Another reason why Dan24's finals system if flawed

[Dan26]

Indian in the Cupboard,

You said this: "Could you just clear a few things up for me? First you say that, "history shows the fans will accept whatever is given recognition". Aren't you contradicting yourself with your own lack of acceptance for the current system? Or are you somehow different to the other 'fans' you refer to?"

If you look at any sporting organization, the fans will accept whatever is given recognition. As for me, well, the statement is directed at the overall general public. You can't go around accusing me of contradicting myself, becaseu you are using me as a on-off example. Overall, the general public as a "whole" (not necessarily specific people), will accept whatever is given recognition.

You said this : "Also doesn't the lack of support for your proposed system (posted on the site) prove that the 'fans' do in fact care about what system of reward is in place? And didn't disaproval of the previous McIntyre Final Eight system from the fans cause the switch to the new system?

First of all, it is often the same people responding. Secondly, human beings don't like change. Never have. In 1985, 95% of Victorians were against a national competiton. Thank God the VFL ignored the public and proceeded with the national comp, because it was the best thing that ever happened to footy. Ever. Generally, people don't like change, but they grow firstly to accept the change, and then they invariably love the change. I remember St.Kilda didn't want to move to Waverley. "stay at Moorabbin" they all said. Now, the fans all want to go bck to Waverley. Work that out !!

Hope that clears some of your queries up

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

When you say, "Overall, the general public as a "whole" (not necessarily specific people), will accept whatever is given recognition" you wouldn't be inferring that the 'whole' is in fact the MAJORITY would you? And can we also read the reference to 'specific people' as the MINORITY could we? So let me get this straight, the opinions of those in the majority of the football public are wrong, whilst the views of the MINORITY (aka Dan24) are right. Geese.... I wouldn't like to run a country on those principles. Nevertheless I think you would make a great politician. When dealt a tricky question you conveniantly sidestep it by regurgitiating the same old formulaic answers that really don't answer the intial question posed at all.

But hey, don't worry.... although you will never see your system come to fruition (The only reason Wayne Jackson replied to your letter was to get you off his back) you can console yourself with a take on your own words of wisdom - you don't like the current system, but you will grow to accept the system, and invariably love the system.

 

[Dan26]

Indian in the cupboard,

Stop trying to sound like a smart ass.

I never said the minority was always right, I simply gave ONE example of a survey back in 1985. The most important thing here is to get things RIGHT. By that I mean, what is fair and right. With 16 teams competiting agaisnt each other over 6 months, it is correct, right, and FAIR to recognise the top team. That cannot be disputed.

I believe that every person wants to see the top team rewarded. i also believe they will accept the seperate tournament idea. The reason being that "for al intents and purposes' it is that way right now. Sure it's not officilly that way now, but it is for all intents and purposes.

The public isn;t interested in their team being the best. They just want their team to win the GF, right ? So, if their team won the GF, even if it was part of a seperate tournament, how would it be any different ?

Oh, I don;t ever presume what is going to happen in the future. You don't een know what Wayne Jackson wrote and I do. In fact I am the only one that knows, so i won't embarass you any further. Suffice to say, this is closer to happening that what you may think. Perhaps not next year, but just wait and see.

 

[Bomber]

Well, Wayne Jackson wouldnt be doing his job if he wasnt ruining the game! I cant see him keeping his job much longer anyway - when does his contract expire?

Also, everyone brings up soccer. If anyone else is a keen follower of soccer, they would know that BY FAR the best, biggest, most prestigious prize in european club football is the European Cup - and, you guessed it, it is a knockout competition!

National Leagues in Europe are exciting because of promotion/relegation issues, and the fact that the league is used to qualify for the European Cup. - Its like our footy season, the League isnt the holy grail, the European Cup is, but you have to finish in the top bracket (depending on Country and standard of league, ie Italian SerieA top 4 or 5 go thru, in England top 2 I think) to make the EC - just like our H&A system, where you need to finish in the top 8, in order to get to the real tournament (european Cup or Final 8).

So there, when looked at properly, the European soccer scene is much like ours, with a H&A season to qualify for the real stuff, a knockout comp.

The misconception here is that the League title is what clubs aim for, when its not. The EC is!

