Finals system

[Hornberger]

I mean, what kind of fool - even one who supports the current sysrem - has the Qualifying Final as their favouite annual final? No one. I'm sure you don't.

You are unbelievably stupid if you think this is meant to be a convincing argument against the current system.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

 

[Father Jack]

And it will make the home and away season boring.

a final six would make the H&A season more boring.

I don't know why people are so keen for less finals. ATEOTD, for a realistic shot at the flag you need to be top four, but you still get to keep your season alive a bit longer if you finish 5-8. What's so bad about that? You are not 'rewarding mediocrity' inasmuch as the only real reward is a flag. Without relegation or some international club comp qualification, you have to keep teams interested in the season somehow.

 

[Dan26]

8th spot haven't earned a crack at the premiers and then a week off.

What is that supposed to mean? You are acting as though 8th should be happy about playing the top team as though it's something THEY have earnt.

8th havn't earnt anything, other than the right to play in the finals from the least advantageous position. That's why they are away from home versus the best team. They get a near impossible match but the rewards for winning are a prelim final berth (which, I might add, would be an away Prelim final berth versus the top remaining seeded team, which would probably be 2nd.)

And some coach will soon work out how to coast into 8th spot with a fit a firing team, knock off 1st, and go on to win the granny.

The team that finished 7th and 8th this year I'm sure were trying to have a fit and firing squad come finals time. But if you finish 7th and 8th regardless of what finals system is used, the reality is you aren't good enough.

Your above coment there is ridiculously strange. You are saying that if the finals system changes to 1v8 in knockout, that a coach will "work out" how to beat 1st???? Wouldn't they be trying to "work out" how to beat them under any system? What you are saying argumentally doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Hornberger]

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

The biggest problem was that same match ups would get repeated too often. If games went according to script it would be;
Week 1
2 vs 3
Week 2
1 vs 2
Week 3
2 vs 3
Week 4
1 vs 2

 

[Bone71]

8th spot haven't earned a crack at the premiers and then a week off. With this system, you're assuming that 1st and second will always win, which is just as boring and predictable as the current system you're railing against.

And some coach will soon work out how to coast into 8th spot with a fit a firing team, knock off 1st, and go on to win the granny. You need to do it the hard way, which is what the current system does.

If they beat 1st they have.

All final systems are boring and predictable if the higher ranking teams always win. The current system protects the top 4 in the first week which just makes it even more predictable.

If a team is willing to risk coasting into the finals and therefore face a harder opponent (and a more likely elimination) in the first week then good luck to them, their aim is to win the flag not to tank for draft picks.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The team that finished 7th and 8th this year I'm sure were trying to have a fit and firing squad come finals time. But if you finish 7th and 8th regardless of what finals system is used, the reality is you aren't good enough.

In a knockout scenario finishing seventh or eighth by resting players during the year would be something to aim for. No point busting a gut and finishing top.....may as well finish eighth and steal the seeded draw position off the top team.....and come home with a wet sail.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

In a knockout scenario finishing seventh or eighth by resting players during the year would be something to aim for. No point busting a gut and finishing top.....may as well finish eighth and steal the seeded draw position off the top team.....and come home with a wet sail.

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.

 

[MarkT2]

Generally the best 4 teams finish in the top 4 and make the prelims. Generally the top 2 teams finish first and second and make the GF. That isn't boring it is confirmation that the H&A season has a point.

If a team can time a run and win it from outside the top 2 or even top 4 then good luck to them but there is a sound reason why everyone at Carlton today is saying they need to finish top 4 next year. It is easier to win a flag from the top 4 but the top 4 teams are usually the best 4 teams so this is how it should be.

If there is any issue with the finals it is the participation of the 8th and possibly 7th teams. Obvioulsy there are sound financial reasons for a top 8 and it reduces drop off toward the end of the H&A but in terms of a finals system it is too may teams rewarding too much mediocrity.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Oh give me a break!

You can use the injury excuse now in the Preliminary Finals under the current system. What if Geelong or Collingwood have a string of injuies and are eliminated after one loss in either the PF or the GF?

