dan26]

Indian in the Cupboard,

You said this: "Could you just clear a few things up for me? First you say that, "history shows the fans will accept whatever is given recognition". Aren't you contradicting yourself with your own lack of acceptance for the current system? Or are you somehow different to the other 'fans' you refer to?"

If you look at any sporting organization, the fans will accept whatever is given recognition. As for me, well, the statement is directed at the overall general public. You can't go around accusing me of contradicting myself, becaseu you are using me as a on-off example. Overall, the general public as a "whole" (not necessarily specific people), will accept whatever is given recognition.

You said this : "Also doesn't the lack of support for your proposed system (posted on the site) prove that the 'fans' do in fact care about what system of reward is in place? And didn't disaproval of the previous McIntyre Final Eight system from the fans cause the switch to the new system?

First of all, it is often the same people responding. Secondly, human beings don't like change. Never have. In 1985, 95% of Victorians were against a national competiton. Thank God the VFL ignored the public and proceeded with the national comp, because it was the best thing that ever happened to footy. Ever. Generally, people don't like change, but they grow firstly to accept the change, and then they invariably love the change. I remember St.Kilda didn't want to move to Waverley. "stay at Moorabbin" they all said. Now, the fans all want to go bck to Waverley. Work that out !!

Hope that clears some of your queries up

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

When you say, "Overall, the general public as a "whole" (not necessarily specific people), will accept whatever is given recognition" you wouldn't be inferring that the 'whole' is in fact the MAJORITY would you? And can we also read the reference to 'specific people' as the MINORITY could we? So let me get this straight, the opinions of those in the majority of the football public are wrong, whilst the views of the MINORITY (aka Dan24) are right. Geese.... I wouldn't like to run a country on those principles. Nevertheless I think you would make a great politician. When dealt a tricky question you conveniantly sidestep it by regurgitiating the same old formulaic answers that really don't answer the intial question posed at all.

But hey, don't worry.... although you will never see your system come to fruition (The only reason Wayne Jackson replied to your letter was to get you off his back) you can console yourself with a take on your own words of wisdom - you don't like the current system, but you will grow to accept the system, and invariably love the system.

[Dan26]

Indian in the cupboard,

Stop trying to sound like a smart ass.

I never said the minority was always right, I simply gave ONE example of a survey back in 1985. The most important thing here is to get things RIGHT. By that I mean, what is fair and right. With 16 teams competiting agaisnt each other over 6 months, it is correct, right, and FAIR to recognise the top team. That cannot be disputed.

I believe that every person wants to see the top team rewarded. i also believe they will accept the seperate tournament idea. The reason being that "for al intents and purposes' it is that way right now. Sure it's not officilly that way now, but it is for all intents and purposes.

The public isn;t interested in their team being the best. They just want their team to win the GF, right ? So, if their team won the GF, even if it was part of a seperate tournament, how would it be any different ?

Oh, I don;t ever presume what is going to happen in the future. You don't een know what Wayne Jackson wrote and I do. In fact I am the only one that knows, so i won't embarass you any further. Suffice to say, this is closer to happening that what you may think. Perhaps not next year, but just wait and see.

[Bomber]

Well, Wayne Jackson wouldnt be doing his job if he wasnt ruining the game! I cant see him keeping his job much longer anyway - when does his contract expire?

Also, everyone brings up soccer. If anyone else is a keen follower of soccer, they would know that BY FAR the best, biggest, most prestigious prize in european club football is the European Cup - and, you guessed it, it is a knockout competition!

National Leagues in Europe are exciting because of promotion/relegation issues, and the fact that the league is used to qualify for the European Cup. - Its like our footy season, the League isnt the holy grail, the European Cup is, but you have to finish in the top bracket (depending on Country and standard of league, ie Italian SerieA top 4 or 5 go thru, in England top 2 I think) to make the EC - just like our H&A system, where you need to finish in the top 8, in order to get to the real tournament (european Cup or Final 8).

So there, when looked at properly, the European soccer scene is much like ours, with a H&A season to qualify for the real stuff, a knockout comp.

The misconception here is that the League title is what clubs aim for, when its not. The EC is!

