Finally some fixture sense from the AFL

[MarkT2]

the focus in much of this thread is misplaced.

teams playing each other once at home or away in a 17 round season doesn't improve or even out anything in a given season.

every team playing each other twice over x number of years doesn't improve or even out anything in a given season. as an example, you'd rather get St Kilda twice in 2013-14 rather than 2010-11.

the main issue will still exist. the comparison of teams which play different opponents and/or different home and away conditions, but are still compared to each other in the same ladder.

You can't eliminate luck of the draw but at least if it is luck it will be fair. IMO that's as much as you can practically ask for.

 

[Eshay187]

There's already a dearth of talent with the introduction of the new teams meaning an extra 80 players who weren't getting games 3 years ago and you want to bring in another 2 teams and another 80 players?

80 more players with access to the best sports facilities and expertise in the country.

The talent now is far far far better than it has ever been, there is no lack of talent in this country.

 

[mcgarnacle]

You can't eliminate luck of the draw but at least if it is luck it will be fair. IMO that's as much as you can practically ask for.

still doesn't address the issue of the structure of the schedule and qualification to finals in a given season.

 

[simmo97]

leave the fixture as it is because the only way to make it fair without any issues is to play each team once in a 17 round season.
Which won't happen because the afl will lose money and the players will have to take pay cuts.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Agree. if they seriously think people would want to see the WB v Saint Kilda v Melbourne v GWS all in one block of time they are dreaming. People will just not watch as it means nothing, with no chance for a fairy tale. The unique aspect of our game is hope. If there is a slight chance, even the smallest chance there side might make it, people watch. This new system removes that for the bottom 6 sides as they are now playing for picks only.

I think people are dreaming if they think neutrals give a stuff about a 'blockbuster' which features one or two teams that are playing for nothing, over a game that features two 'smaller' teams that have everything to play for. If they started at exactly the same time this Saturday, which game would you be watching: Fremantle v Port or Carlton v Essendon? Exactly.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Would be better of splitting into 3 divisions with teams as such.

1 4 7 10 13 16
2 5 8 11 14 17
3 6 9 12 15 18

That way the fixture is as close to fair as possible. You could even split each group of 3 up randomly and hold a draw for who plays who so first isn't necessarily penalised by playing higher ranked teams.

Of course this method doesn't set up for as many end of season blockbusters and so money will win over fairness and there will be no chance of this happening.

Would be better in snake format (see below), so the three groups are relatively even strength. Why should the top team get the tougher opponents?

1 6 7 12 13 18
2 5 8 11 14 17
3 4 9 10 15 16

 

[nickrebellious]

Set over 4 years. Nominate rival for the 4 years.

1-17: Play everyone once. Flip the H&A games around each year. Bris at Gabba one year, Bris at G the next. etc.
18: Play rival again. (Example - Geelong)
19-22: Play 4 random teams, which change every year over 4 years. (Example - Year 1: Adel, Bris, Carl, Coll. Year 2: Ess, Freo, GC, GWS. Year 3: Melb, North, Port, Rich. Year 4: STK, Syd, WCE, WBD.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I think it's interesting that they are considering this, but obviously there are a lot of question marks surrounding it.

1. It works well in Scottish Football (not sure which other leagues use this format), because there's relegation for the team that finishes at the bottom of the bottom pool. Draft picks are the first thing that comes to mind, but there is obviously the risk that giving the top team from the bottom group the first pick in the draft, while a team that may not have won a game all season pick #6, is counter-productive. Generally, I think the team that is finishing 13th most seasons isn't that far off the team that finishes 8th; a bit of luck one way or the other and their positions could have been reversed. I'm not sure about the lottery system either, and that may just have the same result: a team that is just plain shit ends up with the worst chance (though still a chance) of getting the #1 pick. So, I would suggest the way to give these teams something to play for, but not overly distorting the concept of giving the worst team the best player, would be to keep the first round draft order the same as it is (either when the league splits into three groups, or at the end of the season), but have the bottom six teams playing for draft position in each of the subsequent rounds. That's not as big a penalty to the team that finishes bottom, as the deeper in the draft you go, the more likely you would be to get your man whether you have, say, pick #55 or pick #60, but it does give the bottom six some incentive to take the final games of the season seriously.