If you are the top team and you host 8th, you should face elimination. What if 1st have an off day, you say? DON'T have an off day. Good teams will be prepared and perform on the day and win. That's what finals are about.

I actually didn't say that.
Bar 2 games in the finals series, they are all elimination anyway.
The double chance is there for a reason. It gives the top 4 teams that have worked their ass's off for 22 rounds a second chance. It's fair. It's good. Now get over it because it will never change.

 

[D-N-R]

What is that supposed to mean? You are acting as though 8th should be happy about playing the top team as though it's something THEY have earnt.

8th havn't earnt anything, other than the right to play in the finals from the least advantageous position. That's why they are away from home versus the best team. They get a near impossible match but the rewards for winning are a prelim final berth (which, I might add, would be an away Prelim final berth versus the top remaining seeded team, which would probably be 2nd.)




The team that finished 7th and 8th this year I'm sure were trying to have a fit and firing squad come finals time. But if you finish 7th and 8th regardless of what finals system is used, the reality is you aren't good enough.

Your above coment there is ridiculously strange. You are saying that if the finals system changes to 1v8 in knockout, that a coach will "work out" how to beat 1st???? Wouldn't they be trying to "work out" how to beat them under any system? What you are saying argumentally doesn't make any sense at all.

Your argument is based around the idea that the current system is boring as the top 4 nearly always get through to the later rounds.

The system you propose will be one in which 1st will beat 8th 99 times out of 100, which is what you are complaining about.

What I am saying is that sooner or later a coach will coast a team into 7th or 8th (not struggle in as is the case now), get a chance to knock off first or second and then get a week off. The way it is now there is a distinct advantage for finishing top 4.

 

[Dan26]

It gives the top 4 teams that have worked their ass's off for 22 rounds a second chance.

No it doesn't.

If Hawthorn and West Coast win this week, the double chance will have gone to 3rd and 4th.

1st and 2nd will have been eliminated WITHOUT GETTING A SECOND CHANCE

And the Grand Final will be played between two teams who were beaten by 1st and 2nd in the first week of the finals.

Double chances suck ass.

 

[Dan26]

What I am saying is that sooner or later a coach will coast a team into 7th or 8th (not struggle in as is the case now), get a chance to knock off first or second and then get a week off. The way it is now there is a distinct advantage for finishing top 4.

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.

 

[iAmAtrueLegend]

Lookout guys, its the legend here. I know my opinion's highly sought-after and hotly anticipated. Anyway mate, here it is:

First up, I reckon its a disgrace how every team in the top 4 is in the exact same situation.

No one has ever got close to winning a flag from anywhere below 4th (apart from when Collingwood lost to Geelong by 5 points in 2007 PF).

In my humble and correct opinion, the finals should read as follows:

Top 4 (because no one else can essentially win it)

3rd vs 4th.

Winner of 3rd vs 4th to play 2nd.

Winner of that game to play 1st in the GF.

I'll conclude by saying: what happened to the good old days where teams snatched it from 4th and 5th on a regular basis? These days, its always 1st vs 2nd or 1st vs 3rd. Back in the 70s it was always an excitement, and the favourites didn't always win it. This is strange, however, because of the draft and all.. maybe it comes with the fact that each and every year since 2000 has resulted as follows:

1st- 21 wins
2nd- 20 wins
3rd- 19 wins
4th- 18 wins
5th- 13 wins
etc..

but hey.. who knows? Feel free to thank me in a message (coz im a legend) for my opinion , and ill catch you fellas later.

 

[ytpme]

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

Absolutely and totally agree. There are far too much advantages given to the higher teams. Double chance and home games...far too much.

1st. at home to 8th. 2nd. home to 7th. etc etc. Loser out..no second chance. This would shorten the finals weeks and allow possibly two more h/a games to be played...therefore no loss of revenue. The more teams playing each other twice makes for a fairer competition and helps eliminate the corruption associated with with the whole system.

Even doing away with the pre-season cup, or make the games also count for four points would be ideal. Computers could surely work out the adjustments later in the season to allow for this.

