Finals system

[Dan26]

History says you need to win the QF to have a decent shot at winning the flag.

Yes, but it's not a necessity. There is no rule that ays you have to do it that way.

In 2006, West Coast didn't win the Qualifying Final. They won their way into the Prelim by winning one match - versus 8th.

They then beat 2nd and 4th to win the Grand Final.

In a knockout final 8 (if all the higher teams won) guess who 1st would have to beat to win the flag? You guessed it - 8th, 4th and 2nd. The same thing as what happened in 2006.

My system is fairer. It allows the top team to play easier opponents (which is what they deserve) and as a bonus, the system is knockout which means the top team can be eliminated with no second chance, but it is still fairer for them at the same time even though they cna be eliminated! Win-win.

 

[RogerC]

Now, I am of the opinion that finals should all be knockout. I hate double chances as they go against the ideology of what finals are about - performing on the day. I would have had the Cats eliminated.

See, now that's just completely wrong. The ideology of a finals series is that it determines who the best team is. The way in which that is decided is entirely at the discretion of the league.

The ideology of a knockout finals series is all about the best side performing on the day, sure. But you have to start with the understanding that the finals will be determined on a knockout basis if you're going to make that statement. That's not what we have, and what we have works perfectly well.

You can't apply this "performing on the day" stuff to situations where a club has a second chance. I know you'd like to, but it simply doesn't apply. "Performing on the day" only applies to games where one team is eliminated. In the other two games another ideology applies, and that is "reward/consolation". Which is what you earn if you finish in the top four under our current system. Which, I repeat, works perfectly well.

I fully agree that if Geelong were beaten by the team in 7th spot they deserve to be eliminated. But then I think that particular finals system was a mess, and I'm glad it's gone.

 

[Dan26]

See, now that's just completely wrong. The ideology of a finals series is that it determines who the best team is. The way in which that is decided is entirely at the discretion of the league.

The ideology of a knockout finals series is all about the best side performing on the day, sure. But you have to start with the understanding that the finals will be determined on a knockout basis if you're going to make that statement. That's not what we have, and what we have works perfectly well.

You can't apply this "performing on the day" stuff to situations where a club has a second chance. I know you'd like to, but it simply doesn't apply. "Performing on the day" only applies to games where one team is eliminated. In the other two games another ideology applies, and that is "reward/consolation". Which is what you earn if you finish in the top four under our current system. Which, I repeat, works perfectly well.

I fully agree that if Geelong were beaten by the team in 7th spot they deserve to be eliminated. But then I think that particular finals system was a mess, and I'm glad it's gone.

I suppose what I am saying that IF the finals in structured in such a way, where the highest plays the lowest double chances shouldn't apply, but if they are structured whereby you have 1v4, 2v3, they should apply.

In my view the finals system used from 1994-1999, should have been knockout simply because it worked in the "1v8, 2v7, 3v6 4v5" way, and the fact that it wasn't knockout caused problems. Big problems. It meant that two teams had to get a second chance so in some years 5th and 6th received this second chance. I think it actually proves that if you apply double chances to a "1v7, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5" system, the double chances don't work properly. You need to make such a system knockout.

But all that aside Roger, my point to that other poster was that Geelong were not hard done by in 1997 at all. According to the system they got a double chance, okay fair enough. But after losing to 7th their consequnces for losing are greater than if they lsoe to 3rd and therefore they drop to 5th seed and have to play away against 3rd (Adelaide.)

There are still Geelong people that think that after getting the advanatge of playing a weak team such as 7th that they ALSO should get another advantage of hosting the semi-final in week two if they lose to 7th.

It annoys me that after 14 years they still don't get it.

 

[DTRAIN87]

The irony of your statement is that people are arguing that the current system is the fairest. But is it? Really? The top team has to beat 2nd, 3rd and 4th to win the flag. Sounds pretty unfair on the top team to me.

The top team has earnt the right to play the weakest team. They are the best team, they deserve that privilidge.

