Opinion How would the "Brayshaw fixture" effect Geelong?

[speedybundy]

There's been some discussion in recent days about James Brayshaws idea of a 20 round fixture, with every team playing each other once along with the 3 extra games including an opening, rivalry and heritage round to ensure Essendon play Collingwood twice, Geelong and Hawthorn etc.

The thing I found interesting though is his idea of how these fixtures would work year to year. He used the example of us and North Melbourne, saying if they hosted us at Etihad in 2015 we would host them in Simonds at 2016.

And there is my question. If the Brayshaw fixture or some other sort of fixture with less games (will say 20) eventuated, how would that effect our home game situation at Simonds? With the above mentioned example I can't see us hosting more than 7 out of our 10 home games a year at Simonds regularly.

 

[year of the cat]

Haven't heard what Brayshaw said but did he factor in the loss of revenue when he came out with his grand plan?

 

[manboob]

Haven't heard what Brayshaw said but did he factor in the loss of revenue when he came out with his grand plan?

Yep he said he'd be willing to suck it up.
It's not a bad plan as long as you mix it up i.e. don't end up playing Freo, WC, Swans, Port, Crows, GWS, Lions and Poachers away one year and all at home the next.

If they want to stick with a 20+ round season my preferred fixture would be how it was a couple of years ago. You play every team twice over two years.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

personally if you are going to reduce the season length (don't think the afl will) then it should be to an equitable draw of playing every team once, with an alternate fixture the following year.

 

[Baudolino]

Futile attempts at fixture equalisation aside, I'm still unsure as to why so many vested interests (supporters, players, administrators, etc) continue to assert that we would be better off with a shorter season. The premise behind this suggestion - that the non-stop nature of footy has caused the sport to reach some sort of saturation point - is one I reject entirely. 22 games is nothing. Compare the amount of AFL games we get per season to the amount of games in an EPL season, the amount of games in an NBA season, or the sum total of international games (Test + ODI + Twenty20) the Australian cricket team participates in per year. I appreciate that the long pre-season must make it seem to the players like football is an all-year commitment, but from a supporter perspective, the actual home and away season plus finals does not take up anywhere near as much of the calendar year as many of the major competitions and leagues from other sports around the world.

So I completely disagree with what seems to be the popular sentiment on this one. Our current fixture, lasting from early March to late September, comprises just over half a year's worth of matches; as far as I'm concerned, that's nowhere near excessive, and anything less than 22 games a season would certainly seem insufficient to me.

 

[manboob]

You can't play 40-50-60-70-80+ games of AFL a year; it is the most physical sport on earth.

 

[Baudolino]

You can't play 40-50-60-70-80+ games of AFL a year; it is the most physical sport on earth.

Oh, I realise that. I'm definitely not saying that we should revamp our fixture so that the number of games is commensurate to that of a European soccer season; the reason I make the comparison is to put the whole "the season is too long and has too many matches" argument in a broader context.

 

[Turbocat]

Players love the idea of less games till you tell them less money. Then its hang on there. So in the end gets it up the u know where? The paying public. Less games means each game would eventually be more valuable and costly because the "business members" wouldn't like the idea of long term less gross.

Obviously it would also stuff up any chance of any more additions to KP for a long time

 

[FredLeDeux]

Designing a "fairer" fixture (one where teams play each other equal times, alternating home and away, over 1 or 2 years) is simple, a trivial problem. Just look at the 100s of solutions on the main board.
However, if it involves fewer games per season, it will be rejected by the club CEOs because it means less overall money to share around (and Brayshaw is talking through his whatever in suggesting NM will be happy to wear it).
If it means fewer blockbusters, ie more ordinary games in their place, ditto.
And then, of course, there is the AFL's use of rigged or skewed fixtures as part of their overall dis-equalisation policies (skewed draws to relatively advantage lower teams). If this is dropped, we are going to need some other dis-equalisation policy to take its place; what that might be is unknown - it may be new, it may be a further emphasis on existing policies - but it's almost certainly going to be unpopular.
Pining for "fairer draws" is simply futile.

