Finals Disadvantage

[Tyler Hodges]

Id be stoked with that

We would have got rid of bloody hawthorn and might just have won ourselves a granny

2006 says hello.

 

[Listclogger]

Not the same scenario as the OP discusses but there was a theory that the drawn Qualifying final in 1990 caused Essendon to go off the boil as it meant they had 2 consecutive weeks off after finishing top in a final 5.

FWIW I like the idea of the week off before the finals

 

[WCE_phil]

Not the same scenario as the OP discusses but there was a theory that the drawn Qualifying final in 1990 caused Essendon to go off the boil as it meant they had 2 consecutive weeks off after finishing top in a final 5.

FWIW I like the idea of the week off before the finals

The idea of a week off before finals is great as long as it doesn't lead to a disadvantage to the top teams.

 

[dean33]

That is even worse! How would you feel about coming 1st winning basically every game, play a poor game 1st week of the finals and get eliminated. Need to reward the top 4.

No doubt the tiges would be the first team this would happen to...

 

[Mad_Hatter]

The incentive is you play at home against a lower ranked team. If you finish 3rd you play sixth, then second, then potentially first to win the grand final. You would play only 1 game away from victoria instead of 2 and you would only play 1 game away from your home ground. The truth of the matter is even if you discount what will become an issue of 2 weeks off out of 3 a team should not be able to play a higher ranked team away from home, get beaten and then get to play them at home later in the finals series.

Lastly if we ever want to even remotely have the chance of a team finishing 5th,6th,7th,8th on the ladder having a chance to win a premiership forcing them to win 4 knockout finals in a row will never happen and needs to change.

What a load of crap.
Those teams finishing 5-8th don't deserve MORE of a chance to win the flag.
They simply don't win them because they aren't good enough, hence why they don't finish top 4.
Should we allow those who don't make finals a chance to win the flag too?
Stupid argument.

 

[Gavin Excell]

You really are that stupid that you haven't even countered the whole basic point that 1 week off is fine. 2 weeks off out of 3 isn't. A guy with a slight injury may not play any football for a month. These things are very important at the pointy end of the season.

Essendon 1990 had an extra week off after pies v west coast draw in the prelim final that meant they only played once in 3 weeks leading into GF. Got done over

 

[WCE_phil]

What a load of crap.
Those teams finishing 5-8th don't deserve MORE of a chance to win the flag.
They simply don't win them because they aren't good enough, hence why they don't finish top 4.
Should we allow those who don't make finals a chance to win the flag too?
Stupid argument.

If the teams 5th to 8th never have a chance due to having to win 4 consecutive finals away from home then there is no point in having them in the finals anyway. Making it 3 consecutive must win finals makes it at the very least a slim chance.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

If the teams 5th to 8th never have a chance due to having to win 4 consecutive finals away from home then there is no point in having them in the finals anyway. Making it 3 consecutive must win finals makes it at the very least a slim chance.

If they were good enough to win the flag they'd finish top 4.

 

[WCE_phil]

If they were good enough to win the flag they'd finish top 4.

With the huge inequities in the fixture combined with travel and other factors im not sure having a pure cutoff from 4th to 5th is really fair. I think almost everyone will acknowledge currently if you don't finish top 4 you can't win the flag. Sure the fixture may only be worth 2 games (meaning a potential 4 game swing between a very tough and a very easy draw) but if a team this year plays essendon,carlton and brisbane twice and plays some of the top teams only once and only at home it can make a huge difference. As much as between finishing top 2 and barely making the 8. If a team can't ever win a premiership from 5th to 8th then there is no point in them being in the finals.

 

[D-N-R]

The Final 8 as we have it is really well balanced and favours teams which finish progressively higher on the ladder. Top 4 get the chance of a week off or a second chance. First and 2nd are rewarded with home advantage over their rivals. Fifth to 8th have less of a chance and are eliminated if they lose any game, with the higher of the 4 teams rewarded with home advantage.