With the current system, yes you get some good match-ups with 1v4 and 2v3, but those matches are not do-or-die, so as "good" as those match-ups are on paper, they are not as good or as marketable as the same top 4 match-ups (1v3, 2v4) in the prelims, which are the same quality, BUT there is more at stake. It is do or die.

In a knockout final-10, 1st would play either 8,9 or 10 in their first final after a week off. 2nd would play either 7th, 8th or 9th.

Now those matches might not appear as close on paper as the 1v4 2v3 matches under the current system, but remember they are knockout. They are do or die. The 1v4, 2v3 matches are not. Now that doesn't mean that the 1v4 2v3 matches are not exciting under the current system, but they are not AS exciting as what they would be if they were knockout.

I would reckon that any decrease in the marketability of the matches that 1st and 2nd play against their weaker opponents (which is debatable anyway) is made up for by the fact that the season is on the line for 1st and 2nd in those matches.

The top team should be given every opportunity to have the easiest run to the Grand Final.

OMG the first bit is the most idiotic and foolish thing I have ever read. 1 st may have to beat 4th, but after that they may play 6th or 7th in the preliminary or 8th and 5th in the Grand final. This shows you have no idea of the finals whatsoever.

1st doesn't have to beat 2nd, 3rd, and 4th to win the flag.

They are not required to win the Qualifying Final. It is not a pre-requistite for winning the flag.

In 2006, West Coast got to the Prelim by winning one match versus EIGHT. Yep. EIGHTH. They finished top, and won one finals match to get to the Prelim. Versus 8th.

They then best 2nd and 4th to win the Grand Final.

But in a knockout final-10, the last 4 teams (if they go according to seeding) will be 1v4 and 2v3, so 1st will need to beat 2nd and 4th to win the premiership (exactly what happened in 2006)

There you go. You contradict yourself in the first sentence. Look at the quote above to see where you pwned yourself.

In 1997 Geelong finished 2nd and earned the advantage of playing 7th.

They lost.

Now, I am of the opinion that finals should all be knockout. I hate double chances as they go against the ideology of what finals are about - performing on the day. I would have had the Cats eliminated.

But I digress, Geelong finished 2nd and lost. This meant they slumped (deservedly) to 5th seed. In the second week of the 1997 finals, Adelaide (3rd seed) hosted Geelong (5th seed).

This, itself was totally fair.

The other semi-final was betweey North Melbourne (who originally finished 7th) and West Cost (who originally finished 5th)

North beat Geelong in week one so North climbed from 7th to 4th seed. West Coast lost in week one to Adelaide, so the Eagles dropped from 5th seed to 6th. So, the match was beteen 4th seed (North) hosting 6th (West Coast)

The seeding deservedly changed after North beat Geelong in week one. Geelong were no longer 2nd - they were 5th (fifth being the best of the 4 week one losers). The Cats still had an enourmous advantage. They got to play on after losing a finals match. Thet received a second chance after losing to 7th. That would never happen in American sport, for instance.

When you play a weaker opponent, the consequnces of losing a greater.

For example, if 2nd-placed Geelong lost to 3rd (like in 2010), they have the ADVANTAGE of remaining higher seeded than the winner of 6v7 and they get to host that game. But the have the DISADVANTAGE of playing a hard opponent in 3rd.

Under the older system if 2nd-placed Geelong lost to 7th (like in 1997), they have the DISADVANTAGE of dropping to seed 5, and playing seed 3 on seed 3's home ground. But the have the ADVANTAGE of playing a theoretically easier opponent in 7th.

See how the advantage and disadvantage balance out in both sceanrios?

Now granted North Melbourne was probably better than a normal 7th placed team but that's not the final system fault. That's just bad luck.

The ADVANTAGE and DISADVANTAGE need to balance out. If Geelong play an easier opponent in 7th (an advantage) the disadvantage is that the consequences for losing a greater.

If Geelong play a harder opponent in 3rd (a disadvanatge like in 2010) the advantage is that the consequnces for losing are not as bad and they remain higher seeded than their week two opponent hence hosting the game..

What you want if for Geelong to have the double advantage whammy. To play a weak opponent (7th) and if they lose to that weak opponent to STILL retain home ground advantage! No way.