 

[Sttew]

With 2 less games, the AFL will want to maximise crowds at the remaining 20 games to offset the loss of revenue - this spells doom for Simonds Stadium.

 

[atdhe]

Oh, I realise that. I'm definitely not saying that we should revamp our fixture so that the number of games is commensurate to that of a European soccer season; the reason I make the comparison is to put the whole "the season is too long and has too many matches" argument in a broader context.

Yeah but you left out the most important part of that context. Namely, what do all of the sports you mentioned have in common? Rampant doping. Essendon + Dank and Port Adelaide + Burgess are just the start.

 

[Vdubs]

Futile attempts at fixture equalisation aside, I'm still unsure as to why so many vested interests (supporters, players, administrators, etc) continue to assert that we would be better off with a shorter season. The premise behind this suggestion - that the non-stop nature of footy has caused the sport to reach some sort of saturation point - is one I reject entirely. 22 games is nothing. Compare the amount of AFL games we get per season to the amount of games in an EPL season, the amount of games in an NBA season, or the sum total of international games (Test + ODI + Twenty20) the Australian cricket team participates in per year. I appreciate that the long pre-season must make it seem to the players like football is an all-year commitment, but from a supporter perspective, the actual home and away season plus finals does not take up anywhere near as much of the calendar year as many of the major competitions and leagues from other sports around the world.

So I completely disagree with what seems to be the popular sentiment on this one. Our current fixture, lasting from early March to late September, comprises just over half a year's worth of matches; as far as I'm concerned, that's nowhere near excessive, and anything less than 22 games a season would certainly seem insufficient to me.

I have to disagree with you on many points.
1. INJURIES
2. INJURIES, and
3. INJURIES

It is painfully obvious that stress/ overuse injuries are the biggest cause of games missed. Our AFL players are far more trained and fit than their 1970's to late 1990's predecessors. The speed of the game, the fact that these guys can run > 25 km in a match, yet have to sprint and receive body contact is indisputable.
We are seeing players hanging out for a bye or a managed week off.
We are seeing young and older players getting stress fractures off season. Why? They probably have not yet recovered from the preceding season.
We are seeing massive injury lists even before the season starts and this hardly improves mid season.
We are not seeing player lists in the AFL equivalent to those in EPL- they can literally field a second team mid week that would compete with their primary team.
We do not have the financial backing to support such massive lists that would allow us to have a fair season of playing each team twice, but fanciful as that is, even the 22 week season, which is hugely unfair and unbalanced, appears to be too long.
We need to have a survey of each and every player in the AFL and work out how many games played a year they consider as appropriate.
And even then , could we trust their opinions as individual responses? We have seen the sheep mentality of Essendon players.
So, perhaps the high performance teams, physios, medicos, should all be surveyed and then a consensus reached as to what is the desirable number of games per season a team should be expected to play.
Of course, individual variation is critical here, and some players have the good management, luck, and constitution to play 25 matches in a season. But clearly, this is exceptional, and very difficult to reproduce season to season.

It all works out somehow at present, and we can see from now on (retirements and) operations on players who have been below par due to carrying overload injuries, but because they can't make finals, they have these procedures NOW to prepare for 2015 preseason.

I M H O,

Unless we can double our list sizes, and reduce game time to 100 minutes only, including time on, and play each team twice, we will continue to have inequity, and the Brayshaw suggestion is one small step in the right direction.
My pov is really based on player management .

 

[Goggin Our Best]

The only year ( probably because in most other recent years Geelong have finished in the top couple of spots) where i thought it was blatantly unfair - and the draw did materially affect the top 4 - and thus the vital Premiership chances of a couple of clubs was 2012 - where Geelong and West Coast were extremely hard done by - from memory both teams had 15-7 records and finished 5th and 6th - where as Adelaide ( and ive got nothing against the Crows) got the best " Gift" draw of all time - twice i think against GWS Suns Port ( who were shocking ) and Melbourne -ended up 16-6

I thought the Crows had a massive advantage in the draw - and wernt a genuine top 4 team - if Geelong had say a 15-20 year flag drought - coming into season 2012 - i would have been filthy how the draw hurt the Cats chances - but 3 flags in 5 years - does make you feel rather content

 

[speedybundy]

Comparisons to soccer/cricket are a bit unfair. They do have different series, leagues etc to compete in.

