Finals system

[Dan26]

Again Dan all you are doing is arguing on pure statistics and theory, which is the exact reason that system failed so quickly into its use and was criticised.

The system failed because of the dead rubbers between 3v6 and 4v5 and the fact that 5th and 6th could receive a second chance. They were flaws. The system didn't fail because 2nd lost to 7th and had to deal with the consequences.

The fact that it didn't account for the rewards top teams should get in week 1 and on were the exact reason it was removed.

That wasn't the reason it was removed at all.

The top teams under the 1994-1999 system had easier matches versus 7th and 8th than they do under the current sysrem versus 3rd and 4th.

When you have an easier match in the first week (i.e 1v8), the consequnces are worse if you lose. That is fair.

If you have a harder match in the first week (i.e 1v4) the consequnces are not as bad if you lose. That is also fair.

Home ground argument is bullshit. Geelong never play on their home ground and never will. The year where they got thrashed by North in 1997n they were effectively playing them away as it was North's home ground.

That's nothing to do with the system. That's just bad luck that you were drawn to play North Melbourne. The next year in 1998 the 2nd-placed team (The Bulldogs) were drawn to play a weak West Coast team who finished 7th and the Bulldogs thrashed them by 70 points.

Under the current system in 2007 Geelong didn't get home ground advantage in the first final versus North Melbourne (1v4) or in the Prelim versus Collingwood (1v6.) In the Prelim you were playing on the 6th-placed teams home ground! That's just bad luck. It's not the systems fault.

 

[MCE]

I wouldn't bother to keep trying Dan, they ain't gonna get it.

 

[mcgarnacle]

should be fewer teams that qualify for the post-season, and then, it should all be playoffs. afterall, the grand final is decided in such a game. the whole 2nd stage of the season - finals - should be decided in a similar fashion.

but it cant be fairly done until the 1st stage of the season - the manipulated farce which is the fixture - is overhauled too.

 

[Dan26]

should be fewer teams that qualify for the post-season, and then, it should all be playoffs. afterall, the grand final is decided in such a game. the whole 2nd stage of the season - finals - should be decided in a similar fashion.

but it cant be fairly done until the 1st stage of the season - the manipulated farce which is the fixture - is overhauled too.

I know you're a fan of the NFL system where 12 teams make it (although 12 is too many in an 18-team league obviously).

The system I want for the AFL is the NFL system (with 10 teams) that was used from 1978-1989.

It's the same final-10 system that Major League Soccer currently uses, and they have an 18-team league so it is an exactly comparably sized league to the AFL.

 

[RogerC]

Unaccustomed as I am to defending Dan, I'm going to give it a go here.

He's right about the Geelong vs 7th thing. What's happening is that two separate ideas are getting confused:

1. If Geelong lose their first final they have to play away.
2. The system from 1994-99 was a total crock.

Under that total crock of a system, the internal logic makes sense. What they were relying on was a simple mechanism: the greater the disparity between the teams, the greater likelihood the higher-placed team would win. Therefore the greater the disparity, the bigger punishment if the higher-placed team lost. It's meant to balance.

If you look at it backwards, it makes a bit more sense. Adelaide (4th) beat West Coast (5th). Geelong (2nd) lost to North (7th). They just gave the home final to the team who played the 'tougher' opponent - if you believe the ladder - the previous week.

I'm all for that, if they're going to do it that way. No matter what way you look at it, 2nd losing to 7th casts serious doubt on 2nd's ability to contest the flag. You lose that match, you're lucky to still be in the running. You certainly can't expect a home final on top of that.

Under the current system, the logic of it is that if the top four play each other in the first week, there are going to be two losers. No matter who those losers are, the following week they're going to play a team who had played an easier opponent. So they get the home game. It'll always be that way, so it's just built into the system.

***

But ultimately, it's just another quirk in what was an unworkable system. On top of the little barn-dance that teams 3-6 did over two weeks, there was also the problem of week-one matches between teams with two completely different objectives. 1v8 and 2v7 were matches between one team with a guarantee of staying in the competition, and another playing purely for survival. And in the other two games, the teams didn't even know what they were playing for. There's a chance that any two losers could be eliminated and the winners getting a week off, or they could be playing the following week regardless. If you don't know what you're playing for in a final, that's a ridiculous situation.

