Finals system

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Top 5 was the best system

 

[Matthew2708]

I personally can't stand systems that have 1st play 2nd in the first week. It should be saved for the Grand Final. If I was 2nd, I wouldn't bother trying against 1st in week 1. Just don't see the point of trying your hardest against 1st and beating them, but when it comes to the Grand Final. You lose against them.
(That's only my opinion though).

I'm also not a fan of the last system used for 1994 to 1999. (NRL currently use that system)
Not a fan of it because, of the higher ranked playing the lowest ranked teams in the 2nd week. (Example if 1st and 2nd lose in the first week, and 3rd wins. 3rd goes straight to Week 3 because they are the highest winning ranked team). Also, because if you lose in the first week. You don't know if you're out or not until the other matches have been played.
It should be set in stone.

(Only my opinion).

 

[Dan26]

I'm not particularly against a final ten system like the one Dan proposed, if it goes to final 10. It's not a bad one at all. But the argument you're putting forward up there isn't furthering anyone's argument.

So, if it did go to a final-10 one day, would you prefer the 4-week system I am in favour of?

Or would you prefer the extension of the current finals system to 5 weeks, where you'd have 7v10 and 8v9 in the first week, and then it's the same system we have now from weeks 2-5?

 

[RogerC]

So, if it did go to a final-10 one day, would you prefer the 4-week system I am in favour of?

Or would you prefer the extension of the current finals system to 5 weeks, where you'd have 7v10 and 8v9 in the first week, and then it's the same system we have now from weeks 2-5?

To be honest, I haven't given it a lot of thought lately. I think I had a go at working a finals series out a while back, and nothing really satisfied me.

Off-hand, I'd say five weeks is too long for a finals series, and 11 games is too many. They'd be my major considerations.

On the other hand, a first week of finals with only teams 7-10 playing would be a bit of a flat start to the series.

The difficulty with any final-ten system is that you have to reduce 10 teams to 4 over two weeks. There's no neat way to do that and still have as many teams as possible participating every week. The first week almost has to be a classification round. Here's the choices:

A. Reduce 10 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2

B. Reduce 10 -> 6 -> 4 -> 2

In the first, you knock out two teams in the first week. In the second you knock out four.

Now, the first, you can simply play off the bottom four and give the rest the week off. I'm going to assume the AFL wouldn't like that, as the first week would be a very hard sell. TV stations would hate it for a start. But there's not much to do with the top six either.

The second one is worse. To get rid of four teams, all you have to do is play off teams 3-10 in four knockout matches. But what then? You've got a top six you want to reduce to four teams. You can't give teams 1 and 2 another week off, that'd be ridiculous. This method is unworkable.

Really, they're both horrible.

***

I don't know if you're trying to steer this toward another "knock-out is better" argument by stealth. I hope not, because I'm not interested. For me, one is as good as the other, they're interchangeable.

 

[Red Crow]

No they didn't. If Collinwood lose any final from here on in they will not receive a second chance.

Oh really? Do you still think they "don't need it" if they lose this Friday night?

You conveniently (or perhaps intentionally) left off the very next part, where i stated that the "double chance" only applies to week one. Therefore, by winning, Collingwood indeed did not need the second chance, because they won and already went straight through to week 3. I'm sure they would love another chance this week if they lose, but thats not how the system works.

I never said that. I said that under the current system the top team rarely gets a double chance for losing. The double chance goes to 3rd and 4th usually.

The top 4 teams get EITHER a second chance OR a week off. One or the other, but never both.

Hawthorn and West Coast received a second chance

Collingwood and Geelong received a week off.

I'm suggesting that under a knockout final-10, that if the week off is 100% guranteed, you then don't need a second chance. Currently Collingwood have to fight for the week off. They have a 50% chance of getting it, or a 50% chance of using the double chance.