 

[iAmAtrueLegend]

Absolutely and totally agree. There are far too much advantages given to the higher teams. Double chance and home games...far too much.

thanks mate. a lot of people do agree with me. but hey, they dont call me the "Legend" for nothing lol.

 

[D-N-R]

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.

Your revised system will pit 1st against 8th and 2nd against 7th, and you state clearly yourself that this is a 'near impossibility' that the result will go the lower team's way. Why do you think this will make for a better final series than what we have currently? I think 1st vs 4th is a far better match than 1st vs 8th. But maybe that's just me.

Your complaint was that the current system is predictable and boring, yet you devise a system that is even more predictable and boring, with the opening games effectively dead rubbers, even by your own admission.

My point about 'coasting into 8th' is that the only advantage that a team finishing 1st and a team finishing 8th, in your system, is home ground advantage. If this involves two Vic sides, then that advantage is nil.

In the current system - in the first week - 1-4 are rewarded by either getting a week off, or having a second chance at a lower place opponent. 5-8 is straight knockout, as 'reward' for finishing lower. The top 4 games are far more exciting than what you are proposing and the 5-8 knockout games are exciting because to loser is eliminated. The system is perfect as it is, leave it.

 

[Dan26]

Your revised system will pit 1st against 8th and 2nd against 7th, and you state clearly yourself that this is a 'near impossibility' that the result will go the lower team's way. Why do you think this will make for a better final series than what we have currently? I think 1st vs 4th is a far better match than 1st vs 8th. But maybe that's just me.

Your complaint was that the current system is predictable and boring, yet you devise a system that is even more predictable and boring, with the opening games effectively dead rubbers, even by your own admission.

My point about 'coasting into 8th' is that the only advantage that a team finishing 1st and a team finishing 8th, in your system, is home ground advantage. If this involves two Vic sides, then that advantage is nil.

In the current system - in the first week - 1-4 are rewarded by either getting a week off, or having a second chance at a lower place opponent. 5-8 is straight knockout, as 'reward' for finishing lower. The top 4 games are far more exciting than what you are proposing and the 5-8 knockout games are exciting because to loser is eliminated. The system is perfect as it is, leave it.

Yes the finals system as it is now is predictable and boring.

I like the idea of a knckout system. Final-10 actually, but if it was to be a final-8, it would be 1v8 etc.

Why is that more interesting? Well, look at the current system. The first 6 finals seem to mean nothing. It's all a convoluted attempt to eventually get the top 4 playing the Qualifying finals again, but in a different combination in the Prelims.

But in a knockout system it is all on the line, from week one. For all teams. Every match counts as do-or-die. I like that. The finals start in week one.

Currently the finals start in week three

 

[Father Jack]

I wish it was predictable and boring on Saturday night, but whatever.

 

[Dan26]

I wish it was predictable and boring on Saturday night, but whatever.

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.

 

[iAmAtrueLegend]

guys, thanks for your feedback. i know im a legend, but please you dont have to bang on about it so much haha

 

[Matthew2708]

I like how the current system works.

It's good seeing, 1st v 4th, 2nd v 3rd in the first week; fighting for a week's break and the loser gets a double chance.

Then 5th V 8th, 6th V 7th in a elimination final.

In week 2, it's good seeing 4th spot proving against 5th that they earnt 4th spot. (4th comes off a lost, and 5th comes off a win).
The same with 3rd V 6th).

Then Week 3 - 1st V 3rd and 2nd V 4th; 1st must now prove its self against 3rd after proving its self against 4th in the first week. The same with 2nd, but the other way around.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'd like to see a final six:

First Week:
3 V 6
4 V 5

Second Week:
1 V Lowest Ranked Winner of Week 1
2 V Highest Ranked Winner of Week 1

Third Week:
Grand Final

Of course it won't happen as there is less finals

I actually don't mind that. Eight is too many in my personal view, even if we ever see a 24 team competition eight would be too many. Finals are about deciding who wins the premiership and beyond about 4th or 5th haven't really done enough to deserve a chance.

If we have to have eight - and we all know that for financial reasons it will never be less - the current system is about as good as it gets.

 

[Admiral Byng]

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.

 

[D-N-R]

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.

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.