The whole thing was a farce, and I'm glad we're rid of it.

 

[swiftdog]

Again Dan all you are doing is arguing on pure statistics and theory, which is the exact reason that system failed so quickly into its use and was criticised. The fact that it didn't account for the rewards top teams should get in week 1 and on were the exact reason it was removed. Every year that there was the old McIntyre system there was a problem exposed in it with the exception of 1996 (caused by MCC Deal). The current system allows for factors such as the top team having an off day etc best as possible. All butb 2 times has a top 4 side not plaYED off to get into the grand final and these were both by 3 points and a draw resulting in overtime. Thus this system rewards teams appropriately for winning hgome and away matches and does not give a near equal chance to play in the preliminary final or even the grand final to the bottom 4 teams.



Home ground argument is bullshit. Geelong never play on their home ground and never will. The year where they got thrashed by North in 1997n they were effectively playing them away as it was North's home ground.

This isn't a product of the finals system we're currently using. It's because over the course of the season 9/10 times the best 4 teams fill positions 1 - 4 on the ladder. They beat teams ranked 5 - 8 because they're better at football, not because the finals system magically allows them too.

The ten team knockout (TTK) system in week 2 of the finals pits 3 against 6 and 4 against 5, as most semi finals are in the current system. By your own reckoning you've pointed out that rarely will one of the 5 - 8 teams beat one of the 1 - 4 teams so you can't argue against the TTK. Afterall, the odds of 5th or 6th beating 3rd or 4th are pretty low right? You said it yourself.

There's no near equal chance for the bottom 4 teams in the TTK system. They have to play against each other and then play one of the top 2 teams in order to play off for a grand final spot. Under the current system the bottom 4 teams need to play against each other and then likely 3rd or 4th. It is actually harder in the TTK for one of the bottom 4 sides to make it to a preliminary final! So by your own reasoning yet again you should be for, not against, the TTK?

"The current system allows for factors such as the top team having an off day etc best as possible"
Oh please, why do we feel the need to baby the top team? All they have to do in the TTK is beat a side ranked 8th - 10th to make it to a prelim. For example, this year, Collingwood could have an off day and still wipe the floor with Essendon, Fremantle or North and they're in the prelim. They earnt the right to an easy game beacuse they were the best side over 24 weeks of the H&A season. Make the minor premiership and H&A mean something other than "let's just get to the top 4".

Also, you said "etc" so what are the factors other than a top team having an off day does the current system allow for?

 

[Dan26]

Gee swiftdog, between my anally obessive finals opinion on knockout and your beautifully articulated style we might be able to sell this idea yet.

 

[themidlandmaster]

This isn't a product of the finals system we're currently using. It's because over the course of the season 9/10 times the best 4 teams fill positions 1 - 4 on the ladder. They beat teams ranked 5 - 8 because they're better at football, not because the finals system magically allows them too.

The ten team knockout (TTK) system in week 2 of the finals pits 3 against 6 and 4 against 5, as most semi finals are in the current system. By your own reckoning you've pointed out that rarely will one of the 5 - 8 teams beat one of the 1 - 4 teams so you can't argue against the TTK. Afterall, the odds of 5th or 6th beating 3rd or 4th are pretty low right? You said it yourself.

There's no near equal chance for the bottom 4 teams in the TTK system. They have to play against each other and then play one of the top 2 teams in order to play off for a grand final spot. Under the current system the bottom 4 teams need to play against each other and then likely 3rd or 4th. It is actually harder in the TTK for one of the bottom 4 sides to make it to a preliminary final! So by your own reasoning yet again you should be for, not against, the TTK?

"The current system allows for factors such as the top team having an off day etc best as possible"
Oh please, why do we feel the need to baby the top team? All they have to do in the TTK is beat a side ranked 8th - 10th to make it to a prelim. For example, this year, Collingwood could have an off day and still wipe the floor with Essendon, Fremantle or North and they're in the prelim. They earnt the right to an easy game beacuse they were the best side over 24 weeks of the H&A season. Make the minor premiership and H&A mean something other than "let's just get to the top 4".