I am suggesting that a 100% guaranteed week off is an exact mathematicla replacement for a double chance. Instead of a 50% chance of using a double chance and a 50% chance of having a weke off, you have a 0% chance of using a double chance and a 100% chance of having a week off.

The fact that teams 1 and 2 usually win and the double chance usually goes to 3 and 4 is really neither here nor there. You can't argue the fact that the top 2 teams are given the opportunity to have a double chance, if they lose, only after week one, as stated by the AFL.

I know exactly what you were saying with regards to your knockout-10 format, i wasn't disputing that, i was simply pointing out that you seemingly misunderstand what the term double chance actually means when you were saying earlier in the thread that the QF winners "don't really get a double chance".

I would argue that people like and enjoy the knockout finals far more than finals where you get a second chance for losing. You're speaking about the whole system, which people are culturally used to. I believe the public would totally fall in love with a knockout final-10.

As evidenced by this thread, many people have stated that they much prefer the current system to remain. You can say that you believe more people would enjoy your knockout-10 format, but this thread, so far, does not support your argument.

This is the argument right here that angers me. Finals are about WINNING. If Geelong lost to Collingwood in the 2007 Prelim, that would have been a "freak result" and Geelong would have bene eliminated after one loss. How is a total knockout system any different? It's exactly the same thing.

In 2007 for example Geelong could be eliminated in their 2nd and 3rd finals with no second chance? So why not their first final? PROVIDED they played the lowest seeded team (8th). If 1st lose to 8th they don't deserve to progress, just like if Geelong had lost to 6th-placed Collingwood in the 2007 Prelim they wouldn't have deserved to progress. It's exactly the same thing.

Good teams will be prepared on the day. They will PERFORM ON THE DAY. They will do what good teams do, and they will do what finals demand.... and that is win. Finals are about winning, and progressing. Finals aren't about getting second chances for losing.

This is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. The same as everybody on this forum is. Other people don't have to agree with you, yet you seem to enjoy berating anyone who doesn't.

I'm not interested in discussing that, because you are getting into personal characteristics instead of worrying about the topic. Maybe I do argue my point in a very detailed and persuasive way. I don't care. That's my choice and my style. The most important thing is to stick to topic. Argue the topic not the poster.

This is a cop-out. I simply asked a question on whether you accept others can have an opinion differing yours. I know that I can accept it. Your opinion differs from mine. And mine from many others on the forum. I can freely admit it. Thats what this forum is all about, people discussing different points of view and possibly seeing things a different way. Your posts seem to indicate an unwillingness to listen to others points of view, and that is what is getting people upset and annoyed.

 

[themidlandmaster]

That final 10 system of Dan's is a terrible! The best part of the current system is that you play the three other best teams of the year, and have to beat at least two of them. His system means you can win the flag with just one hard game...

 

[Dan26]

That final 10 system of Dan's is a terrible! The best part of the current system is that you play the three other best teams of the year, and have to beat at least two of them. His system means you can win the flag with just one hard game...

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.

 

[swiftdog]

Swiftdog, what are you arguing for? You've lost me. I thought you were arguing for a knockout system. In the examples above it'd be even worse. 1st would play something like 9th in week 2, with both after the same reward, survival.

It's really quite simple. In each of those cases above, 1st has a relatively easy opponent, and 4th has a relatively difficult opponent. Which is exactly the sort of thing Dan's been banging on about all this time.

And in every one of those examples, the team finishing first won. So it's not exactly a recommendation for finishing 4th, is it? In the unlikely event that 4th does beat 1st, then 1st get a second chance.

***

I'm not particularly against a final ten system like the one Dan proposed, if it goes to final 10. It's not a bad one at all. But the argument you're putting forward up there isn't furthering anyone's argument.