2. The whole scheduling thing and travelling to see your team, would become very difficult, impossible for some people, for these games.

3. I honestly don't care about the Victorian rivalries, but any fixturing system that doesn't guarantee two H&A games between the WA/SA/NSW/Qld teams just seems stupid to me (especially Suns/Lions and Docker/Eagles, due to the distance an additional away game each year would mean for them).

4. The lower-placed teams would probably be obliged to mortgage their future to an extent, refusing to give young prospects a go over a 100-game battler who will be delisted at the end of the year, simply because the older player gives the team the best chance of winning immediately. And that would jeopardise the younger player's development. I think it's problematic enough that coaches have an inherent conflict of interest with the playing youth/veterans conundrum (why should they GAF about how the club is going in five years time, when they're not going to be there, unless they win games now?), without giving them more incentive to go for experience over youth.

5. The whole 'blockbuster fatigue' thing, which could compromise the quality of the actual finals series, since the teams in 1-12 position (save for maybe a couple in the middle group that have fallen by the wayside in the late rounds) have been going hammer and tongs from round 18-23 to secure the best finals position, during a time when currently, teams look for every opportunity to get their players cherry ripe for finals.

 

[dockerfemme]

Here is my two cents worth.

Play 17 home and away games. Alternate the home and away bit each year so that teams get 8 home games one year and 9 the next year against the teams they played away in year 1.

At this point the bottom 6 teams drop out and can start holidays, operations and pre season.

The top 12 teams play 5 rounds that are as equal as possible eg 1st plays 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12. This draw is fixed both in terms of who you play and whether it is home or away and cannot be manipulated by the AFL.

Teams retain their premiership points from the 17 home and away and matches in the 5 prefinals rounds are worth 6 points for a win, 3 for a draw.

At the end of the 5 prefinals rounds play a final 8 as we do now.

Disadvantages:

1. Less matches therefore less revenue?? I am unconvinced of this as the 5 prefinals rounds could be so influential and so competitive that attendance, interest etc actually increases.

2. Bottom 6 teams get less revenue - need to be equalised by the AFL.

3. Fans of bottom 6 teams get to see their team less - believe me as someone who has supported a bottom 6 team often this is not all bad.

4. Difficulty with venue management

5. Difficulty for fans not knowing where, when or if their teams will be playing.

6. Some teams could get 10 home games and some 12 home games across the 22 rounds. Lets face it, due to the number of Vic teams and the Grand Final being held at the MCG the home and away concept is currently very muddy.

7. Clubs having to deal with ticketing for members at the end of the 17 home and away series.

I really consider numbers 4 and 5 to be the serious problems - I don't know how serious.

Advantages:

1. Opportunity for a lot of ladder movement over the 5 prefinal rounds

2. Less "dead" matches coming to the end of the 17 home and away matches as "live" teams are likely to go to position 14 or 15 on the ladder up to the last round or 2.

3. No ability for the AFL to manipulate to draw.

4. A super exciting last 5 rounds.

 

[dean33]

so taking this year as example, richmond were 13th after rd 17. So we would have been put in a pool with the bottom 6 teams to win all remaining games to finish 13th?? Doesn't make sense if that's what they mean.

If they are doing it just to even up the draw and teams can still climb the ladder but play teams in their tier, I think this doesn't work either. It would be a massive advantage for 7th if they were grouped with middle tier teams while 6th had to play the top teams if you were able to climb the ladder into other tiers.

Either way silly idea and can't see it getting off the ground at least I hope it doesn't.

 

[Crows4Eva]

Id dont like it purely because it doesnt allow for late season runs toward finals. Ie Richmond this year.

This is how Id do it. Everyone plays everyone once in the first 17 weeks then break the table up into 3 pools of 6 and decide who plays who twice based on positions as of then playing 3 games aginst teams in their own pool and one each from the other 2 pools.

