Finals system

[D-N-R]

I think the current top 8 is just about perfect. I think those arguing against it are looking at it from the wrong angle.

Assume for the moment all results go according to ladder position - for team 1 the finals would look like:

Week 1 - v 4th
Week 2 - week off
Week 3 - v 3
Week 4 - v 2 (grand final)

So, for team 1 to win the flag they will need to play and defeat 4, 3 and then 2 in succession.

During week 2 we find out if any of the strongest of teams 5-8 are better than the weakest of teams 1-4, who take their place if they are.

For any team to win a grand final they must take on the three other strongest teams. There is no 'sneaking in' based on the results of other matches going your way. Perfect system IMHO.

Exactly right. Having 1st beat up 8th would be 'boring and predictable.'

 

[DardySingh360]

Interesting since the current finals system was introduced in 2000;
1st has won the Premiership 5 times (Essendon 2000, Port Adelaide 2004, West Coast 2006, Geelong 2007, Collingwood 2010)

2nd has won the Premiership 4 times (Brisbane 2001, Brisbane 2002, Hawthorn 2008, Geelong 2009)

3rd has won the Premiership twice (Brisbane 2003 and Sydney 2005)

 

[Dan26]

Which is why it should stay as it is. Your system proposes making the result predictable by putting the strongest teams against the weakest team, and making the game boring, by... well... putting the strongest teams against the weakest teams.

It's about what's fair. The strongest teams have earnt the right to play the weakest teams. When first played 8th from 1994-1999, it was admittedly 6-0, but three of the matches were decided by 2 points, 13 points and 6 points.

In fact, lets look at the six matches between 1v8, and comapre them to the 6 matches between 4v5

1v8 (6-0 over the 6 years)
1994: 2 points
1995: 13 points
1996: 6 points
1997: 46 points
1998: 22 points
1999: 69 points

Average winning margin of 1st over 8th 26.3 points

4v5 (5-1 over the six years)
1994: 5 points
1995: 19 points
1996: 55 points
1997: 33 points
1998: 48 points
1999 : 5th beat 4th so not included in winning margin of 4th over 5th

Average winning margin of 4th over 5th 32.0 points

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I could see the tactics in removing a competitor early on, but I'd doubt that scenario would happen. The top teams would generally have better form - why risk it? You'd have to be supremely confident that you could turn it on in September.

Maybe so but the possibiilty albeit remote, is there all the same.

Theres a reason why under the old McIntyre system that certain games had to be played before others.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The results are predictable and boring, not necessarily the matches themselves.

Well if the footy was great to watch, what exactly is your problem?

 

[Father Jack]

The results are predictable and boring, not necessarily the matches themselves. Saturday night's match, in my opinion, was one of the great finals. But the reality is for the 22nd time out of 24 the losing Qualifying finalist won in week 2. It's the same every bloody year.

Baffling logic. Who gives a shit if the result is predictable and boring if the game isn't? That all comes down to hindsight, I mean at the 49 minute mark of teh last quarter (or however long the bloody thing went for) not many people were thinking that West Coast were going to win based on what had happened in previous years. And they weren't instantly bored once the siren went due to it being a 'predictable and boring' result.

 

[LordLucifer]

Of all the finals systems, I did prefer the Final five to be honest although I was brought up on the old final fours system).

Week One
1 gets an automatic free ride to week two
2 VS 3 (qualifying final)
4 VS 5 (elimination final, loser eliminated)

Week Two
1 VS winner of qualifying final (SF 2)
Loser of qualifying VS winner of elimination (SF 1)
(Winner of semi 2 to GF & loser to PF, Winner of semi 1 to PF & loser eliminated)

Week Three
Preliminary final (Winner of semi 1 vs loser of semi 2)

Week Four
GF (winner of semi 2 VS winner of PF)

This was good because each week one team was eliminated from the finals race as opposed to what we have now is four teams out in two weeks.

 

[Those]

Some cracking semi finals in recent times

WCE v Carlton this year
Bulldogs v Swans in 2010
Right in front of me in 2009
Collingwood v WCE extra time in 2007
Nick Davis in 2005

I like the final 5, but its main problem is the high likelihood of repeated matchups.

 

[D-N-R]

It's about what's fair. The strongest teams have earnt the right to play the weakest teams. When first played 8th from 1994-1999, it was admittedly 6-0, but three of the matches were decided by 2 points, 13 points and 6 points.

