Finals system

[Carn the Coasters]

ItDon't have an off day. Play well. Be prepared. And get the job done at home versus 7th and 8th. And win.

You talk about not having an off day, but then you complain about the unfairness of a second chance by saying that Collingwood and Geelong are unlucky if they lose this weekend against teams that unfairly (as they were 3rd and 4th) had the second chance.

Well how about Collingwood and Geelong DON'T have an off day this weekend?

 

[Dan26]

You talk about not having an off day, but then you complain about the unfairness of a second chance by saying that Collingwood and Geelong are unlucky if they lose this weekend against teams that unfairly (as they were 3rd and 4th) had the second chance.

Well how about Collingwood and Geelong DON'T have an off day this weekend?

I'm not suggesting Collingwood and Geelong deserve anythijng other than elimination if they lose. No double chance is fine by me.

I am sugesting it is unfair, given that the teams that defeated them will have finished lower and received a second chance themselves.

 

[themidlandmaster]

. It is what people want! It sucks to have a top 4 side win it every year.

No, they don't.

The point of a finals series isn't so see who can win a flag after rolling a top side on a bad day.

In the current system, one almost always plays plays two, three and four, and has to win two of them.

Like others have said, winning a qualifying final is a huge advantage to making a grand final.

The current system sees the best teams of the year playing each other, and the best of them winning the flag.

I honestly don't know how people can argue against this system.

 

[Dan26]

Yes there were. That's why it got changed. I see that your an Adelaide supporter. No wonder you support it. Carry on.

There were flaws with the 1994-1999 system, but there were no flaws in the 1994-1999 system that affected 1st and 2nd.

There were no flaws about any home finals. The seeding system, and the the hosting of finals worked perfectly well. Geelong were lower seeded than Adelaide in 1997 and Adelaide deserved to host the final.

The flaws with the system were as follows:

1.) 3v6 and 4v5 were potentially dead rubbers in week one.
2.) 5th and 6th could get a second chance for losing.

In both 1997 and 2010 Geelong finished 2nd and and lost.

In 2010, they lost to 3rd, and because they had a hard opponent they remained higher seeded than their week two opponent and hosted the final versu Freo. This was fair.

In 1997, they lost to 7th, and because they had an easy opponent they dropped to a lower seed than their week two opponent and were the away team versus Adelaide. This was fair.

Both were fair.

The home final seeding situation was NOT a flaw of the 1994-1999 system. There were other flaws (2 in fact) which were the reasons why the system was changed.

 

[Dan26]

No, they don't.

The point of a finals series isn't so see who can win a flag after rolling a top side on a bad day.

In the current system, one almost always plays plays two, three and four, and has to win two of them.

Like others have said, winning a qualifying final is a huge advantage to making a grand final.

The current system sees the best teams of the year playing each other, and the best of them winning the flag.

I honestly don't know how people can argue against this system.

You argument is silly. ANY system will result in 1st playing 2nd in the Grand Final more than any other combination of teams.

A total knockout system would result in the top teams winning the premiership more often than the bottom teams as well. Any system will result in the top teams usually winning.

What you are arguing is in itself, NOT a suitable argument for retaining the current system, because your argument can be applied to a total knockout system too. Or any system for that matter.

 

[Wetdog]

The current finals system is fine. It sufficiently rewards the top 4 teams, as reflected in 1, 2 or 3 winning the premiership every year since the inception of the system in 2000.

Despite what Dan26 claims, I quite enjoy the qualifying finals as (i) it's a contest between two quality teams (1v4 and 2v3) and they are playing for the week off and preliminary final. It doesn't bother me that they are not "knock out" games, as there are another 7 finals in the series where everything is on the line.

We don't need a final 9 or 10. It would only compromise the quality of the finals series.

 

[themidlandmaster]

You argument is silly. ANY system will result in 1st playing 2nd in the Grand Final more than any other combination of teams.

A total knockout system would result in the top teams winning the premiership more often than the bottom teams as well. Any system will result in the top teams usually winning.

What you are arguing is in itself, NOT a suitable argument for retaining the current system, because your argument can be applied to a total knockout system too. Or any system for that matter.