[dons_r_tops]

I suggest and addition to your plan dan
at the end of the H&A Season 1st Plays 16th, 2nd Plays 15th, etc in week one, all losers are eliminated
Week 2 The highest placed winner plays lowest placed winner etc, losers are eliminated
Week 3 same as two but only four teams are still competing
Week 4 Grand final winner is called premiers and have had the easiest run to the GF so this would be fair after all they would have earned it

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

What the hell do you mean by: "The public isn't interested in their team being the best."??? Please explain.

And the reason why people want their team to win the GF is because it is the greatest prize. Under your system the greatest prize will be the minor premiership, hence the esteem in which the GF is held will obviously be diminished. That's how it would be different under your system - winning the GF will be relegated to secondary status.

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Indian in the Cupboard:
Dan24,

What the hell do you mean by: "The public isn't interested in their team being the best."??? Please explain.



What I mean is that the public want to see their team have the glory of winning on that one special day. The title of premeis is not really that important. It's the glory of winning on Grand Final day.

The FA CUP winner isn't called "premiers" (nor should they be). The FA CUP winner isn't the best. Does this affect the FA CUP? No, it doesn't. Currently, the footy public don't care if their team isn't the best. They just want the glory of winning the Grand Final. Since the word "premiers" means best, it is really stupid to call the GF winner premiers. They should just be called Grand Final winners.

If the final series was a separate tournament, the "glory" of being able to win the Grand Final will still be there......FA CUP style. It will be the ONLY match of the year, where the result of that one match determines a trophy. i.e the winner of the GF would be "finals series" champions.

Making the GF override the 22 weeks before hand does nothing to enhance the game. It just serves to make the H&A season a waste of time. The most important thing about GF day, is the "glory" and "event status" that it carries. The fact that the winner is called "premiers' is not what teams play for. They play for the glory of winning the Grand Final........similar to winning the FA CUP. It does NOT NEED to override the whole season and decide the whole season champions. It doesn't need to do this to be big. It is the biggest match of the year anyway......and always will be. Always.

[Same Old's]

I wonder where Indian in the Cupboard went to. Maybe someone renovated his kitchen. :D :D :D

[Rooboy 96]

Dim... you remind me of a whinging Pom... have a VB mate and relax... you lost this arguement a long time ago... get on with your life...

[McKenna for PM]

Dan, to use your cut and paste methods, you asked Roylion:

"I think I can tell how your mind works. You want unpredictability, don't you ? You want it, even at the expense of fairness. Who cares if the top team isn't recognised, as long as unpredictablity is rampant, right?"

You are after fairness at the expense of the excitement of the game. A noble desire. But you really have stepped around Indian's original question - what is the point of placing more importance on the home and away season when even you agree that it is unfair? At least under the current system the finals series acts to reduce the impact of this inequality to the various teams of the competition by installing an element of luck. As a supporter of a team whose season is usually disadvantaged by the H&A draw, this is better than the season being decided without the finals.

If you're after fairness and equality, then why aren't you spending your time lobbying Wayne Jackson and company for a change in the format of the season proper to poromote fairness there? You can't just evade the question Indian posed by simply reminding him that you have conceded that in earlier posts. His point is valid, and this reduces the very equality your system is striving to obtain.

In your eternal search for the best team of the year, you neglect to realise that the H&A season will never be a true reflection of the best team until there is a more even playing field.

In another section of your dictum:

"Finals should be knockout. Anyone who disagrees, is just plain wrong."

Well here goes. The problem with this is that it would render every position from 2-8 at the end of the H&A competition equivalent. For example, if there was no way a team could get to 1st or fall to 8th on the ladder at a late point in the season, then there would be virtually no incentive for them to win a game until the finals (which under your system would be a separate competition anyway). At least under the current system a team has a reason to want a higher position in the final eight even though 1st may be beyond their reach.

[This message has been edited by McKenna for PM (edited 05 February 2001).]

[Dan26]

The H&A might not be totally even, but it is a hell of a lot more even that a lottery tournament.

In the H&A you have to play 22 matchs against all 15 teams. In the finals, you only need to play 3 or 4 of the other 7 finalists, perhaps avoiding the top team if you are lucky.

If you look at the two things as they are now, we have the H&A, and then we have the finals. Out of those two, the H&A is BETTER at showing how good a team is than the finals are. In the finals, one loss can eliminate you, even if you are the best team. Anyone can lose a one-off match.

