Fixture Dimma's thought bubble: 2pts only for double up games. Win both, you get 4pts.

[The Feeder Club]

It's an improvement on the current system. It isn't the best solution, but it's marginally fairer.
Probably too complex for the occasional viewer though, so won't happen

 

[kickazz]

Half point games would be less exciting. SO make them half price to attend, along with half price beers and food.

 

[kickazz]

It's an improvement on the current system. It isn't the best solution, but it's marginally fairer.
Probably too complex for the occasional viewer though, so won't happen

On the contrary, it ignores a lot of complexity. It is not an improvement.

 

[kickazz]

Halve the dosage of medicinal cannabis.

 

[Toump Ass]

0 points for beating Melbourne IMO, sorry Roos.

 

[The Feeder Club]

On the contrary, it ignores a lot of complexity. It is not an improvement.

It is an improvement because the current system is fundamentally flawed, and this will even out a small part of that. It's not a groundbreaking improvement but it will be marginally fairer

 

[kickazz]

I can see where this would mean that all sides generally collect far less points during the season, making the ladder even tighter.

More likely that teams would rest players and sacrifice their double ups against good teams (saving effort for 4 point games). Might make the ladder more lopsided.

 

[SC_Power]

What about a rolling ladder where

• if you win, you get a point for every win that opponent has for the year
• if you lose, you lose a point for every loss that opponent has for the year

So if you beat Brisbane week 1 for example, then each game Brisbane wins from then on, you get a point.
And if you lost to North week 1 for example, then each game North loses from then on, you lose a point.

It actually produces a better more accurate ladder by the end of the year. Did this each year for a while and by Rd 8-9 it was doing a good job of predicting the final ladder.

Also puts something on the line for every game. Every time an end of year meaningless clash is played, teams are getting points based on who wins.

 

[kickazz]

What about a rolling ladder where

• if you win, you get a point for every win that opponent has for the year
• if you lose, you lose a point for every loss that opponent has for the year

So if you beat Brisbane week 1 for example, then each game Brisbane wins from then on, you get a point.
And if you lost to North week 1 for example, then each game North loses from then on, you lose a point.

It actually produces a better more accurate ladder by the end of the year. Did this each year for a while and by Rd 8-9 it was doing a good job of predicting the final ladder.

Yeah I've done the same - just not with the negatives; simply 1 point per 'win against win' if you get what I mean. I figure beating good teams matters more than losses to poor teams. Geez the draws stuff up your spreadsheet, don't they?

But you are right it gives a really good insight into how things are really going. Haven't done it this year but imagine the cats are looking OK.

 

[kickazz]

It is an improvement because the current system is fundamentally flawed, and this will even out a small part of that. It's not a groundbreaking improvement but it will be marginally fairer

A system where some games matter more than others is more fundamentally flawed

 

[Kappa]

Unfortunately it's a terrible idea because it would making so many amazing clashes far far less interesting.

EG: Showdown is now only worth half a game

 

[DamoESP]

Stupid idea.

 

[The Feeder Club]

A system where some games matter more than others is more fundamentally flawed

You're looking at it the wrong way. Every individual clash across the year, Team A vs Team B, is worth the same number of points. It's just some clashes the points are spread across more than one game.
It is a roundabout attempt to replicate the only truly fair system, which is each team plays one another once (or twice) with no discrepancies. But because we can't have that fair system, this is marginally better than the current system

 

[kickazz]

You're looking at it the wrong way. Every individual clash across the year, Team A vs Team B, is worth the same number of points. It's just some clashes the points are spread across more than one game.
It is a roundabout attempt to replicate the only truly fair system, which is each team plays one another once (or twice) with no discrepancies. But because we can't have that fair system, this is marginally better than the current system

So you have to put in twice the effort for some 'clashes'.

 

[kickazz]

Yeah I've done the same - just not with the negatives; simply 1 point per 'win against win' if you get what I mean. I figure beating good teams matters more than losses to poor teams. Geez the draws stuff up your spreadsheet, don't they?

But you are right it gives a really good insight into how things are really going. Haven't done it this year but imagine the cats are looking OK.

Off topic, but here is the 'total wins by teams defeated' ladder so far this year:

Team	Total
Coll	31.5​
Bris	27.75​
Geel	27​
Adel	23.5​
Haw	22​
GWS	20​
Stk	19​
Gold	18.5​
WB	18.5​
Port	14.5​
Freo	14​
Ess	11.5​
Syd	10.5​
Rich	9​
Melb	7​
North	6.75​
Carl	6.5​
WCE	0​

 

[nickyds35]

But how will Carlton compete for finals if they don’t get full value playing the bottom 3 teams twice each year?

 

[Whiskers]

What a nuffy take. Horrible idea.
Not surprised by the couple of posters that like it.
Imagine GWS only getting 2 points for beating us at GMHBA. You would be happy with that?
Surely we can do better than create a thread based off a horrible idea?

Don’t get made Strap, just do better.

 

[SC_Power]

Yeah I've done the same - just not with the negatives; simply 1 point per 'win against win' if you get what I mean. I figure beating good teams matters more than losses to poor teams. Geez the draws stuff up your spreadsheet, don't they?

But you are right it gives a really good insight into how things are really going. Haven't done it this year but imagine the cats are looking OK.

I added the losses so the points system covered all games in all 22/23 rounds. Also points to consistency, Doesn’t say much if you beat a bottom team, but sure means a lot if you lose to one.

The whole system is actually pretty insightful.

 

[kickazz]

I added the losses so the points system covered all games in all 22/23 rounds. Also points to consistency, Doesn’t say much if you beat a bottom team, but sure means a lot if you lose to one.

The whole system is actually pretty insightful.

I love how much it can change in one week around this time of the year.

 

[The Terrible Thinker]

Fairness... In AFL? Hardwick hasn't spent longer enough interstate me thinks. This method will eliminate the "fairy tale" team of the year. AFL loves their fairy tales.

 

[kickazz]

Fairness... In AFL? Hardwick hasn't spent longer enough interstate me thinks. This method will eliminate the "fairy tale" team of the year. AFL loves their fairy tales.

Surely Kenny bringing home the cup in his last year, whilst still being told to **** off by the fans would be the ultimate fairy tale.


Make it happen AFL.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I actually don't mind this suggestion at all.

Basically, instead of clubs dining out on mediocre teams and getting 2 easy kills for 8pts(which regularly happens), Hardwick has suggested that double up games should only be worth 2pts.

Win both, you get 4pts, win 1 of the 2 games you only get 2pts.

This would undoubtedly stop some poorer sides making finals because they received some double ups against the cellar dwellers.

I've been suggesting it for a long time now. It's a great way to make all your double ups close games and get a fair fixture.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I reckon if you lose to last you should have to relinquish all your points and start again.

As funny as that would be i imagine it would get jobs if sold seeing the Tigers beat Sydney at gather round a few years ago, then Sydney being the new bottom beasts a strong side to make them bottom, who beats a strong side. Pure chaos but funny

 

[kickazz]

I've been suggesting it for a long time now. It's a great way to make all your double ups close games and get a fair fixture.

How would it make the games close?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

How would it make the games close?

Because you can eliminate double ups for top teams against bottom teams.

If your double up is arithmetically worth one game then it doesn't matter of a top 4 aspirant only doubles up against other top 4 aspirants. You'd never have to double up a top 4 side against a bottom 4 side.