 

[dons_r_tops]

I suggest and addition to your plan dan
at the end of the H&A Season 1st Plays 16th, 2nd Plays 15th, etc in week one, all losers are eliminated
Week 2 The highest placed winner plays lowest placed winner etc, losers are eliminated
Week 3 same as two but only four teams are still competing
Week 4 Grand final winner is called premiers and have had the easiest run to the GF so this would be fair after all they would have earned it

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

What the hell do you mean by: "The public isn't interested in their team being the best."??? Please explain.

And the reason why people want their team to win the GF is because it is the greatest prize. Under your system the greatest prize will be the minor premiership, hence the esteem in which the GF is held will obviously be diminished. That's how it would be different under your system - winning the GF will be relegated to secondary status.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Indian in the Cupboard:
Dan24,

What the hell do you mean by: "The public isn't interested in their team being the best."??? Please explain.

What I mean is that the public want to see their team have the glory of winning on that one special day. The title of premeis is not really that important. It's the glory of winning on Grand Final day.

The FA CUP winner isn't called "premiers" (nor should they be). The FA CUP winner isn't the best. Does this affect the FA CUP? No, it doesn't. Currently, the footy public don't care if their team isn't the best. They just want the glory of winning the Grand Final. Since the word "premiers" means best, it is really stupid to call the GF winner premiers. They should just be called Grand Final winners.

If the final series was a separate tournament, the "glory" of being able to win the Grand Final will still be there......FA CUP style. It will be the ONLY match of the year, where the result of that one match determines a trophy. i.e the winner of the GF would be "finals series" champions.

Making the GF override the 22 weeks before hand does nothing to enhance the game. It just serves to make the H&A season a waste of time. The most important thing about GF day, is the "glory" and "event status" that it carries. The fact that the winner is called "premiers' is not what teams play for. They play for the glory of winning the Grand Final........similar to winning the FA CUP. It does NOT NEED to override the whole season and decide the whole season champions. It doesn't need to do this to be big. It is the biggest match of the year anyway......and always will be. Always.

 

[Same Old's]

I wonder where Indian in the Cupboard went to. Maybe someone renovated his kitchen.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Dim... you remind me of a whinging Pom... have a VB mate and relax... you lost this arguement a long time ago... get on with your life...

 

[McKenna for PM]

Dan, to use your cut and paste methods, you asked Roylion:

"I think I can tell how your mind works. You want unpredictability, don't you ? You want it, even at the expense of fairness. Who cares if the top team isn't recognised, as long as unpredictablity is rampant, right?"

You are after fairness at the expense of the excitement of the game. A noble desire. But you really have stepped around Indian's original question - what is the point of placing more importance on the home and away season when even you agree that it is unfair? At least under the current system the finals series acts to reduce the impact of this inequality to the various teams of the competition by installing an element of luck. As a supporter of a team whose season is usually disadvantaged by the H&A draw, this is better than the season being decided without the finals.

If you're after fairness and equality, then why aren't you spending your time lobbying Wayne Jackson and company for a change in the format of the season proper to poromote fairness there? You can't just evade the question Indian posed by simply reminding him that you have conceded that in earlier posts. His point is valid, and this reduces the very equality your system is striving to obtain.

In your eternal search for the best team of the year, you neglect to realise that the H&A season will never be a true reflection of the best team until there is a more even playing field.

In another section of your dictum:

"Finals should be knockout. Anyone who disagrees, is just plain wrong."

Well here goes. The problem with this is that it would render every position from 2-8 at the end of the H&A competition equivalent. For example, if there was no way a team could get to 1st or fall to 8th on the ladder at a late point in the season, then there would be virtually no incentive for them to win a game until the finals (which under your system would be a separate competition anyway). At least under the current system a team has a reason to want a higher position in the final eight even though 1st may be beyond their reach.

[This message has been edited by McKenna for PM (edited 05 February 2001).]

 

[Dan26]

The H&A might not be totally even, but it is a hell of a lot more even that a lottery tournament.

In the H&A you have to play 22 matchs against all 15 teams. In the finals, you only need to play 3 or 4 of the other 7 finalists, perhaps avoiding the top team if you are lucky.

If you look at the two things as they are now, we have the H&A, and then we have the finals. Out of those two, the H&A is BETTER at showing how good a team is than the finals are. In the finals, one loss can eliminate you, even if you are the best team. Anyone can lose a one-off match.

There is no doubt that the years best team is found over 6 months......not 2 hours on grand Final day.