I do agree with Brayshaw that there are too many insignificant games happening, but not convinced that a shorter fixture will really solve that. I'd just make the year shorter by getting rid of that round 1 split round, the split round we're involved in now and cut that 3 weeks bye period to a simple split round. Cuts 3 weeks off the competition with the same amount of games.

 

[manboob]

LOL at Hardwick complaining about the length of the season! No wonder Richmond never play finals! too long!

 

[Taylor]

We could play 35 games in the season if the senior list was twice the size and the public were happy to have a reduction in the standard of the competition as key players are rested and number one position players (rucks, key forwards/defenders) are bought from lower ranked clubs to be ten game a year players at big clubs.

Preseason training would disappear as half the list trains at 15km a day for four week periods during the season.

 

[Baudolino]

We could play 35 games in the season if the senior list was twice the size and the public were happy to have a reduction in the standard of the competition as key players are rested and number one position players (rucks, key forwards/defenders) are bought from lower ranked clubs to be ten game a year players at big clubs.

Preseason training would disappear as half the list trains at 15km a day for four week periods during the season.

Agreed, but then again I'm not sure I've heard anyone seriously propose a 35 game season.

 

[Bobby_]

I'm not sure I've heard anyone seriously propose a 35 game season.

only in Cockburn my friend. . . only in Cockburn.

 

[you pick one]

This is where you are bound to finish up after years of trying to manipulate the competition and grow the game into areas that simple won't support it in the numbers to make it viable with out making them competitive at the expense of the other clubs,The AFL in their greed have gone a bridge to far to the detriment of our once great game,I don't have any faith in the current administration being able to make decisions to rectify or at the very least improve the situation short term, they are on a set path and will not deviate, Manipulation is the name of the game.

 

[Trek]

The thread title hurts my eyes.

Prescribing this for the OP:

Get rid of the terrible split rounds and it'll be better.

 

[Vdubs]

The thread title hurts my eyes.

Prescribing this for the OP:

Get rid of the terrible split rounds and it'll be better.

But the players love the recovery and rest times.
20 rounds is the solution then; those 2 weeks could be beneficial.
Either that, or an extra 3 teams- Hobart, Darwin, Wellington/Cairns etc, so that we play each team once only in one season, then at the reverse home ground he next season, and limit the game time to 100 minutes, extra AFL funding for expanded lists.

 

[caitsith01]

Would it affect our ability to differentiate between the words 'effect' and 'affect'?

I've always thought the only sensible fixture is this:

1. Play everyone twice, alternate home and away year by year
2. For X remaining games, play an even distribution of opponents based on last year's ladder

So, for example, for the first 17 rounds you would play every other team once. Then for (say) another 6 rounds, you would play (roughly) 1st, 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th from last year.

For a given team in the extra rounds, if you played them at home earlier in the year you place them away in the later rounds, and vice versa.

This is as close as you can practically get to a fair draw unless you get rid of a few teams and play everyone twice, which is what should probably really happen... get rid of the pre-season comp, get the league down to 16 teams and everyone can play everyone home and away over 30 rounds, plus 4 weeks of finals.

 

[vinum coupe]

I'm all for a 17 game season.

 

[catempire]

I'm all for a 17 game season.

+1

The final competing sides for the finals are decided a long way out as it is. I feel like there's a lot of dead rubber footy between now and September.

Will never happen with the tv rights an ever increasing component of the game's revenue.

 

[vinum coupe]

+1

The final competing sides for the finals are decided a long way out as it is. I feel like there's a lot of dead rubber footy between now and September.

Will never happen with the tv rights an ever increasing component of the game's revenue.

I think a reduction in some form is a big chance. They'll have to get the players to consent to no salary increases for a few years.
Eventually the TV deal will rebuild. I think a lot more people will watch the average game if it's more important.

And I'd like a weeks rest before the finals. OR, do what McGuire suggested a few years ago.
Have a week off between the prelim and the GF.
Have parades, all australian awards, rising star, huge Brownlow event. etc. etc. Really build it up NFL style.