Clarkson wants an end to the bye after Hawthorn missed on 4 peat ... seriously?

[threesixpio]

Enjoy Suckling.... and likely Schoenmakers too via FA.

We have 1 FA. And we also lost Buddy. And we also got Vickery.

What do you think we could have got for Buddy?

Cry, my beloved doggies.

And apparently we got Lake cheaply due to an impending FA. What pick did we send over for an aging 31 year old injury-riddled defender who the Doggies were even trialling to move forward that year?

Pick 27. So I'm assuming if there was no FA the Doggies would have got better than this? Ok....

 

[_Mike_]

If the AFL insist on the stupid bye then change the finals format to the following.
1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

That's what the first Macintyre final 8 system looked like

 

[Hawks1976]

W

That's what the first Macintyre final 8 system looked like

the worst finals system we've had meaningless games in first week

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I listened to Clarko's comments....I'm still trying to ascertain exactly how they had anything to do with insulting the Dogs or whinging about missing the Fourpeat.

Clutching at straws.

 

[Wesley2]

I listened to Clarko's comments....I'm still trying to ascertain exactly how they had anything to do with insulting the Dogs or whinging about missing the Fourpeat.

Clutching at straws.

Clickbait. Nothing more. 6 pages and counting.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Under the old final 5 system (which was very popular) the top team used to very often get 2 weeks off before the Grand Final, funny how I don't remember anyone complaining about that.

Not even close to being the same.

Apart from the fundamentals of the game, kicking, running, tackling, marking and handballing, nothing else is really the same. The grounds were bog heaps, there was a 19th and 20th man followed by interchange, which barely got used, it was a war of attrition.

In a top 5 finish top, have the first week off and play the winner of the qualifying final. Win that and it's straight through to the gf, with another week off. In the gf, your opponent would have played the whole season without a break and you would also have a mid week State of Origin thrown in there during the season. A lot of the players seemed to come from the top sides, funnily enough. That's 26 straight games / weeks into the gf.

 

[Toump Ass]

Ah the nonsensical and somewhat predictable dimwit response from your average Big Footy poster, no surprises there! I'm so relieved to know that everyone can have an opinion, but you have to be ready to accept that it may be wrong and misguided and in need of correction. I've taken it all on board and will try to fall in line like many of the other sheep on here.
Unfortunately, i thought about that for 10 seconds longer than i should've and say "bollocks to that idea", too many people have beliefs that are rigid and not open to another point of view. Like trying to piss with a stiff, it's difficult to manage and can be disastrous when forced in another direction.
I think i'll stick with the axe the pre - finals BYE campaigners...go Clarko!

Can't be bothered reading your response, almost a year later and you're sill having a good ol' sook about last year's bye

Take your tinfoil hat off buddy, Geelong didn't get to the grand final because they weren't good enough. Not because of the evil bye weekend.

If you're lucky the bye this year could give you a fit and firing Joel Selwood

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Yeah Freo spring to mind as the team who'd make massive wholesale changes and they did it v North I believe one time who also took a similar approach.

Resting 1-2 players with niggles happens all the time and all through the season so cases like that are no issue IMO.

iirc, they also rested half their side for a round 21 clash with the Hawks in Tassie and got belted by over 100 points. . Two weeks later they played Hawks again in the finals at Subi and won pretty comfortably.

I remember there was a fair bit of angst over what Harvey had done at Freo but a lot of people were pretty supportive on these boards with what they did. The proof was in the pudding two (2) weeks later.

 

[Long Live HFC]

the OP's ability to make reasonable inferences from available information is a perfect example why i have no hope for humanity.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Some are, some say we wouldn't have won last year without the bye? As if they were Nostradamus or something. We destroyed WCE, maybe we would have just beat them?? Who would know?

Nobody knows. Doesn't matter mate, why let it get to you? Dogs won, that is all that matters.

People are always going to bend the truth and come up with pretty wild speculation to try and bring down your team's achievements.

See this guy for example:

Free agency came in just as Hawthorn were at the top. And who does free agency suit? Teams already at the top.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the home ground advantage for the top four, or is that a minus as well?

yay, if Geelong win tomorrow they will either play Richmond or GWS at the MCG.

1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th get the home finals.

If Richmond win, they'll get rewarded with a game either in Adelaide or Western Sydney, if they lose, they'll get a game at the MCG.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I listened to Clarko's comments....I'm still trying to ascertain exactly how they had anything to do with insulting the Dogs or whinging about missing the Fourpeat.

Clutching at straws.

Forget it. He's a Hawk and therefore guilty of every heinous crime imaginable in the eye of the cretins on this forum. After all, he coached 4 premierships, and that's about the worst thing you can ever do. I just think it's hilarious that 6 months ago this forum was screaming blue murder about all the "advantages" the Bulldogs had and how the bye should never happen again, but the moment Clarko offers his opinion he gets set upon.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Sydney would've smashed Geelong last year even without the bye, and GWS had more scoring shots than the Doggies. They blew it. Clarkson's argument might have more validity if we see once again both qualifying final winners fail to make the grand final, but I doubt this will be the case.