I am saying have BOTH. But have them as separate tournament. Then, the H&A will mean something. Currently, a team fights all seasn to finish on top, and then they are tld that this doesn;t matter. it is how they go in the finals which will determine whether they are the premiers. What was the point of the Home and away, if it is going to be called irrelevant? It comprises 95% of the seaosn, yet the Grand Final overrides all that good work.

The top of the ladder team should be called premiers.

The winner of the Grand Final SHOULD be called "champions of the finals series." They should NOT be called whole years champions. Not only is that illogical, it is just plain wrong.

 

[McKenna for PM]

Do you even read other people's comments Dan?

Answer the question.

Your last post was merely a re-worded regurgitation of your earlier posts. We understand that the H&A season is a more accurate display of the top sides than the finals. Please don't feed us that again. However, as you have already acknowldeged, the H&A season is not fair at all. So I'll keep this simple and ask Indian in the cupboard's question again - why place even more importance on an unfair H&A draw, instead of allowing the finals to give some of the disadvantaged teams (eg. interstate teams with big travelling commitments) a chance to still have a crack at the premiership?

Answer that please.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Dean Wallis still hasn't broken that Fraser Brown tackle Dan. He never will...

 

[RogerC]

Someone, somewhere, way back in this thread, made the claim that the present system for the finals is worse than the previous McIntyre system. Could I have that explained to me, because I find it an incredible statement. And for god's sake, no references to mathematical probabilities.

I'll just give you my take on it first; the McIntyre Finals System, quite aside from the fact that it took a calculator, a slide rule and three pages of foolscap to figure out your team's path through the finals in advance, was the system that allowed Adelaide to win a Grand Final from the lower reaches of the ladder (after being thumped in the first week), and got Carlton into the Grand Final from 6th in 1999. The current set-up denies that chance to all bar the most exceptional teams - those that can win 4 effective away games in a row against increasingly difficult oppostion. If a team can win a grand final from the bottom half of the 8 by doing that, I'll applaud them.

Week 2 under that system was a waste of time. West Coast were shafted in 1999 and 1996 after WINNING in the first week and then having to play away (at least that is offset now by the losing teams of 1v4 and 2v3 hosting their next games - if it gets shifted to the MCG, well at least they were penalised for losing).

Anyway, if anyone can demonstrate the virtues of that dog of a finals system, I'd love to hear about them

 

[Darky]

The McIntyre system was fantastic while there were four and five teams competing in the finals. The nonsensical situations we have of teams getting belted first up after being lucky to make the eight and then ending up making the GF, would be avoided if we had 5 of 16 teams in the finals.
Just an opinion (and I don't know if it fits in entirely with the topic). I promise not to bash anyone over the head with it.

 

[elt]

RogerC,

Whilst I agree that the new finals system is better than the previous one, you need to remember the West Coast 1999 debacle was a product of the AFL's agreement with the MCC. It guaranteed at least one MCG final each week. This was not actually a feature of the finals system itself.

[This message has been edited by elt (edited 06 February 2001).]

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by McKenna for PM:
Do you even read other people's comments Dan?

Answer the question.

Your last post was merely a re-worded regurgitation of your earlier posts. We understand that the H&A season is a more accurate display of the top sides than the finals. Please don't feed us that again. However, as you have already acknowldeged, the H&A season is not fair at all. So I'll keep this simple and ask Indian in the cupboard's question again - why place even more importance on an unfair H&A draw, instead of allowing the finals to give some of the disadvantaged teams (eg. interstate teams with big travelling commitments) a chance to still have a crack at the premiership?

Answer that please.

Under my system, those sides will STILL have the oportunity to win the Grand Final, as per usual. What's your problem with that? In fact, given that all 8 sides would be treated equally, in this separate knockout tournament, those sides would have a great chance at "glory" on Grand Final day.

The current system is poor, as far as double chances go. There should be NO DOUBLE CHANCES.

Under the CURRENT system, the top team can be eliminated after ONE loss on preliminary final day anyway. Also, the top team can be eliminated after just ONE loss on Grand Final day too. So, why can't 1st be eliminated after losing to 8th in a knockout final under my system? Same diff. The top team can be eliminated after one loss under the current McIntypre system, anyway ! Double chance, my ass !

There should be NO double chances. Finals are about performing ON THE DAY. Essendon faced eliminateion on Preliminary final day in both 1999 and 2000 and on one ooccasion they lost. How is that any different to facing elimination agaisnt 8th in the first week of a knockout tournament ? It's NO different. Final are NOT about getting second chances They are about performing on the day.