No it can't. In the current system, the double chance acts as a safety net to ensure that the top 4 make it to the prelims, and it works, only twice in this systems use have teams not made to the prelims from the top 4

Instead of hyperbole, find me a knockout comp with the same success rate

 

[Bone71]

Yes there were. That's why it got changed. I see that your an Adelaide supporter. No wonder you support it. Carry on.

I see your a Geelong supporter. Still whining about unpaid marks and how the system ripped you off in 97......carry on.

 

[Bone71]

Yes there were. That's why it got changed. I see that your an Adelaide supporter. No wonder you support it. Carry on.

Read what i was responding to, there were no flaws for 1st or 2nd under the old final 8.

 

[Bone71]

No it can't. In the current system, the double chance acts as a safety net to ensure that the top 4 make it to the prelims, and it works, only twice in this systems use have teams not made to the prelims from the top 4

Instead of hyperbole, find me a knockout comp with the same success rate

Why do the top 4 need a safety net? They are the best. The winner under any system should always come from the top 4, not because the system protects them but because they are the best.

I said earlier in this thread if we don't want the Premier to come from a team outside the top 4 then we should reduce the finals to a final 4.

I have no problems with giving higher ranked teams an advantage but the current system is weighted too heavily.

 

[Simple Jack]

The only change I would make to our current finals system is

Week 1
1v3
2v4

So that way if everything goes according to seeding prelims are 1v4 and 2v3.

I think it's more important to give 1st the greater advantage in the match where loosing=elimination.

Sure they have a harder QF game but in the current system 3 teams have won the flag after losing the QF (Bris '03 Syd '05 WCE '06) but no teams have won the flag after losing the PF.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The only change I would make to our current finals system is

Week 1
1v3
2v4

So that way if everything goes according to seeding prelims are 1v4 and 2v3.

I think if you asked the clubs themselves they would disagree with you. Most clubs would prefer as easy a path into a PF as possible. Once you make a PF it doesnt matter who you play.....you have to beat the best to be the best at some stage...

Besides your suggestion gives 4th a better draw than 3rd. Hardly fair....

 

[iAmAtrueLegend]

One thing that everyone can agree on is "Dan26" has way too much spare time.

 

[MCE]

I'm re-entering this thread not to get re-involved with this existing debate, but to ask...

Is there an example anywhere of a Final Seven in operation? I remember a few times I tried roughly working out on paper how such a system would work, but it always seemed impossible without having a five week finals series. Seven just seems to be too odd a number to work with..

Is there a system anywhere that does make a top seven work..?

Dan's systems are OK but he only put forward systems with knockout only games (naturally). Here is another more AFL-ish system (winners in bold):

Week one
QF: 1v2 (winner has a bye in week 2)
EF1: 4v7 (loser eliminated)
EF2: 5v6 (loser eliminated)

Week two
SF1: Loser of QF vs lower ranked week one winner (2v5)
SF2: 3rd vs higher ranked week one winner (3v4)

Week three
PF1: Winner of QF vs higher ranked week two loser (1v4)
PF2: Winner of SF1 vs winner of SF2 - higher ranked team hosts (2v3)
Losers eliminated

Week four
GF: Winners of PF1 and PF2 (1v2)

Notes:
- 3rd gets a bye to week two while 1st and 2nd play off. This is offset by the loser of the QF playing the lower week one winner in week two. 3rd could also be out after only one loss while 1st and 2nd are guaranteed to make it to week 3, ie. they have a triple chance.
- 1st and 2nd each have two chances to earn a home PF.
- The winners of the knockout EF1 and EF2 could come into a week two double chance. Same as the old final 6 system.
- Should 1st or 2nd lose in week one and two then PF1 will be a repeat of the QF (possibly with 2nd hosting though). As far as I can tell, this and the GF are the only possible repeat matches.
- 1st is guaranteed two home finals. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th are guaranteed one and could have up to two home finals. 6th could have one home (preliminary!) final and 7th gets no home finals.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Why do the top 4 need a safety net? They are the best. The winner under any system should always come from the top 4, not because the system protects them but because they are the best.

I said earlier in this thread if we don't want the Premier to come from a team outside the top 4 then we should reduce the finals to a final 4.