I'll try and clear up my main points. I think of the current finals system as two different advantage brackets (with smaller advantages within each bracket); 1-4 & 5-8. There are supposed to be advantages in week 1 of the finals for teams 1, 2, 5 & 6. The main advantage that seems to be the argument for people is the "home ground advantage (HGA)". The problems I see are:
a) about 50% of the time, give or take, there is no HGA and
b) a large discrenecy between 1st and 4th most seasons (what I was trying to say in my last post)

While 1st and 2nd do get a slight advantage (theoretically easier game and potential HGA) over 3rd and 4th I have a problem with them being in the same advantage bracket as 3rd and 4th (if that makes sense). This year for example Collingwood and Geelong are seen as standouts and I want a finals system that rewards them for being the top 2 teams rather than being 2 of the best 4 teams.

The ten team knockout system does just that. It seperates the finalists into 3 advantage brackets (with smaller advantages within each bracket): 1-2, 3-6, 7-10. Any change to the finals system will most likely just serve to change the first 2 weeks, there's not much you can do when there's 4 teams left in week 3. As an example:

1sts path to the prelim final
McIntyre final 8. Either:
a) Beat 4th or
b) Beat 5th or 8th

Ten Team Knockout:
a) Beat 8th - 10th (will also get an easier prelim than under the Mcintyre 8)

Maybe my opinion's wrong but I think it's pretty clear that the path for the minor premier is easier in the TTK. As they finished on top they've earnt the right to an easier path to a preliminary final than 3rd or 4th (you could possibly argue the same for 2nd too but it's impractical to seperate 1st from 2nd in the bracket).

I think it could improve the competition as a whole. For a start, more teams in finals = less dead rubbers + tanking. More advantage brackets = more excitement as a whole. At the moment teams battle for 4th or battle for 8th. With this system you get a battle for 2nd (hence keeping the top 2 teams on their toes for most, if not all of the H&A season), a battle for 6th and a battle for 10th.

TLDR version - Make an emphasis on top 2, not on top 4.

 

[Dan26]

Swiftdog,

I would argue there are 5 advantage brackets (if you take into account home ground advantage which is more likely to be a factor in an 18 team comp with 8 non-Victorian teams)

1st and 2nd
- at home for all finals until Grand Final
- get to play their first final versus a team who played in week one
- always get to play the lowest remaining seeded teams at all points.
- need to win 3 finals

3rd and 4th
- at home for their first final, then no more home finals. *
- they play teams 5 and 6 who also have a week off, so this is not as much of an advantage as 1st and 2nd who get to play teams who played the week before.
- need to win 3 finals

5th and 6th
- no home final *
- week off, but play teams 3 and 4 who also have a week off
- need to win 3 finals

7th and 8th
- home final first up, but none after that
- need to win in the second week versus a rested 1st or 2nd-placed team.
- need to win 4 finals

9th and 10th
- no home finals
- need to win in the second week versus a rested 1st or 2nd-placed team.
- need to win 4 finals


* could technically host a Preliminary final if the top 2 teams lose their first final

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Dan26, I once heard an argument about why we should never have a 1v8 2v7 etc knockout final series. I will reiterate it for your benefit.

Usually, more times than not, the number one seed has qualified for the finals weeks in advance of other teams ranked below it. On the other hand, seed 8 has virtually been playing finals for the final 4 or 5 rounds as it fights and scraps to get in. Chances are, seed 8 has already had to win a couple of cut throat matches to qualify. So seed 8 is already finals battle hardened. Seed 1 on the other hand has most likely been preserving itself ala the Pies in the final round this year and has probably not experienced the pressure cooker for a while.

Added to that, seed 8 also has the advantage of the "nothing to lose" mentality. Seed 1 goes in as the raging favourite, all the pressure is on them to defend say a 21-1 or 20-2 w/l record, while team 8 goes in with an 11/11 record, not expecting to win, but goes in having a red hot crack anyway, because it believes it has nothing to lose and plays accordingly. Contrast this to seed 1 which could feel like it's playing with the weight of the world on its shoulders.