Teams in an even numbered position play the odd numbers in their pool and visa versa as well as the team in each pool in the position that corresponds their own.

So,
1st would play 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13
2nd plays 1, 3, 5, 8 and 14
3rd plays 2, 4, 6, 9 and 15
4th plays 1, 3, 5, 10 and 16
5th plays 2, 4, 6, 11 and 17
6th plays 1, 3, 5, 12 and 18

And so on.

If we'e not too keen on deciding who plays who mid-year then you could still use this method each year using the ladder from the year prior.

If sides arent willing to not get 2 games against their rival each year. You could drop one of the repeat games from your own pool and replace it with a 'rival' round.

So 1st would play 2, 4, 7, 13 + their rival and so on

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Id dont like it purely because it doesnt allow for late season runs toward finals. Ie Richmond this year.

This is how Id do it. Everyone plays everyone once in the first 17 weeks then break the table up into 3 pools of 6 and decide who plays who twice based on positions as of then playing 3 games aginst teams in their own pool and one each from the other 2 pools.

Teams in an even numbered position play the odd numbers in their pool and visa versa as well as the team in each pool in the position that corresponds their own.

So,
1st would play 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13
2nd plays 1, 3, 5, 8 and 14
3rd plays 2, 4, 6, 9 and 15
4th plays 1, 3, 5, 10 and 16
5th plays 2, 4, 6, 11 and 17
6th plays 1, 3, 5, 12 and 18

And so on.

If we'e not too keen on deciding who plays who mid-year then you could still use this method each year using the ladder from the year prior.

If sides arent willing to not get 2 games against their rival each year. You could drop one of the repeat games from your own pool and replace it with a 'rival' round.

So 1st would play 2, 4, 7, 13 + their rival and so on

The problem with the rivals concept is that none of the Victorian teams would consider the Bulldogs, North Melbourne, St Kilda, or Melbourne to be their biggest rival. And Geelong would probably be the same, once it drops back to the pack a bit. We used to always get someone like Melbourne in 'Rivalry Round', back in the days when Geelong v Hawthorn games could easily be held at Kardinia Park, or Launceston.

 

[DNine]

I can't believe how so many people are just saying, yeah all good to the new proposal. We will see a big decline in the quality of the finals, because the top sides are beating the hell out of each other in the final five rounds. It is ridiculous, and if put in, we will only have it in for a couple of years, before they scrap it, because with top sides playing each other five weeks straight, injuries will increase, fatigue will set in, and 7th & 8th will be a bigger chance, as they have played softer sides.

If you want two sections of 17 & 5 the 5 must come before the 17. Have the same concept, but begin the season with close teams of the previous year, it is the best way. You will draw a large crowd to the start of the season. Then after five games, you will have the most even ladder at that stage than you could have. Not often do teams improve out of sight from the previous year early on. They usually build up to a better year. So say everyone is on 3 wins 2 losses or 2 wins 3 losses after five. THEN the 17 single games starts to sort the best from the worst.

 

[melbournemartin]

Love it.

I've been advocating something a little similar on these boards for years and been mostly laughed at, particularly with the bottom teams playing for draft picks.

Teams, in particular the bottom echelon would play the season right out and it would keep their supporters engaged right until the end.

Can someone explain how this would work? Would it still be the case that last place gets the #1 pick?

This concept may introduce more tanking, since when playing against teams next to you on the ladder each game can be worth 8 points effectively, but in the negative sense.

In terms of drawing crowds (live and on tv), I think that if you have three weak vs weak games per round for several weeks, fans won't tune in, even if there is more chance of a good result than say a weak vs strong game.

 

[D-N-R]

I can't believe how so many people are just saying, yeah all good to the new proposal. We will see a big decline in the quality of the finals, because the top sides are beating the hell out of each other in the final five rounds. It is ridiculous, and if put in, we will only have it in for a couple of years, before they scrap it, because with top sides playing each other five weeks straight, injuries will increase, fatigue will set in, and 7th & 8th will be a bigger chance, as they have played softer sides.

