The shambolic mess of Opening Round

[Gavin Excell]

After an interesting Round 1 where all teams played, we now have this ridiculous situation where momentum for the season halts to allow byes for clubs in Round 2, 3 and 4.

And this is even before discussing the inequalities OR creates in match ups between teams coming off breaks.

Its a disaster and the exclamation mark on the Dillon administration

 

[Nostradumbass]

Dillion is a buffoon. It's embarrassing that he got the top job.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

And this is even before discussing the inequalities OR creates in match ups between teams coming off breaks.

This bit is a bit overblown. There's been 18 R1 match ups featuring OR teams in the 3 years we've had it.

4 instances where two OR teams played each other.
4 instances where the team that didn't participate won.
6 instances where the winning team was playing against NM, WCE, Rich, Dons or Dees who've largely been easy beats the last 3 seasons so those results likely happen anyway.
2024 saw the Suns coming off a bottom 4 finish beat the Crows who'd narrowly (and conteniously) missed finals the year prior. 2025 saw the Pies beat the finalists Port.. But thrashed them by nearly 100 pts. So is the advantage really relevant this time? And this year the Cats overcame a 6 goal deficit to finish over the top of the Dockers. What's more relevant here? The advantage of playing OR or the Dockers inability to close out a 6 goal lead??

Overall I'd say that the correlation between playing OR and beating a side that didn't participate purely because of the added match hardness and fitness is largely overblown and not supported by other factors.

 

[Gavin Excell]

This bit is a bit overblown. There's been 18 R1 match ups featuring OR teams in the 3 years we've had it.

4 instances where two OR teams played each other.
4 instances where the team that didn't participate won.
6 instances where the winning team was playing against NM, WCE, Rich, Dons or Dees who've largely been easy beats the last 3 seasons so those results likely happen anyway.
2024 saw the Suns coming off a bottom 4 finish beat the Crows who'd narrowly (and conteniously) missed finals the year prior. 2025 saw the Pies beat the finalists Port.. But thrashed them by nearly 100 pts. So is the advantage really relevant this time? And this year the Cats overcame a 6 goal deficit to finish over the top of the Dockers. What's more relevant here? The advantage of playing OR or the Dockers inability to close out a 6 goal lead??

Overall I'd say that the correlation between playing OR and beating a side that didn't participate purely because of the added match hardness and fitness is largely overblown and not supported by other factors.

We are having byes in R2
Its absurd

 

[PrancingPony]

They just need to do it how the NRL do it, the Opening Round games are still Round 1, you just have the other games played the next week. Easy fix, first weekend is QLD and NSW focused, then you do the rest the week after.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Dillion is a buffoon. It's embarrassing that he got the top job.

He greased the right wheels. Much to our dismay.

 

[Teen Wolf]

About to become a 19-team competition, and it's gonna stay that way for a while.

I would suggest you get used to byes.

 

[Colonial]

Can it. Since the Pies sooked and got an away game at home, now Adelaide wants one, the AFL put no promotion on in the northern states.
Lost the point of it. Just play all games round 1.

 

[Cyclops]

7 rule changes. "Round 0", which had byes, byes in round 2, byes later in the year, byes before finals (except for the wil cards, except they aren't wildcards).

Sure if theres an odd number of teams, but when byes are avoidable, avoid them.

The butter is getting spread very thin indeed.

 

[unplugged]

They just need to do it how the NRL do it, the Opening Round games are still Round 1, you just have the other games played the next week. Easy fix, first weekend is QLD and NSW focused, then you do the rest the week after.

Yep, either do this or don't do it at all. Feels so weird having a bye this week as well. And the ladder just doesn't make sense either.

I'm no good at it but this is the first year in a very long time that I haven't done Supercoach because it just got that little bit harder to do. I don't think the AFL would care but I'd be intrigued to know if their player numbers are down, or if I'm just lazy.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Get rid of it.

Season is long enough as it is without starting on March 5th !!

Just have Round 1 and have big drawing games scheduled for each of the northern clubs if we have to. As a Carlton supporter I'd rather that and sacrifice the Blues/Tigers opening game to get a more equitable draw.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

We are having byes in R2
Its absurd

That's a separate issue and beside the point.

 

[boncer34]

This bit is a bit overblown. There's been 18 R1 match ups featuring OR teams in the 3 years we've had it.

