Final 7

[gocatsgo]

There has been a lot of controversy lately about how fourth gets the same rights as first and about how teams who win less than half the games during the year still can make the finals. (Brisbane 1995)

So I've come up with a solution. The Final 7.

Let me tell you it wasn't easy, but I believe this is a pretty fair system to the teams that finish 1-3.

Here Goes...

WEEK 1
Qual Final
2 v 3 - winner to home prelim final, loser to week 2.
Elim Finals
4 v 7, 5 v 6 - Losers out, winners to second week

WEEK 2
First semi
Highest placed winner of Elim finals v loser qualifying final - winner through to prelim final, loser depends on second semi.

Second semi
1 v Lowest placed elimination final winner
If team 1 wins, opponent is out
If other team wins, loser of first semi is out, team 1 to away prelim final.

***If team 1 loses, they become third highest qualifyer to preliminary final***

Week 3
Preliminary finals
1st qulifyer v 4th highest placed qualifyer
2nd qualifyer v 3rd qualifyer

Week 4
Grand Final
Winner preliminary finals.

Please reply, and give any suggestions or problems that you see with the system.

Gocatsgo

 

[Dan26]

Gocatsgo,

No, the best system is a knockout system, where 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5 in quarter finals. Everyone is treated equally.

Sure, if 1st lose they are out after one match, but so what ?

1st currently go out after one loss anyway, right ? They can go out currently after one loss in the 3rd week (prelim) of 4th week (GF).That's what can happen right now, right ?

Tell me I'm wrong.

So, what difference does it make if the one loss that eliminates you is in the first week ?

NONE ! No difference.

I don't recall Essendon getting a second chance last year after finishihg top. I don't recall North getting a second chance in 1998 after finishing top. Or St.Kilda in 1997. Or Sydney is 1996. All those 4 teams were eliminated after one loss and they all finished on top of the ladder.

Don't give me this crap about :"yeah but those teams fought for a double chance." They ddint get a double chance as it turned out. Some reward that is. The only true fitting reward for the top team is to crown them "home and away" champions. That is ten times more fitting than getting a double chance which disappears on preliminary final day, anyway !!

If everyone s treated equally, and NO TEAM IS DISCRIMINATED against, then that is the best system. Becasue 1st would play 8th and 2nd would play 7th, the two best teams would be seeded to play each other in the Grand Final, if they won their quarter finals, and then their semi-finals (same as prelimianry finals)

Look at Tennis.

There are 128 competitors at Wimbledon. ALL OF THEM are treated equally. There are no second chances. if you are top seed you have to win 7 kncokout matches, and if you are the worst player you also have to win 7 knockout mathces. No discrimination.

The only thing is that the top players are seeded. They are SEEDED so that 1st and 2nd seeds will meet in the final if they keep on winning.

That's no different to what I am proposing. 1st earns the right to play 8th, 2nd earns the right to play 7th, with those two teams meeting in the GF, if they keep on winning.

How is that any diffeent to tennis ? It's no different.

Pete Sampras is seeded number 1, right? But does he get a second chance if he loses ? No, of course not.

In the NBA all 16 playoff teams are treated equally. The highest plays the lowest, so they are "seeded" and it doesnt matter if you are 1st seed or 16th seed, you still have to win the same number of games.

When the finals start, it should be a seperate ball game. It all starts over. No where else in the world has these ridiculous double chance matches. In nearly every other competition in the world, all play-off teams are treated the same.....or any knockout "cup" for that matter.

The finals should be completely knockout, with OBVIOUSLY more recognition to go to the "top of the ladder" team to complement this exciting finals series.

A couple of years ago, all these different people were contacting the AFL with proposals for their own "finals systems". Some of them were mathematics experts, who devised intricate finals systems. Despite their intelligence, these people miss the point.

Now, you could develop the fairest finals system ever with the top 8 teams (or 7 teams in your case) all getting better percentage probabilities of winning than their lower ranked counterparts. But, if you can still be eliminated after one loss, what differecne does it make ??

NONE.

You shouldn't have your whole seaosn riding on one game. It's unfair to the players who put in the effort to get that far. The GF will always be there, so why does it have to override the H&A seson before it ? It doesn't HAVE to, if we adopt the "seperate tournament" philosophy.