In fact, lets look at the six matches between 1v8, and comapre them to the 6 matches between 4v5

1v8 (6-0 over the 6 years)
1994: 2 points
1995: 13 points
1996: 6 points
1997: 46 points
1998: 22 points
1999: 69 points

Average winning margin of 1st over 8th 26.3 points

4v5 (5-1 over the six years)
1994: 5 points
1995: 19 points
1996: 55 points
1997: 33 points
1998: 48 points
1999 : 5th beat 4th so not included in winning margin of 4th over 5th

Average winning margin of 4th over 5th 32.0 points

In 2 of those 3 years, the difference between 1st and 8th was;

1994 - 4 games
1996 - 6 games

Admittedly the 1995, the difference between 1st and 8th was 10 games, so this was probably closest to an upset.

In 1998, the difference between 1st and 8th was 6 games, so again between the top 8, not much in it (and Adelaide won from 5th, but only finished 3 games behind 1st spot).

So basically, in the years when there were close matches between 1 vs 8, there was little difference in games won on the ladder, except with the Bris vs Carlton final which was 19 points. (And Brissy were improving at that time and got up to 3rd the following year). So I'm not sure the raw stats really tell the full tale.

This year, Geel and Coll are head and shoulders above the rest, but 3-5, IMHO, are all pretty even. Next year, I would expect Freo to improve, Bombers will get better, I think the current top 5 will stay up and maybe North or StK to push in as well and Syd are usually up there. If Geel and Coll come back to the pack, next years top 8 will be a cracker of a finals series, and I think there might be a few upsets.

 

[dr nick]

1999 : 5th beat 4th so not included in winning margin of 4th over 5th

yeah, that's a pretty legit way to do statistics.

Unfortunately the immutable 6-0 record contradicts the whole premise of your account

 

[Catsace]

Funnily enough i think Geelong's antics in 1992 and 1993 led to a couple of rule changes in the finals system.

Firstly the 1992 series saw Geelong play the Bulldogs in the Qualifying finals and preliminary final, with wins to the Cats both times, and then losing to the Eagles in both the 2nd Semi and Preliminary final.

THis duplication saw the finals system introduce the 'crossover' rule that prevented two teams playing a second time until the Grand Final.

Then famously in 1993 Geelong finished 7th with a bullet in a most unique and weird season of 20 rounds (itself unique in the AFL after 1970 up to now). It's record of 12-8 and percentage of 111% and the fact it was merely six premiership points shy of the ladder leader saw the AFL bring in a final 8 for 1994. Somewhat fittingly, Richmond finished 9th in 1994 with a good record of 12-10, a number that in recent years would generally be easily getting into the finals.

 

[Dan26]

In 2 of those 3 years, the difference between 1st and 8th was;

1994 - 4 games
1996 - 6 games

Admittedly the 1995, the difference between 1st and 8th was 10 games, so this was probably closest to an upset.

In 1998, the difference between 1st and 8th was 6 games, so again between the top 8, not much in it (and Adelaide won from 5th, but only finished 3 games behind 1st spot).

So basically, in the years when there were close matches between 1 vs 8, there was little difference in games won on the ladder, except with the Bris vs Carlton final which was 19 points. (And Brissy were improving at that time and got up to 3rd the following year). So I'm not sure the raw stats really tell the full tale.

This year, Geel and Coll are head and shoulders above the rest, but 3-5, IMHO, are all pretty even. Next year, I would expect Freo to improve, Bombers will get better, I think the current top 5 will stay up and maybe North or StK to push in as well and Syd are usually up there. If Geel and Coll come back to the pack, next years top 8 will be a cracker of a finals series, and I think there might be a few upsets.

It's about doing what is right.

The Qualifying finals have retrospectively become meaningless games. You can quibble with that and say that they were worth winning because the week off gives a big advantage. But when the all is bounced for both games this weekend, there are 4 teams left all with a 25% chance (mathematically of course) of winning the flag. The same 4 teams that played in a different combination in the Qualifying finals.

We think it's okay don't we? We think it's ok becuase we assume that Collingwood and Geelong will win, because in other years the team with the week off has won 19 times out of 22.

But what if they don't? What if they don't win, DNR? THEN we will see the crapness of the finals system in all its awful glory.

We would have the reprehensible situation where 3rd and 4th will have received a second chance for losing to 1st and 2nd. And then 1st and 2nd will have been eliminated after one loss with no second chance to the very teams who finished BELOW them who DID receive a second chance. Terrible. Absolutely terrible.

This hasn't happened in the finals since the system started in 2000 but one day it will. And it's wrong. It's damn wrong.

Finals should be knockout. Obviously. That's what they are about - performing on the day. That's what the Grand Final is about; that's what the Preliminary Finals are about. Thats the ideology of finals themselves - perform on the day or you're out.

