Week off before finals- still not convinced

[caitsith01]

Hate it. Everything's at fever pitch in the final round, then suddenly footy disappears for two weeks.

 

[caitsith01]

No issue with it at all. Gives the better players a chance to get back or get rid of niggles.

Simply put: you're either good enough to win the lot or not.

Your second statement is unrelated to your first statement.

 

[Runk]

Your second statement is unrelated to your first statement.

Read it again

 

[caitsith01]

Read it again

It's very long, though.

 

[JPetro83]

Its working out well for the crows this year.... Sloane's appendix op (if there was a game this thurs noway he plays) the week of gives him a 50/50 chance & the passing of Sam Jacobs's brother yesterday morning ... i don't know how Sam will feel closer to the game next week but you'd think if the games was this week he wouldn't play.

 

[kidkenobi]

I like the week off. Without the week off, it would have meant that Hooker, Fantasia and possibly Hurley wouldn't be playing. It gives more time for injured players to return and tiring younger/older players to reset.

That's what the week off after finishing top 4 and winning your first final is for. You use to have to earn it. Now everyone gets the same reward for free and the extra earned week off has actually become a disadvantage for top 4 teams.

 

[kidkenobi]

All the nonsense about the week off hurting the top teams is based on a sample size of two games and an extraordinary finals performance by the Dogs.

It is quite possible (and probable) that over the next five or ten years the teams that get the one week break on route to the preliminary final will make the grand final at around the historical rate. The cream tends to rise to the top.

We cannot judge the effect of the bye until we have a much bigger sample size of games. Until then those who are complaining are doing so with no evidence to prove their point.

Yes it's a small sample size but that doesn't matter because the logic of the whole system becomes completely flawed by introducing the bye week. Teams used to compete for a top 4 position and one of the main benefits was you got the chance to earn a weeks rest, it was a big advantage that you had to earn. By giving everyone a week off it makes the secondary earned week off unnecessary and pointless and even potentially disadvantageous.

Even if the cream does rise to the top as you say, that doesn't mean it's a fair system, it just means the best teams were good enough to win despite it, but they are not mutual.

 

[iluvparis]

No, it isn't like that, is it?

Yes it is - from the day after your last game to the day before the GF you'd played basically 1 game in a month

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

 

[iluvparis]

Yes it's a small sample size but that doesn't matter because the logic of the whole system becomes completely flawed by introducing the bye week. Teams used to compete for a top 4 position and one of the main benefits was you got the chance to earn a weeks rest, it was a big advantage that you had to earn. By giving everyone a week off it makes the secondary earned week off unnecessary and pointless and even potentially disadvantageous.

Even if the cream does rise to the top as you say, that doesn't mean it's a fair system, it just means the best teams were good enough to win despite it, but they are not mutual.

If its such a disadvantage to have the second week off then just lose to Richmond on purpose

Against that there is all the history of having a Final 5 that suggests your theory is absolutely insane.

 

[Great 2008]

That's what the week off after finishing top 4 and winning your first final is for. You use to have to earn it. Now everyone gets the same reward for free and the extra earned week off has actually become a disadvantage for top 4 teams.

Agree but the AFL love the idea of everyone hitting the finals fit, not having R23 dead rubbers and money.

 

[calyam]

Yes it's a small sample size but that doesn't matter because the logic of the whole system becomes completely flawed by introducing the bye week. Teams used to compete for a top 4 position and one of the main benefits was you got the chance to earn a weeks rest, it was a big advantage that you had to earn. By giving everyone a week off it makes the secondary earned week off unnecessary and pointless and even potentially disadvantageous.

Even if the cream does rise to the top as you say, that doesn't mean it's a fair system, it just means the best teams were good enough to win despite it, but they are not mutual.

Yes it does matter. It matters more than anything else you said.

The only way to prove that the extra bye makes the 'secondary earned week off unnecessary and pointless and even potentially disadvantageous' is via a much greater sample size. All you are doing right now is speculating based on gut feel.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Not sure why they don't just have the bye after Rd 21 or 22. All the players with little niggles get a week off with one or two games to get back into the swing of it before finals. No coach is gonna rest his best 22 in Rd 23 if that happens.