Also, you said "etc" so what are the factors other than a top team having an off day does the current system allow for?

That's the point of the current system!

The top four play each other, and you need to win two out of three to win the flag.

none of these beating up on weak sides to get to the Granny.

 

[Kram]

The current system is the best since the final 5, easily.

 

[swiftdog]

That's the point of the current system!

The top four play each other, and you need to win two out of three to win the flag.

none of these beating up on weak sides to get to the Granny.

You don't beat up on weak sides to get to the granny. The top 2 teams get an easy week 2/semi final game to get to the prelim. They finished on top so they deserve it. 3rd and 4th don't deserve the same privilege (refer to post #183). At that stage, like in the current system, the top 2 will most likely play against a fellow top 4 side. Also, just for arguments sake, here are some semi final statistics to illustrate my point:

2003: Port Adelaide (1st) defeated Essendon (8th)
2004: Geelong (4th) defeated Essendon (8th)
2005: Adelaide (1st) defeated Port Adelaide (8th)
2006: West Coast (1st) defeated W.Bulldogs (8th)
2006: Fremantle (3rd) defeated Melbourne (7th)
2008: St.Kilda (4th) defeated Collingwood (8th)
2011: Hawthorn (3rd) defeated Sydney (7th)

These sides (particularly P.A in 03, Ade in 05 & WC in 06) beat up on the weak sides, as you put it, to get to a preliminary final. Post #183 clears everything up.

"and you need to win 2 out of 3 to win the flag". What does this mean? You need to win 3 finals games to win the flag.

 

[RogerC]

The current system is the best since the final 5, easily.

I think so too. Easy to understand, clear progression, tends to reward the best, every game is between sides fairly close together on the ladder so the potential for entertaining games is high. It's got the balance right.

 

[Dimenhydrinate]

Sounds to me like there's really no point in having a finals system any more. All it does is just underline that the top three or four sides are the top sides. Might as well extend the regular season and make it first past the post.

 

[Dan26]

Sounds to me like there's really no point in having a finals system any more. All it does is just underline that the top three or four sides are the top sides. Might as well extend the regular season and make it first past the post.

That's what I've argued for years.

People are always on about what's "fair" in a finals system.

Finals, by their nature are inherantly UNfair. One loss can eliminate a team in the Preliminary Final or Grand Final after going 22-0

Those who advocate fairness wouldn't ever advocate a finals system of any sort. Those who advocate fairness would advocate giving the premiership to the team on top of the ladder.

But I'm a realist too. I'm aware that culturally a finals system is part of the furniture. And even though they aren't fair, and never have been, finals are exciting. The do-or-die nature of finals is the appeal. The fact that the season is on the line in one game is appealing. Total Knockout in finals is the way to go.

I've said it before and I'll say it again because I believe this 100% - fans prefer knockout finals. Knockout finals are more exciting.

Fans who say they like double chance don't really mean that literally. They really mean they like the overall current system itself, which includes a double chance in it. I've never heard someone SPECIFICALLY say: "Gee I love that double chance. It's so safe and reassuring. It's so much better to have this safe and re-assuring double chance, than an exciting knockout situation."

No one feels that way specifically about a double chance. They just support the overall system which happens to include a double chance. Everyone I've ever talked to, loves the knockout nature of the prelims this weekend, because fans, inherantly love the excitement of knockout games.

 

[RogerC]

No one feels that way specifically about a double chance. They just support the overall system which happens to include a double chance. Everyone I've ever talked to, loves the knockout nature of the prelims this weekend, because fans, inherantly love the excitement of knockout games.

I don't see the difference. I like the overall package, which includes the double-chance mechanism in the first week. It makes the finals series a bit like climbing and falling the rungs on a ladder. Teams 5-8 just have to keep climbing. Teams 1-4 drop a rung if they lose in the first week, leap a rung if they win.

Obviously you can't have a finals series unless teams get eliminated at some point. That's a basic requirement. But it's still no argument for making every game a knockout game.

Sounds to me like there's really no point in having a finals system any more. All it does is just underline that the top three or four sides are the top sides. Might as well extend the regular season and make it first past the post.

This is a bit cack-handed. It's a good argument for a final four or maybe a final five, but it's not much of an argument against finals per se.