AFL Introduces Wild Card Round

[Dan26]

What are you talking about? There has always been a double chance for the top teams in finals for 125 years. Why change it now when the system works.

Because double chances are against the very principle of what finals are about- performing on the day. We've also had a knockout Grand Final for 125 years and two knockout Prelims for the last 3 decades. Knokcout is better - that's why we love the Grand Final and the Prelim as everyones favorite two types of finals.

Finals should be just that - FINAL. The last match for one of the teams involved. That's the whole point - perform on the day, or you're out.

 

[Dan26]

You can't have the same percentage for 3rd and 6th

Yes you can.

3rd and 6th are separated by 3 ladder positions.

1st and 4th are separated by three ladder positions and they all have the same probability.

5th and 8th (under the final-8) are separated by three ladder positions and have the same probability.

 

[Dan26]

You deserve one poor one and you get a second chance.

So, you're advocating for a second chance if you lose the Prelim and Grand Final now?

You do realise that if you have a "poor one", the top-of-the ladder team has been out in the Prelim after one loss since 1994. I'm assuming you also realize the Grand Final has been a knockout game for 100 years.

Here's a novel idea. Perform on the day and win.

 

[Purple Suit]

The double chance makes sense in a final 4. As soon as you go beyond that it creates issues.

It makes sense for your first game only, which is what occurs. Final 4 vs Final 8 or 10 it really can and does still work if given to the top teams who have gotten that way after 23 games of footy. If you remove it completely, it would be a huge change to the system and make it unrecognizable.

Because double chances are against the very principle of what finals are about- performing on the day. We've also had a knockout Grand Final for 125 years and two knockout Prelims for the last 3 decades. Knokcout is better - that's why we love the Grand Final and the Prelim as everyones favorite two types of finals.

Finals should be just that - FINAL. The last match for one of the teams involved. That's the whole point - perform on the day, or you're out.

How can only knockout be the point if it's never been done before? It's all about balance and we have it right.

 

[Dan26]

It makes sense for your first game only, which is what occurs. F

No, it doesn't make sense at all. None. Why does it "make sense" that you can be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim Final, but not in your first final? (provided you have a week off under a knockout system, which is your advantage that you play for.)

Under a knockout final-10, the top seeded teams can be eliminated in their first final, but that final isn't until week 2. That means their earliest exit point is week 2, because the guaranteed week off REPLACES the double chance.

Under the fimal-8, if you went out in straight sets, your earliest exit point was also week 2.

So, under both systems, the earliest exit point (week 2) remains the same.

Double chances are shit. Knockout games are true finals. They are better, and more exciting.

 

[Purple Suit]

No, it doesn't make sense at all. None. Why does it "make sense" that you can be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim Final, but not in your first final? (provided you have a week off under a knockout system, which is your advantage that you play for.)

Under a knockout final-10, the top seeded teams can be eliminated in their first final, but that final isn't until week 2. That means their earliest exit point is week 2, because the guaranteed week off REPLACES the double chance.

Under the fimal-8, if you went out in straight sets, your earliest exit point was also week 2.

So, under both systems, the earliest exit point (week 2) remains the same.

Double chances are shit. Knockout games are true finals. They are better, and more exciting.

Mate,
You're obsessed with this topic and think your view is the only correct one which wild considering there has always been double chances in the league for at least 125 years. Give it a rest.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So, you're advocating for a second chance if you lose the Prelim and Grand Final now?

You do realise that if you have a "poor one", the top-of-the ladder team has been out in the Prelim after one loss since 1994. I'm assuming you also realize the Grand Final has been a knockout game for 100 years.

Here's a novel idea. Perform on the day and win.

Prelims are different but NO a top 4 side should not be 1 out and done. The current top 10 is good enough. Can always just not come 7th so you get the advantage of the top 6. You are the one that wants to make coming 3rd the same as 6th not me. I don’t care about seedings and paths, give me a 20% chance at 3rd over 12.5% every day of the week and the AFL agrees. The top 4 get protection.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There has to be an incentive to finish higher on the ladder, but there's no particular reason why that advantage should go to the top 4, rather than say the top 2 or top 6.

Why? As someone else has pointed out, if your poor game happens to be in the preliminary final or the grand final, bad luck.

There are other ways to reward teams for finishing higher on the ladder, including:

• a guaranteed week off
• home finals
• easier opponents

There has to be a balance between rewarding teams for finishing higher while ensuring that the eventual premiership winner has to work hard to get there.

Under Dan26's knockout system, 7-10 would have to win four consecutive games, including at least two away from home and one vs a top side coming off a bye. That's already pretty unlikely - I suspect you might see a team from 7-10 win once every 10-15 years in this system. Under the AFL's system, 7-10 have to win five consecutive games (with the odds against them), which probably happens once every 50-100 years.

It should be difficult, but there has to be a realistic hope.

