I
Indian in the Cupboard
Guest
Dan24,
Like myself, you are infatuated with rewarding the ‘best’ team. You say the finals are unfair because they are one-off matches and upsets do occur. You say that injuries can deny the ‘best’ team from winning the Grand Final. I concur. Using your logic: that external factors act against the ‘best’ team being rewarded, I have developed an even fairer system than your McClelland Trophy model.
Here it is; firstly Dan24, you must admit that injuries, upsets, and scheduling can also impact upon the ‘best’ team winning the home and away series. I ask, why should Essendon this year, with its superior player roster and coaching staff (making it clearly the best team) be denied its due reward by external factors such as injuries, luck, weather, scheduling, pressure etc? I propose that at the beginning of every season a panel of fooball experts (yourself included) sit down and rate the attributes of every player in the AFL on a scale of say, 0-100. After this has been completed the player points tallies are added up for each team. The team with the highest points tally is awarded the Premiership Cup. Voila! The best team is rightly rewarded every year without any shadow of a doubt. Of course all of the passion, excitement, and uncertainty are removed, but hey, the most important thing: ‘fair reward for the best team’ is greatly enhanced.
I have also developed a new finals system which will in no way detract from my proposed home and away series, but will give the public what they really crave – a Grand Final. In the interest of fairness, the two teams contesting the Grand Final will be decided on a rotating alphabetical system. For instance, Adelaide will play Brisbane in the first year, Carlton Vs Collingwood the next year (see, Grand Final blockbusters which are currently implausible are made possible under my system), and so on and so on…. One of the major plusses for this system is that both teams are guaranteed to be fresh and psyched for the big game - it being their first and only game for the season and all. I expect that you will be right behind this idea as we both know that the Grand Final is only significant because it is the last match of the season and because it is called the ‘Grand Final’.
Of course, initially there may be some dissatisfaction emanating from the general public over the fact that only one game per year is played (Hey, isn’t it making that last day in September even MORE special?), but this the norm with any type of change. In time the public will accept this system and eventually grow to love it. Because as we all know the footballing public will accept whatever is given recognition.
I have also run this idea by Wayne Jackson. In my letter I outlined benefits such as:
*The costs associated with staging a season of football would be virtually cut to zero.
*The unforseen logistical and scheduling headaches caused by switching matches would be solved.
*And the current trend of players suing the AFL over the unsafe condition of ground surfaces would obviously be put to a stop.
Just between you and me, he seemed very interested in my proposal.
Like myself, you are infatuated with rewarding the ‘best’ team. You say the finals are unfair because they are one-off matches and upsets do occur. You say that injuries can deny the ‘best’ team from winning the Grand Final. I concur. Using your logic: that external factors act against the ‘best’ team being rewarded, I have developed an even fairer system than your McClelland Trophy model.
Here it is; firstly Dan24, you must admit that injuries, upsets, and scheduling can also impact upon the ‘best’ team winning the home and away series. I ask, why should Essendon this year, with its superior player roster and coaching staff (making it clearly the best team) be denied its due reward by external factors such as injuries, luck, weather, scheduling, pressure etc? I propose that at the beginning of every season a panel of fooball experts (yourself included) sit down and rate the attributes of every player in the AFL on a scale of say, 0-100. After this has been completed the player points tallies are added up for each team. The team with the highest points tally is awarded the Premiership Cup. Voila! The best team is rightly rewarded every year without any shadow of a doubt. Of course all of the passion, excitement, and uncertainty are removed, but hey, the most important thing: ‘fair reward for the best team’ is greatly enhanced.
I have also developed a new finals system which will in no way detract from my proposed home and away series, but will give the public what they really crave – a Grand Final. In the interest of fairness, the two teams contesting the Grand Final will be decided on a rotating alphabetical system. For instance, Adelaide will play Brisbane in the first year, Carlton Vs Collingwood the next year (see, Grand Final blockbusters which are currently implausible are made possible under my system), and so on and so on…. One of the major plusses for this system is that both teams are guaranteed to be fresh and psyched for the big game - it being their first and only game for the season and all. I expect that you will be right behind this idea as we both know that the Grand Final is only significant because it is the last match of the season and because it is called the ‘Grand Final’.
Of course, initially there may be some dissatisfaction emanating from the general public over the fact that only one game per year is played (Hey, isn’t it making that last day in September even MORE special?), but this the norm with any type of change. In time the public will accept this system and eventually grow to love it. Because as we all know the footballing public will accept whatever is given recognition.
I have also run this idea by Wayne Jackson. In my letter I outlined benefits such as:
*The costs associated with staging a season of football would be virtually cut to zero.
*The unforseen logistical and scheduling headaches caused by switching matches would be solved.
*And the current trend of players suing the AFL over the unsafe condition of ground surfaces would obviously be put to a stop.
Just between you and me, he seemed very interested in my proposal.