There is no doubt that the years best team is found over 6 months......not 2 hours on grand Final day.

I am saying have BOTH. But have them as separate tournament. Then, the H&A will mean something. Currently, a team fights all seasn to finish on top, and then they are tld that this doesn;t matter. it is how they go in the finals which will determine whether they are the premiers. What was the point of the Home and away, if it is going to be called irrelevant? It comprises 95% of the seaosn, yet the Grand Final overrides all that good work.

The top of the ladder team should be called premiers.

The winner of the Grand Final SHOULD be called "champions of the finals series." They should NOT be called whole years champions. Not only is that illogical, it is just plain wrong.

[McKenna for PM]

Do you even read other people's comments Dan?

Answer the question.

Your last post was merely a re-worded regurgitation of your earlier posts. We understand that the H&A season is a more accurate display of the top sides than the finals. Please don't feed us that again. However, as you have already acknowldeged, the H&A season is not fair at all. So I'll keep this simple and ask Indian in the cupboard's question again - why place even more importance on an unfair H&A draw, instead of allowing the finals to give some of the disadvantaged teams (eg. interstate teams with big travelling commitments) a chance to still have a crack at the premiership?

Answer that please.

[The invisible mullet]

Dean Wallis still hasn't broken that Fraser Brown tackle Dan. He never will...

[RogerC]

Someone, somewhere, way back in this thread, made the claim that the present system for the finals is worse than the previous McIntyre system. Could I have that explained to me, because I find it an incredible statement. And for god's sake, no references to mathematical probabilities.

I'll just give you my take on it first; the McIntyre Finals System, quite aside from the fact that it took a calculator, a slide rule and three pages of foolscap to figure out your team's path through the finals in advance, was the system that allowed Adelaide to win a Grand Final from the lower reaches of the ladder (after being thumped in the first week), and got Carlton into the Grand Final from 6th in 1999. The current set-up denies that chance to all bar the most exceptional teams - those that can win 4 effective away games in a row against increasingly difficult oppostion. If a team can win a grand final from the bottom half of the 8 by doing that, I'll applaud them.

Week 2 under that system was a waste of time. West Coast were shafted in 1999 and 1996 after WINNING in the first week and then having to play away (at least that is offset now by the losing teams of 1v4 and 2v3 hosting their next games - if it gets shifted to the MCG, well at least they were penalised for losing).

Anyway, if anyone can demonstrate the virtues of that dog of a finals system, I'd love to hear about them

[Darky]

The McIntyre system was fantastic while there were four and five teams competing in the finals. The nonsensical situations we have of teams getting belted first up after being lucky to make the eight and then ending up making the GF, would be avoided if we had 5 of 16 teams in the finals.
Just an opinion (and I don't know if it fits in entirely with the topic). I promise not to bash anyone over the head with it.

[elt]

RogerC,

Whilst I agree that the new finals system is better than the previous one, you need to remember the West Coast 1999 debacle was a product of the AFL's agreement with the MCC. It guaranteed at least one MCG final each week. This was not actually a feature of the finals system itself.

[This message has been edited by elt (edited 06 February 2001).]

[Dan26]

Originally posted by McKenna for PM:
Do you even read other people's comments Dan?

Answer the question.

Your last post was merely a re-worded regurgitation of your earlier posts. We understand that the H&A season is a more accurate display of the top sides than the finals. Please don't feed us that again. However, as you have already acknowldeged, the H&A season is not fair at all. So I'll keep this simple and ask Indian in the cupboard's question again - why place even more importance on an unfair H&A draw, instead of allowing the finals to give some of the disadvantaged teams (eg. interstate teams with big travelling commitments) a chance to still have a crack at the premiership?

Answer that please.


Under my system, those sides will STILL have the oportunity to win the Grand Final, as per usual. What's your problem with that? In fact, given that all 8 sides would be treated equally, in this separate knockout tournament, those sides would have a great chance at "glory" on Grand Final day.

The current system is poor, as far as double chances go. There should be NO DOUBLE CHANCES.