If you want two sections of 17 & 5 the 5 must come before the 17. Have the same concept, but begin the season with close teams of the previous year, it is the best way. You will draw a large crowd to the start of the season. Then after five games, you will have the most even ladder at that stage than you could have. Not often do teams improve out of sight from the previous year early on. They usually build up to a better year. So say everyone is on 3 wins 2 losses or 2 wins 3 losses after five. THEN the 17 single games starts to sort the best from the worst.

As I pointed out to another one of your posts proposing that these 3 groups be based on last year's ladder - West Coast finished 13th and their double-up games would have been against GWS, GC, Melbourne, St Kilda and Bulldogs. Better if these 3 groups are of comparative strength.

 

[melbournemartin]

I can't believe how so many people are just saying, yeah all good to the new proposal. We will see a big decline in the quality of the finals, because the top sides are beating the hell out of each other in the final five rounds. It is ridiculous, and if put in, we will only have it in for a couple of years, before they scrap it, because with top sides playing each other five weeks straight, injuries will increase, fatigue will set in, and 7th & 8th will be a bigger chance, as they have played softer sides.

If you want two sections of 17 & 5 the 5 must come before the 17. Have the same concept, but begin the season with close teams of the previous year, it is the best way. You will draw a large crowd to the start of the season. Then after five games, you will have the most even ladder at that stage than you could have. Not often do teams improve out of sight from the previous year early on. They usually build up to a better year. So say everyone is on 3 wins 2 losses or 2 wins 3 losses after five. THEN the 17 single games starts to sort the best from the worst.

You could turn the argument on its head and say that 7th and 8th are in a worse chance because they are not battle-hardened against good teams, whilst the others have had lots of practice.

 

[DNine]

As I pointed out to another one of your posts proposing that these 3 groups be based on last year's ladder - West Coast finished 13th and their double-up games would have been against GWS, GC, Melbourne, St Kilda and Bulldogs. Better if these 3 groups are of comparative strength.

But this is at the start of the year. We can't look at West Coast now and say they shouldn't be in that group because according to last year, they should be. West Coast may finish almost as low this year if they lose to Suns. A small improvement but not an awesome one. AND, the next year that they benefited from the lower finish, they would be in a top group in year two wouldn't they.

 

[mike123]

Though there is a chance Collingwood won't play Carlton and Essondon twice, GWS won't play Sydney twice,West Coast won't play Freemantle twice, Port won't play Adelaide twice.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

What does Eddie think?

 

[DNine]

You could turn the argument on its head and say that 7th and 8th are in a worse chance because they are not battle-hardened against good teams, whilst the others have had lots of practice.

No you couldn't. Most times the week after teams play a tough side, they are flat. Five weeks of it, would make them very flat. Getting hardened from playing top sides is a myth. It has never been proven that it helps. Playing hard sides is tiring and increases injury rate, or injury or lack of form in the weeks after.

I notice a lot, that teams try their absolute best against Collingwood, because for some reason, no matter how we are doing, sides try their absolute best against us. I often say to people, or at least think, "Well that was worth breaking your kneck trying to beat Collingwood, when the next week they lose to a lower sides anyway" Adelaide did it both times and Suns, Lions, Doggies did it after they played us this year. Bombers too looked awesome against us a few weeks back, and they looked flat afterward.

Malthouse called it Blockbuster fatigue. Even in 1990, we played Essendon, and threw everything into beating them, and the following week we got smashed by Hawthorn that weren't all that strong that year.

The point I'm making is there is more evidence that this is the case then teams getting hardened.

 

[DNine]

Can someone explain how this would work? Would it still be the case that last place gets the #1 pick?

This concept may introduce more tanking, since when playing against teams next to you on the ladder each game can be worth 8 points effectively, but in the negative sense.

In terms of drawing crowds (live and on tv), I think that if you have three weak vs weak games per round for several weeks, fans won't tune in, even if there is more chance of a good result than say a weak vs strong game.

