- Thread starter
- #76
Time to Scrap %. Points For Only.
- Thread starter Lavender Bushranger
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Soberian Tiger
Borat's cousin twice removed from village
- Jul 25, 2018
- 1,118
- 5,997
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The 1972 grand final saw fifty goals and a winning margin of just over four goals..
I hated it though.
Richmond were favourites but Carlton won.
The next year, Richmond had wised up and the tables were turned.
I hated it though.
Richmond were favourites but Carlton won.
The next year, Richmond had wised up and the tables were turned.
- Thread starter
- #78
Interestingly, they changed the % system in 1933.
It's a bit of a myth that the game just evolves on its own. Significant rule changes have been implemented fairly steadily over the last 150 years to address perceived issues with the game.
- Thread starter
- #79
FWIW under the old % system (before it was changed in 1933), West coast would have finished 4th instead of Geelong, and North would have won the Wooden Spoon over Adelaide.
Port's % would have dropped from 136 to 73 - whilst Essendon's would have jumped from 79 to 126. Adelaide's would have been 155!
So the concept of tweaking the % system to encourage scoring has actually been done before. It's not that far fetched and outrageous at all.
Port's % would have dropped from 136 to 73 - whilst Essendon's would have jumped from 79 to 126. Adelaide's would have been 155!
So the concept of tweaking the % system to encourage scoring has actually been done before. It's not that far fetched and outrageous at all.
Last edited:
Virus
I’m pretty good looking
- Oct 24, 2020
- 212
- 323
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Players are getting lazier and lazier wanting more money for less work.. it would be first to 20 scoring chances
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I'm not sure you have that right... the AFL's page says:
... but that's the same thing, just the inverse - so instead of a percentage of 200, you'd have a percentage of 50, and lower would be better. But it wouldn't change anything about the order of the teams.
YippeeYiYeo
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 21, 2015
- 9,087
- 14,295
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #82
Agree with the OP. All the counter-arguements regarding high scoring grounds and weather are no different to every other slightly unbalanced aspect of a season: fixture, playing against a team crippled with injuries vs fully fit, playing against a team in form vs a team out of form, etc.
Encouraging teams to be attacking atm is a good thing.
Encouraging teams to be attacking atm is a good thing.
An interesting idea I heard once (and I have mentioned it before) is to have 'quarters won' as the tie-breaker, rather than %age.
Good points are:
1. It takes away differences in playing conditions between grounds, weather etc.
2. It gives fans of a team being thrashed (say, 7 goals down at 3/4 time) some incentive to keep watching.
3. It increases the number of critical 'kicks after the siren' by a large factor - apart from having 5 times as many opportunities (4 end-of-quarters + total end-of-game), there would be more end-of-quarter opportunities because there is less scoring in a quarter than a game - so closer scores.
4. I once did a quick analysis on a season - it doesn't wind up with a significantly different order to %age.
5. When a team HAS to win the last game & improve %age to make finals, it's easy to work out exactly what they need to do, rather than have to recalculate after every opposition score.
Bad points:
1. Increases chance of a 'tie-breaker' tie at the end of the season.
Good points are:
1. It takes away differences in playing conditions between grounds, weather etc.
2. It gives fans of a team being thrashed (say, 7 goals down at 3/4 time) some incentive to keep watching.
3. It increases the number of critical 'kicks after the siren' by a large factor - apart from having 5 times as many opportunities (4 end-of-quarters + total end-of-game), there would be more end-of-quarter opportunities because there is less scoring in a quarter than a game - so closer scores.
4. I once did a quick analysis on a season - it doesn't wind up with a significantly different order to %age.
5. When a team HAS to win the last game & improve %age to make finals, it's easy to work out exactly what they need to do, rather than have to recalculate after every opposition score.
Bad points:
1. Increases chance of a 'tie-breaker' tie at the end of the season.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
They have this in Super Netball and I really dislike it.
It feels artificial - the commentators always try to hype it up but it's just a sideshow to the main business of, you know, who's going to win the freaking game.