Geelong lost to the 7th-placed side in 1997 and had to deal with the consequnces. They were the best of the 4 losers (the 4 losers were seeded 5,6,7,8), so they were seeded 5. Adelaide were the 3rd-highest of the 4 winners (the 4 winners were seeded 1,2,3,4)

In the second week of the finals, 3rd hosted 5th. so Adelaide hosted Geelong.

To suggest Geelong was hard done by shows a complete lack of understanding of the finals system. There is nothing wrong with playing away from home in week 2 if you are a high-placed team like Geelong IF you lost to a low-ranked opponent. It wouldn't happen that way if Geelong lost to 3rd. But when you lose to 7th, the consequences and penalties for losing are greater, as they deserve to be.

I suppose what I am saying that IF the finals in structured in such a way, where the highest plays the lowest double chances shouldn't apply, but if they are structured whereby you have 1v4, 2v3, they should apply.

In my view the finals system used from 1994-1999, should have been knockout simply because it worked in the "1v8, 2v7, 3v6 4v5" way, and the fact that it wasn't knockout caused problems. Big problems. It meant that two teams had to get a second chance so in some years 5th and 6th received this second chance. I think it actually proves that if you apply double chances to a "1v7, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5" system, the double chances don't work properly. You need to make such a system knockout.

But all that aside Roger, my point to that other poster was that Geelong were not hard done by in 1997 at all. According to the system they got a double chance, okay fair enough. But after losing to 7th their consequnces for losing are greater than if they lsoe to 3rd and therefore they drop to 5th seed and have to play away against 3rd (Adelaide.)

There are still Geelong people that think that after getting the advanatge of playing a weak team such as 7th that they ALSO should get another advantage of hosting the semi-final in week two if they lose to 7th.

It annoys me that after 14 years they still don't get it.

In all the ramblings, you are wrong in the first line and even North Melbourne supporters I know say they screwed over the Cats with this system, as did they get screwed in 1998 and they got the benefit again of in 1999.

North may have been 7th at Home and Aaway's end, but it was clear to most people they were clearly better than their position and this was played as the danger firnal for the top 2 going into the last round. Geelong and St Kilda were equal except for percentage. North got the majority of their premeirship team again that won in 1996 and got to the grandfinal in 1998 and 1999 which it won. Geelong had to face them on their home ground at the time and got done by a fully fit North side who had to win and had stars firingh like Carey and Archer. The only reason they didn't finish higher as widely commented and accepted in the media was they were decimated by injury and did not have the side to put on the ground each week as they did in 1996. The result was they won, got an easy final thanks to the finals system in the semis at the MCG and then lost to a firing St Kilda who had the benefit of the week break.

The idea of the current finals system was to alleviate a number of things. The chance of 7th playing 2nd or 8th vs 1st in week one where they were a strong side and knock them off was one of the points. The general and widely adopted concensus was that home and away should be of greater value come finals and weaker sides should be punished and face bigger challenges to get past week omne and week 2. The fact that only one side has won in week two that was ranked 5th-8th in normal time by under a goal and the other in 5 minutes extra time shows this. The majority of years in the old system, a weak side from outside the 4 got to the preliminary final and two got to the granny. One was premier.

This was one of the key reasons the Mcintyere final 8 was removed.

The other reasons were

> Teams who finished at the top got no benefit for losing in week one despite being better over 22 rounds.

> Sides who finished in the bottom half could get a home final and often progress to week 2 or 3 or 4 with ease.

> Sides could lose who were 5th or 6th quite often in week 1 and not be eliminated. This is where the 1998 Adelaide tanking argument comes in regarding not wanting to play MNorth till the final.

The fact that you can't see this shows me either how ignorant you are or how you are just seeking to troll. The first bit is more likely, as you cannot stand anyone to refute your claims and you just seek to call them fools.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Yes, but it's not a necessity.

And thats what makes the QF absolutely brilliant.

You CAN lose a game in the first round of the finals and by doing things the hard way still win the flag.

The winner of the QF gets an easier path to the premiership but the loser of the QF still has a shot.

Perfect.

