True Wildcard System Considered by the AFL, Revisited

[kozi]

In either scenario (Melbourne winning 4 or Carlton winning 4), a wildcard is going to a team with a good record against top 6 clubs. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Making finals purely because you got to play cellar-dwellers a few extra times does seem like a bad thing, though.

You even considered all the tanking that would inevitably happen? Just one possible scenario is teams that beat top teams earlier in the season trying to lose to them later to make sure they finish top 6 so their earlier win against them is counted.

Not against throwing around ideas but I’ve lost count of how many holes this one has.

 

[4THAWN]

In either scenario (Melbourne winning 4 or Carlton winning 4), a wildcard is going to a team with a good record against top 6 clubs. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Making finals purely because you got to play cellar-dwellers a few extra times does seem like a bad thing, though.

but the problem is winning 4/5 is a lot harder than winning 4/8.

 

[4THAWN]

You even considered all the tanking that would inevitably happen? Just one possible scenario is teams that beat top teams earlier in the season trying to lose to them later to make sure they finish top 6 so their earlier win against them is counted.

Not against throwing around ideas but I’ve lost count of how many holes this one has.

Could also have a situation where a top 6 club that knows it will be top 6 come seasons end tanking games to less threatening teams for e.g. geelong tanks a game to melbourne in round 21, in the hope that melbourne can finish with 5 "top 6 wins" ahead of lets say Richmond with only 4.

 

[Dazzler9]

What a joke of an idea.

1. 8 teams is already more than enough for finals.

2. This system doesn't correct imbalances in the draw. It merely opens up opportunities for manipulation.

3. There have always been some years where a side gets a favourable draw, and other years where they get a tough draw. So be it.

 

[kozi]

Could also have a situation where a top 6 club that knows it will be top 6 come seasons end tanking games to less threatening teams for e.g. geelong tanks a game to melbourne in round 21, in the hope that melbourne can finish with 5 "top 6 wins" ahead of lets say Richmond with only 4.

In theory the intentions are good. In practise it’s an absolute nightmare.

 

[4THAWN]

In theory the intentions are good. In practise it’s an absolute nightmare.

This issue is not limited to this system, just shows that implementing this doesn't actually fix anything in the curren't AFL system

 

[demondavey]

This issue is not limited to this system, just shows that implementing this doesn't actually fix anything in the curren't AFL system

If there is a need for a wildcard, just introduce 9 and 10 into the fold. Simple.

 

[4THAWN]

If there is a need for a wildcard, just introduce 9 and 10 into the fold. Simple.

This competition is a LONG way off needing more finals sides. If that's what they're considering, they really have no clue, not a single f*cking idea, about how to become a professional sporting league.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Ok, in 2018 for both systems from the OP

Top 6 - Rich, WC, Coll, Haw, Melb, Syd

Team - Wins against - Top 6 - Top 8
GWS 2 NA
Geel 3 NA
North 3 4
Port 3 3
Ess 2 4
Adel 3 4
WB 0 1
Freo 0 0
Bris 2 2
Stk 1 1
GC 1 1
Carl 0 0


So last year, the 4 wildcards in a top 6 system would be Geel, North, Port, Adel

The 2 wildcards to play 7th (GWS) and 8th (Geel) in a top 8 system would be North and Ess.

 

[Blackhawk42]

20 teams.

Top 6.

7-10 play a wildcard weekend.

Probably the only way I could accept such a proposal as it mathematically makes more sense. The potential reward for a crap season just doesn't sit right.

 

[kozi]

This issue is not limited to this system, just shows that implementing this doesn't actually fix anything in the curren't AFL system

Yeah through the countless threads of new finals system ideas over the years I’m yet to see one that’s actually an improvement on what we currently have.

The fact we’re in 2019 and still nobody in the country has been able to come up with a superior system points to our current one being best.

 

[Dazzler9]

Yeah through the countless threads of new finals system ideas over the years I’m yet to see one that’s actually an improvement on what we currently have.

The fact we’re in 2019 and still nobody in the country has been able to come up with a superior system points to our current one being best.

I'll give it a try.

The 2 teams winning the QF don't deserve to have to play a straight knockout semi-final (a.k.a. preliminary final). They deserve to retain their double chance for their next match (just like they used to to in the final 4, final 5 and final 6 days).

Therefore, cut the pre-finals bye and build in an extra week after the prelims. If one or both of the QF winners lose the prelim, they get a double chance and play again the following week. In other words, their opponent has to beat them twice.

If both QF winners win the prelim, then there is a pre-GF bye. Call it a "celebration of footy weekend" and play an all-star game or something.