Under the CURRENT system, the top team can be eliminated after ONE loss on preliminary final day anyway. Also, the top team can be eliminated after just ONE loss on Grand Final day too. So, why can't 1st be eliminated after losing to 8th in a knockout final under my system? Same diff. The top team can be eliminated after one loss under the current McIntypre system, anyway ! Double chance, my ass !

There should be NO double chances. Finals are about performing ON THE DAY. Essendon faced eliminateion on Preliminary final day in both 1999 and 2000 and on one ooccasion they lost. How is that any different to facing elimination agaisnt 8th in the first week of a knockout tournament ? It's NO different. Final are NOT about getting second chances They are about performing on the day.

[RogerC]

OK, I'm registered now, so I guess I'm in for the long haul.

I agree entirely with both Darky and elt. The best McIntyre system was the final five.
The final six I could live with. The McIntyre final eight was a confusing, unfair shambles. I think he must have gone a bit gaga when he came up with that one.

And it's true about the Weagles in 1999. Under the current system, they would have played Sydney at home in the first week for the right to play the loser of Essendon and the WB's (in Melbourne). Easy-ish first week, only travelling once in the first two weeks. That's a bit better. But point taken.

[McKenna for PM]

Originally posted by Dan24:

Under my system, those sides will STILL have the oportunity to win the Grand Final, as per usual. What's your problem with that? In fact, given that all 8 sides would be treated equally, in this separate knockout tournament, those sides would have a great chance at "glory" on Grand Final day.

My problem with that is that under your system, winning the Grand Final is not winning the season proper.

According to your system, the real glory lies behind winning the H&A series - correct? The glaring problem, however, is that (as you said yourself) the H&A season is far from fair. It would follow that certain teams (eg. interstate) will consistently be faced with a disadvantage when launching an attack on the premiership.

Now THAT is unfair. Plain and simple.

Please offer a rebuttal for the argument I just offered, and ignore the temptation to bring up irrelevant stuff. I'm not being facetious, I would simply like to hear a counter-argument to what I am saying now, not what others may have argued previously.

I also want to point out that whilst I realise that finals (from both systems) do not always allow the best team to win, at least they give ALL teams a more equal opportunity to win than the H&A draw.

[Dan26]

Okay,

The finals are MORE unevern than the H&A. In the finals, you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalsits, perhaps avoiding the top team. In the Home and away, you at least have to play every other team over 22 weeks. In the finals, the years best team can be upset in one match, thus not giving an accurate indication of who the years best team was

Neither is perfectly fair, but the Home and away is the fairer of the two, and the more appropriate way of deciding the premier (i.e best) team of the year.

But under my system, the finals will still exist. If you finished 3rd, or 4th, or 5th etc etc, you will still have the opportunity at Grand Final glory by winning the knockout finals series tournament. So, even if you don't finish top, you can still win the Grand Final. You won't be called "whole seaosn champions" like you are now. You will be called "finals series champions".
Much, much fairer.

So, what's the big deal????? You can still win the Grand Final as per normal.

[elt]

Originally posted by Dan24:

So, what's the big deal????? You can still win the Grand Final as per normal.

What the big deal is, is that you won't be winning the GF "as per normal". You won't be putting your entire season on the line. And for me that is one of the attractions of watching the last game of the year. It is not possible to take an existing match and make sure it is played for a lesser prize and not devalue it. It may still be big as you make out but it won't be as big or meaningful as it is now.

[Dan26]

Does the fact that the Home and away season (which comprises 95% of the season) will actually mean something under my system, instesad of being irrelevant mean anything to you?

[elt]

Dan,

It does mean something now. What you are saying is that it does not mean enough and to some extent I agree. Minor premiers deserve more than a token trophy and I am certainly in favour of greater monetary reward and maybe the presentation of the McLelland being made into a bigger deal. What I am not in favour of is the devaluing of the finals as we currently have them.

[BMD]

Dan,

No-one is arguing that the finals are fair. What people are saying is they like the uncertainty, the unpredictability of having everything on the line. If you lose that's it. There is no comeback until next year.

It is clear that you don't like that. You can argue til you're black in the fingers, that it's not fair, there's a better way. You're entitled to your opinion.

However, so are we. What you fail to understand is that we're happy with it the way it is. The fact that Essendon could have lost and therefore not been premiers last year, despite the fact that they were clearly the best team was what made it interesting and exciting. The possibility of a choke was always there.