 

[iAmAtrueLegend]

Every team should participate in the finals, except for the bottom 2.

So it goes 1v16 2v15 etc.

(All knockout)

 

[Doss]

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..?

 

[brett15]

North may have been 7th at Home and Aaway's end, but it was clear to most people they were clearly better than their position and this was played as the danger firnal for the top 2 going into the last round. Geelong and St Kilda were equal except for percentage. North got the majority of their premeirship team again that won in 1996 and got to the grandfinal in 1998 and 1999 which it won. Geelong had to face them on their home ground at the time and got done by a fully fit North side who had to win and had stars firingh like Carey and Archer. The only reason they didn't finish higher as widely commented and accepted in the media was they were decimated by injury and did not have the side to put on the ground each week as they did in 1996. The result was they won, got an easy final thanks to the finals system in the semis at the MCG and then lost to a firing St Kilda who had the benefit of the week break.

Geelong having to play Adelaide at AAMI Stadium the following week was one of the major flaws of that system, so much for finishing 2nd.

 

[iAmAtrueLegend]

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

Week One
6v7 (Winner shall be seeded 6)
2v5
3v4
(Highest ranked winner seeded 2, second highest seeded 3)
(Highest ranked loser seeded 4, seconded highest seeded 5)

Week Two
1v4 (Knockout)
2v3 (Knockout)
5v6 (Knockout)

(Highest ranked winner through to GF)

Week Three
2nd Highest ranked winner vs winner of 5v6

Week Four
Grand Final.

That, my friend, is a Final 7 system.

 

[Dan26]

OMG the first bit is the most idiotic and foolish thing I have ever read. 1 st may have to beat 4th, but after that they may play 6th or 7th in the preliminary or 8th and 5th in the Grand final. This shows you have no idea of the finals whatsoever.

This was in reference to 1st having to beat 2nd, 3rd and 4th to win the flag. It is not a requirement that they do this. In fact, in theory they could tank in week one and beat 8th or 5th in week 2, followed by 3rd in the Prelim and 4the in the Grand Final.

A knockout top ten requires them to beat 4th, then 2nd in the Prelim and Grand Final (if the higher terms win) but it gives them the deserved advantage of beating a lower team in their first final, which is an advantage they have played for and deserve to have

There you go. You contradict yourself in the first sentence. Look at the quote above to see where you pwned yourself.

What the hell are you on about?

In all the ramblings, you are wrong in the first line and even North Melbourne supporters I know say they screwed over the Cats with this system,

I didn't like the 1994-1999 system. It had problems. But Geelong not getting a home final in week 2 of 1997 was not one of those problems. Geelong deserved to be the away team in week 2 of 1997. They were ranked lower than Adelaide. By losing Geelong slumped from 2nd to 5th seed. THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR LOSING FINALS DTRAIN.

North may have been 7th at Home and Aaway's end, but it was clear to most people they were clearly better than their position

I agree with you, but that isn't the final systems fault. That's just bad luck for Geeong that they met a team who was probably better then their ladder position indicated. That's nothing to do with the finals system.

.

The idea of the current finals system was to alleviate a number of things. The chance of 7th playing 2nd or 8th vs 1st in week one where they were a strong side and knock them off was one of the points.

That's totaL bullshit. The finals system was changed for two main reasons but what you have just stated wasn't one of those reasons. In fact one of the few good things about that finals system was the fact that 1st and 2nd got the opportunity to have home finals against the weakest finalists.

The finals system was changed because if 1st and 2nd won, 3,4,5,6 all played amongst themselves in week two. There were dead rubbers. In fact, if the top-4 all won, 5th and 6th received a second chance and could then knock out 3rd and 4th in week 2.

That was why it was changed.

In 1988 and 1999 Adelaide and Carlton played in the Grand Final respectively after finishing 5th and 6th and LOSING in the first week.

That's why the system was changed.

Geelong losing to 7th in 1997 was not a problem as far as the system was concerned. If Geelong was not good enough to beat 7th that isn't the systems fault. Geelong lost to a low ranked team, become the 5th seed and had to travel to the 3rd seeds home ground. That was fair.