There are pros and cons to this proposal but I miss the old days where the double chance lasted into the second week of finals.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I get what you’re saying, but say two bottom 10 sides win against top 6 sides due to the fact they have more schedules home games, or even at different points in the season; so maybe the top 8 teams struggle at the start of the year, as some teams often do, or in the latter rounds, like 2017 when Adelaide rested players against WC in the last round and lost?

Is it a real reflection that they are the best outside the 8? Or simply shouldn’t that go to 9 & 10?

Pretty strong historical evidence suggests top-6 wins (note the plural) is a true measuring stick particularly for the mid-ladder clubs--a sign of a dangerous (wild, even) team rising. West Coast 2017, having managed 3 other top-6 wins in the H&A that year, is a pretty good example of that considering the success and classic finals they immediately went on to enjoy.

The test would be to find a team that's had 4+ top-6 wins in a season and gone on to be cannon fodder in finals, because we already know what happens to teams that have a less credible list of scalps.

 

[Teen Wolf]

but the problem is winning 4/5 is a lot harder than winning 4/8.

Which is balanced out through the advantage of getting to play more of the bottom teams.

 

[kozi]

Pretty strong historical evidence suggests top-6 wins (note the plural) is a true measuring stick particularly for the mid-ladder clubs--a sign of a dangerous (wild, even) team rising. West Coast 2017, having managed 3 other top-6 wins in the H&A that year, is a pretty good example of that considering the success and classic finals they immediately went on to enjoy.

The test would be to find a team that's had 4+ top-6 wins in a season and gone on to be cannon fodder in finals, because we already know what happens to teams that have a less credible list of scalps.

You still haven’t addressed the late season tanking that would occur under this system.

 

[4THAWN]

Which is balanced out through the advantage of getting to play more of the bottom teams.

I was replying to you saying, either way if melbourne get a wildcard from 4/8 or carlton get a wildcard from 4/5, it doesn't matter because they both played well against top sides.

How is that balanced? Just because carlton play more bottom sides, doesn't change the fact that both teams are bad and not worthy of playing finals. Theres nothing too impressive about going 4/8 against top 6 sides, especially when compared to going 4/5 against top 6 sides. But you're saying this doesn't matter, because if carlton were good enough they would be in the top 6 anyway due to playing so many games against "bottom" sides.

I could argue that if melbourne were good enough, they'd be in the top 6 regardless of their draw.

that is just one problem, of many.

 

[Mazza44]

Under the 6 + 4 system, the Western Bulldogs could just rest a lot of their players and have them in prime condition for their remaining matches against Brisbane and GWS, two teams that are desperate to win each game to try and make the top 4. You create an unfair playing field when certain games are worth more than others. I think most football supporters would prefer to watch the Bulldogs try to win every game to scrape into the eight as opposed to just targeting two opponents.

You should be able to rewarded for beating all teams, not just those above you

 

[kozi]

So in summary..

Lower teams tanking against higher teams they beat earlier in the season.

Teams already secured at the top tanking against bottom 4 teams.

Heavy advantage/disadvantage based on how many opportunities through the fixture teams get to play the top 6.

Unlevel playing field when some games are worth more than others.

Door open for bottom 4 teams to make finals ahead of teams with ~10 more wins.


This one needs to be taken out the back and quietly have its throat slit.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You even considered all the tanking that would inevitably happen? Just one possible scenario is teams that beat top teams earlier in the season trying to lose to them later to make sure they finish top 6 so their earlier win against them is counted.

Not against throwing around ideas but I’ve lost count of how many holes this one has.

That particular example would only happen in the universe of yours where a two-win team is somehow a giant killer.

It's more likely to have the reverse effect where lower teams need just one more top-6 win to make finals, thus they don't put the cue in the rack for draft picks.

I was replying to you saying, either way if melbourne get a wildcard from 4/8 or carlton get a wildcard from 4/5, it doesn't matter because they both played well against top sides.

How is that balanced? Just because carlton play more bottom sides, doesn't change the fact that both teams are bad and not worthy of playing finals. Theres nothing too impressive about going 4/8 against top 6 sides, especially when compared to going 4/5 against top 6 sides. But you're saying this doesn't matter, because if carlton were good enough they would be in the top 6 anyway due to playing so many games against "bottom" sides.

I could argue that if melbourne were good enough, they'd be in the top 6 regardless of their draw.

that is just one problem, of many.

Like the other bloke, your criticism focusses on things that have 0.0000001% chance of happening. Not impressive.