 

[gocatsgo]

What are you Dan24, an author?

While your idea has merit and I see where you are coming from, The AFL wouldn't implement a straight knock out system, because it would mean 1 less week for the finals, which would mean less renenue.

In a 16 team competition, you are occasionally going to get a team that finishes 8th that hasn't won even half the games in the season. This would not happen in a 7 team finals series.

I believe that the team who finishes on top should be given a double chance and a week off, while the teams that finish 2-3 should be given the opportunity to earn a week off. It's only fair after 22 weeks of hard work that the best team should be given the best draw.

In my system, the team who finishes top is guaranteed a week off and is guaranteed to make the preliminary final.

Let me demonstrate. Current Ladder. (presuming highest team wins for the example)

Week 1
Carlton v North
Geelong v Hawthorn
Melbourne v Bulldogs

Hawthorn and Bulldogs out, Carlton to prelim.

Week 2
Essendon v Melbourne
North v Geelong

Melbourne out, others to prelim

Week 3
Essendon v Geelong
Carlton v North

etc etc

IF MELBOURNE BEAT ESSENDON - Geelong out.

Week 3
Carlton v Melbourne
North v Essendon

 

[dons_r_tops]

gocatsgo, im sure i posted a similar topic to this at least twice and nobody but dan24 replied, give up while i think it is fairer no one wants it, ps one was a pisstake of wayne_jackson

 

[Dan26]

I understand what you are trying to say, but you miss my point.

The first flaw in your system (if I understand it) is that 1st is in the preliminry final whether they win or lose their first final. What's the point ? Where is their motivation to win their first finals match ?)

You talk about the top team being "rewarded" with a double chance. What you have to remember is that if they lose the preliminary final or GF, they DON'T get a second chance.

Now we can still have my finals system as a straight knockout tournament, and we can still have the "pressure" of winning knockout finals, etc etc. And importantly, we still have the Grand Final.......as always.

The most important thing about my proposal is that everyone is treated equally. This, essentially diferentiates the finals from the H&A and makes them SEPERATE tournaments.

Make no mistake, a double chance in the first week, is an AWFUL, TERRIBLE, SHITHOUSE reward for 22 weeks of hard work. WOW, you get a double chance ! Big deal. That double chance disapperars on prelimianry final day anyway.

Some reward, huh ?

It's a DISGRACEFUL reward for 22 weeks of hard work. The only fitting reward for 6 months of hard work (which is essentially what players are training for over the pre-season) is to award the TOP team the "home and away" premiership.

Now THAT is a fitting reward.

Then whatever happens in the finals series doesn't represent the whole year. It just represents that knockout tournament. The way it should be.

You can still aspire to win the Grand Final as normal. And even for those teams who can't finish top, they can still fight to compete in the seperate 8 team finals series.

And the finals series would comprises 7 games. it could easily be over 4 weeks. Just split the 4 quarter-finals over the first two weeks. Easy.

I don't think the fact that there are two less finals is a financial factor. There are 176 H&A games. These contribute MUCH more to the AFL the the current 9 finals games.

Trust me......I've covered every possible scenario, and and I've though of all possible systems........including my own version of a final 7. Over the years, I've considered every possible type of finals structure.

And what I am currently proposing is easily the best, the most exciting, and the fairest way of recognising the best team (and rewarding them), whilst also retaining the Grand Final as something to aspire to.

Just read my example of the "Tennis" if you have any doubts. (see above)

 

[Pessimistic]

My answer: the final 10 - especially ggod if the competition is expaanded (eg 20 teams playing each other once for 19 rounds (2 split ones making it 21 weeks

Before you go on about 10th being mediocre they only get wildcard status in my scheme

Week one

1 & 2 Week's rest

3 v 6
4 v 5

7 v 10 Loser eliminated (wild cards)
8 v 9 Loser eliminated

Week 2

a) 1 v winner of (4 v 5)
b) 2 v winner of (3 v 6)

c) Loser of (4 v 5) v winner of (7 v 10) Loser eliminated
d) Loser of (3 v 6) v winner of (8 v 9) Loser eliminated

Week 3

winner of a) - Weeks Rest - To prelim.
winner of b) - Weeks rest - To prelim

e) Loser of a) v Winner of d) Loser eliminated
f) Loser of b) v Winner of c) Loser eliminated

Week 4 - Prelims

winner of a) v winner of f)
winner of b) v winner of e)

Winners to GF (week 5) Losers eliminated

Advantages:

1 & 2 can get to GF with only 2 games, have 2 double chances and 2 weeks off

3, 4, 5, 6 play for chance to get double chance and week off in first week ie something to play for can get to GF with 3 wins - 3 & $ have home ground in first week

7 & 8 need to win 5 straight and have less chance than now.