The general and widely adopted concensus was that home and away should be of greater value come finals and weaker sides should be punished and face bigger challenges to get past week omne and week 2.

The 1994-1999 system with all its faults DID make it harder for 7th and 8th to get past week one. They had to win away finals against 1st and 2nd. Under the current system they only have to win away finals against 5th and 6th.

That 1994-1999 system also rewared 1st and 2nd more. They only had to win home finals agaisnt 7th and 8th to get to the Prelim. Under the current system they have to win home finals versus 3rd and 4th.

Sure the consequences of losing to 7th and 8th were greater (in that they lose home ground advantage), but so they should be. If 1st loses to 8th, they get penalised more than if they had lost to to 4th. And so they should get penalised more if they lose to a weaker opponent.

This was one of the key reasons the Mcintyere final 8 was removed.

The two reasons the Final-8 was changed was because if 1st and 2nd both won, the matches betwene 3v6 and 4v5 were meaningless. And secondly because 5th and 6th could receive an undeserved second chance. All the other things you have stated had nothing to do with why the finals system was changed.

Teams who finished at the top got no benefit for losing in week one despite being better over 22 rounds.

That had nothing to do with why the finals system was changed. Why in the living hell should a top side get any beneft if they lose to 8th? They get a second chance, which is more the enough.

That aspect of the finals worked well. If 1st lost to 8th they lose home ground advantage. They would become 5th seed (the 4 losers are ranked 5,6,7,8) and they would play the 3rd seed who was the 3rd-highest winner.

It worked well because 1st gets the advantage of playing the worst side. If they lose to this weaker side, the consequances are greater AS THEY SHOULD BE. Under the current system, 1st has a harder match agaisnt 4th, so the consequences if they lose are not as bad, meaning they still get a home final in week 2.

But if you are given the advantage of playing the worst side (1v8) and you lose, you absolutely do not deserve a home final in week 2 under any circumstances.

Finals are about winning. Not losing. If you win you reap the rewards.

Sides who finished in the bottom half could get a home final and often progress to week 2 or 3 or 4 with ease.

Sides who finished in the bottom half had to beat a top-4 side. Under the current system they do not have to do this to get to week 2. 7th needed to beat 2nd to get to week 2. Under the current system, 7th only has to beat 6th. What do you think is easier for 7th? Which system?

If 7th DO cause an upset and beat 7th, their reward is greater because they had a harder match in the first place. If 7th beats 6th (under the current system) they don't get a home final in week 2. If they beat 2nd (under the old sysem) then they DO.

Once again the old system had problems. That wasn't one of them.

Sides could lose who were 5th or 6th quite often in week 1 and not be eliminated.

This was a problem and it was one of 2 reasons why it was changed. In 1998 and 1999 the 5th and 6th placed teams lost - should have been eliminated - and both ended up playing in the Grand Final.

The other reason it was changed was because if the top 4 all won, the matches between 3,4,5,6, become dead rubbers.

Those other reasons you outlined were not problems. 1st losing to 8th and then losing home ground advantage is not a problem with the system, because 1st DESERVES to lose home ground advantage if they can't win after being given the huge advanatge of playing 8th.

If you have the ADVANTAGE of playing 8th, the DISADVANTAGE that balances that out is that you lose home ground advantage if you are defeated by 8th.

If 1st has the DISADVANTAGE of playing 4th in the first week, the ADVANTAGE that balances that out is that you KEEP home ground advantage if you lose to 4th.

What you unreasonably want is to have the advantage of plaing 8th, and to ALSO have the advantage if keeping home ground advantage if you lose to 8th.

The fact that there were consequences for 1st losing to 8th was not a problem with the system. That was a good thing. The system had other problems such as dead rubbers and potential double chances for 5th and 6th which were the reasons why it was changed.

 

[Dan26]

Geelong having to play Adelaide at AAMI Stadium the following week was one of the major flaws of that system, so much for finishing 2nd.

As stated they had the advanatge of playing the 7th-placed team.

They lost and STILL got a second chance.