But if your view is that the unequal fixture isn't a big enough issue to worry about, I can definitely live with that, assuming you don't turn around in another thread and complain about teams with soft draws making finals.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Under the 6 + 4 system, the Western Bulldogs could just rest a lot of their players and have them in prime condition for their remaining matches against Brisbane and GWS, two teams that are desperate to win each game to try and make the top 4. You create an unfair playing field when certain games are worth more than others. I think most football supporters would prefer to watch the Bulldogs try to win every game to scrape into the eight as opposed to just targeting two opponents.

You should be able to rewarded for beating all teams, not just those above you

In a sliding doors moment, Brisbane and GWS lose those games, and eventually drop out of the 6. Then the teams Bulldogs rested against sneak into the 6. Thus the Bulldogs disadvantaged themselves..

 

[Teen Wolf]

Under the 6 + 4 system, the Western Bulldogs could just rest a lot of their players and have them in prime condition for their remaining matches against Brisbane and GWS, two teams that are desperate to win each game to try and make the top 4. You create an unfair playing field when certain games are worth more than others. I think most football supporters would prefer to watch the Bulldogs try to win every game to scrape into the eight as opposed to just targeting two opponents.

You should be able to rewarded for beating all teams, not just those above you

Except the Bulldogs don't have a crystal ball, betting it all on two games is much riskier than trying to win every game and make top 6.

 

[kozi]

That particular example would only happen in the universe of yours where a two-win team is somehow a giant killer.

It's more likely to have the reverse effect where lower teams need just one more top-6 win to make finals, thus they don't put the cue in the rack for draft picks.

Except for the fact if the lower team wins there’s a chance the higher team doesn’t finish top 6 thus the win isn’t counted......

System doesn’t work mate. That’s before we even consider the 5 other ways it will ruin the game which I concisely stated above.

Like the other bloke, your criticism focusses on things that have 0.0000001% chance of happening. Not impressive.

There’s a near 100% chance of at least one if not all of those things happening.

 

[hcd199]

It makes no sense to base finals qualification on something so arbitrary. If it's about addressing fixture imbalances, then the imbalanced number of chances to beat a Top 6/Top 8 team means it instead just compounds them; if it's about not rewarding mediocrity, why does it (for example) let Fremantle off the hook for losing to Melbourne, Gold Coast and Carlton? Incentivising teams to drop certain games for potential reward is far from ideal either (if a team thinks losing will get them a higher-ranked but subjectively 'easier' match-up in finals, that ultimately can't be helped, but dropping games to ensure a team you beat earlier in the year qualifies so that you get an extra point towards "wildcard" qualification is a new problem that can easily be avoided).

Any "wildcard" system has to strongly justify its alternative qualification method - why should we be using that approach at all, rather than the conventional metric of H&A wins? Why should we reward teams who manifestly produced less results throughout the season, but succeeded on some arbitrary and limited metric instead? Nothing about this proposal manages to justify that: the arguments for it are demonstrably flawed.

I'll give it a try.

The 2 teams winning the QF don't deserve to have to play a straight knockout semi-final (a.k.a. preliminary final). They deserve to retain their double chance for their next match (just like they used to to in the final 4, final 5 and final 6 days).

Therefore, cut the pre-finals bye and build in an extra week after the prelims. If one or both of the QF winners lose the prelim, they get a double chance and play again the following week. In other words, their opponent has to beat them twice.

If both QF winners win the prelim, then there is a pre-GF bye. Call it a "celebration of footy weekend" and play an all-star game or something.

There are pros and cons to this proposal but I miss the old days where the double chance lasted into the second week of finals.

The Final 4 never had multiple double chance games (winning the 2SF got you a week off and straight into a knockout GF), and having games that could or could not be decisive depending on who wins has never appealed. If the aim is just to bring back that element of the Final 5 where winning the QF gets you into a double chance SF, then the best option would be an actual Final 10 comprising two overlapping Final 5s (not the ridiculous "wildcard" 7v10/8v9 week). That way, the winners of 3v6 and 4v5 (themselves 'double-chance' games) play in the equivalent of the current QFs, whilst 1st and 2nd get the equivalent advantage 1st did in the Final 5 (a week off, a double-chance game, then if they win that another week off and into a knockout match, otherwise straight into a knockout next week). If the league ever expands to 20+ teams, that would be the right way to expand the finals system, but at present there's no reason to change the Final 8 IMO.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Except for the fact if the lower team wins there’s a chance the higher team doesn’t finish top 6 thus the win isn’t counted......

It's those sort of machinations that make it considerably more tank-proof than the current system. Too many variables to effectively manipulate anything with control.

 

[Le Grille]

Each team Either Plays each other once or twice a season 17 or 34 weeks, adjust the lists , fixture, add a reserves comp to house the extended lists , bye weeks as appropriate, only fair way. The current situation is better than any of these other alternatives