So what could eventuate under the proposal you are so adamant about is the sitting duck theory. Seed 1 could be made to feel like a sitting duck. It has been secure in the knowledge that it will be paying finals for a number of weeks, and suddenly, it must face a team which has most likely been playing desperate finals type footy for some time, who are on a roll, who have momentum and who feel like they have nothing to lose. In theory seed 1 should beat seed 8 but it's unfair to put seed 1 in a position where it feels like a sitting duck.

Again, not my argument.

 

[Dan26]

Dan26, I once heard an argument about why we should never have a 1v8 2v7 etc knockout final series. I will reiterate it for your benefit.

Usually, more times than not, the number one seed has qualified for the finals weeks in advance of other teams ranked below it. On the other hand, seed 8 has virtually been playing finals for the final 4 or 5 rounds as it fights and scraps to get in. Chances are, seed 8 has already had to win a couple of cut throat matches to qualify. So seed 8 is already finals battle hardened. Seed 1 on the other hand has most likely been preserving itself ala the Pies in the final round this year and has probably not experienced the pressure cooker for a while.

From 1994-1999 1st had a 6-0 record versus 8th.

Added to that, seed 8 also has the advantage of the "nothing to lose" mentality.

Everyone who plays 1st has a "nothing to lose mentality."

So what could eventuate under the proposal you are so adamant about is the sitting duck theory. Seed 1 could be made to feel like a sitting duck.

Look, at the end of the day, finals are about performing on the day and winning.

Your post (which I know you've said was reiterating what someone else has said) makes it seem like 1st has a hard time of it against 8th. I mean come on! 1st is playing the worst finalist on their home ground. Their job when the finals hit is to perform on the day. There are no excuses for not performing versus 8th. These are finals, and the top team is there to perform and win.

In theory seed 1 should beat seed 8 but it's unfair to put seed 1 in a position where it feels like a sitting duck.

Again, not my argument.

I know it's not your argument, but I don't see how it is unfair to give the best team the easiest opponent on their home ground. That just doens't make any sense. If anything it is the fairest way to do it.

I mean, you might as well say that any Preliminary finalist who has a weeks rest is not "battle hardened" and is a "sittign duck." Those are not excuses. Good teams will be ready. They will perform on the day.

 

[Coolangatta]

I like the current finals system, but this would be my ideal finals system, using this year as an example:
QF1 - 1 vs. 4 (Collingwood vs. West Coast)
QF2 - 2 vs. 3 (Geelong vs. Hawthorn)
EF1 - 5 vs. 8 (Carlton vs. Essendon)
EF2 - 6 vs. 7 (St Kilda vs. Sydney)

SF1 - Highest ranked QF loser vs. lowest ranked EF winner (Hawthorn vs. Sydney)
SF2 - Lowest ranked QF loser vs. highest ranked EF winner (West Coast vs. Carlton)

PF1 - Highest ranked QF winner vs. lowest ranked SF winner (Collingwood vs. West Coast)
PF2 - Lowest ranked QF winner vs. highest ranked SF winner (Geelong vs. Hawthorn)

GF - PF1 winner vs. PF2 winner

Yes, the finals would be even more predictable, and yes, if the QF losers win their SF's, then the PF's would be the same as the QF's, but you're rewarding the top team by giving them the easier PF plus a week off.

Sure, this system would make finals even more predictable than the current one, but the higher you finish on the ladder, the more advantage you deserve (it should be harder for 4th to win the flag than 3rd, 7th to win the flag than 5th etc). The H & A season would be more meaningful.

 

[themidlandmaster]

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.

No, that isn't ironic at all.

The system is fair because the best teams for the year play each other.

Your system gift wraps the flag for the top team

 

[Perry Pie]

I believe 10 is too many for a finals system in a league of 18 teams - 22 rounds of football and 56% of the clubs make it into the finals. That is too little reward for a season of effort. 8 teams in the finals seems right to me.

Dan26 said "The top team has to beat 2nd, 3rd and 4th to win the flag. Sounds pretty unfair on the top team to me." I disagree - I think that challenge is the best element of the current system, the testing against the very best sides - magnificent!