I have no problems with giving higher ranked teams an advantage but the current system is weighted too heavily.

Nah, I think it's perfect. I dont know why people whinge about this every year.

In a competition thats been 'fixtured', the deserved benefit is there for teams that make the top four. 2 bites at the cherry. A week off if they win the qualifying final. A week off is gold at that time of year.

 

[DTRAIN87]

There were flaws with the 1994-1999 system, but there were no flaws in the 1994-1999 system that affected 1st and 2nd.

There were no flaws about any home finals. The seeding system, and the the hosting of finals worked perfectly well. Geelong were lower seeded than Adelaide in 1997 and Adelaide deserved to host the final.

The flaws with the system were as follows:

1.) 3v6 and 4v5 were potentially dead rubbers in week one.
2.) 5th and 6th could get a second chance for losing.

In both 1997 and 2010 Geelong finished 2nd and and lost.

In 2010, they lost to 3rd, and because they had a hard opponent they remained higher seeded than their week two opponent and hosted the final versu Freo. This was fair.

In 1997, they lost to 7th, and because they had an easy opponent they dropped to a lower seed than their week two opponent and were the away team versus Adelaide. This was fair.

Both were fair.

The home final seeding situation was NOT a flaw of the 1994-1999 system. There were other flaws (2 in fact) which were the reasons why the system was changed.

Read what i was responding to, there were no flaws for 1st or 2nd under the old final 8.

Both of you guys (Bone71 is probably a Dan26 puppet user) are dumb not to see the flaws with second losing. 2nd loses in week one and their seeing might have dropped, however the supposed better team from week one in 4th who won and has got to play in week 2 got the priveliedge of playing 2nd, while 7th played 5th. This was an inherent flaw of the system, as it rewarded mediocrity during the season while punishing quality. Carlton 1994 and Geelong were punished having to play a gruelling week 2 final because of the reliance of 7th and 8th losing in week one to allow 4 to play 6th and 3rd to play 5th. This anomoly is still seen in the NRLto be a driving factor for change to a system like the AFL's style to eliminate this adverse circumstance where the better team over home and away and the higher winner can be screwed over which was not the intent of the system. Geelong did extremely well to make the 1994 final, however Melbourne's run was much easier to the prelim having to play a battered Footscray side who were a lower ranked opponent after 22 rounds of home and away and thus in the process being rewarded for their mediocrity in week 2 simply for beating a higher ranked opponent in one game. Every year a side who finished 7th or 8th (1994 and 1999) who won in week one got to the preliminary. This was seen as a criticism because weak teams were given a real advantage on the basis of one result due to the fixed nature of the finals system and thus why there was a strong a widely supported push to punish the lower sides in the 8 by making them play in week one against a similarly ranked opponent and thus having to earn their spot in the semis and the preliminarys by playing tougher opponents each week.

I see your a Geelong supporter. Still whining about unpaid marks and how the system ripped you off in 97......carry on.

The system ripped a lot of people off in 98 and 97. Like you getting smashed in week one for example in 1998 and still being able to win the flag despite finishing 5th.

 

[Bone71]

I think you are dumb. 2nd losing to 7th means they do not get to be ranked hight than the side that defeated 5th in the 1st week. That is how seedings work with double chances. The flaws in the old final 8 had everything to do with 5th and 6th getting double chances and the that if the top 4 won in the 1st week then 3 to 6 played each other again (meaning the 1st week for those teams meant nothing).

A quality side that loses to an average side does not deserve protection, the fact that they got to play the average side was their advantage.

Again if you do not want a side from outside the top 4 to win the flag they we need to reduce it back to a final 4.

 

[Dan26]

Nah, I think it's perfect. I dont know why people whinge about this every year.

In a competition thats been 'fixtured', the deserved benefit is there for teams that make the top four. 2 bites at the cherry. A week off if they win the qualifying final. A week off is gold at that time of year.

1st doesn't need "two bites at the cherry" if they play 8th instead of 4th in week one. They don't have a double hance, but it doesn't matter because they are compensated byplaying the worst team.

In a final-10 it works better because the top teams have a 100% guranteed week off.