More games so more revenue

5 weeks of games so the 'MCG contract' problem could be avoided

Disadvantages:

Includes 9 & 10 but in some years their late form has been better than 6,7,8

needs more work - could be refined with crossovers etc

not much advantage between 3 and 6

 

[Roylion]

The idea of two seperate competitions and the finals being a knockout system is a terrible one.
Why?

1. It's boring. Under Dan 24's system the Home and Away series is over and was probably two or three rounds ago and we still have four rounds to go. Essendon has won..that's it..all over! Now we have to play largely meaningless games until the end of the H&A season, while waiting for the final's knockout. Yeah sure there is some minor interest in who might make up the eight, but even the placings within the eight are largely irrelevant. Who cares whether you finish 1st or 8th...lose in the knockout competition and you're out. In my opinion Dan24's system would take a lot of the current interest out of the competition. At least with the current system we know that Essendon will finish on top, but they still haven't won the competition and indeed may not do so at all.

2. It devalues both competitions. To win the Grand Final in the 26th week of the competition is in my opinion a far more valuable achievement that winning the Home and Away competition, after 22 Home Games (and where the competition might be decided by Round 18-19) and then the "finals" tournament. Winning the AFL premiership is seen as the Holy Grail and quite rightly so after such a huge effort from March-September. The question then arises... Is winning the so-called "Grand Final" and the premiership cup under Dan 24's system such a magnificent achievement? Of course not, the GF is devalued to the level of winning the Ansett Cup, and the H&A winner becomes the major achievement for the year. I certainly don't want to know who the winner of the major competition is going to be perhaps up to a month before that competition is actually completed!

The AFL competition should be kept in its current form with a H&A system, followed by a finals system to determine the eventual premier. I believe there are too many teams in the final series and that the final series should be reduced to AT LEAST a final 7 where 1st is guaranteed a free passage to the second week of the competition and guaranteed immunity from elimination in the second week of the final. In the third week it plays the lowest winner from the 2nd week. 2nd gains a double chance the first week of the final and goes through to the third week of the finals, where it plays the highest winner (in terms of ladder position) from the 2nd week, IF it wins the first week. 3rd are guaranteed a double chance even if it loses the 1st week. If 4th-7th lose the first week they are out.

Now Dan, I've read through ALL the postings on this subject that you have posted on here and understood what you are trying to say. I know what happens overseas in the UK and USA etc etc. No doubt you will come on here and re-hash all your arguments for your position AGAIN (as you obviously feel that the only reason us mere mortals don't agree with you is that we don't understand what you are on about). I do, but I still don't agree! I've been around in football for quite a few years and my opinion is just as valid as yours. Please accept that. You won't convince me, just as I am unlikely to convince you of the merits of my opinion.

I only agree with you that 1st position in the AFL should get more recognition. I myself would favor a larger monetary award (after all the winner of the GF gets $100,000), more recognition in the media, a significant trophy for the cabinet and preferential treatment in the finals, moreso than anyother team competing (whatever system is used). I thought last year's Final 8 system was much fairer to top spot than the current system is. However making the existing H&A and finals series seperate competitions is NOT the way to go and would have in my opinion, more detrimental effects than positive effects on the AFL.

 

[Dan26]

Roylion,

You are making some fundamental errors.

First of all, it is not "boring". Yes, Essendon would have allready secured top spot in my proposal. So what ? Why should they be penalised for being the best? How different is it to them already having sown up the McClelland trophy now ?

It's no different. NONE. In 1995, everyone was just waiting for the finals to begin after Carlton were 4 games clear. So, how would it change, if Carlton were "recognised". It wouldn't change at all.