Also occasionally you get bizarre outcomes where one team thrashes the other, but because they did their damage in one particular quarter, the other team comes away with more bonus points.
The whole purpose of percentage is that it's a pretty accurate method of separating two teams who are otherwise equal. Once you introduce some razzle-dazzle, it fails at that and becomes something different.
- Thread starter
- #85
Does it though?
That year Docklands only averaged 3 goals more than the other grounds' combined averages. If you take the SCG's average out of it (cause, you know, Sydney), it's only about 15 points more.
And given Geelong were a freakishly dominant team and played 7 games there averaging 141 points - the rest of the comp is pretty even across all grounds.
On a side note.. man the scores were big that year! The average Points For was 95.5!! In 2020 it was 65.5! If you forget the shortened quarters and use 2019 instead - it was only 80. That's 6 goals per game difference.
00Stinger
100 - 7
It's more of the unfairness of four teams playing on the same day in Melbourne in pouring rain
Two play outside in a wet slog fest and the other two play in perfect conditions indoors
How about you get one extra point on the ladder each time you score over 100. 2 points over 200 and so on...
Be a bit like test cricket.
If at the end of the day if no teams scores 20 goals then it’s a non contest and 0 points to both teams.
% works like this:
If your team is above 100% your % will be better if you win/lose with a lower score (same margin). Better to win 60-30 rather than 120-90.
If your % is under 100% then the opposite is true and it’s an advantage to win/lose with a higher score.
If your team is above 100% your % will be better if you win/lose with a lower score (same margin). Better to win 60-30 rather than 120-90.
If your % is under 100% then the opposite is true and it’s an advantage to win/lose with a higher score.
I remember when I was a little kid, before the times of smart phones and internet, the VFL was the premier league but still knew SANFL and WAFL were quality leagues in their states and to see the scores and ladder for those leagues would buy the weekly magazine from time to time called "Inside Football" and it had the scores and ladder details from all the leagues around the nation and the SANFL always had a different way of doing percentage for their ladder.
i guess the argument is, that those seasons weren't played under the conditions the op is suggesting. had those seasons been played using points for it might be different.
ultimately though... this thing still only separates teams that have won the same number of games. if you're backing yourself to win enough games by shitty low-scoring slogs it doesn't matter.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #92
Could you imagine ... You can lose 180-80 and get more of a % advantage over a team that loses 80-79, regardless of opposition or conditions.
- Thread starter
- #93
And both games would achieve the AFL's goal of a more entertaining spectacle.
Nope.
Remove quarters, first goal wins. If two teams finish the season on the same points captains front up for a fist fight.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #95
I'm sure the aim isn't for s**t teams to get better percentage by virtue of big bash style shootouts either.
A team that wins 120-119 every week would finish higher than a team that wins 119-54 every week.
You don't see a serious flaw with that system?
The flip side is that currently a team that wins 60-30 every week will finish higher than a team that wins 120-61 every week. That doesn’t seem right either
Points differential?
Solves the above problem.
+30 vs +59
In reality no solution is perfect, but to me looking at points for in isolation is the most flawed. It's the only one that completely ignores an entire side of the game.
Yeah i don't mind it - would need to think through the implications
Even if you went for Points For, you aren't ignoring defending because the ultimate goal is still to win and to do that you need the opposition to score less than you
- Thread starter
- #100
It's not the perfect way to determine each team's position on the ladder.
That's not the point.
The point is that the AFL have been very, very clear that they want more 120-119 results every week. That would be the perfect product for them.
So the question becomes - how badly do they have to * the game on-field with rubbish rule changes in order to achieve it?
And even if they did, how quickly before coaches counter it anyway and bring the game back to dull, defensive, low risk, clogged up games anyway? Plus you're stuck with all the useless rule changes too.
So personnally, if we could get more games with high risk footy without ******* the game up on-field with rubbish rule changes, I'd absolutely take it - even if it means there's some minor irregularities like the scenario you brought up.
It's not about 'fixing' the percentage system - it's about sacrificing it rather than the heart and soul of the game itself - to achieve the AFL's goal.
Similar threads
