Finals system

[demondavey]

Just thinking that since this finals system was introduced in 2000, no one from 5-8 has won the flag and very rarely does a team in that bracket get through to the prelim. I googled the old top 8 system yesterday, the one the NRL uses currently. What do people think of this? It certainly gives a fair bit of diversity and allows for some decent upsets. I understand why it was abandoned, but it certainly gives that big finals edge. Imagine if Geelong played Sydney again? I

Or if that idea gets caned, what about a different form of our current system? 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4 and so on, with double chance for the top 4 still. So coll would play Geel first week...

This system has been going for 11 years now, and top 4 gets a real advantage, a good reward for top 4 finish, but would it not be interesting to bring some more variety to it all?

 

[red+black]

We all know we used to have a top 4 and then a top 5. While they were fantastic systems, you could probably argue that 5 teams is insufficient in a 14 to 18 team competition. And the AFL wanted to minimise the chance of repeat finals, as often happened in the earlier finals systems.

So then we had the original McIntyre Final 8 system. Full of usually boring meaningless games, and constrained by the fact that 3v6 and 4v5 had to be played before 1v8 and 2v7. And of course the biggest travesty of the system, in that winners from week 1 got to host losers from week 2. Travesties such as non-Victorian teams playing home finals in Melbourne, and #2 sides playing an away final in Week 2 have been rectified.

I heard a caller on radio last week say that Carlton should host West Coast tonight because Carlton won and West Coast lost. What utter tripe. First of all, West Coast finished 4th over a 22 week season and deserve to carry through an advantage over lower placed finals sides. Second, West Coast lost to the #1 side, Carlton defeated the #8 side. There is no way in hell that the mistakes of the original McIntyre system will be repeated.

That said, perhaps the current system, the revised McIntyre Final 8 system is not perfect. I think one flaw is that #1 plays #4 in Week 1, but gets a harder game in Week 3, playing #3. I would think any system should start at a final of 1v2 and semi-finals of 1v4 and 2v3. So I would swap the games around and have 1v3 and 2v4 in Week 1. Why? Because #1 should have the easiest must-win elimination final.

I think much improvement needs to happen with the fixture, and we will probably see some changes over the next few years. And maybe the finals will add wildcard playoffs, I don't know. But I think we should maintain that if you play well over 22 (or less) weeks, that that should be rewarded in the finals, and even after a finals loss.

 

[Mobbs]

This is meant to be in the main AFL board, yeah?

 

[red+black]

This is meant to be in the main AFL board, yeah?

I just went with the flow, but yeah, it's a fair assumption this was meant for the Main Board.

 

[Dan26]

The finals system has become a totally predictable bore since it was introduced in 2000.

The first two weeks of the finals (six games) have basically been irrelevant as the top 4 teams invariably just meet in the Preliminary Finals in a different order to what they met in the first week.

Consider this. Since the finals system was introduced in 2000:

- 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.

(3rd-placed Brisbane beating 4th-placed Sydney away form home in the 2003 Prelim was expected)

(1st-placed West Coast beating 2nd-placed Adelaide away from home in the 2006 Prelim was expected)

So, the ONLY upset in any knockout final that had any bearing on the premiership was the 2005 prelim. That's it! In 12 bloody years we have ONE- count it - ONE upset final in a knockout match that has had a bearing on the flag.

Even if you count the 2007 semi-final where Collingwood beat West Coast, the Eagles had their 3 best midfielders out, so it wasn't really a suprise that they lost.

The finals, really have become a predictable giant bore for 12 years now.

And given that 19 times out of 22 the team with the weeks rest have won, you can pretty much guarantee who the winners this weekend will be.

 

[The Magenius]

The finals system has become a totally predictable bore since it was introduced in 2000.

The first two weeks of the finals (six games) have basically been irrelevant as the top 4 teams invariably just meet in the Preliminary Finals in a different order to what they met in the first week.

Consider this. Since the finals system was introduced in 2000:

- 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.

(3rd-placed Brisbane beating 4th-placed Sydney away form home in the 2003 Prelim was expected)

(1st-placed West Coast beating 2nd-placed Adelaide away from home in the 2006 Prelim was expected)

So, the ONLY upset in any knockout final that had any bearing on the premiership was the 2005 prelim. That's it! In 12 bloody years we have ONE- count it - ONE upset final in a knockout match that has had a bearing on the flag.

Even if you count the 2007 semi-final where Collingwood beat West Coast, the Eagles had their 3 best midfielders out, so it wasn't really a suprise that they lost.

The finals, really have become a predictable giant bore for 12 years now.

And given that 19 times out of 22 the team with the weeks rest have won, you can pretty much guarantee who the winners this weekend will be.

Its pretty crap when you put it that way, though I guess those teams have earned the right to have the best chance to get through.

 

[legend166]

The finals system is fine the way it is. Strikes a great balance between the number of games and providing the top four with the best chance to make it to the GF.

 

[Munga]

The final eight system is great and fair.
The problem is it should be a top four only. The other four teams are just wasting their time, and mine, and yours!

1v4, 2v3 in knockouts. Winners to GF. Done. Anyone from out side the top four doesn't deserve to win.