You said this :

"Yeah sure there is some minor interest in who might make up the eight, but even the placings within the eight are largely irrelevant. "

Minor interst ? The finals are the culmination of the year. They will CONCLUDE the year. How dare you compare it to the Ansett Cup. This is NOT a pre-season competition. It is similar to the FA Cup. Is the FA CUP devalued becase it doesn't represent the whole season ? No, it's not (did you conveniently ignore that?) Is it devalued becasue it runs second in importance to the "premiership" (finishing top ? No, of course not.

Its true. it's true

So, what if all the places in the finals are equal ? Look at how it is now. Apparently, the top 4 teams get a double chance, right ? But that double chance disappears on preliminary final day. Over the last 4 seasons the top team on the ladder has been eliminated after one loss in the finals. Some reward for all that hard work, huh ! Double chance my ass !

Essentially, there is not much differecne as it currently stands between 1st and 8th. Look at last year. Once Essendon beat 8th they were faced with total elimination from that point on anyway, so what is the difference ? None. No difference. Currently the motivation to finish top 4 doesn't mean much anyway, becasue those teams don't even get a second chance after the 2rd week. Oh sure, IF 1st lost to 8th last year (as if) they get a second chance. That is their reward, is it ? If a MAJOR upset just "happens" to eventuate, then Essendon will get the "priviledge" of using their double chance last year. But if they thrash their opposition (as expected), they then DON'T get a double chance.

No, I'm sorry a knockout tournament is the way to go. You can still strive to get home ground advantage in the first week. (forgot that, did we ?) And you can also strive to finish as high up as you can to get an "easier" match-up in the first week.

You then spin some absolute crap (sorry). You say that to win the "flag" in the 26th week of competition is more valuable than winning it after 22 weeks. This lack of appreciation for 22 weeks of hard work astounds me. Yes, you can win the Grand Final in the 26th week, but over the first 22 weeks, you may have only gone 12-10. If you finish on top after 22 weeks, you will have had to peak over the whole season.

Trust me, it is MUCH HARDER to finish on top than win a tournament. Ask Manchester United. They will tell you.

Oh, and another thing, the Grand Final will NOT be devalued at all. Let's SUPPOSE for a minute that it was. So what ? The home and away season compriss 95% of the season, right ? Wouldn't it be in the AFL's best interests, to give the "95%" more recognition,. The finals only comprise 5 % of the season. Can you imagine the H&A crowds if top spot was seen as something to aspire to in it's own right rather than a means to an end ? They would be huge.

You just need to look at the FA CUP. The FA CUP is the LAST match of the season. It is held AFTER the "top spot" premier is decided. Did you know this ? I presume you didn't. Now, the FA CUP is the BIGGEST match of the year. It is bigger than any other single match. However, the FA CUP tournament as a 'whole' is not as big as the 6 month premiership.....nor should it be. But that one FA CUP match is still the biggest day of the year.......... as our Grand Final would continue to be. The fact that it would be the last match of the year, will mean it will always hold a special place on the calendar for Australians.

That's the right system. Our Finals series tournament does not deserve (in terms of fairness) to be as big as the H&A season. Unfortunately is is currently given much more recognition than the H&A, prompting bias responses like yours. The recognition and "hype" which surrounds the Grand Final clouds peoples ability to make rational (and fair) judgements. When was the last time the Grand Final lived up to the hype anyway ?

If our Home and away premier was given recognition, and the finals became a seperate tournament, the Grand Final would still be the last, final, and biggest ONE-OFF match of the year. It won't lose a thing. And if it did (which it wouldn't), big deal ! The H&A comprises more of the season anyway, so it would be in the AFL's best interests to make that just as "sought after"

Also, you seem to lose sight of what is "fair and right". No system, which overrides 22 weeks of hard work, and renders them irrelevant is satisfactory. Every H&A win you have should get you one step closer to winning the "home and away" premiership. To support the finals actually OVER-RIDING any H&A achievement and not acknowledging that achievement is plain dumb. You support this.

Now, you DO say that you support the H$A given more recognition. Good boy. But you don't support the knockout tournament. My friend, the two go hand in hand. If the double chances still exist, then it means that teams won't be striving to finish top. Instead, they will be striving to get a double chance. The finals instantly become "linked" to the home and away.

However if ALL teams are treated equally, then there are no double chances, right ? Then, teams will not be striving to get a double chance, becasue there won't be one !!! Instead, they will be striving to finish on top and be "home and away" champions.