Not many things are fair in sport. France won the soccer world cup, but they didn't have to play every team to do it. Brazil's star player was injured for the final. Not fair, but it was still compelling viewing, and a great way to decide the World Champions.

You may not like it but we do.

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by BMD:
Not many things are fair in sport. France won the soccer world cup, but they didn't have to play every team to do it. Brazil's star player was injured for the final. Not fair, but it was still compelling viewing, and a great way to decide the World Champions.

France won every game they played but Brazil lost a game in the group stages. So in essence, France probably were the best team in the tournament.

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 08 February 2001).]

[Dan26]

Originally posted by BMD:
Dan,

No-one is arguing that the finals are fair. What people are saying is they like the uncertainty, the unpredictability of having everything on the line. If you lose that's it. There is no comeback until next year.

It is clear that you don't like that. You can argue til you're black in the fingers, that it's not fair, there's a better way. You're entitled to your opinion.

However, so are we. What you fail to understand is that we're happy with it the way it is. The fact that Essendon could have lost and therefore not been premiers last year, despite the fact that they were clearly the best team was what made it interesting and exciting. The possibility of a choke was always there.

Not many things are fair in sport. France won the soccer world cup, but they didn't have to play every team to do it. Brazil's star player was injured for the final. Not fair, but it was still compelling viewing, and a great way to decide the World Champions.

You may not like it but we do.

Well, if you love finals so much, why not scrap the H&A completely, and have a 16 teams finals series every year, with NO Home and away matches. That should satisy you.

See what I mean? The H&A is currently meaningless. What's the point playing SO MANY mathces over such a long period of time, only for those matches to be deemed irrelevant. It's just so dumb.

Under my system, there will still be the glorious uncertainty of "who will win the Grand Final?". No one will know who will win the Grand Final until the last day of the year. The uncertainty is still there. And as a "bonus", the Home and away season (which comprsies a MASSIVE 95% of the season), will actually mean something. It won't be the means to and end that it is now. It will actually be something to aspire to in it's own right. That will be wonderful in my opinion, whilst in ADDITION keeping the glorious uncertainty and unpredictability of "who will win the Grand Final itself?" I think it is truly a wonderful way to structure the season. It's a way of having your cake and eating it too. !

[BMD]

The H&A is not meaningless now. What is essentially happening is that the teams are jostling for position and psychological advantage going into the finals - the climax of the season.

I would agree that the achievement of finishing first on the ladder deserves more recognition that they currently get - but not the title of premiers.

Whatever you say, the grand final would be devalued under your system and I don't want that to happen.

PS to Same Olds: Not arguing that France weren't the best team, but you could argue that it the tournament isn't fair because they didn't play the same teams.

[Dan26]

Yes, the Grand Final would be devalued in the sense that it wouldn't decide the "premiers" (nor should it decide the premeirs).

But it wouldn't be devalued in the sense that it is still the season culminating event it always was.

BMD, you say top spot shouldn't decide the premiers. I say it should. Why? Because finishing on top over 22 gruelling weeks is HARDER than winning 3 or 4 matches over Septemeber. The harder achievement deserves the title of premiers. You can't argue logic.

I still think that making the H&A premiershiup something to strive for, therefore making 176 home and awya matches count towards the premiership (instead of being a means to an end like it is now) is worth A MASSIVE amount to the AFL. It is worth so much, that even if the GF was devalued a little bit, it would be worthwhile. It makes much more sense to give more weight to the 22 week tournament which occupies nearly the whole season. I'm amazed people can't see this.

As I said, the GF would still be huge anyway. It wouldn't be devaled as an event. It would still draw the same TV ratings and media exposure it always has. After all it's the seaosn culminating last match of the season. It WOULD b4e devalued in the sense that it wouldn't decide the premeirship. But the event that the Grand Final has become means that this doens't matter so much (I refer to the FA CUP example again). It will decide a very prestigious, elite tournament anyway.

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 10 February 2001).]

[The invisible mullet]

S-N-O-R-E!

Keep bouncing off those rubber walls Dan!

[Dan26]

invisible mullet,

Keep writing those stupid posts, mate.