In any 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 system, double chances don't work. It needs to be elimination if that format is used. Double chances were used in that system from 1994-1999 and what often happened was that those double chances went to 5th and 6th. Geelong, after losing to 7th should have been eliminated. If you lose to 7th and don't perform on the day, you must accept the consequences. Finals are about winning, not losing.

They weren't eliminated but they slumped to 5th seed and had to play 3rd-seeded Adelaide at the 3rd-seeded teams home ground.

Why should 5th host the match agaisnt 3rd? Adelaide were 3rd, Geelong were 5th, so 3rd gets the home final. So they should.

If 2nd has an easier match against 7th and then loses to 7th the penalties for losing are greater. As they should be.

If 2nd loses to 3rd (under the current system) they have a harder match, so if they lose to 3rd they keep home ground advantage in week 2.

But if 2nd plays 7th they have an easier match. So, if they lose to 7th, they then lose home ground advantage.

You can't exepct 2nd to lose to 7th, and not accept the consequances. They LOST. If they had won, they wouldn't have to worry about an away final. They played an away final because if you lose to a finalist in the bottom half of the eight, the penalities for losing are greater. As they should be.

 

[Dan26]

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..?

KNOCKOUT FINAL SEVEN
Week one
- 2v7
- 3v6
- 4v5

Week two
- 1st versus lowest placed week one winner (1 v 4)
- other two winners play-off (2 v 3)

Week three
- Grand Final (1 v 2)

 

[Dan26]

KNOCKOUT FINAL SEVEN VERSION 2.0 (winners in bold)
Week one
- 6 v 7

Week two
- 1st versus winner of 6v7 (1 v 6)
- 2 v 5
- 3 v 4
Highest placed winner from those three matches straight to Grand Final.

Week three
- two lowest placed winners from week 2 play off ( 2 v 3)
winner to Grand Final

Week four
- Grand Final (1 v 2)

 

[DTRAIN87]

Dan how is it not the systems fault that a strong team Can finish 7 and play 2 and beat them? This is the systems fault as it was designed in this way and allowing this flaw.

 

[Matthew2708]

These would be my Finals Systems. (Top 2 to Top 6)

Top 2

Grand Final
1 V 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top 3


Week 1

1st Preliminary Final
2 V 3

Week 2

Grand Final
1 V 2 (The Winner of the first Preliminary Final)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top 4

Week 3

1st Preliminary Final
1 V 4

2nd Preliminary Final
2 V 3

Week 4

Grand Final
1 V 2 (The Winner of the 1st Preliminary Final v the Winner of the 2nd Preliminary Final)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top 5

Week 1

1st Semi Final
4 V 5

Week 2

1st Preliminary Final
1 V 4 (1st V The Winner of the 1st Semi Final)

2nd Preliminary Final
2 V 3

Week 3

Grand Final
1 V 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top 6

Week 1

1st Semi Final
3 V 6

2nd Semi Final
4 V 5

Week 2

1st Preliminary Final
1 V 4 (1st V The Winner of the 2nd Semi Final)

2nd Preliminary Final
2 V 3 (2nd V The Winner of the 1st Semi Final)

Week 3

Grand Final

1 V 2 (The Winner of the 1st Preliminary Final V The Winner of the 2nd Preliminary Final)

 

[Dan26]

Dan how is it not the systems fault that a strong team Can finish 7 and play 2 and beat them? This is the systems fault as it was designed in this way and allowing this flaw.

It's not the systems fault if 7th happens to be better than what their ladder position indicates. The system will apply the seedings in a fair way. The system doesn't know that North were better than a normal 7th-placed team in 1997. All the system can do is schedule 2nd vs 7th, which on paper is fair.

For example it IS fair that 1st gets to play the worst team (8th)

It IS fair the 2nd gets to play the 2nd-worst team 7th.

All those things are fair.

If 2nd loses to 7th they must accept the consequences.

The best way to explain it is this (and this is all from 2nd's point of view)

There are 3 possibilities, two of which are fair. One isn't fair.