See what I mean ? They go hand in hand. Trust me, I've thoough of your secenario of rewarding the top team, but keeping the finals as they are. No, it doesn't work. It fails becasue the home and away is still a "means to an end".

To make the H&A something to aspire to IN IT'S OWN RIGHT, we need to un-link it from the finals, and be treating it as a seperate tournament with all 8 teams being treated equally does this.

Aren't you into fairness ? Melbourne (for example) do not deserve to be called "whole year" champions, even if they win the Grand Final. Premiers, yes ? But ONLY finals series premeirs. If you think they DESERVE to be caled "whole year" champions (with the emphasis on the word 'deserve') then you need your head examined.

There is no reason why we can't recognise both, Roylion. The Grand Final will always be the last day, and most special day of the year. That will keep you happy.

 

[Roylion]

Ah Dan, just what I expected. My last comments on this. I am yet to see one argument of yours that convinces me that seperating the H&A system and the finals system into two completely seperate competitions is better than the arrangement we currently have.

I don't regard my opinions set out above as fundamental errors at all.

First I repeat.... it will be boring. Under your system the "finals" as you call them will not be the culmination of the year. They will be a seperate competition, with their own trophy and their own prize money, that decides the winner of a FOUR WEEK competition, just like the Ansett Cup. The only difference under your proposal is that the 8 top teams will be playing instead of the 16.

Of course the Grand Final will be devalued. it's no long the Grand Final that decides the winner of the 26 week competition. It is the "Grand Final" that decides the winner of a four week competition, fairly similar to the Ansett Cup. Can you explain how the "Grand Final" in your system would be far and away above in prestige over the Ansett Cup Grand Final? To me there wouldn't be much difference.

It's also ridiculous to suggest that the finals system would not be devalued. At the moment the finals season is the culmination of the competition. You stated "Is it devalued becasue it runs second in importance to the "premiership" (finishing top ? No, of course not." Of course it is! It (in your very own words) is now second to finishing on top and winning the premiership! You win the "Grand Final" and what do you win under your proposal. Well certainly not the 'premiership'. Some dinky little secondary trophy. Big deal! The finals competition becomes secondary and is devalued from its current status. It would be devalued into a post-season competition...simple as that!

So what if the top team's double chance disappears on preliminary final day! For me that's part of the attraction and excitement of the existing competition. Essendon may finish far and above the other sides at the end of the 22 game H&A comp, but they still haven't won the competition. If they're good enough as their record in the H&A suggests then they should win it. However I do believe that the top teams should be given an armchair ride through the first weeks of the finals..up to a point. The interest in the competition this year for me is two-fold. Just how far can Essendon go and will they win the premiership? I DON'T want a situation with four weeks from the end of the home and away season to be faced with a situation where Essendon has won the premiership (the major trophy under your scenario) already! and that all there is left to win is a trophy that will be about as valuable as the Ansett Cup trophy. Because under a completely seperate competition scenario as you suggest that's how it will be seen by the majority of the footballing public. It's true! It's true!

Please don't patronise me. I understand the FA Cup system and how it works. Having been to England in FA Cup week and following the soccer, yes it is big. However a few people also claim that the top spot scenario gets quite boring, for the reasons outlined above. Personally after seeing England's system, I much prefer the way our one competition is set up. That is a personal opinion.

My friend, rewarding top spot and seperating the H&A season and the final's competition and top spot do NOT necesarily have to go hand in hand. The Home and Away season is a means to an end, which is of course determining the make-up of the clubs in the Finals.

Yes more recognition to top-spot. Dennis Pagan suggested yesterday a $250,000 prize reward for top spot. I'd be quite happy to go along with this, (even it is a bigger cash prize than the $100,000 gained for winning the Grand Final) as well as the other benefits for finishing 1st listed in my other post.

Basically Dan you're not going to convince me just as I'm not going to convince you. Please accept that other people have other opinions about this to yours. You've made your points and explained them. I've rejected them. No doubt you will come on here again and try to convince me of the error of my ways, (perhaps even throw a few insults in about me being not quite right in the head if I don't agree with you etc etc.) or maybe just to get the last word in, so you feel you have won the argument. Whatever the reason, this will be the last comment I make on this issue.

