Finals system

[seysearles]

- 22 out of 24 losing Qualifying finalists have rebounded the next week to win their semi-final.

- Of the 22 winning Qualifying finalists who have had the weeks rest, 19 out of those 22 have won the Preliminary Final.

- Out of the three teams who have had the weeks rest who didn't win the Prelim, all were lower ranked than their opponent on the ladder and all except Sydney in 2005 were expected to lose, anway.

That's exactly how you would expect and hope it to turn out i.e the best teams for the year play off to make the grand final. Having said that, since 2000 of the 11 teams to top the table only 5 have won the flag (2000, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010) so despite the fact that the top 4 teams generally hold their positions it doesnt mean that the winner is a sure thing or that the grand final is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Matt_TY]

Only Dan26 could give us a thread saying how predictable the finals are and how there are too many also-rans while simultaneously advocating for a Final Ten.

The current finals system rewards teams that finish on top in the regular season, encourages jockeying for position during the season proper resulting in less dead rubbers, while simultaneously giving the fans good Qualifying Final games that are consistently well attended (so clearly they don't hate the double chance that much).

 

[Dan26]

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.

No you don't have a seeded draw if 8th beats the top team. Not a seeded draw that advantages you, anyway.

If 8th beats 1st and advances to the Preliminary Finals, they would be the LOWEST seded team in the Prelims. That means they would have to play away form home versus 2nd in the Prelim (assuming 2nd beat 7th.)

The highest remaining team will always play the lowest remaining team.

I do agree with you, though, that in a knockout scneario, any number with 2,4,8 treats all teams mathematically the same. Teams still have advanatges over others in terms of home ground advantage and having the bonus if playing the lowest remaining seeded teams.

But any other number other than 2,4,8 will ALSO bring in byes for certain teams. For example, in a knockout final-7, the top team would get a week off. In a knockout final-6 the top 2 would get a week off. In a knockout final-10, the top 6 would get a week off.

They are such great systems. Much fairer in essence, and it is impossible to get the situation this weekend where it is possible that 3rd and 4th can win after getting a double chance eliminating 1st and 2nd after one loss. That situation is deplorable.

Quite simply, finals are NOT about getting second chances for losing. Knockout is what fans love and it's is also what finals are ideologically about.

 

[Dan26]

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

In retrospect it was virtually meaningless. Both Geelong and St.KIlda ended up in home preliminary Finals anyway.

I know the argument will be that Geelong had to play a rested team who finished on top, but so did West Coast in 2006 and they won.

In a strictly mathematical sense, geelong and St.Kilda were both had a 25% chance of winning the flag when the Preliminary Finals started. The Qualifying Final - important as it was - was not season ending. It was NOT do or die. Geelong had THEIR destiny in their own hands when they played Collingwood. They could have won if they were good enough, but they weren't.

I don't get why people deep down defend this. It's like they think to themselves; "Oh, I love how you can lose a Qualifying Final and play on next week. Those finals are so safe and reassuring....mmmmm.... I love safe and reassuring finals. So comforting."

Give me a break. Show some balls and embrace do-or-die.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

No you don't have a seeded draw if 8th beats the top team. Not a seeded draw that advantages you, anyway.

If 8th beats 1st and advances to the Preliminary Finals, they would be the LOWEST seded team in the Prelims. That means they would have to play away form home versus 2nd in the Prelim (assuming 2nd beat 7th.)

Fair enough...I assumed you were talking about a tennis-like knockout comp where if you beat the top seed in the first round, you also claim the top seeds spot in the draw and suddenly having got past the best player early, face a relatively good run home.

Irrespective for many reasons already discussed, i hate the suggestion of knockout finals.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

In retrospect it was virtually meaningless. Both Geelong and St.KIlda ended up in home preliminary Finals anyway.

One team was buggered from a tough finals campaign and the other was as fresh as a daisy. The result of the QF dictated who played in the GF.

 

[Dan26]

for many reasons already discussed, i hate the suggestion of knockout finals.