The aim is to find the year's champion. Due to an unbalanced fixture, the best team might not always finish top. Eg Geelong playing the Suns twice and finishing a win ahead of the pies who only played the suns once. So the search is expanded to the top four.
A top eight is insane and stupid.

Oh the money, I forgot it's about the money. It always is....

 

[Bone71]

In these days of an uneven draw that can determine where a team finishes at the end of the H&A season I would rather do away with double chance games altogether.

Straight out knock out finals and that is it. If 1st can't beat 8th or 2nd beat 7th then so be it.

Finals should be all or nothing from the get go

 

[Admiral Byng]

I like the top 8 system as it exists right now. True it's usually only the top 4 that have a chance of making it through to the big game. But for teams 5-8 it can be valuable experience to play a couple of finals if they have a young and upcoming team.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The current system is the best we've had. It gives the top 2 sides a chance at a week off in the second week, and one win away from the Grand Final. That's how it should be. The 3rd and 4th teams have better chances than 5th to 8th, once again, the way it should be.

The top 6 was the most ridiculous. I recall 1993 where Adelaide finished 5th at the end of the minor round, played 3 finals, winning only 1, and ended up in 3rd spot.

If the finals system is a good one, you should at least finish 4th to have a realisitic chance at a flag. Finishing 5th to 8th should offer nothing more than finals experience and something to build on for the following year.

 

[Michael Scarn]

The only problem with it is that 4th is a better place to finish than 3rd as they getter an 'easier' prelim.

 

[Dan26]

Everyone knows I love knockout. All fans do (even if they say they don't.)

Knockout is the essence of what finals are about - perform on the day. That's what was great about the Carlton-West Coast match on Saturday. The season was on the line. All finals should be like this. The fans love the knockout games.

Supose it was a knockout final-8, where we have:

First week
1v8, 2v7

Second week
3v6, 4v5.

Third week
1st Prelim: highest remaining seed vs lowest remaining seed
2nd Prelim : 2nd-highest remaining seed vs 2nd lowest remaining seed

4th week
Grand Final

That would be so much better. I actually think it would be fairer on the top team for starters. Collingwood, this year has to play 3rd to get into the Grand Final. That is unfair. They should, in theory play the lowest remaining seed. Also, they had to play 4th (a difficult match) in the first week to get a prelim final berth

Under a knockout final-8 it is much fairer. Yes, 1st faces elimination agaisnt 8th. So what? So, friggin what? 1st face elimination in the Prelim after one loss, so how is it any different?

Do you think 1st would rather face elimination, but face an easier opponent to earn a Prelim berth? Or face a harder opponent (4th) but get a double chance if they lose?

I'd be wanting to face the easier opponent in an elimination match. If you're the best team all year you'd back your ability to beat 8th, so it's obviously preferable to play 8th and face elimination rather than play 4th and get a double chance.

It's about weighing up the positives and negatives. Play an easier opponent and face elimination, or face a harder opponent and get a double chance.

 

[oak79]

I like the current system - increasing rewards for finishing higher:

1-2: 2 home finals/ double chance
3-4: 1 home final/ double chance
5-6: 1 home final
7-8: 0 home finals

The problem with swapping 1st round of finals (ie 1v3, 2v4) is 1 now have a harder game to actually earn the week off. They may be playing a higher team in the prelim currently, but they at least have the advantage of having a week off before they do so (assuming all results go to higher team).

 

[Father Jack]

You merely have to look at the finals as effectively two rounds. The top four get a double chance to make it to the second round (which starts with the prelims) and from there it is a knockout. As for the lack of upsets, well, that is a good thing, you don't want the flag decided on a lottery. The best finish up the top for reason, it would seem.

 

[mattys123]

Is that you Adrian Anderson?

Do you want to **** with our competition even more?

Really though, the eight is almost too big anyway, even with 18 teams.

I'd prefer a final four, make it a 3 week finals system and get it out of the way, but that will never happen, so I love the current system where the top 4 get the advantage they earned.

 

[Matthew2708]

Nope, I love the current system.

 

[Dan26]

Here is, I believe the best finals system to be used for the 18 team league.

KNOCKOUT FINAL TEN (winners in bold)

Week One
7v10
8v9

Week Two
1st vs lowest-placed winner from week one. (1st vs 9th)
2nd vs highest-placed winner from week one (2nd vs 7th)
3v6
4v5

Week Three
Highest remaining team versus lowest remaining team (1st vs 6th)
2nd-highest remaining team vs 2nd lowest remaining team. (2nd vs 4th)

Week Four
Grand Final. (1st vs 2nd)


As you can see it's a better system and much fairer on the top team. 1st gets to play at home to either 8th 9th or 10th in week two, and they get the advantage of hosting the lowest remaining seed in the Prelim finals (in the example here, 6th.)

That's much better than the current system, where 1st has to beat 4th, then 3rd to make the Grand Final.

There are essentially 5 sets of advantages:

1.) 1st and 2nd
Guaranteed to play all finals at home until the Grand Final. They have the advantage of hosting a low-seeded team in week 2 who played in week one.