In the current final-8 the top 4 teams have a 50% chance of a week off and a 50% chance of using a double chance. With the knockout final-10 it just takes away the 50% cance of using a double chance and adds it to the 50% chance of having a week off and makes it a 100% guranteed week off.

 

[DTRAIN87]

I think you are dumb. 2nd losing to 7th means they do not get to be ranked hight than the side that defeated 5th in the 1st week. That is how seedings work with double chances. The flaws in the old final 8 had everything to do with 5th and 6th getting double chances and the that if the top 4 won in the 1st week then 3 to 6 played each other again (meaning the 1st week for those teams meant nothing).

A quality side that loses to an average side does not deserve protection, the fact that they got to play the average side was their advantage.

Again if you do not want a side from outside the top 4 to win the flag they we need to reduce it back to a final 4.

No the flaw was the highest ranked side from week one got screwed over by the fact that they got a stronger opponent as proven over the 22 or 24 home and away rounds thanks to the system dropping their seeding. This was an inherent flaw. Geelong says they were lucky to win considering their midfield was decimated and out in week 2 with injury and had to play a side that had beaten them convincingly in the season. The weak side who is able to win a single match gets an easier opponent in week two because of the system ranking them higher for no reason. The real concern with this finals system was that teams could have one win and get benefits from it if they finished in the lower half of the 8 and teams could lose in the higher half of the 8 in week one and not be sufficiently rewarded for it. That is why the system was changed to what we have now because teams are seen to be deserving of a good chance of making the top 4 after finals (preliminary final) if they finished top 4 in the home and away. There should be a reason for finishing in the top 4 and performing over 22 or 24 rounds and not being equally rewarded for having a 6th place finish like Carlton were in 1999 or Adelaide were in 1998 and still being able to have an equal run to the final as the team who finished top.

 

[DTRAIN87]

1st doesn't need "two bites at the cherry" if they play 8th instead of 4th in week one. They don't have a double hance, but it doesn't matter because they are compensated byplaying the worst team.

In a final-10 it works better because the top teams have a 100% guranteed week off.

In the current final-8 the top 4 teams have a 50% chance of a week off and a 50% chance of using a double chance. With the knockout final-10 it just takes away the 50% cance of using a double chance and adds it to the 50% chance of having a week off and makes it a 100% guranteed week off.

Ask West Coast 1994 or Carlton 1995 of the benefit of 1vs 8. Both had to play really hard games and especially Carlton who got a Brisbane side who after being 4-11 won every game except for a small loss to the blues. they beat other top 4 sides Essendon and Richmond.

 

[Dan26]

Both of you guys (Bone71 is probably a Dan26 puppet user) are dumb not to see the flaws with second losing. 2nd loses in week one and their seeing might have dropped, however the supposed better team from week one in 4th who won and has got to play in week 2 got the priveliedge of playing 2nd, while 7th played 5th. This was an inherent flaw of the system.

No it wasn't a flaw.

The 4 winners were seeded 1,2,3,4

The 4 losers were seeded 5,6,7,8,

In the seocnd week it was 3v5 and 4v6

So, in 1997, Geelong after losing to 7th, deservedly fell to 5th-seed. Adelaide after winning jumped from 4th to 3rd. So Adelaide hosted Geelong. As they should.

North Melbourne, who finished 7th BEAT Geelong and reaped the rewards for beating a high-placed team. North Melbourne jumped to 4th seed. Their opponent (West Coast) fell from 5th to 6th seed, so 4th hosted 6th.

It's a bit like 2010, where after Geelong lost to St.Kilda. Geelong was't 2nd anymore. They were "3rd." St.Kilda effectively became "2nd" and got the week off.

In the second week of the finals, 3rd (Geelong) hosted 6th (Fremantle)

So Geelong fell from 2nd to 3rd-seed in 2010 after losing to 3rd.

But in 1997 they fell form 2nd to 5th. This was fair, because if you lose to an easier opponent, the consequnces are worse and you fall lower. If 2nd lose to 3rd they fall to 3rd. If 2nd lose to 7th, they fall to 5th. None of that is unfair. None of that was a flaw. Yes there were flaws with the system, but that wasn't one of them.

Every year a side who finished 7th or 8th (1994 and 1999) who won in week one got to the preliminary. This was seen as a criticism because weak teams were given a real advantage on the basis of one result.