That doesn't make any sense. You are supporting the current sysem, and the current system has 7 of the 9 finals being knockout, so obviously you DO support knockout unless I've missed something.

Do you not like the exciting do-or-die nature of this weekends matches or something? If you don't like them you'd be the only one.

Are you suggesting you want the PF's and the GF to all be best-of-three or some shit like that? I mean those are your words Timmy: "I hate the suggestion of knockout finals"

The Grand Final is knockout, dude.

 

[Dan26]

One team was buggered from a tough finals campaign and the other was as fresh as a daisy. The result of the QF dictated who played in the GF.

Only in retrospect because Collingwood went on to beat Geelong. What if Geelong had won? What you are doing is looking at the end result and flip-flopping your opinion to suit whatever the result happened to be, so that you can "justify" that result.

What about 2006? Did West Coast's Qualifying Final loss to Sydney dicate that they didnt play in the Grand Final? No. They were still in the Preliminary Finals that year, just as they would have been if they had won their Qualifying Final. Being "buggered" wasn't an excuse for West Coast. They won. Just as Geelong could have last year in the Prelim IF they were a good enough team. They weren't.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Only in retrospect because Collingwood went on to beat Geelong. What if Geelong had won? .

They were physically spent and were never going to win the flag without the benefit of a week off. Plus they would have met Collingwood in a GF not a PF, after the Pies had also played a prelim...so they would have met on more equal terms.

The value of winning the QF has never been illustrated more clearly than last years Geelong StKilda game. The winner by a kick ended up missing out on a premiership by a kick. The loser by a kick limped through to the prelim and got smashed.

That game illustrated how high the stakes are in Qualifying finals.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

That doesn't make any sense. You are supporting the current sysem, and the current system has 7 of the 9 finals being knockout, so obviously you DO support knockout unless I've missed something.

Yes you are. You're missing something.

 

[Dan26]

The value of winning the QF has never been illustrated more clearly than last years Geelong StKilda game. The winner by a kick ended up missing out on a premiership by a kick. The loser by a kick limped through to the prelim and got smashed.

That game illustrated how high the stakes are in Qualifying finals.

The value of winning the semi-final has never been illustrated more clearly than last weeks West Coast-Carlton game. The winner by a kick may end up winning the premiership. The loser is out.

That game illustrated how high the stakes are in knockout finals.

As for Qualifying finals. The stakes are nowhere near as high. Not even remotely close.

Brisbane (2003) Sydney (2005) and West Coast (2006) all lost Qulaifying finals. They all won the flag anyway.

Qualifying finals may be important. But compared to knockout finals, Qualifying finals are not that important.

 

[legend166]

Have Dan26 and TheGov (from the cricket board) ever been seen in the same room?

I'm starting to think they are the same person.

 

[Dan26]

Yes you are. You're missing something.

Do tell.

You are the one that said, and I quote: "i hate the suggestion of knockout finals."

That's what you said. They were your exact words.

Yet you support the current system, in which 7 of the 9 finals are knockout, and your own club - the minor-premier - can be eliminated after one loss in KNOCKOUT FINALS in both the Preliminary Final or the Grand Final.

You need to clarify this. Are you suggesting that the current system should have best of three? Are you suggesting that the current system is unfair on Collingwood who can be eliminated after one loss in knockout finals this week or next week, after finishing on top?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

As for Qualifying finals. The stakes are nowhere near as high. Not even remotely close.

Its pretty close.

The four teams who played better football for the six preceding months have earnt the right to a second chance. But dont ever underestimate the prize for the winner of the QF.....its a LOT harder to win the flag coming out of a QF loss.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Do tell.

You are the one that said, and I quote: "i hate the suggestion of knockout finals."

That's what you said. They were your exact words.

You know exactly what I meant.

 

[Dan26]

.....its a LOT harder to win the flag coming out of a QF loss.

How hard do you reckon it is to win the flag coming off a knockout final loss? Bit harder I reckon.

It goes to show you that Qualifying Finals may be important.... but they're not that important.

If West Coast and Hawthorn win this weekend, how do you think history will judge the importance of this year's Qualifying finals?

