Ladder conference farce

Remove this Banner Ad

red+black said:
AFL backing controversial AFLW conference system but Bulldogs boss says split was wrong from start

“Everybody knew that two teams would go through from each conference … if you can’t be in the top two of your conference, are you the best team?

“People need to get their heads around the conferences.”

https://outline.com/Yh5xVG
Click to expand...

Every time someone from the AFL tries to defend their ridiculous mismanagement of the AFLW, they only make the situation worse - like comparing not playing every team in a league to the soccer world cup last year. Condescendingly telling people to "get their heads around the conferences" (as though all the talk of 'if the teams were all on the same ladder' is just one big misunderstanding of the conference concept), and then spruiking how "exciting" it is to have two close races (when that aspect only underlines the issues people are raising with the disparity to begin with)...

Ultimately, it wouldn't matter if the conferences were more evenly balanced, since the concept is fundamentally misapplied in the first place - literally the only reason we have them is the AFL's craven unwillingness to run the league for any meaningful duration, and it hardly helps to be telling people they need an "education and journey process" (?!) to get into their desired mindset about it all. But as things stand, the disparity does help to show up the sheer idiocy of the whole endeavour.
 
Nicole Livingstone is a joke but I guess she has to defend the competition even if some decisions are out of her hands.

I'd like someone to ask her why the conferences were weighted unevenly. As I said earlier, and let's ignore the 2 new teams, Conference A is 25% stronger than Conference B. There were rumours that the top 2 teams from 2018 would be placed in separate groups and the same for the bottom 2 teams. That's fine, but they stuffed up the rest. You can have 1+7 and 2+8, or 1+8 and 2+7, but you have to ensure you allocate the other teams correctly. Both groups must add up to 18, not one group is 16 and the other is 20.

And at 2:50 in the interview below from a few months ago, she says that the VFL had a conference system in 1898! LOL, she really should not try to recite football history. In 1898 each team played each other twice and there was just one ladder, there were no conferences. But there were two 'sectional groups' for the finals and only for the finals. A very stupid system where like AFLW 2019, the groups were unevenly weighted with Group A 25% stronger than Group B. Even worse, the two groups of 4 played each other group member once, and some teams had 3 home games (5-SM), some had 2 (2-CO, 3-FI, 4-GE, 8-SK), some had 1 (1-ES) and some had none (6-ME, 7-CA).

The 1898 finals system is not a conference system to emulate Nicole. As could have been predicted, the stronger group, Section A, provided both grand finalists, although one was assured, Essendon being the minor premier. In 1899, the 6th placed team made the grand final. In 1900, the 6th placed team won the grand final! That was the last year of the stupid conference system for finals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898_VFL_finals_series#Finals_system

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-07/aflw-2019-all-you-need-to-know-about-system
 
Last edited:
hcd199 said:
Every time someone from the AFL tries to defend their ridiculous mismanagement of the AFLW, they only make the situation worse - like comparing not playing every team in a league to the soccer world cup last year. Condescendingly telling people to "get their heads around the conferences" (as though all the talk of 'if the teams were all on the same ladder' is just one big misunderstanding of the conference concept), and then spruiking how "exciting" it is to have two close races (when that aspect only underlines the issues people are raising with the disparity to begin with)...

Ultimately, it wouldn't matter if the conferences were more evenly balanced, since the concept is fundamentally misapplied in the first place - literally the only reason we have them is the AFL's craven unwillingness to run the league for any meaningful duration, and it hardly helps to be telling people they need an "education and journey process" (?!) to get into their desired mindset about it all. But as things stand, the disparity does help to show up the sheer idiocy of the whole endeavour.
Click to expand...

Spin is the standard AFL approach when they f*** up. One thing you’ll never hear them say is ‘we got it wrong’.

Wonder what the narrative will be when nobody either watches or turns up to AFLX?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

red+black said:
Nicole Livingstone is a joke but I guess she has to defend the competition even if some decisions are out of her hands.

I'd like someone to ask her why the conferences were weighted unevenly. As I said earlier, and let's ignore the 2 new teams, Conference A is 25% stronger than Conference B. There were rumours that the top 2 teams from 2018 would be placed in separate groups and the same for the bottom 2 teams. That's fine, but they stuffed up the rest. You can have 1+7 and 2+8, or 1+8 and 2+7, but you have to ensure you allocate the other teams correctly. Both groups must add up to 18, not one group is 16 and the other is 20.

And at 2:50 in the interview below from a few months ago, she says that the VFL had a conference system in 1898! LOL, she really should not try to recite football history. In 1898 each team played each other twice and there was just one ladder, there were no conferences. But there were two 'sectional groups' for the finals and only for the finals. A very stupid system where like AFLW 2019, the groups were unevenly weighted with Group A 25% stronger than Group B. Even worse, the two groups of 4 played each other group member once, and some teams had 3 home games (5-SM), some had 2 (2-CO, 3-FI, 4-GE, 8-SK), some had 1 (1-ES) and some had none (6-ME, 7-CA).