1st possibility (fair)
2nd has a hard match against 3rd under the current system. They lose. But because they had a hard match versus 3rd, they retain home ground advantage in week 2. THE CONSEQUNCES FOR LOSING TO 3RD ARE NOT AS BAD BECAUSE 3RD IS A HARD OPPONENT.

2nd possibility (fair)
2nd has an easy match against 7th under the old system. They lose. But because they had an an easy match versus 7th they lose home ground advantage in week 2. THE CONSEQUNCES FOR LOSING TO 7TH ARE WORSE BECAUSE 7TH IS AN EASIER OPPONENT.

3rd possibility (UNfair)
2nd has an easy match against 7th under the old system. They lose. But they are given a home final in week 2 even though they lost to an easy opponent. There are no consequences for losing to 7th. They get the easy match versus 7th and also get home ground advantage in week 2 even if they lose to 7th.

The 1st possibility is what happened to Geelong in 2010. It was fair.

The 2nd possibility is what happened to Geelong in 1997. It was fair.

You are saying that the 3rd possibility (the unfair one) is what should have happened in 1997.

 

[brett15]

As stated they had the advanatge of playing the 7th-placed team.

Theoretical advantage doesn't translate into real world advantage. This point has already been rebutted by other posters anyway.

They lost and STILL got a second chance.

As any 2nd placed team should under a proper final 8 system, it's one of the flaws of 94-99 McIntyre 8.

In any 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 system, double chances don't work. It needs to be elimination if that format is used. Double chances were used in that system from 1994-1999 and what often happened was that those double chances went to 5th and 6th.

Not much about the 94-99 McIntyre system really worked, including double chances.

However double chances worked fine in the Final 4 (1931-71), Final 5 and current Final 8 system.

 

[Dan26]

As any 2nd placed team should under a proper final 8 system, it's one of the flaws of 94-99 McIntyre 8.

There were no flaws at all regarding the 1st or 2nd placed team under the 1994-1999 final 8.

The flaws that did exist that led to the system being changed were:

1.) 3v6 4v5 playing potential dead rubers in week one.

2.) 5th and 6th getting second chances, and then going on to play in the Grand Final, which is what happened in 1998 and 1999.

The team that finished 2nd on the ladder got the advantage of playing 7th. That is fair. If they lose, they had to play away in week 2, because there is more of a penalty for losing to a weak team, than there is for losing to a good team. For example, when 2nd lose to 3rd under the current system, they retain home ground advantage in week 2 because the consequences for losing are not as high.

I would go one step further and state that any system which has the 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 4v5 format doesn't need double chances. They don't work. As evidenced by the 1994-1999 system, where usually the double chance went to 5th and 6th.

If 2nd loses to 7th they should be eliminated. They lost. Don't lose. Perform on the day and win as finals demand. They already have received the advantage of playing the 2nd-worst team at home. If they can't win that, bad luck. There are no second chances for losing a Preliminary Final or a Grand Final, so there should absolutely, categorically not be any second chances for losing to 7th at home. Same diff.

There are consequences for losing and the lower your opponent is seeded (and therefore the bigger advantage you get) the bigger the consequences if you lose.

Finals are about winning. They are about performing on the day. If 2nd is drawn to play 7th they must do what good teams do in Preliminary Finals and Grand Finals - perform on the day and win.

At any rate, even if you think Geelong deserved a second chance in 1997, one thing is for darn sure... they certainly did not deserve to play Adelaide in Melbourne in week 2 after losing to 7th in week one. They deserved to be the away team. They lost to 7th, dropped to 5th seed and had to play away to 3rd in week 2. That's fair.

 

[brett15]

What's the point of trying to finish 1st or 2nd then, might as well casually land in 3rd/4th knowing all you have to do is beat a 5th/6th placed team to host a final against 1/2 should they lose. That's precisely what Adelaide did.

At least under the current system, to host the Prelim you have to go through another top 4 team.

 

[Bone71]

What's the point of trying to finish 1st or 2nd then, might as well casually land in 3rd/4th knowing all you have to do is beat a 5th/6th placed team to host a final against 1/2 should they lose. That's precisely what Adelaide did.