If you want straight knock out watch the NAB cup.

 

[newcs]

Geelong got shafted big time by the old final 8 system in 1997.
They finished the season in second position so they got scheluled to play 7th place North Melb on the Sunday night. Back in those days night games at the MCG were North Melbourne's specialty and the fact that is was a Sunday night game caused most of the Geelong supporters to stay away in droves, might as well have just classified as a North Melb home game. When Geelong lost that game, they them copped the double whammy and ended up playing the next week in Adelaide (despite finishing higher than them on the ladder).
Most of the powers that be at Geelong summed it up as Geelong would have had a better finals run if they finished third rather than second.
Geelong were the victims of the then final eight system.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Geelong got shafted big time by the old final 8 system in 1997.
They finished the season in second position so they got scheluled to play 7th place North Melb on the Sunday night. Back in those days night games at the MCG were North Melbourne's specialty and the fact that is was a Sunday night game caused most of the Geelong supporters to stay away in droves, might as well have just classified as a North Melb home game. When Geelong lost that game, they them copped the double whammy and ended up playing the next week in Adelaide (despite finishing higher than them on the ladder).
Most of the powers that be at Geelong summed it up as Geelong would have had a better finals run if they finished third rather than second.
Geelong were the victims of the then final eight system.

Bollocks.

By virtue of finishing second they still had a guaranteed double chance. Had they finished third and lost they may have not even had a second chance.

The away game in Adelaide was probably unfair but by the same token where games are played was the AFL's decision and not part of the "McIntyre" system itself. That said, dont lose to the team that finished seventh and dont make excuses when they do.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Dan26 said "The top team has to beat 2nd, 3rd and 4th to win the flag. Sounds pretty unfair on the top team to me."

He didnt REALLY say that did he

Thats the best thing about this system. If all games go according to ladder order, the top team plays 4th then 3rd then 2nd in succession. No better way to sort out the best team in the land.

 

[randomhero24]

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.

WHAT??

WHY?

As a Cats fan, if we beat Essendon (stfu you wouldnt get near us in a final), and St Kilda to make a Grand Final, i wouldnt be happy.

 

[RogerC]

Ok. one question, one answer:

Q: If Qualifying Finals are so redundant under the current system, not being knockout matches, why are they so fiercely contested and well attended?

A: Because, despite what Dan would have you believe, at lot is at stake. A quick look at the history of them will tell you all you need to know.

From 2000-10, there have been 22 Qualifying Finals. The winners of those games have made the Grand Final 19 times. In other words, 19 winners of Qualifying Finals have gone on to win Preliminary Finals. That includes:

Melbourne in 2000, who were 3rd that year
Collingwood in 2002, who were 4th that year
Sydney in 2006, who were 4th that year
St Kilda in 2010, who were 3rd that year

Those teams all got a massive leg-up by winning their Qualifying Final.

There are also three teams who lost their Qualifying Final and won through to the Grand Final the hard way - Brisbane in 2003 (3rd), Sydney in 2005 (3rd) and West Coast in 2006 (1st). In all three cases they met the team who had beaten them in the Qualifying Final, so it may just be that the best teams going into the finals played each other in the first week.

That aside, we're still talking about an 86% success rate in reaching the Grand Final for the winner of the Qualifying Final.

Wanna know how many sides 5-8 have made it? None. No quirks, no anomalies, the current system virtually guarantees it can't be done. You can make the Preliminary Final from out there (that's been done twice), but that's about as far as you can go.

Now sure, that makes the finals predictable (not necessarily for the top four sides), but why not? The best teams have the best chance of winning. And a win in the first week is crucial to your chance of success overall.

And here's the crucial thing: Because the top four play off in the first week it's only fair to give the losers of those games a second chance, at home, the following week. Reward for winning, compensation for losing. But the reward is much, much better than the compensation, which makes it worth fighting for. As it should be.