One of the advantages of the top 4 is that if you've secured one of those positions early enough then you can rest players of your own volition rather than having it mandated by the AFL.

 

[Duskfire]

This.

Imagine if Adelaide rested 9 key players for the game against West Coast? That would almost certainly guarantee West Coast the spot over Melbourne

They basically did that anyway. Sure they were there on the field but their heart wasn't it. Look at how easily Lever gave up on Jetta. If it had been a cut throat final he would have had six players tackling him.

Adelaide put in minimal effort. In the end the outcome was the same

Clarkson said that he looked at a season as survival of the fittest, and managing players is part of what a coach does. I dislike it but eh I am sure I am in the minority. Also according to that coaches survey all but three coaches dislike the bye. That's a pretty damning number. If it truly was all that useful for recovery wouldn't more coaches prefer if?

 

[vide0n]

Can we at least wait until the end of week 1...

 

[Ricketz]

Yes it is - from the day after your last game to the day before the GF you'd played basically 1 game in a month

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

Lol, righto - no, it isn't, but have fun with your caps lock. That system only potentially affected one team, and maybe none. This affects two, everytime, regardless. How many of the teams that won had to have 1 game in 4 weeks in the final 5 system?

 

[Ricketz]

Yes it does matter. It matters more than anything else you said.

The only way to prove that the extra bye makes the 'secondary earned week off unnecessary and pointless and even potentially disadvantageous' is via a much greater sample size. All you are doing right now is speculating based on gut feel.

So what were the AFL doing when they implemented it?

 

[Jables]

What imbecile would believe that?

Alastair Clarkson, you may have heard of him. Pre finals bye is rubbish.

 

[Hird Is Scum]

One of the advantages of the top 4 is that if you've secured one of those positions early enough then you can rest players of your own volition rather than having it mandated by the AFL.

Don't disagree, I'm against the bye, but if they insist on having it do it a week or two earlier.

 

[Coaster2012]

All the nonsense about the week off hurting the top teams is based on a sample size of two games and an extraordinary finals performance by the Dogs.

It is quite possible (and probable) that over the next five or ten years the teams that get the one week break on route to the preliminary final will make the grand final at around the historical rate. The cream tends to rise to the top.

We cannot judge the effect of the bye until we have a much bigger sample size of games. Until then those who are complaining are doing so with no evidence to prove their point.

Jesus, so you're saying we have to wait 10 years, then make a thread about it? Give me a break. It's just not the momentum of players that people are talking about it, it's the momentum of the vibe in the air as well. We'd be having a finals game TONIGHT, while the excitement of round 23 is still fresh.

 

[Run n Spread]

Personal Preference - 22 rounds + finals = No byes

As a fan (neutral particularly) = Like it. Adds a new dimension.

 

[NathanMX]

Scrap the bye and fine those teams who "manage" players in Round 23 with a view to finals.

Gave my Spurs a $250,000 fine for resting players in a regular season game (albeit because it was televised). Let's see any team wear that kind of penalty easily, not sure even Collingwood or West Coast would be happy paying that.

 

[catstorm]

Scrap the bye and fine those teams who "manage" players in Round 23 with a view to finals.

Gave my Spurs a $250,000 fine for resting players in a regular season game (albeit because it was televised). Let's see any team wear that kind of penalty easily, not sure even Collingwood or West Coast would be happy paying that.

Except when scaled to make up for the vastly differing amounts of money in the sport a $250,000 is more like a $25,000 which Collingwood or West Coast would absolutely pay if they thought it would help them win.

 

[calyam]

Jesus, so you're saying we have to wait 10 years, then make a thread about it? Give me a break. It's just not the momentum of players that people are talking about it, it's the momentum of the vibe in the air as well. We'd be having a finals game TONIGHT, while the excitement of round 23 is still fresh.

Firm evidence is how good policy is made. If it takes 10 years to gather that evidence then so be it.

Luckily for you the AFL loves to make snap decisions based on insufficient or no evidence. They could easily scrap it in a year or two and not really know why.

 

[Caj]

What imbecile would believe that?

Alistair Clarkson for one

 

[samFFC]

Let's hope the Thursday night game is amazing!