 

[RogerC]

OK, I'm registered now, so I guess I'm in for the long haul.

I agree entirely with both Darky and elt. The best McIntyre system was the final five.
The final six I could live with. The McIntyre final eight was a confusing, unfair shambles. I think he must have gone a bit gaga when he came up with that one.

And it's true about the Weagles in 1999. Under the current system, they would have played Sydney at home in the first week for the right to play the loser of Essendon and the WB's (in Melbourne). Easy-ish first week, only travelling once in the first two weeks. That's a bit better. But point taken.

 

[McKenna for PM]

Originally posted by Dan24:

Under my system, those sides will STILL have the oportunity to win the Grand Final, as per usual. What's your problem with that? In fact, given that all 8 sides would be treated equally, in this separate knockout tournament, those sides would have a great chance at "glory" on Grand Final day.

My problem with that is that under your system, winning the Grand Final is not winning the season proper.

According to your system, the real glory lies behind winning the H&A series - correct? The glaring problem, however, is that (as you said yourself) the H&A season is far from fair. It would follow that certain teams (eg. interstate) will consistently be faced with a disadvantage when launching an attack on the premiership.

Now THAT is unfair. Plain and simple.

Please offer a rebuttal for the argument I just offered, and ignore the temptation to bring up irrelevant stuff. I'm not being facetious, I would simply like to hear a counter-argument to what I am saying now, not what others may have argued previously.

I also want to point out that whilst I realise that finals (from both systems) do not always allow the best team to win, at least they give ALL teams a more equal opportunity to win than the H&A draw.

 

[Dan26]

Okay,

The finals are MORE unevern than the H&A. In the finals, you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalsits, perhaps avoiding the top team. In the Home and away, you at least have to play every other team over 22 weeks. In the finals, the years best team can be upset in one match, thus not giving an accurate indication of who the years best team was

Neither is perfectly fair, but the Home and away is the fairer of the two, and the more appropriate way of deciding the premier (i.e best) team of the year.

But under my system, the finals will still exist. If you finished 3rd, or 4th, or 5th etc etc, you will still have the opportunity at Grand Final glory by winning the knockout finals series tournament. So, even if you don't finish top, you can still win the Grand Final. You won't be called "whole seaosn champions" like you are now. You will be called "finals series champions".
Much, much fairer.

So, what's the big deal????? You can still win the Grand Final as per normal.

 

[elt]

Originally posted by Dan24:

So, what's the big deal????? You can still win the Grand Final as per normal.

What the big deal is, is that you won't be winning the GF "as per normal". You won't be putting your entire season on the line. And for me that is one of the attractions of watching the last game of the year. It is not possible to take an existing match and make sure it is played for a lesser prize and not devalue it. It may still be big as you make out but it won't be as big or meaningful as it is now.

 

[Dan26]

Does the fact that the Home and away season (which comprises 95% of the season) will actually mean something under my system, instesad of being irrelevant mean anything to you?

 

[elt]

Dan,

It does mean something now. What you are saying is that it does not mean enough and to some extent I agree. Minor premiers deserve more than a token trophy and I am certainly in favour of greater monetary reward and maybe the presentation of the McLelland being made into a bigger deal. What I am not in favour of is the devaluing of the finals as we currently have them.

 

[BMD]

Dan,

No-one is arguing that the finals are fair. What people are saying is they like the uncertainty, the unpredictability of having everything on the line. If you lose that's it. There is no comeback until next year.

It is clear that you don't like that. You can argue til you're black in the fingers, that it's not fair, there's a better way. You're entitled to your opinion.

However, so are we. What you fail to understand is that we're happy with it the way it is. The fact that Essendon could have lost and therefore not been premiers last year, despite the fact that they were clearly the best team was what made it interesting and exciting. The possibility of a choke was always there.

Not many things are fair in sport. France won the soccer world cup, but they didn't have to play every team to do it. Brazil's star player was injured for the final. Not fair, but it was still compelling viewing, and a great way to decide the World Champions.

You may not like it but we do.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by BMD:
Not many things are fair in sport. France won the soccer world cup, but they didn't have to play every team to do it. Brazil's star player was injured for the final. Not fair, but it was still compelling viewing, and a great way to decide the World Champions.

France won every game they played but Brazil lost a game in the group stages. So in essence, France probably were the best team in the tournament.

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 08 February 2001).]