You're acting like it's a bad thing, that if 7th beats 2nd they reap bigger rewards than if they beat 6th under the current systrem.

Of course the rewards are better for 7th IF they beat 2nd. So they should be.

Under the 1994-1999 system, 1st and 2nd were 10-2 versus 7th and 8th.

The reason they went 10-2 versus 7th and 8th was because 7th and 8th were up againwt the best teams and it was very, very difficult for them to win.

If 7th or 8th DO win (which only happened in 1994 and 1997) they naturally get a bigger rewards than what they would have if 7th only defeated 6th.

7th, by beating 2nd, deservedly jumps to 4th seed and gets to host the second-best loser (6th-seed)

Under the current system, the winner of 6v7, gets 6th seed so they don't really change their positions. Nor should they! If 7th beats 6th how can they jump to 4th??? That wouldn't be fair.

But if 7th beats 2nd, they get a bigger reward to compensate for the fact that they had a more difficut match. If they win, they become 4th-seed and they very much deserve that.

You're acting as though "one result" shouldn't influence or detemine things. These are FINALS. It's all about one result and performing. If you don't perform on the day because of one result, then that's your fault. Make sure you DO perform. One result influenes things pretty badly for Geelong if you lose a knockout Preliminary Final to West Coast thos week, DTRAIN. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Geelong need to perform on the day on Saturday and I wouldn't have it any other way. I love knockout Prelims.

 

[Dan26]

Ask West Coast 1994 or Carlton 1995 of the benefit of 1vs 8. Both had to play really hard games and especially Carlton who got a Brisbane side who after being 4-11 won every game except for a small loss to the blues. they beat other top 4 sides Essendon and Richmond.

1st was 6-0 versus 8th from 1994-1999.

But all that aside, just because 1st plays 8th it doesn't guarantee that they are going to win by 10 goals. They could lose. It's their job to NOT lose after being given the weakest opponent on their home ground. Good teams will perform on the day and 1st is a good team. So much so they they never lost to 8th.

And if they did lose to 8th under than 1994-1999 system, well, they would have to deal with the consequences, which would mean dropping to 5th seed. That's not even that bad a consequnce. If you lose to 8th, you really should be eliminated. If you're still allowed to be in the finals ater losing to the worst team at home, you are pretty lucky when you think about it.

 

[MCE]

Dan's systems are OK but he only put forward systems with knockout only games (naturally). Here is another more AFL-ish system (winners in bold)...

After putting some more thought in, here's another possible final 7 system:

Week one
QF: 4v5 (teams are re-seeded based on result)
EF: 6v7 (loser eliminated)

Week two
SF1: 1st vs winner of EF (1v6)
SF2: 2nd vs loser of QF (2v5)
SF3: 3rd vs winner of QF (3v4)
Two lowest ranked losers eliminated

Week three
PF1: Highest ranked week two winner vs highest ranked week two loser (1v4)
PF2: Other week two winners play - higher ranked team hosts (2v3)
Losers eliminated

Week four
GF: Winners of PF1 and PF2 (1v2)

Notes:
- An alternative version of week three has the highest ranked week two winner having a rest while the other week two winners play off for the other GF position. I figure the AFL would choose the above option instead since it has more games - see the dodgy final 6 system they used to maximise the number of finals.
- The QF seems like a dead rubber since it's only to determine who faces 2nd and 3rd but it does give 2nd and 3rd the advantage of playing a team that didn't have a rest in week one. The QF loser must also win in week two to stay alive, ie. the winner becomes the new 4th seed and could be the highest ranked week two loser - the 5th seed can never be the highest ranked loser.
- The week two matches have to be played in the order of SF3, SF2 then SF1 so that the losers of SF2 and SF3 don't know before the match if they'll get the double chance.
- Only 1st, 4th and 5th are guaranteed another chance if they lose a final. Re-seeding 4th and 5th after the QF avoids the situation where 4th can lose in both week one and two and still turn up in PF1.
- If 1st, 4th and 5th all win in week two then PF2 will be a repeat of the QF (possibly hosted by the opposite team).
- 1st is guaranteed to make it to week three but they have to win in week two to earn a home PF.
- 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th are guaranteed one and possibly two home finals. 5th could get one home final, 6th is guaranteed one home final and 7th gets none.