4 instances where two OR teams played each other.
4 instances where the team that didn't participate won.
6 instances where the winning team was playing against NM, WCE, Rich, Dons or Dees who've largely been easy beats the last 3 seasons so those results likely happen anyway.
2024 saw the Suns coming off a bottom 4 finish beat the Crows who'd narrowly (and conteniously) missed finals the year prior. 2025 saw the Pies beat the finalists Port.. But thrashed them by nearly 100 pts. So is the advantage really relevant this time? And this year the Cats overcame a 6 goal deficit to finish over the top of the Dockers. What's more relevant here? The advantage of playing OR or the Dockers inability to close out a 6 goal lead??

Overall I'd say that the correlation between playing OR and beating a side that didn't participate purely because of the added match hardness and fitness is largely overblown and not supported by other factors.

Its ok. The Cats got advantage, it wont hurt you to admit.

It certainly doesnt need a rambling post about it.

 

[Colonial]

We are having byes in R2
Its absurd

We will be having byes in RD 1 in a couple of years.

 

[Gavin Excell]

That's a separate issue and beside the point.

It is the point

 

[Philhawk]

The AFL becomes more unwatchable by the year.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Its a good concept with a terrible execution

Just have all sides play but highlight the interstate clubs, have the prime time spots in the northern and western states

Hell even start the season with a derby to really spice it up

 

[deck]

It did make sense to get a jump on the NRL in the northern states. The problem was they had there dates wrong and were to embarrassed to admit it. So have kept going on and trying to convince everyone and themselves that it wasn't the original idea.

 

[Robertio]

It's a circus, have all sides playing over a split round with games in the northen states on the first weekend and just call it round one.

 

[Billy ray]

i like it
but it should be 4 games in week 1 (8 teams) and 5 games in week 2 (10 teams)
and
in week 3, ensure the week 1 8 teams play eachother in new match ups and ditto for week 2 teams.

its. so. damn. easy. to . fix.

 

[Partridge]

After an interesting Round 1 where all teams played, we now have this ridiculous situation where momentum for the season halts to allow byes for clubs in Round 2, 3 and 4.

And this is even before discussing the inequalities OR creates in match ups between teams coming off breaks.

Its a disaster and the exclamation mark on the Dillon administration

Disagree with that part. It's the logical continuation of the last 20+ years of footy adminstration.

Which is, generate as much money as possible, in order to go to the:

1. Executives
2. Clubs
3. Players

And above all, shaft the fans for everything they've got. To achieve these goals, they have changed the name of the sport, the length of the quarters, the length of the season, the number of rounds, the number of clubs, too many rules to name, introduced idiotic rules that no one wanted, and all because the audience is captive and the sport happens to be so good (or was once) that the fans will still watch it no matter what.

Could easily walk away now though. I watch some games when it suits, most I ignore, and haven't watched any footy program in years. Life is much better. The clubs can take their naked greed - and the players as well - and shove it.

 

[Shack18]

After an interesting Round 1 where all teams played, we now have this ridiculous situation where momentum for the season halts to allow byes for clubs in Round 2, 3 and 4.

And this is even before discussing the inequalities OR creates in match ups between teams coming off breaks.

Its a disaster and the exclamation mark on the Dillon administration

Well said, this and the top 10 idiocy, Dillon is a hopeless CEO

 

[Bay53]

So some games from rounds 2, 3 and 4 were brought forward.

Is that really such a tragedy?

 

[Billy ray]

isnt the issue also that some grounds cant be used that early in March?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It is the point

Yours maybe, but not mine.
Mine is that the so called biggest advantage is 1 game vs 0 games.

And there's barely any correlation to back it up.

The Rounds 2-4 byes are separate issues entirely as they are creating situations where teams with 2-4 games are getting a bye while others don't.

An easy fix would be to bring the main bye period forward, at present it is Rounds 12-16. Bring them forward to say round 10-12. 6 teams per round, with OR teams going 10-11 and that way all clubs still only get one bye through out the year. Not some getting one and others getting two. This reduces the period where we don't have a full 9 games down from 9 rounds down to 4 rounds.

Yes it makes the period of matches to finals longer without a break, but 8 sides won't make finals, and another 6 get a pre-finals bye so it only elongates that period for the 7-10 wildcard teams, who likely don't go much further than EF/SF weekend anyway.