AFL Ladder - should percentage trump Wins as first tie-breaker?

[Scanlens Man]

Someone pointed out to me that GWS and Richmond could end on the same points, but Richmond would finish below us due to percentage even though they have won more games. (We have 2 draws)

If this were to happen I don't really care who we play in finals or where, in fact rather play in front of 80,000+ Richmond fans at the 'G' than 20,000 Richmond fans at Spotless to be honest.

So thinking about this, historically (100 years +) percentage has always been used as first tie-breaker when the points are the same, because back in the day every team played every other team twice, so percentage was a fair indication of "consistency".

But we dont play every other team twice anymore, lets face it, would Port's percentage be what it is if that were the case?

So I actually agree that in this unusual (unprecedented?) situation where a team has 2 draws, that WINS should be the first tie-breaker. It's the case (or winning %) in most pro-sports.

The AFL should make a statement about it regardless, feels like a debacle otherwise.

Thoughts?

 

[HaroLad]

Thought it already did tbh

 

[Sentinel]

Someone pointed out to me that GWS and Richmond could end on the same points, but Richmond would finish below us due to percentage even though they have won more games. (We have 2 draws)

If this were to happen I don't really care who we play in finals or where, in fact rather play in front of 80,000+ Richmond fans at the 'G' than 20,000 Richmond fans at Spotless to be honest.

So thinking about this, historically (100 years +) percentage has always been used as first tie-breaker when the points are the same, because back in the day every team played every other team twice, so percentage was a fair indication of "consistency".

But we dont play every other team twice anymore, lets face it, would Port's percentage be what it is if that were the case?

So I actually agree that in this unusual (unprecedented?) situation where a team has 2 draws, that WINS should be the first tie-breaker. It's the case (or winning %) in most pro-sports.

The AFL should make a statement about it regardless, feels like a debacle otherwise.

Thoughts?

What about 'least losses'?

There's no need to change it. Changing the rules would unnecessarily complicate things, there is nothing to suggest that 1 win and 1 loss is a better result overall than 2 draws.

It's the same as how the old countback system for the Brownlow was abolished - one 3 vote game is equal to 3 1 vote games.

 

[OzJohnnie]

This post is a plant by AFL House. Someone at HQ has an itch and feels the need to make a change to a rule that has no need to change. Just for the sake of change.

 

[Nightrain]

Easily resolved; 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw. But that would be too much like soccer and we all know how taboo that is.

Also rather than % we should go on point difference (points scored - points conceded, rather than, points scored/points conceded), which would actually reward attacking teams. But maybe the maths is too hard for some to get their head around.

 

[DapperDon]

This post is a plant by AFL House. Someone at HQ has an itch and feels the need to make a change to a rule that has no need to change. Just for the sake of change.

So one of those egg council creeps got to you too huh?

 

[Scanlens Man]

What about 'least losses'?

There's no need to change it. Changing the rules would unnecessarily complicate things, there is nothing to suggest that 1 win and 1 loss is a better result overall than 2 draws.

It's the same as how the old countback system for the Brownlow was abolished - one 3 vote game is equal to 3 1 vote games.

In this scenario though Richmond would have a higher winning percentage from games played

 

[Scanlens Man]

Thought it already did tbh

Nope.

 

[Mister_A]

No

 

[didaksrightfoot]

A draw counts as half a win with 0%. (Well technically it can be a marginal change in % if you're at either end of the curve, but probably not enough to be mathematically significant over 22 games)
No reason to change that.

Your scenario is really uncommon and there is already a simple ready made solution

 

[Deep]

Isn't the ladder points and then percentage? What comes next? Alphabetical order?

 

[Jcpdragonx]

They do this in my local tennis comp and its BS. It takes out the mental competitive aspect of actually winning and replaces it with who is more skilled.

 

[radiojake]

Isn't the ladder points and then percentage? What comes next? Alphabetical order?

Head to head results- if still even, coin toss

 

[Belnakor]

Head to head results- if still even, coin toss

head to head results being both win/loss and margin

 

[Hoops]

Edit: got it arse about, continue on.

 

[Cold Sober]

If it's between Vic + Interstate club , Vics win because we've been in it longer, seems fair to me.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Get rid of percentage
Go to point difference.

I hate how a 100-60 win is better than a 120-80 game.

Encourage scoring more than being restrictive,

 

[Matthew2708]

Get rid of percentage
Go to point difference.

I hate how a 100-60 win is better than a 120-80 game.

Encourage scoring more than being restrictive,

Last year, Brisbane Lions would have won the wooden spoon if it was decided by point difference.

17th: Brisbane Lions 1770 - 2872 (61.63%) Point Diff: -1102
18th: Essendon 1437 - 2356 (60.99) Point Diff: -919

 

[Bokonon_]

If it's between Vic + Interstate club , Vics win because we've been in it longer, seems fair to me.

I dont want to be in your shoes when Port supporters read this.

 

[HTT]

Point difference what a joke. Doesn't actually reward attacking teams, it makes things more volatile for them.

 

[Balance]

Sure, lets go.

 

[dean33]

Someone pointed out to me that GWS and Richmond could end on the same points, but Richmond would finish below us due to percentage even though they have won more games. (We have 2 draws)

If this were to happen I don't really care who we play in finals or where, in fact rather play in front of 80,000+ Richmond fans at the 'G' than 20,000 Richmond fans at Spotless to be honest.

So thinking about this, historically (100 years +) percentage has always been used as first tie-breaker when the points are the same, because back in the day every team played every other team twice, so percentage was a fair indication of "consistency".

But we dont play every other team twice anymore, lets face it, would Port's percentage be what it is if that were the case?

So I actually agree that in this unusual (unprecedented?) situation where a team has 2 draws, that WINS should be the first tie-breaker. It's the case (or winning %) in most pro-sports.

The AFL should make a statement about it regardless, feels like a debacle otherwise.

Thoughts?

I agree, any chance we can get this change brought in within 10 days?

 

[sataris]

So one of those egg council creeps got to you too huh?

 

[kaiserchief13]

No...a draw is not a loss. If that was being implemented may as well bring in ot and get rid of draws so it doesn't matter

 

[From The Pocket]

Isn't the ladder points and then percentage? What comes next? Alphabetical order?

Points For, last is alphabetical order.