An alternative version of the first two weeks from the above system could be:

Week one
QF1: 4v7
QF2: 5v6
Lowest loser eliminated, remaining teams are re-seeded

Week two
SF1: 1st vs higher ranked week one loser (1v6)
SF2: 2nd vs lower ranked week one winner (2v5)
SF3: 3rd vs higher ranked week one winner (3v4)
Two lowest ranked losers eliminated

Notes:
- The week one matches must be played in the order QF2 then QF1 so that the teams involved in QF2 don't know before their match if they'll get another chance.

Compared to the above system:
- 4th gets an easier week one match but if they lose they get a harder week two match vs 1st.
- 5th gets an easier week one match but could get a harder week two match vs 1st or they could be eliminated.
- 6th gets a harder week one match but could get an easier week two match vs 2nd or 3rd. They also aren't guaranteed to be eliminated if they lose.
- 7th gets a harder week one match but could get an easier week two match vs 2nd. They are still guaranteed to be eliminated if they lose.
- 4th and 5th are guaranteed one and possibly two home finals. 6th could possibly have one home final and 7th gets none.
- If 7th wins in week one, then 7th and 4th win in week two then PF2 will be a repeat of QF1 but with 7th hosting.
- Only 1st and 4th are guaranteed a double chance if they lose a final.

 

[Dan26]

No the flaw was the highest ranked side from week one got screwed over by the fact that they got a stronger opponent as proven over the 22 or 24 home and away rounds thanks to the system dropping their seeding.

Yes the system dropped their seeding. You are acting like that is a flaw. It isn't a flaw.

The system dropped Geelong's seeding from 2nd to 5th BECAUSE THEY LOST to 7th. It's fair for your seeding to drop if you lose to 7th.

Geelong's week-2 opponent (Adelaide) raised their seeding from 4 to 3.

So it was 3rd hosting 5th in week 2.

7th-placed North Melbourne, by virtue of beating 2nd, raised their seeding from 7th to 4th, and they hosted West Coast (4 hosting 6th)

This is the point. After LOSING to 7th, Geelong dropped (as they deserve to) to 5th seed.

Adelaide (3rd) deserved to host Geelong (5th)

North Melbourne (4th) deserved to host West Coast (6th)

None of tnat is unfair. You are saying that it is unfair that Geelong had to play a harder opponent (Adelaide) than what North Melbourne did (West Coast.) It's not unfair. Geelong lost, and deservedly dropped to 5th seed and had to deal with the consequnces of playing the 3rd seed.

There are consequences for losing finals, and the easier you opponent in the first week, the bigger the consequenes for losing.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Again Dan all you are doing is arguing on pure statistics and theory, which is the exact reason that system failed so quickly into its use and was criticised. The fact that it didn't account for the rewards top teams should get in week 1 and on were the exact reason it was removed. Every year that there was the old McIntyre system there was a problem exposed in it with the exception of 1996 (caused by MCC Deal). The current system allows for factors such as the top team having an off day etc best as possible. All butb 2 times has a top 4 side not plaYED off to get into the grand final and these were both by 3 points and a draw resulting in overtime. Thus this system rewards teams appropriately for winning hgome and away matches and does not give a near equal chance to play in the preliminary final or even the grand final to the bottom 4 teams.

1st was 6-0 versus 8th from 1994-1999.

But all that aside, just because 1st plays 8th it doesn't guarantee that they are going to win by 10 goals. They could lose. It's their job to NOT lose after being given the weakest opponent on their home ground. Good teams will perform on the day and 1st is a good team. So much so they they never lost to 8th.

And if they did lose to 8th under than 1994-1999 system, well, they would have to deal with the consequences, which would mean dropping to 5th seed. That's not even that bad a consequnce. If you lose to 8th, you really should be eliminated. If you're still allowed to be in the finals ater losing to the worst team at home, you are pretty lucky when you think about it.

Home ground argument is bullshit. Geelong never play on their home ground and never will. The year where they got thrashed by North in 1997n they were effectively playing them away as it was North's home ground.