If Hawthorn play West Coast in the Grand Final, you will sit there and think to yourself: "This seems wrong. It's just wrong. Why are 3rd and 4th the ones getting a second chance after losing to 1st and 2nd and then 1st and 2nd are out after one loss after losing to the same 3rd and 4th teams who lost in the first week?"

Double chance are crap. The public likes knockout finals more. Give them what they want. Finals are more exciting when your season depends on whether you win or lose. No one would oppose that. Everyone reading this loves the exciting knockout nature of the Preliminary Finals and the Grand Finals. That IS the intrinsic appeal of finals - the fact that you HAVE to perform on the day.

 

[WCErevival]

The double chance is just to sort out positioning into the prelims. After that its a knockout final. Pretty simple stuff really.

 

[Scodog10]

Shock! Horror! The cup is always won by one of the best 4 teams that season.... imagine that...

Common sense. This poster has it

 

[Dan26]

The double chance is just to sort out positioning into the prelims. After that its a knockout final. Pretty simple stuff really.

It doesn't need to sort out the positioning. You can do this by just having 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5 with the 4 winners of those 4 matches "sorting out the positioing"

The only reason the double chance exists is so we can have 9 finals instead of 7.

It's bullshit. But because it has been around since 1931 it's all we know in ths country. So we just assume (wrongly) that it's right and that it's good and that it's the best. I suppose when you don't know any other way and people havn't opened their minds to the better ways of conducting finals, I can see why this cultural mindset previals. But it's still wrong.

 

[WCErevival]

It doesn't need to sort out the positioning. You can do this by just having 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5 with the 4 winners of those 4 matches "sorting out the positioing"

The only reason the double chance exists is so we can have 9 finals instead of 7.

It's bullshit. But because it has been around since 1931 it's all we know in ths country. So we just assume (wrongly) that it's right and that it's good and that it's the best. I suppose when you don't know any other way and people havn't opened their minds to the better ways of conducting finals, I can see why this cultural mindset previals. But it's still wrong.

So what would be the point of finishing 1st then? Could just coast through the year, finish 8th and then turn it on in the finals. Go straight through to a prelim with one win.

The top teams have to be rewarded some how if there are going to be 8 finalists. Otherwise just make it a top 4 and be done with it.

 

[Dan26]

So what would be the point of finishing 1st then? Could just coast through the year, finish 8th and then turn it on in the finals. Go straight through to a prelim with one win.

The top teams have to be rewarded some how if there are going to be 8 finalists. Otherwise just make it a top 4 and be done with it.

You can't just coast through the year and finish 8th because if you do, you will have to play 1st on their home ground. Who in their right mind would coast through to get this near-impossible task? And if you win that (which is unlikely) you will have to play 2nd on their home ground in the Prelim. 8th has virtually no chance. It is far more difficult for 8th to play 1st than it is for them to play 5th.

The advantages of A.) home ground advantage and B.) the advantage of always playing the lowest remaining seeded team are all that is needed. Those are big advantages. So much so that 1st was 6-0 versus 8th from 1994-1999.

There is C.) a third advanatge if any number other than 2,4 or 8 is used in the finals and that will be getting a week off. For example, in a knockout final-10, in addition to A.) and B.) the top 6 teams will get a week off. In a knockout final 6 the top 2 teams will get a week off.

So, as much as I like the knockout final-8, I prefer the knockout final-10. The top teams have the advantage of A.) home ground advantage, B.) always playing the lowest remaining seeded team and C.) Getting a week off in the first week.

This myth that the only way to give an advantage to a top team is to give them a double chance is horseshit. Look at the NFL as a good example. There are 3 other ways to give advantages to the top team/s which I just outlined as A.), B.) and C.) and a double chance is not one of those advantages. Nor should it be.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Why would they coast into 7th or 8th?????

You'd obviously want to finish as high as possible because the higher you finish, the better off you are.

For 8th to make the Grand Final, they would have to win AWAY against the best team. Then, as if that isn't hard enough, they then would have to play the team who finished 2nd in the Preliminary Final (both 2nd and 8th would have a week off so there would be no advanatge in the "week off"

So, 8th would need to beat 1st and 2nd both of them away from home in successive matches.

Given the near impossibility of achieving that feat, it is obviously desirable to not "coast" into 8th but instead go flat out to finish as high as you can, preferably earning a home final (and the advantage of playing a low seeded team who finished 5th or below), by finishing in the top-4.

You have completely missed D-N-R's point.