As it stands, only 3* teams have lost a game in the finals and gone on to win the GF;
In 2005, Sydney lost to West Coast by 4 points and went on the win the GF by 4 points over West coast.
In 2006, West Coast lost to Sydney by 1 point and went on to win the GF by 1 point over Sydney. (Spooky)
In 2015, Hawthorn lost to West Coast by 32 points and went on the win the GF by 46 points over West Coast.

So it isn't impossible for a team in the bottom 8 to have to win 4 games to win the GF. It's just that the teams in the top 4 are generally the better teams, hence they win the big one. So keep the Final 8 as it is.

I think this bye before the finals is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and it is quite possible that this year no team will be in a position to rest players. It will be interesting to see, however, if teams will rest players in the last round anyway if rest is indeed more important than keeping that winning form.

*I think this is true

 

[Gavin Excell]

I like top 4 finals system. Most cases the premier beats other top 3 to win it. In other words the premier earns it fully

 

[NathanMX]

If you are so worried about that rest then simply bet on your opposition and tank the qualifying final. Then you will play every week of the finals, and in the case of interstate teams would not have to travel the following week either. Only downside is no prelim at home but if you are good enough you can win anywhere.

 

[kranky al]

2006 says hello.

shoosh you - that rule would have been only bought in last year

 

[perplexed]

I think the OP underestimates how many players play with niggles each week, the week off helps with that. Surely Hawthorn running over the top in the last 3/4 prelims against sides without the break to win by less than a goal indicates the importance of a week off.

Except that hawthorn didn't have a week off last year, freo did.

 

[wallyt99]

The first placed team when winning the QF then usually getting a more difficult opponent in the PF is a bit of a flaw.

One solution to this is week one 1 v 3 & 2 v 4.

Would still give 1st a relatively easy week 1 and also make it likely they would play the 4th ranked team in the prelim.

At the moment its arguably better to finish 2nd.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

The first placed team when winning the QF then usually getting a more difficult opponent in the PF is a bit of a flaw.

They're playing that higher placed team with a week off though, so it balances out a bit.

 

[wallyt99]

Except that hawthorn didn't have a week off last year, freo did.

Pretty sure it was more than a goal too....
Hence why they said 3/4.... (I.e 3 out of 4).

 

[Cronin]

I'm content with the way it is, but there is some merit to how the NFL playoffs work and could be incorporated into the AFL finals setup;

*Assuming the highest placed team wins*

Week 1 - Wild Card
7th vs 10th
8th vs 9th
(1st - 6th get the week off)

Week 2 - Semi Finals
1st vs 8th
2nd vs 7th
3rd vs 6th
4th vs 5th

Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
1st vs 4th
2nd vs 3rd

Week 4 - Grand Final(MCG)
1st vs 2nd

*Note:
- Highest ranked team plays at home
- AFL still get 4 weeks and 9 finals
- Top teams get the best chance to make the GF if they're good enough
- Gives more teams a chance to play finals

I actually quite like this format but I doubt it would ever happen.

 

[Kram]

I'm content with the way it is, but there is some merit to how the NFL playoffs work and could be incorporated into the AFL finals setup;

*Assuming the highest placed team wins*

Week 1 - Wild Card
7th vs 10th
8th vs 9th
(1st - 6th get the week off)

Week 2 - Semi Finals
1st vs 8th
2nd vs 7th
3rd vs 6th
4th vs 5th

Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
1st vs 4th
2nd vs 3rd

Week 4 - Grand Final(MCG)
1st vs 2nd

*Note:
- Highest ranked team plays at home
- AFL still get 4 weeks and 9 finals
- Top teams get the best chance to make the GF if they're good enough
- Gives more teams a chance to play finals

I actually quite like this format but I doubt it would ever happen.

Maybe if we ever get a 20+ team comp.

 

[wallyt99]

I'm content with the way it is, but there is some merit to how the NFL playoffs work and could be incorporated into the AFL finals setup;

*Assuming the highest placed team wins*

Week 1 - Wild Card
7th vs 10th
8th vs 9th
(1st - 6th get the week off)

Week 2 - Semi Finals
1st vs 8th
2nd vs 7th
3rd vs 6th
4th vs 5th

Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
1st vs 4th
2nd vs 3rd

Week 4 - Grand Final(MCG)
1st vs 2nd

*Note:
- Highest ranked team plays at home
- AFL still get 4 weeks and 9 finals
- Top teams get the best chance to make the GF if they're good enough
- Gives more teams a chance to play finals

I actually quite like this format but I doubt it would ever happen.