 

[Doss]

Timmy, wouldn't bother bashing your head against the brick wall any longer if I were you.

The AFL would never agree to a system anything remotely like what Dan26 would want anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Good luck to Hawthorn and West Coast if they win the flag the hard way. They made top four and they deserve the double chance. Collingwood and Geelong will start favorites because they have superior form and a nice break prior to the Preliminary finals.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Timmy, wouldn't bother bashing your head against the brick wall any longer if I were you.

Its not my head I am bashing

 

[Dan26]

The AFL would never agree to a system anything remotely like what Dan26 would want anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much.

LOL. You're acting like it's a radical sysrem that only an extremist could support.

The knockout final-10 I want is used by Major League Soccer (in an 18 team league too, the same number of teams as the AFL will have)

The knockout final-12 is used in the NFL.

The knockout final-8 is used in Major League Baseball (with best of 7's)

The knockout final-16 is used in the NBA (with best of 7's)

The 32-team World Cup Soccer, after the group stages (the equivalent of home and away), has a knockout final-16.

I could go on and on.

The Super 15's Rugby Union has a knockout finals sysem.

The T20 Big Bash league this year will have a knockout final-4.

Double chance systems are the mutants in a world of knockout finals.

 

[Duskfire]

Finishing about 5 - 8 isnt really about winning the Flag though. Its about getting some finals experience into their team, to show that they are pretty awesome and in most cases improving. No one truly expects their team to win the flag from outside the top 4, but to be part of the finals atmosphere, to know your team is better then half the others is good. Thats why 5 - 8 exists.

 

[DTRAIN87]

I love it ghow Dan26 says it will be near impossible for a team to win week 1 against the top or second ranked side after finishing 8tyh or 7th. Carlton 1994 and Geelong 1997 both lost in week 1 to sides tyhat were clearly better than their ranking , had injuries and got it right for the finals. Carlton 1994 were beaten by Melbourne in week 1 who were missing key players all season and had a near full side come finals. Carlton had a couple of injuries and were not at full squad. Melbourne knocks off Carlton in week 1 and allows it to get to the preliminary. The new and current finals system stops this from happening because it makes the lower sides play in week 1 against a similar ranked opponent and come off a match before getting the chance to challenge a better team. It also may allow them to gain suspended and injured players back who can't play week one. Secondly Geelong 1997 had to play Kangaroos who everyone knew (except for Dan26) that they were a much better side than 7th. Had key injuries namely Carey in weeks leading up to the finals and got their full side. They were able to knock off Geelong, as they were fresh and had nothing to lose. This was a massive advantage in week 1 because they could come in as a full side and beat Geelong with their fresh bodies. Had they played under the new system, they would already have had a match and Geelong would have had a chance to fix their problems from week one should they lost. These are two key examples of the better team getting screwed by the system and it has happened countless times in the NRL.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Brisbane (2003) Sydney (2005) and West Coast (2006) all lost Qulaifying finals. They all won the flag anyway.

Lucky these teams finished top 4 and earned a double chance then..

 

[Dennis]

Just bring back the top 5

6 - 8 are always just making up the numbers

With the old top 5, every final was a humdinger!

 

[Doss]

Dan, I've never been under the illusion that knockout systems are a rarity around the world. Quite the contrary, of course they are in the majority.

The majority aren't always right though.

For mine, there are too many variables that would just make a mockery of the system if it were knockout. For example, Geelong were 13-0 and Essendon 5-7-1 going into the Round 15 game this year. Yet Essendon won, partly because of how well they played, partly because Geelong didn't play well, and partly because Geelong had a few injured players out (as did Essendon of course, but regardless). Now, if that had been a final under a knockout system, Geelong would have been out because of one freak result. Sorry, but that just does not sit well, with me nor I suspect with the vast majority of football followers.

Yet it happens in other competitions all over the world, I hear you say? Who cares. It doesn't happen here, it never has and it never should. We actually reward sides (with a double chance) for finishing higher, and in my opinion we have it right.