Take this year for example. Say Mick Malthouse, who has a team good enough to finish first, decides instead to take a different approach and rest players here and there to keep them fresh and fit, win enough games to never be too far off the pack and uses games to experiment with different games styles and giving a whole lot of kids decent game time. Assume they finish 8th, having never really unleashed on anybody through the minor round, but just doing enough to grab 8th spot.

By finishing 8th this year, they would have played Geelong at the MCG first up. Then assume in their first final against Geelong, they raise the tempo, hit the 4 to the floor and overrun Geelong. Suddenly they are into a prelim and have taken out their biggest threat.

Granted, treating the minor round as virtually a preseason comp is dangerous, as the old addage goes, you should never tinker with form. But I think this is what he is trying to say to you. Basically, why bust your ass going 21-1 through the minor round when 12-10 is good enough to get you into a knockout final tournament where you are only one win from a prelim.*

 

[Dan26]

You have completely missed D-N-R's point.

Take this year for example. Say Mick Malthouse, who has a team good enough to finish first, decides instead to take a different approach and rest players here and there to keep them fresh and fit, win enough games to never be too far off the pack and uses games to experiment with different games styles and giving a whole lot of kids decent game time. Assume they finish 8th, having never really unleashed on anybody through the minor round, but just doing enough to grab 8th spot.

That would never happen. Why would a coach deliberately want to finish in a lower posiiton meaning harder finals versus high seeded teams all the way through the finals and also the likelihood of playing away finals? Who would do that? Who thinks like that?

What you are suggesting is so implausible, it could never possibly be contemplayed by any coach. You are asking a coach to position his team in the finals in an unfavourable position. That's lunacy.

By finishing 8th this year, they would have played Geelong at the MCG first up. Then assume in their first final against Geelong, they raise the tempo, hit the 4 to the floor and overrun Geelong. Suddenly they are into a prelim and have taken out their biggest threat.

Once again, why would they be stupid enough to deliberately finish 8th and give themselves the hardest opponent first up? They're not stupid. If Collingwood are good enough to finish 1st or 2nd they get the advantage of a home game (if they play a non-Vic side) and they play the 7th or 8th placed team?

I mean, if Mick Malthosue deliberately wanted to finish 8th so that they could have an away game against the hardest opponent first up, then he's an idiot and he'd probably get the sack mid-season.

 

[The_Todd07]

The only thing that is boring and predictable when it comes to the finals system is how this kind of thread pans out.
Every single f*cking time there is a finals system thread Dan26 comes in and tells us what to think.
I'd rather have a conversation with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church on the merits of gay marriage

 

[ChappyUK]

Final 4 with 4 weeks of finals.

1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 1 - 1 & 2 home game
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 2 - Return leg. 3 & 4 home game
4 v 1
3 v 2

Week 3
Winner 1 v 4. Based on winning margin over both games.
Winner 2 v 3. Based on winning margin over both games

Week 4.
Return leg. Flag decided.

Simples!



Losers can also play a 3rd/4th matches for the AFL to make extra cash

 

[Perry Pie]

The final five gave the minor premier too much advantage........

A week off, followed by a double chance game, followed by a Grand Final (often against the same team they met in the semi final).

Thats way too generous. No team should ever go through a four week finals series only playing two games especially if its against the same opponent.

Agree with this. The 5 was OK, but the 8 as now done is much better.

The current system results in the premier side having to win at least 3 games. More than that, in most seasons (last year for example) the premiers have to win 3 games against the other top 4 sides - a tough demanding test that makes winning it even more special that a straight knockout.

5 - 8 teams keeps interest in the H & A season, provides a reward for those sides and gives teams and players experience of the finals.

 

[greennick]

The only thing that is boring and predictable when it comes to the finals system is how this kind of thread pans out.
Every single f*cking time there is a finals system thread Dan26 comes in and tells us what to think.
I'd rather have a conversation with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church on the merits of gay marriage

Too true. He has no idea and just talks endless shit, refusing to concede at all, despite it being obvious to everyone else he is wrong.

Leave the system alone!! It works well, the best teams normally win. More importantly, it produces some damn good dames of footy.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The Qualifying finals have retrospectively become meaningless games.

A disallowed Cameron Ling goal in a QF cost Geelong any chance of a premiership last year. It was far from meaningless.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

That would never happen. Why would a coach deliberately want to finish in a lower posiiton meaning harder finals versus high seeded teams all the way through the finals .

If you beat the top seed early then all of a sudden you have a seeded draw.

Theres no massive incentive to finish first in a knockout scenario. Once you have locked in a spot in the top eight, positions within the eight are largely irrelevant with the exception of travel. Teams will go into cruise control in August, creating more dead rubbers than ever before.

Under the current system EVERY spot on the ladder is worth more than the one below.