The 1898 finals system is not a conference system to emulate Nicole. As could have been predicted, the stronger group, Section A, provided both grand finalists, although one was assured, Essendon being the minor premier. In 1899, the 6th placed team made the grand final. In 1900, the 6th placed team won the grand final! That was the last year of the stupid conference system for finals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898_VFL_finals_series#Finals_system

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-09-07/aflw-2019-all-you-need-to-know-about-system
Click to expand...

I do love how the chief invokes a 120-year-old system that was sh**ty, unloved and now defunct as justification for the introduction of conferences. The game’s in good hands!
They actually took a very long time to sort out the issues with VFL finals... I think it was the 1920s before they implemented (what we would understand as) a ‘normal’ finals system.
One other thing, you imply by denying there’s anything wrong, she’s ‘defending the competition’? I’d have thought treating fans of the competition like morons is a good way to alienate them?
 
red+black said:
what's the rush to squeeze AFLW in between the men's cricket and men's AFL seasons?

The girls go off to play VFLW and other comps, shouldn't we be aiming to have the best players play AFLW and the next tier playing VFLW etc?

Why can't the AFLW be 9 or 18 rounds? Last time I checked the AFLW tends to not play at AFL venues.
Click to expand...
The AFLW’s success hinges entirely on how visible it is, and how little it encroaches on the VFLW which would surely be treated as the true women’s competition at the moment.
Even the JLT series relegates women’s footy to the back of everyone’s mind, so it needs to be in this period.
If it extends any longer, the last few rounds will gain little interest and hence little visibility. While that isn’t exactly detrimental to its major goal, it may lead to shortening and bastardising the VFLW season. I reckon it’s ok that the AFLW is a little quirky and perhaps less prestigious than it could be, since that will help the sport long term, but that’s only if the VFLW and other state leagues form a ‘proper’ season for women.
 
Isn't the main issue here that two reasonably unpredictable things have happened - Freo having significantly over performed compared to the last two seasons and North smashing everything in front of them (not that I want to open that debate again) - rather than poorly planned conferences.

Had Freo lost to Brisbane then the Lions would be sat on 8 points at the top of Group B and things wouldn't look half as imbalanced. Bearing in mind that in 17 and 18 Freo finished 7th/7th and the Lions got to both grand finals - then that would have been a safe bet when the fixtures were being prepared.
 
BarbieITFC said:
Isn't the main issue here that two reasonably unpredictable things have happened - Freo having significantly over performed compared to the last two seasons and North smashing everything in front of them (not that I want to open that debate again) - rather than poorly planned conferences.

Had Freo lost to Brisbane then the Lions would be sat on 8 points at the top of Group B and things wouldn't look half as imbalanced. Bearing in mind that in 17 and 18 Freo finished 7th/7th and the Lions got to both grand finals - then that would have been a safe bet when the fixtures were being prepared.
Click to expand...

But sport is unpredictable, that’s the beauty of it. A competition shouldn’t descend to farce because results don’t go as expected. It’s not an issue of poorly-planned conferences, it’s conferences.
So many theorising about which conference groupings would have produced the ‘fairest’ outcome (which most seem to judge as the outcome that sees the four teams with the best records go through)... unmm, what about just a single ladder? That’s a pretty good way of ensuring the top four teams play finals.
 
Consolaçao said:
So many theorising about which conference groupings would have produced the ‘fairest’ outcome (which most seem to judge as the outcome that sees the four teams with the best records go through)... unmm, what about just a single ladder? That’s a pretty good way of ensuring the top four teams play finals.
Click to expand...
A 10-team comp with 7 rounds is going to favour those with an easier fixture, whether you have conferences or a single ladder.
 
Teen Wolf said:
A 10-team comp with 7 rounds is going to favour those with an easier fixture, whether you have conferences or a single ladder.
Click to expand...
So you realise conferences haven’t made that issue disappear? It is still the case that each team doesn’t play two others.
The thing is now that with conferences, for teams in the better conference, not only do they miss out on games against the easier teams, but they now need to effectively be a top-2 side to make the final four.
Under a single ladder, Adelaide may still have a tough draw, but at least the 3rd or 4th best record in the league would give them a spot in the finals.
 
Consolaçao said:
So you realise conferences haven’t made that issue disappear? It is still the case that each team doesn’t play two others.
The thing is now that with conferences, for teams in the better conference, not only do they miss out on games against the easier teams, but they now need to effectively be a top-2 side to make the final four.
Under a single ladder, Adelaide may still have a tough draw, but at least the 3rd or 4th best record in the league would give them a spot in the finals.
Click to expand...