Gives more one sided finals.

I like the idea of a wildcard though.... Its not really a wildcard just extended finals.

How about top 6 get a week off. 7 and 8 play the two teams outside the 8 who performed best in the last 5 games of the season for the traditional last two places. Would

 

[Cronin]

Gives more one sided finals.

I like the idea of a wildcard though.... Its not really a wildcard just extended finals.

How about top 6 get a week off. 7 and 8 play the two teams outside the 8 who performed best in the last 5 games of the season for the traditional last two places. Would

I guess with this particular system you are rewarded by finishing higher on the ladder with a week off and theoretically the best chance to make the GF.

The 'Wild Card' aspect still applies to the official top 8 setup, it just allows for an extra week of games, which is what the AFL would probably still want.

You could replace Wild Card with Qualifying Finals, that's probably the more Australian way to go

 

[LukeParkerno1]

10 teams...the words 'you are kidding me' come to mind! We already have teams barely with winning records getting into the finals!

 

[Hawkboy62]

I'm not a fan of the bye before the finals. It seems an over reaction to the events of last year, which may or may not be a common occurrence. The fans of teams making the finals are supposed to bottle up their excitement and cheer the confected entertainment put up by the AFL in the bye week.

Conventional wisdom used to be that getting a week off before the preliminary final was an advantage as it allowed players to recover from niggling injuries. Not sure that is true now; bye - Qual Final - bye - Prelim is not necessarily an ideal preparation for hardened professional players coming in to the climax of the season. The players are used to, and conditioned for playing every week. Note that historically upsets occur after the bye rounds. Coming in to finals it is hard to simulate the close, hard edged tackling that is a feature of finals. Intra-club practice just isn't the same thing.

IMO teams need to play hard, contested matches coming up to, or during the finals as best preparation for a preliminary or grand final. It may be that, by being too good for the opposition, a dominant team may go in to a prelim or GF underdone for a hard,contested ball final.

Take Sydney in 2014 ,who had had a 12 game winning streak broken by Hawthorn in round 18, but then won the last 5 games of the home and away, albeit round 23 was a hard fought 3 point win over the Tigers. They then had a comfortable qualifying win against Dockers, running away after half time and a thrashing of North Melbourne. So they went in to the GF red hot favourites but only having played 1.5 hard matches since the start of August.

Hawks lost round 16 match against the Roos, beat Swans in a see-sawing round 18 match, lost to Freo in round 21, before a comfortable qualifying win against the Cats and a close, perhaps lucky win, against Port in the prelim. In retrospect the desperate hectic prelim win was better preparation for the GF than the Swans easy win. Come the GF Hawks came out fired up, the best midfield in the comp wilted under the pressure, game over early in the second quarter.

In 2013 Hawks had a dominant year finishing 19/3 after the home and away season, an easy win in the qualifying then a come from behind thriller against the cats so were hardened for a final against Freo, who had a dominant ruckman in Sandilands and, in some opinions, the best midfield since the Lions of 2001. Astute coaching enabled Hawks to win the clearances 42-34. Freo kicked themselves out of it and Hawks always seemed in control.

In 2015 the round 21 and 22 games against the Lions and Blues were not an ideal preparation for the final series. Having beaten the Eagles in round 19 the Hawks went at Domain hot favourites but were thrashed. Despite having to play 3 successive matches and record grand final heat the Hawks were able to win with a near flawless display against an overawed Eagles team.

 

[The King!]

Id just like our finals at the scg

 

[Cronin]

10 teams...the words 'you are kidding me' come to mind! We already have teams barely with winning records getting into the finals!

Hey I'm with you, a top 6 is all you really need to determine the best team of the year, with 1st and 2nd going straight into home Preliminary Finals while 3rd vs 6th and 4th vs 5th.
But the AFL love their finals, the more the merrier for them so when you try to come up with a hypothetical system you try to incorporate their wants as well as what's best for the teams that finish higher.