***

Summary: Qualifying Finals are popular and fiercely contested because they matter. There's a reason to want to finish top four - the finals are structured so that you have a better than 90% chance of playing off in the Preliminary Finals; and there's a reason to win once you get there - there's an 86% chance you'll make the Grand Final.

What more could you want, really?

***

Now Dan, your task is not to bang on about why you think every finals match ought to be knockout. Your task is to tell me what is wrong with the way the current system functions given it provides the results I've outlined above.

I've heard all your old argument dozens of times. Give me something new.

 

[demondavey]

No, that isn't ironic at all.

The system is fair because the best teams for the year play each other.

Your system gift wraps the flag for the top team

No it does not! Because you introduce that element of elimination from the start, no double chances. Yes, 1st is in the better position to beat 8th, but there can be upsets. In 1994 WC almost lost to Coll over in Perth! It can happen. And what if 1st was Geelong and 8th was Hawthorn, we know that the Hawks are a danger side to Geelong and the Cats record in finals against them is not that great, (i know this year was different), but you start to introduce that uncertainty into the system. These are my reasons for an elimination system under Dan's top 10 system;

1. It puts more pressure on the better sides to perform
2. Creation of more opportunities for lower placed sides, yes the odds are against them with the week off for the 1st and 2nd teams and an away final, but it makes for more of a tense game.
3. These are finals! H/A means nothing! Who cares where you finish! If you make the cut you deserve your chance!
4. Top 2 sides get a week off and a home final! Massive advantage! If they can't win that game against a team between 7-10 then they sure as hell dont deserve to go any further!
5. It adds more excitement, pressure, tension and puts more on the line to have knock out finals. It is what people want! It sucks to have a top 4 side win it every year. Look at Adelaide in 98? Wow did they really deserve it! Had a really hard road into the big one by losing first week then playing two finals away before the big one! What a deserving winner!

 

[Dan26]

Dan26 said "The top team has to beat 2nd, 3rd and 4th to win the flag. Sounds pretty unfair on the top team to me." I disagree - I think that challenge is the best element of the current system, the testing against the very best sides - magnificent!

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)

 

[Dan26]

No, that isn't ironic at all.

The system is fair because the best teams for the year play each other.

Your system gift wraps the flag for the top team

First of all the final-10 system doesn't "gift'wrap" the flag for the top team. It gives them the easiest run (which is what they deserve.) They, rightfully, play the lowest remaining seeded team at all points. That is a good thing not a bad thing.

Your statement of "The system is fair because the best teams for the year play each other." doesn't make any sense. How is that "fair."??? If anything it is unfair.

What would be fair is playing the best teams agaisnt the worst teams. By definition that is fair. What you are proposing is, almost by definition, unfair.

It's not "fair" that Collingwood play 3rd this week, while lower-placed Geelong play 4th. How is that fair? Collingwood would have been better off finishing 2nd.

 

[brett15]

The current final 8 is just an expanded version of the old final 4

Wk1: QF: 1v2 & EF:3v4
Wk2: SF: 2v3 (assuming 1 and 3 win their matches)
Wk3: GF: 1v2 (assuming 2 wins week2)

This is how many domestic comps (most notably Basketball) run finals over a 3 week period

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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

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

 

[Dan26]

Geelong got shafted big time by the old final 8 system in 1997.
They finished the season in second position so they got scheluled to play 7th place North Melb on the Sunday night. Back in those days night games at the MCG were North Melbourne's specialty and the fact that is was a Sunday night game caused most of the Geelong supporters to stay away in droves, might as well have just classified as a North Melb home game. When Geelong lost that game, they them copped the double whammy and ended up playing the next week in Adelaide (despite finishing higher than them on the ladder).
Most of the powers that be at Geelong summed it up as Geelong would have had a better finals run if they finished third rather than second.
Geelong were the victims of the then final eight system.

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.