The knockout final 10 distributes the benefits more fairly according to ladder position, with a clearer benefit to finishing top 2.

You are making it EASIER for teams that were rubbish to average all year long. Thats not the ones that should get the benefit. Thats the whole point. Why should a team that scrapes into 7th-10th get more advantages than one coming 5th. Nup come outside the top 6 you have to win 5 to win it and I don’t see the issue. The fact is teams should be rewarded for good home and away form otherwise why even try when you can just come 7th every year. A win from 7-10 every 40-50 years is fine with me actually. It may mean you get more quality as teams strive to come top 6.

 

[Dan26]

Prelims are different but NO a top 4 side should not be 1 out and done.

If you lose the prelim you are one loss and done.

If you lose the GF you are one loss and done

No, the Prelim is no different. It's just a knockout Final like any other.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If you lose the prelim you are one loss and done.

If you lose the GF you are one loss and done

No, the Prelim is no different. It's just a knockout Final like any other.

It’s still better than your attempt which has it NO different coming 3rd to 6th. Thats a big issue and you can claim seedings a club will take 20% chance over 12.5% every time

The AFL have a few issues this is not one of them. This means sides can not play like donkeys all year to be just above average and come 6th. 3rd is a good year deserve to be protected week 1 of finals

 

[speedpeck23]

Yep rather than complaining, come top 4-6 and then there's no need to whinge. I'm here or there with the top 10, but lets be real you aren't winning outside the top 6 and nor should you really, you haven't been the best side or close to it all year. If you are good enough to win a wildcard, then three finals to win it so be it but that's your path.

Generally agree with you . I think the Wild Card round has another big thing going for it though ....we hear all the whingeing about the inequity of the home and away fixture......but at least irrespective of the fixture if you think your team was given a dodgy fixture ...well if you can't reach top 10 out of 18 or 19 clubs you simply don't deserve to be there. Anytime team that's not that good and makes the top 10 will be found out pretty quickly.

Conversely if AFL had an even Home and Away fixture like the EPL it would be make no sense to have a final series at all. Top team is clearly best performed club for the regular season.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Generally agree with you . I think the Wild Card round has another big thing going for it though ....we hear all the whingeing about the inequity of the home and away fixture......but at least irrespective of the fixture if you think your team was given a dodgy fixture ...well if you can't reach top 10 out of 18 or 19 clubs you simply don't deserve to be there. Anytime team that's not that good and makes the top 10 will be found out pretty quickly.

Conversely if AFL had an even Home and Away fixture like the EPL it would be make no sense to have a final series at all. Top team is clearly best performed club for the regular season.

Yeah I mean really if you can’t come 6th at least you are average at best. I know people love to say the Dogs should have been there last year..a side that won 1 game against a top 8 side and got flogged by 10 goals at home last round to Freo. They just weren’t that good. I said the same thing about us when commentators said we were unlucky to not make it…no we weren’t we managed to lose to Essendon who were diabolical

 

[Dan26]

It’s still better than your attempt which has it NO different coming 3rd to 6th. Thats a big issue and you can claim seedings a club will take 20% chance over 12.5% every time

The AFL have a few issues this is not one of them. This means sides can not play like donkeys all year to be just above average and come 6th. 3rd is a good year deserve to be protected week 1 of finals

I explained this before and you ignored it.

3rd and 6th are separated by 3 ladder positions.

1st and 4th are separated by three ladder positions and they all have the same probability.

5th and 8th (under the final-8) are separated by three ladder positions and have the same probability.

What is this ridiculous obsession with comparing 3rd with 6th as if there is some special cosmic significance with those 4 positions? But you ignore the fact that 1,2,3,4 all have the same probability.

Mathematical probability is one part of a knockout system, but the seedings are where it truly shines. The highest plays the lowest so it is fairer and designed for the top-2 teams to play in a Grand Final

In a Grand Slam knockout Tennis tournament (which has seven knockout rounds), do you think the first round should have a double chance in case the top seeded player gets beaten? If not then, why not? And if so, should that double chance extend into the second round too? If not why not?

You seem to have some silly belief that double chances are okay in the AFL, yet you are also okay with there NOT being a double chance if you lose the Prelim. But you think that the double chance should be there if you lose your first match, but not if you lose your second match (the Prelim). So, how does that fit in with tennis tournament? Should a double chance only exist if you lose to a crap opponent in the first round, but not at any other stage?

Is it fair that all 128 players in a tennis tournaments all have the same mathematical probability?

 

[Chiz]

You are making it EASIER for teams that were rubbish to average all year long. Thats not the ones that should get the benefit. Thats the whole point. Why should a team that scrapes into 7th-10th get more advantages than one coming 5th.

Not sure what you're on about. In the proposed system 5th has more advantages than 7-10.