They are thinking of having it an incentive that the team that wins it's way to the top of the bottom group, gets first pick. This is just stupid, as the bottom side, is there because they are the worst. They need the most help to turn it around, and the first pick helps this.

 

[iBeng]

and the bottom six teams would battle for draft positions.

So the bottom six teams effectivly battle to tank the best?

 

[D-N-R]

But this is at the start of the year. We can't look at West Coast now and say they shouldn't be in that group because according to last year, they should be. West Coast may finish almost as low this year if they lose to Suns. A small improvement but not an awesome one. AND, the next year that they benefited from the lower finish, they would be in a top group in year two wouldn't they.

You could have easily looked at this scenario at the beginning of the year and said it was patently unfair, and that WCE would have won at least 8 out of the 10. WCE finished 5th the year before, after all, and our drop has been seen as a loss of form and confidence rather than any real loss of quality. Carlton would benefit this year, by probably securing the No 1 draft pick (this proposed system has these teams playing off for draft picks) and by having St Kilda, Melbourne, Bulldogs, GWS and Brisbane twice next year. They wouldn't win all of those, but it's a hell of an advantage.

The problem with this system, as I see it, is that the difference between team 13 and 18 is often quite vast. West Coast were about 2 games off the 8 and 32 points ahead of last place. Sixth place is almost a punishment having to go against the best 5 teams in the land, whilst 7th place has more opportunity to move up the ladder by playing teams that finished below them.

I don't have a problem with the 3 groups of 6, but they should be more evenly distributed to begin with, so that all teams have a fair chance at the beginning of the year.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Set over 4 years. Nominate rival for the 4 years.

1-17: Play everyone once. Flip the H&A games around each year. Bris at Gabba one year, Bris at G the next. etc.
18: Play rival again. (Example - Geelong)
19-22: Play 4 random teams, which change every year over 4 years. (Example - Year 1: Adel, Bris, Carl, Coll. Year 2: Ess, Freo, GC, GWS. Year 3: Melb, North, Port, Rich. Year 4: STK, Syd, WCE, WBD.

I like this idea, especially the bolded bit, there are too many anomalies where teams are the away team more than the home team, take Richmond for example, the last 7 clashes with geelong we have been the home team only once and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of this with other teams, we played GWS away 3 times before getting them at home.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

You could have easily looked at this scenario at the beginning of the year and said it was patently unfair, and that WCE would have won at least 8 out of the 10. WCE finished 5th the year before, after all, and our drop has been seen as a loss of form and confidence rather than any real loss of quality. Carlton would benefit this year, by probably securing the No 1 draft pick (this proposed system has these teams playing off for draft picks) and by having St Kilda, Melbourne, Bulldogs, GWS and Brisbane twice next year. They wouldn't win all of those, but it's a hell of an advantage.

The problem with this system, as I see it, is that the difference between team 13 and 18 is often quite vast. West Coast were about 2 games off the 8 and 32 points ahead of last place. Sixth place is almost a punishment having to go against the best 5 teams in the land, whilst 7th place has more opportunity to move up the ladder by playing teams that finished below them.

I don't have a problem with the 3 groups of 6, but they should be more evenly distributed to begin with, so that all teams have a fair chance at the beginning of the year.

All teams do have a fair chance at the beginning of the year. Points and percentage are zero for everyone with 17 rounds in front of them with one game against each of the other sides. What can be fairer than that?

Perhaps we could go back to a top 4 with a challenge rule.

Things evolve, we've had the above, a straight out top 4, top 5, top 6 and now a top 8. There's been years with less than 12 teams, 12 teams, 14 teams, 15 teams, 16 teams, 17 teams and now 18 teams. There's been 18 round seasons, 20 round seasons and now 22 round seasons.

I'm sure there has been opposition to nearly every one of these changes.

Things get introduced and if need be they get refined with experience, it was done with the draft and it's been done with the top 8 finals format.

Bring it on.