It starts making more sense with a full-size competition; having 9 teams in each conference who don't play any cross-conference games, then allows for a 3ish week finals series.
 
Consolaçao said:
So you realise conferences haven’t made that issue disappear? It is still the case that each team doesn’t play two others.
The thing is now that with conferences, for teams in the better conference, not only do they miss out on games against the easier teams, but they now need to effectively be a top-2 side to make the final four.
Under a single ladder, Adelaide may still have a tough draw, but at least the 3rd or 4th best record in the league would give them a spot in the finals.
Click to expand...
I've made several posts on here that show both a realisation and disapproval of that, including when the conference system was confirmed. Not sure if Phil Harper has a twitter account, maybe write him an old-fashioned letter and ask what his input was on this issue as a member of the competition committee.
 
BarbieITFC said:
Isn't the main issue here that two reasonably unpredictable things have happened - Freo having significantly over performed compared to the last two seasons and North smashing everything in front of them (not that I want to open that debate again) - rather than poorly planned conferences.

Had Freo lost to Brisbane then the Lions would be sat on 8 points at the top of Group B and things wouldn't look half as imbalanced. Bearing in mind that in 17 and 18 Freo finished 7th/7th and the Lions got to both grand finals - then that would have been a safe bet when the fixtures were being prepared.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Also the previous seasons have shown that teams can go through significant momentum swings even in a short season. Collingwood have twice gone 0-3 to 4-3. Carlton have twice started 2-0 and ended nowhere.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think I’ve come up with the answer to the fairest criteria for AFLW semi finals qualification:
1. Top team in each conference A/B qualifies and to host the SF.
2. Top 3 and 4 teams (best number of wins AND score percentage) from either conference to qualify.

If they’re going to insist on carrying on with a conference system jammed into 7 rounds, then my simple system would work no matter what teams belong to which conference. This system would give the most likely outcome of 4 genuine contenders playing out in the SF.
 
Teen Wolf said:
For all the talk about it, there really isn't enough info so far to confidently say the best 4 sides won't play finals, especially if you grant the outlandish possibility that even good teams have off days.

What if the best 4 teams are actually:
North
Adelaide (beat Carlton and Geelong, kicked inaccurately vs Bulldogs)
Carlton (lost to North and Adelaide, beat GWS)
GWS (lost to North and Carlton, had a two-point Round 1 loss to Brisbane in the wet)

Sure the AFL will be lucky if it turns out that way. But at this point nobody truly knows if there's a huge conference strength mismatch, even though it's fun to pretend.
Click to expand...
Are conferences even needed in a 10 team competition? What benefit is it providing here?
 
juss said:
Are conferences even needed in a 10 team competition? What benefit is it providing here?
Click to expand...
Need is a strong word. Conferences could be used effectively in a 10-team competition, but the way they're being used in this instance provides no real benefit I think.
 
Teen Wolf said:
Need is a strong word. Conferences could be used effectively in a 10-team competition, but the way they're being used in this instance provides no real benefit I think.
Click to expand...
Need maybe isnt the right word, but I dont think they are necessary or provide much benefit in this context. If that's the case, just keep it simple and scrap it. There is no need for them just for the sake of having them.
 
SunGirl89 said:
a conference system is definitely not needed for a 10-team 7-round competition
Click to expand...
Its not about this year. Its the format they will use going forward when they have 18 teams. Get used to it.

Same as the aflw doesn't deserve national tv coverage of getting paid etc. But it's not about this year. It's the plan going forward to have a watchable aflw with skills and players who deserve to get paid.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
No doubt the Crows supporters will stop sooking now that they are in the top 2 in conference A. Looks like they have evened up a bit anyway.
Brisbane
North
Adelaide
Geelong
Carlton

If anything conference B now looks stronger.
 
le dominateur said:
If anything conference B now looks stronger.
Click to expand...
Lol, what logic brought you to that conclusion? Because the worst team in Conference A lost? With a single ladder, the best 4 teams are still in Conference A, and two of those have a game in hand.

Conference A: 13 wins
Conference B: 5 wins

So again, please enlighten us as to how Conference B looks stronger?
 
SunGirl89 said:
Lol, what logic brought you to that conclusion? Because the worst team in Conference A lost? With a single ladder, the best 4 teams are still in Conference A, and two of those have a game in hand.

Conference A: 13 wins
Conference B: 5 wins

So again, please enlighten us as to how Conference B looks stronger?
Click to expand...
Because.....Carlton?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Connar
AFLW AFLW Season 8 Ladder Predictions 2023
Replies
20
Views
4K
The Victorian
The Victorian

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top