No they wouldn't have. If Geelong didn't have a bye, that would have meant that Geelong lost to Hawthorn in the qualifying final so they would have been on opposite sides of the draw.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

But with all the training and recovery teams do, they surely can work around a bye.

Within two seasons, I predict that things will come back to normal, when teams get smart and prepare for the bye.

Instead of complaining, coaches should think how to use the bye to their own team's advantage, and get a jump on other finalists.

Smart planning is what is required.

I don't think it's so much preparing for the bye, it's more preparing for the 4 week block after it.

As I've posted on the Geelong board it's a completely different dynamic, Beveridge worked it to perfection last year.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You can't have a pre-finals bye and give the week one winners from the top 4 a week off for winning their first final. It takes away one of the main benefits of finishing top 4 (having a rest) and actually turns it into a negative.

E.g. Geelong played one game in 27 days leading into the Sydney prelim.

I like Gil but he's got this totally wrong. He celebrated the Dogs win last year as great for the game but they should never have been allowed to win it

I thought under final 5 the top team often won flag by playing only 2 games in the month (week break, win, then week off for GF)

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

This is consistent with what he said last year. He said it was a problem for some teams to not play enough/as regularly during this time.

I started a thread on the Geelong board this season after Geelong lost to West Coast this year coming off the bye, I did all the stats for clubs from since Chris Scott took over at Geelong.

Hawthorn 7/1

West Coast Eagles 6/3

Adelaide 5/3

Fremantle 5/3

St Kilda 4/5

Brisbane 3/6

Carlton 3/6

Collingwood 3/5

Essendon 3/5

Melbourne 3/6

North Melbourne 3/5

Port Adelaide 3/6

Richmond 3/5

Sydney 3/6

Western Bulldogs 3/6

Geelong 2/7

Gold Coast 1/8

GWS 0/6

 

[MickyG]

I wonder if Clarko thinks that or if it is the AFL's pre-policy change PR department?

If it's the later then it will be changing. If the Swans win the flag despite umpiring like last year's and last week's, it will definitely change.

 

[Bluelegs]

I disagree with the notion that top 2 teams are at a disadvantage. Two home finals and the double chance is still a major advantage that teams will strive for. I like the bye as I think finals football is better for it.

Its kind of insulting to teams that finish that high to insinuate they couldn't figure out how to mitigate any disadvantage that comes with playing 2 games in 4 weeks. I do think the AFL should try to schedule top 4 teams games on the sunday of the last round though.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Is the elephant in the room that the AFL want the bye to give the AFLW exposure during the peak time of the men's season??

 

[Toump Ass]

Is the elephant in the room that the AFL want the bye to give the AFLW exposure during the peak time of the men's season??

No.

 

[King Elvis]

Hawthorn rested 8 or 9 top line players in round 24 2011.

I agree with Clarko, I'm not a fan of the bye, but he's one of the coaches responsible for it being in place.

If you've dominated during the season to the point you can manage your list heading into finals, it's because you've earned it.

The bye is a moronic knee jerk; it's arguably detrimental to the top teams, and should be cancelled asap.

 

[raymond35]

Can't be bothered reading your response, almost a year later and you're sill having a good ol' sook about last year's bye

Take your tinfoil hat off buddy, Geelong didn't get to the grand final because they weren't good enough. Not because of the evil bye weekend.

If you're lucky the bye this year could give you a fit and firing Joel Selwood

Well, thats not as stupid as your last comment, but it's close.

 

[Armchair Critic]

It could be argued that Geelong were blown away in the 1st quarter because of the bye. From quarter time on they were competitive and probably the better side(but for goal kicking)

Nah the Swans did the exact same thing the week before against Adelaide.You are kidding yourself if you think they were the better side.The game was over at half time and Geelong were never in it.

 

[Armchair Critic]

He is absolutely correct and i doubt he is referring to his own team.

There was no need for the pre-finals bye in the first place.

Seriously - what is the problem with 1 or 2 clubs deciding to rest guys because they have cemented there ladder position? That is the whole ******* point of the regular season.

They are not tanking. They do not want to lose. They want some of their older bodies to be fresh for the week after. They have earnt that advantage.

Now does the bye hurt the top 2 clubs? We only have a small sample size, but the theory is sound: win your QF and you are "rewarded" with 1 game of footy in almost 4 weeks. No ******* way is that a good preparation for a prelim. Is it a coincidence that both those teams lost last year? Its too early to say and there were other factors, but surely it has to be considered - particularly if the players and clubs complain about it.

Seriously, just listen to your players and coaches.
The AFLPA has long asked for a 2 bye season. Give them a Bye around round 18 and suddenly the number of guys actually needing another rest in the final round is minimal.

Well the Swans did finish top so it did help us

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

If you've dominated during the season to the point you can manage your list heading into finals, it's because you've earned it.

I agree with that too. You have a list of 44 players you should be able to use, as you see fit, to give you the best chance of winning a Premiership.