 

[hawkforce]

Sorry Gogatsgo,

I couldn't get past the bit were you hypothesised Geelong beating Hawthorn!!!

 

[Dan26]

Roylion,

You need to understand something, which I think is important.

Currently, the football public KNOW that the best team doesn't necessarily win the Grand Final. You know, I know.....we all know. It's not fooling anyone.

Deep down, everyone knows that the winner of the Grand Final has only won a 4 week tournament. Let's suppose Carlton won the Grand Final last year and were stupidly declared "whole year champions"

In that scenario, while they would "officially" be whole year champions, all of us wold know that that would have only been due to their performances in the 4 week finals series. So why not make the finals series winner "premiers" of the finals series only ? Don't treat the public like idiots. They know it is basically that way now.

Why would the public not want to see the best team rewarded rather than ignored, whilst retaining the Grand Final as somethign to aspire to in it's own right ? I can't think of one logical reason.

It's not changing things as much as you make out. The home and away season is still there, the finals are still there, as is the Grand Final.

Oh sure, the Grand Final would only culminate the end of the 4 week finals series. Now let me ask you, is the word "fairness" not in your vocabulary ?

You PROVED you know about the FA CUP. I discussed and you agreed that the FA CUP loses nothing, even though it only represents the winner of that tournament. How would our Grand Final possibly be any different ?

You act as though the Grand Final, as it stands, is a true reflection of how good a team is. We all know that is not true. Making the Grand Final the culmination of a seperate tournament, would simply be giving it the due recognition it deserves, which "DEEP DOWN" we all know anyway. We all know it's irrelevant to the home and away, so my system would just be confirming the suspicions frm the public which we already know exist.

I already said to you :"How dare you compare it to the Ansett Cup"

THIS IS NOT PRE-SEASON

This is the finals. If anything, the Grand Final becomes even more difficult to win, due to the knockout nature of the tournament. it doesn't matter if the "format" is simliar to the Ansett Cup. That's irrelevant. The current format is similar to the Ansettt Cup too. 7 of the 9 finals are knockout so it is "more-or-less" knockout NOW ! It's not as big a change as you are making out. The world will not end when this happens, trust me.

You are underestimating the effect of Grand Final day. It is not so much the fact that it decides the premiership that excited people, for we all know that it doesn't go to the best team anyway, right ? It is the fact that it is the last day of the year. A celebrtaion. The final football day of the year.

Also, you must understand when giving recognition to certain things "fairness" is paramount. You don't seem to enjoy things being fair.

You conveniently ignored (AGAIN) the fact that the finals only comprise 5 % of the season, so even if the Grand Final lost something (which it wouldn't),it is financially in the AFL's best interess to give more reward for the "22 week tournament" given that it comprises 95% of the season !!

It all come back to what is fair and right. Deep down you know that the finals don't deserve to override 22 weeks of hard work. Don't you dare tell me that in the interests of "fairness" you disagree. How is it fair that 95% of the season is deemed irrelevant ?

No other sporting season anywhere in the world (bar the NFL, who copied us 75 years ago, and some Ausie sports that copied the VFL all those years ago) overrides the home and away seson, and deems it irrelevant due to the result of ONE match.

Don't you dare tell me that is fair to the top team (whoever it happens to be) Rewarding both as seperate tournaments is the BEST way to give due recognition to the top team AND the Grand Final winner, while at the same time retaining the GF as the last day, and most special day of the year.

As I said, REMEMBER, the public deep down knows that the Grand Final winner (i.e premiership team) is won solely on the finals performance, so making them seperate tournaments simply "confirms" what we already know anyway.

And please don't pre-empt me in future. You don't need to go around saying "This is my last post" just so you can "win". We can both post as much as we want.

Finally, in England, I agree the FA CUP (becasue it is knockout) is more exciting. That is why it complemnts the "top spot" premiership so well. The top spot premiership is the main prize, but so the fans can have excitement as well, the FA CUP provides them that. The two complement each other perfectly.

That's how it would be in the AFL. The two would complemeny each other perfectly.

But don't ever lose sight of providing the best system in terms of fairness. That is the most important thing and that is the reason behind all this. Currently 'fairness' doesn't exist.