2.) 3rd and 4th
Guaranteed to have a home final in week 2. They don't have the same advantage like 1st and 2nd do, of hosting a team in week 2 who played the week before because their oppoents (5th and 6th) also have a weeks rest.

2.) 5th and 6th
Same advantages as 3rd and 4th except they are away from home in week 2.

2.) 7th and 8th
Home final in first week, but no home finals after that. Need to win 4 finals to win the flag

2.) 9th and 10th
No home finals, need to win 4 finals to win the flag.

Perfect system, really. 1st an 2nd are better off than 3rd and 4th, who are better off than 5th and 6th, who are better off than 7th and 8th, who are better off than 9th and 10th.

No hated double chances. All exciting knockout, and the season is kept alive longer for middle-ranked teams, ensuring less dead-rubbers towards the end of the H&A season.

 

[Bone71]

quote=Adelaide Hawk;22319116]
If the finals system is a good one, you should at least finish 4th to have a realisitic chance at a flag. Finishing 5th to 8th should offer nothing more than finals experience and something to build on for the following year.[/quote]

I find the argument "5th to 8th is for finals experience" BS. If we don't want a winner to come outside the top 4 then get rid of the final 8 and go back to the final 4.

The current system does nothing other than protect the top four from an upset in the first week. If they cannot beat a team from 5th to 8th in a final they do not deserve to win the flag, no matter how good they were in the H&A season.

 

[greennick]

I like the top 8 system as it exists right now. True it's usually only the top 4 that have a chance of making it through to the big game. But for teams 5-8 it can be valuable experience to play a couple of finals if they have a young and upcoming team.

Exactly. You need to include 5-8 as otherwise they would get no finals experience, which is important as part of that rise up the top. It will happen one day when a team wins it from outside the top 4. We just need the right circumstances for it to occur, like a more even year than this or some critical injuries to the favourites.

 

[Dan26]

I find the argument "5th to 8th is for finals experience" BS. If we don't want a winner to come outside the top 4 then get rid of the final 8 and go back to the final 4.

The current system does nothing other than protect the top four from an upset in the first week. If they cannot beat a team from 5th to 8th in a final they do not deserve to win the flag, no matter how good they were in the H&A season.

Exactly.

The double chance in the first week just exists as a money making exercise to have 9 finals instead of what should be 7.

1st should be playing 8th in the first week. They have earnt that advantage. If you can't beat the 8th-placed team at your own home ground, bad luck. You're out.

Double chances have no place in finals. Look at this week. We have the utterly ridiculous and reprehensible situation where the doubke chance went to 3rd and 4th, yet if 3rd and 4th beat 1st and 2nd this week, then 1st and 2nd are out after one loss (with NO double chance), and 3rd will play 4th in the Grand Final after BOTH teams lost in the first week. That's pure idiocy.

Double chances are my most hated thing in all of football. They go totally against the principles and ideologies of what finals are about - PERFORMING ON THE DAY.

1st don't need to be playing 4th in the first week. Instead, give them the easier match agaisnt 8th but make it elimination. Sure it's knockout for 1st, but the "advantage" to compensate for not having the double chance is that they get an easier match to win through to the Prelimnary Final.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Cant see whats wrong with the current system. Certainly cant see why 1 should be forced to play 2 in the first round of the finals. Doesnt make any sense.

Wouldnt mind going back to the old McIntyre system (1v8, 2v7 etc etc) but that had a few fundamental flaws.....

1. The possibility that teams finishing 3rd and 4th can get eliminated in week 1.
2. For teams 3 to be eliminated in week 1 they not only have lose but have results in other games they are not involved in, go against them.
3. Scheduling games under this scheme is diabolically difficult because you have to play games in a certain order to avoid dead rubbers.
4. Therefore scheduling the next weeks games and avoiding 5 day breaks is also problematic.

The MAIN reason the old McIntyure system was abolished was because of these practical issues.

 

[Sasuke]

Its all about money. They want more games. For mine, the only weakness with the 1vs8 system is that gives an advantage to the interstate teams that is not given to victorian clubs. This year for example, Collingwood would have played essandon, and West coast would have played Carlton. Clearly better for WC. Saying that, if ur fist and cant win 3 games in a row agains lower teams, its your own fault.

knockout games are so much better.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

No hated double chances..

Hated by yourself maybe. Dont think everybody else has such strong opinions one way or the other.

 

[Dan26]

1. The possibility that teams finishing 3rd and 4th can get eliminated in week

Why is that a problem? 3rd and 4th are not playing 1st and 2nd. They are playing 6th and 5th, Timmy.

If 3rd and 4th lose to 1st and 2nd they obviously get a double chance.

If 3rd and 4th lose to 5th and 6th they absolutely should be eliminated. They are playing at home to a lower seeded team from the bottom half of the top 8. Finals are about performing on the day - why should 3rd get a second chance if they lose at home to 6th?

Don't give me the "Oh, but what if they have an off day" excuse.

What if Collingwood have an off day on Friday? They're out after one loss. No second chance.

The whole point of the finals is performing when it counts. So, if you say "what if 3rd have an off day against 6th?" I respond by saying DON'T have an off day! Perform on the day and win.