Nup come outside the top 6 you have to win 5 to win it and I don’t see the issue. The fact is teams should be rewarded for good home and away form otherwise why even try when you can just come 7th every year.

Because under the knockout system, to win from 7th you would have to:

• win four in a row
• win at least two away games
• win against a team coming off a bye.

It would actually be HARDER to win from 7th under this system than under the final 8 system. Did teams choose to just scrape into the finals under that system?

A win from 7-10 every 40-50 years is fine with me actually. It may mean you get more quality as teams strive to come top 6.

Teams would strive to come top 6 in any case, because there would still be sufficient advantages.

 

[Chiz]

It’s still better than your attempt which has it NO different coming 3rd to 6th. Thats a big issue

There is no difference coming 1st and 4th under the current system. That's a bigger issue.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There is no difference coming 1st and 4th under the current system. That's a bigger issue.

It’s still better than having 3rd having the same chance as 6th in the other one. A mile better. Protect the first four in the first week after that elimination which is fine

 

[slider95]

I'm not sure where to post this but I think this thread is semi relevant...

Why do we have preliminary finals??? When there are 4 teams left, most comps around the globe refer to this as the semi final... Week 2 of finals (with 6 teams left) shouldn't be classed as semi finals.

It seems this was an error when the AFL moved to the McIntyre final eight system in 1994 and it has never been corrected since....

Week 1 and week 4 are fine. It's week 2 and week 3 that should be renamed...

This makes a lot more sense and I'll use last year's finals as a guide...

Adelaide

Geelong

Brisbane Lions

Collingwood

Greater Western Sydney

Fremantle

Gold Coast

Hawthorn

​

week 1-
Qualifying Final 1- Adelaide vs Collingwood
Qualifying Final 2- Geelong vs Brisbane
Elimination Final 1- GWS vs Hawthorn
Elimination Final 2- Fremantle vs Gold Coast

week 2-
Qualifying Final 3- Adelaide vs Hawthorn
Qualifying Final 4- Brisbane vs Gold Coast

week 3-
Semi Final 1- Geelong vs Hawthorn
Semi Final 2- Collingwood vs Brisbane

week 4-
Grand Final- Geelong vs Brisbane


* Week 2 could also be referred to as Elimination Finals 3 & 4... Whether we refer to them as QF 3 & 4 or EF 3 & 4 doesn't really matter.

 

[Chiz]

It’s still better than having 3rd having the same chance as 6th in the other one. A mile better. Protect the first four in the first week after that elimination which is fine

Do you not see the logical fallacy with your argument? You can't argue that it's an issue for 3rd to have the same mathematical chance as 6th, while ignoring that 1st already has the same chance as 4th.

Last year, 3rd (Brisbane) finished half a game ahead of 6th (Fremantle) and got a huge advantage, while 1st (Adelaide) finished 2 games and % ahead of 4th (Collingwood) and got a very slight advantage.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Do you not see the logical fallacy with your argument?

Last year, 3rd (Brisbane) finished half a game ahead of 6th (Fremantle) and got a huge advantage, while 1st (Adelaide) finished 2 games and % ahead of 4th (Collingwood)

So they finished ahead they had a much better season than Freo. They just did half a game plus percentages. Come in the top 4, then you let advantages. It’s that simple. You should not get ANY advantages coming 7th to 10th! It should be practically impossible to make it through and good.

 

[Clark G]

Is it totally confirmed that the two extra finals will be called ‘wildcard’ games? Really, the two games are extra elimination finals.

 

[Dan26]

Is it totally confirmed that the two extra finals will be called ‘wildcard’ games? Really, the two games are extra elimination finals.

The AFL like to give the knockout games each week a different label.

So,working backwards from week 5 to week 1 we have:

5.Grand
4.Preliminary
3.Semi
4.Elimination
5.Wildcard

I would have preferred the label "1st Knockout Final" and "2nd Knockout Final" for the week one finals instead of "wildcard" Using the name "wildcard" has confused the normies.

Anyone got any suggestions on what week one could have been called instead. I think Knockout would have been good.

 

[Dan26]

 

[Gough]

You should buy a Roget's and save the water.

 

[Toump Ass]

Why do we have preliminary finals??? When there are 4 teams left, most comps around the globe refer to this as the semi final... Week 2 of finals (with 6 teams left) shouldn't be classed as semi finals.

This always did my nut in too actually.

Makes more sense to me to have quarter finals (8 teams) > semi finals (4 teams) > grand final (2 teams). If you need another set of finals between the quarter and semi's call them qualifying or preliminary finals or whatever, either way having a semi then two more weeks is stupid.

 

[Chiz]

So they finished ahead they had a much better season than Freo. They just did half a game plus percentages. Come in the top 4, then you let advantages. It’s that simple. You should not get ANY advantages coming 7th to 10th! It should be practically impossible to make it through and good.

What's wrong with: come in the top 2, you get advantages. It's that simple.