At least under the current system, to host the Prelim you have to go through another top 4 team.

Dan isn't arguing that the old final 8 is the right system to use - in fact he has said it isn't a number of times.

What he is saying is that all finals should all be knock out. So in your example there is no incentive to finish lower on the ladder.

 

[brett15]

It's in reference to his assertion that 'There were no flaws at all regarding the 1st or 2nd placed team under the 1994-1999 final 8'

 

[Dan26]

What's the point of trying to finish 1st or 2nd then.

If you finish 1st you get a guranteed home final versus the worst team in the top-8 (1v8), then if you win that you get a guaranteed home Prelim versus the lowest remaining seeded team (i'm talking about a knockout final-8 here)

might as well casually land in 3rd/4th knowing all you have to do is beat a 5th/6th placed team to host a final against 1/2 should they lose.

1st never lost to 8th under the 1994-1999 system.

Under that 1994-1999 system, if 3rd beat 6th and 4th beat 5th, (and the top 2 both lost) 3rd and 4th would host prelims, while 7th would host 1st in the second week And 8th would host 2nd. That would be totally fair by the way.

If 1st and 2nd both lose to 7th and 8th in the first week, they must deal with the consequences. Finals are about winning. If you are the 1st-placed team and you play a low-seeded team like 8th and you lose, then the consequences for losing are deservedly worse.

That's precisely what Adelaide did.

That's what Adelaide did in 1997 and they earnt that home final in week 2. Geelong had their opportunity to beat 7th. They were playing a low seeded team, and they failed to beat 7th. They got a second chance which is more than they deserved. Geelong absolutely should not have got a home final in week 2. Geelong were seeded 5th after the first week of the finals and 3rd-seeded Adelaide hosted them as they deserved to.

I can't stress enough that when you are a top team and you play a low seeded team (i.e 1v8), the consequences for losing are greater. If you play a higher-seeded team in the first week (i.e 1v4) the consequences for losing are not as bad.

At least under the current system, to host the Prelim you have to go through another top 4 team.

Why is that a positive? I keep on hearing this argument that the current system is so "fair." If it's fair then the top team wouldn't have to beat another top team to host a Prelim would they? It's fairer to have to beat 8th.

It is fairer to beat 8th and then host a Prelim. But, if they host 8th in the first week, I would argue that it must be a knockout game. If 1st loses to 8th, they are out, just as if 1st loses the Prelim or the Grand Final, they are out. Same diff. Finals are do-or-die and are about performing on the day.

 

[Dan26]

It's in reference to his assertion that 'There were no flaws at all regarding the 1st or 2nd placed team under the 1994-1999 final 8'

The two flaws in that system were:

1.) 3v6 and 4v5 were potentally dead rubbers
2.) 5th and 6th could get a seocnd chance for losing.

There were no flaws regarding 1st and 2nd.

If 2nd lost to 7th and had to deal with an away final in week two, that is not a flaw of the system. It is one of the good things about the system. The 4 winners were seeded 1,2,3,4. The four losers were seeded 5,6,7,8.

So, if 1st lost, they drop to 5th-seed and have to play away to 3rd-seed. Because 3 is higher than 5.

I know I'm repeating myself but 1st play 8th the consequences for losing are greater than if 1st play 4th. That is not a "flaw."

A flaw is 6th starting week one with a 9.375% probability of winning the flag, losing to 3rd, getting a second chance and starting week 2 with an improved 12.5% probability. THAT is a flaw.

A flaw is 3rd starting week one with a 15.625% probability of winning the flag, thrashing 6th, (but because the top 2 both win, they don't progress beyong week 2), and 3rd then starts week 2 with a worse 12.5% probability. THAT is a flaw.

2nd losing to 7th and having to deal with consequences for not being good enough to beat 7th is not a flaw.

 

[Bone71]

There wern't any flaws. 1st and 2nd went straight to the prelim's if they win, 3rd and 4th only did if 1st or 2nd or both lost

 

[DTRAIN87]

There wern't any flaws. 1st and 2nd went straight to the prelim's if they win, 3rd and 4th only did if 1st or 2nd or both lost

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