 

[gocatsgo]

Dan24, your way will never come in and the AFL won't let it work becasue it cuts out finals.

I reckon the team that best handles finals pressure is the team who is the best and deserves the premiership. After 22 weeks it is plausable that you may have played the bottom 7, 14 times which is the only reason you finished high up. That doesn't make you the best team if you can beat also rans.

If a team can beat the best opposition over a four week final system, they are the team that deserves to be called the best.

North were the best last year because they handled the pressure of finals. Carlton were the second best.

Anyway, enough with that. Lets get back onto the topic at hand, shall we?

Could the final 7 work?

Is it plausable?

Are there any drawbacks to it?

Let me know your answers.

 

[Dan26]

Gocatsgo,

Normally, you have "good" posts and come up with some reasonably intelligent postings.

So, I don't want to incur your wrath.

But, that last post from you was the single worst iece of rubbish I have ever read.

Going by your logic, Carlton, who were runner-up last year were a better team than Essendon who were third (after finishing on top). Now we all know that Essendon were MILES beter than Carlton in 1999. There was no comparison between the two. Every Carlscum supporter I have met has admitted the Bombers were a better team in 1999.

Any team can win a one-off match against a one-off opponent. Ever head of an upset ? Upsets happen, and that is well and good, but the losing team doesn't deserve to have 22 weeks of hard work go unrewarded due to the result of "ONE" match. That's stupid. What's the point playing rhe season ?

You then talk about the home and away season being uneven.

That's true. Good point. But the very finals series which you are defending is MORE uneven. In the finals you only have to play 3 of the other 7 finalists. Is that even ? NO ! North only had to play 7th, 3rd and 6th in the finals last year (and they avoided Essendon). Essendon's acheivement in winning 18 out of 22, and winning more matches than any other team is much harder than North's effort to win 3 finals matches.

In the H&A, at least you have to play everyone at least once and you play 22 matches over 6 months. It gives you are more resonable idea of who the best team is.

I mean, let's say Geelong beat Esendon in the preliminary final this year by one point. Does this mean Geelong are a better team than Essendon ? Of course not. Are St.Kilda better than Geelong just becasue the Saints won a one-off match against them. Of course not. Anyone can win a one-off match. Upsets happen.

I suppose you thik that Chelsea are the best team in England because they won the FA CUP. They won the knockout tournament, so they must be the best team right ? According to you, anyway.

We'll just forget about Manchester United's effort to finish above all other teams over 38 matches. Gee, that must have been easy for ManU. They only had to peak over the whole season, and win more than anybody else. Gee, that was a piece of piss. Anyone can do it (I'm being sarcastic)

The years best team is found over 6 months......not 2 hours On Grand Final day.

By the way, your Final 7 has it's merits, but also it's disadvantages (see above). Why make a change just for the sake of it ? 8 teams in the finals is fine. Half make it, half don't. If you are better than average you make it. If you are worse than average, you don't. Seems fair to me.

 

[christo]

I'm not sure I understand dan24 - can you elaborate

 

[Dan26]

Can you elaborate me with your life story, Christo ?

 

[dons_r_tops]

Dan 24, I think ive figured it out?
You want the ansett cup as it was played in 1999 to be held after the regular season with no final on the end of the regular season. this is what you are proposing and it would be fine, had we done it all along, however we haven't done it all along, have we? The McClelend trophy lost all its meaning the year the under 19's competition finished, as it was awarded to the club with the most premiership points in each grade combined. This was an award for a football club with true depth. ie it would be awarded to carlton or geelong this year as their VFL sides are going quite well. It Shouldn't even be called the McCleland trophy anymore perhaps the sheedy trophy as the bombers are good at finishing on top of the ladder are 22 rounds but we just cant finish of the season at this stage. I hope i have made some sense in my little essay here, even though you will disagree and i will incurr your wrath inevitably and look forward to reading your rebuttle.

Ps im still waiting for you to email me at zephram@globalfreeway.com.au

 

[Dan26]

Dons are tops,

I'm aware of the McClelland trophy and what it represents.

Perhaps it should be re-named. Like the "Barassi" cup, for example. And make it a HUGE, giant trophy, bigger in size than the one which is carried around on Grand Final day.

And as I've said many times before, the public will accept whatever is given recognition. They will.