Finals

[Kangas_Big_Fan]

do you guys like the finals system?
i reakon i ruins 4th place eg. play essendon who have played almost unstoppable and have a very little chance of winning and then play away most likely interstate

 

[ptw]

It is a little strange.....

there is very little difference between 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8. I think the previous system was better in that regard.

The top 4 is fairly simple to work out. I don't think you rate the merits of a system just because you have to play Essendon. They are good this year but won't always be. It could be that the most in form side one year is actually 4th.

I like the way home ground advantage works in this system in that you play at home at least once if you finish 1-6....helps spread things around.

The only problem I really have is the lack of distinction between the places....I liked that in the old system. Right now you face the situation where it could be better finishing 4th than 3rd depending on who was top and who was 2nd. I think the incentive should always be there to finish higher, and the higher you finish the better off you are.

Overall...not bad.


ptw


p.s. still got to get rid of the STUPID rule requiring one game per week at the 'G. Example:

using the top 4

ESS
BRIS
HAW
PORT

Ess v Port - Port win
Bris v Haw - Bris Win

Both Bris and Port go through to the Prelim but one of these games must be played in Melbourne (most likely Port). So Port complete perhaps the toughest task in football and their reward is having to play Carlton or Hawthorn or someone at the MCG.

I can't believe the AFL has not taken the numerous opportunities they have had in various negotiations with the MCC to get rid of it.

ptw

 

[gPhonque]

....or we could just have a Final 5.

 

[gPhonque]

....and that's all i'm going to say in this thread.

 

[Rivaldo]

A quick qeustion. Excluding the stupid restriction of playing one game at The 'G every week, is the team that finished higher on the ladder at the end of the home-and-away always the home team? Or is it based on who won and lost respectively the week before, like it stupidly was with the old final8 system, meaning that you could fiish higher than a team during the home-and-away but end up playing them away during the finals.

 

[Grave Danger]

Originally posted by Rivaldo
A quick qeustion. Excluding the stupid restriction of playing one game at The 'G every week, is the team that finished higher on the ladder at the end of the home-and-away always the home team? Or is it based on who won and lost respectively the week before, like it stupidly was with the old final8 system, meaning that you could fiish higher than a team during the home-and-away but end up playing them away during the finals.

Yes - the higher finishing sides retain home advantage (subject to the MCG rule) - the losing top 4 teams get home advantage over the winning 5-8 teams in the second week. But the teams that go straight to the prelims get home advantage, even if they play a team who had finished higher in H&A (eg if 4th won in week 1 and then met 2nd in a prelim, 4th would get home advantage).

 

[Dan26]

There should not be a double chance.

It's stupid.

Under the current system, the top team can be eliminated after one loss if they lose the Preliminary final, or the Grand Final (i.e they don't get a double chance), so why can't they be eliminated in the first week too? Same diff.

Last year North finished 4th and got a second chance, while Essendon faced elimination on Preliminary Final day and Grand Final day, after one loss.

IF the double chance exists, it should exist all the way through the finals, or not at all.

Therefore, if the top team is to get a double chance, that double chance should exit all the way through the finals, if they happen to lose any finals match, including the Grand Final.

I don't like that idea, because I feel that finals are about performing on the day. Why have a double chance in the first week for 3rd and 4th (if the higher teams win), when the top team faces elimination after one loss in the Preliminary Final and the Grand Final?

The finals should be straight knockout. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5. Quarter finals, semi-finals (which are the same as the preliminary finals) and the Grand Final. The teams should be seeded so that the higher teams always play the lowest teams, so that 1v2 are seeded to play in the Grand Final should they both keep winning.

The double chance is a load of crap. If you have it, make sure it exists all the way through the finals. Have it all the way through or not at all. I say not at all.

 

[ant]

Hell yeah Dan, a double chance Grand Final, that's a great idea!!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ant
Hell yeah Dan, a double chance Grand Final, that's a great idea!!

Obviously you are being saracastic. I agree with you, it is a stupid idea. But the fact that the Grand Final is knockout shows that the entire finals series should be knockout.

Those that would comlplain may say something like : "But if my team finishes on top, and loses to 8th in the first week, we would be eliminated. That's not fair"

Well, if 1st lost to 8th yes they would be eliminated after one loss, but how is that any different to the current system, where the top team faces elimination on preliminary Final day and Grand Final day after one loss (i.e not getting a second chance) ? It's no different.

Laugh all you want, but if a double chance is to exist at all, it should exist all the way through the finals. In fact this happaend in the VFL from 1898 to 1930. If the top team lost the Grand Final, they would get another chance in "another" Grand Final.

I don't think that should happen, and the double chance should be totally taken out.

Either have it all the way through the finals, or not at all.

 

[elt]

The biggest advantages of this finals system as compared with the previous one are that the top four are guaranteed a double chance and the bottom four are guaranteed not to get one.

Clubs finishing 5-8 don't deserve a double chance but under the old system 5 and 6 almost always did.

The biggest problem with the finals at present isn't double chances Dan or minor premiership recognition, it is the ridiculous MCG agreement. That should have been removed as part of the negotiations for the Northern stand redevelopment. Yet another opportunity passes Jackson by.

 

[Pessimistic]

If port or hawthorn were to finish third to brisbane (2nd) on a small percentage the resulting interstate game is really harsh when 2nd plays 3rd. Add that brisbane had an 'extra' home game against melbourne because they paid them out. Perhaps it should be 1st v 3rd and 2nd v 4th because there would be more likelyhood that the 2nd team performed better in H&A than the 4th team.

The system works OK when its majority VIC sides like last year but with interstate its a real drawback.

For Hawthorn playing essendon at the G (or colonial) looks daunting on this seasons form but brisbane at the Gabba might be ust that bit more daunting. If the gap between 4th and 5th opens up it might just tempt the Hawks to finish 4th rather than 3rd.

Hawks play saints and port play eagles in the last round so you could argue they could both manupulate those games.

Anothe option to take away the temptation to 'rig' a position would be, after the final round, put 1,2 and 3,4 and 5,6 and 7,8 in seperate bags and 'draw' the first week of the finals.

 

[gPhonque]

I love the way Dan states his little opinions as being "fact":

"There should not be a double chance." - Dan25

"But the fact that the Grand Final is knockout shows that the entire finals series should be knockout." - Dan25

"IF the double chance exists, it should exist all the way through the finals, or not at all." - Dan25

"Laugh all you want, but if a double chance is to exist at all, it should exist all the way through the finals." - Dan25

"I don't think that should happen, and the double chance should be totally taken out." - Dan25

Ok. That's all i'm saying in this thread.

 

[ant]

Fine Dan, I see your point, it's a reasonable one, but I disagree. I think the top teams earn a second chance in the first week of the finals, then after that it should be knockout. The top teams need to receive some form of reward other than home ground advantage for finishing high up on the ladder and the double chance serves that purpose. And we can't keep having a double chance all the way through the finals, that's impractical. Anyway, that's a layman's point of view.

 

[Grave Danger]

Originally posted by ant
Fine Dan, I see your point, it's a reasonable one, but I disagree. I think the top teams earn a second chance in the first week of the finals, then after that it should be knockout. The top teams need to receive some form of reward other than home ground advantage for finishing high up on the ladder and the double chance serves that purpose. And we can't keep having a double chance all the way through the finals, that's impractical. Anyway, that's a layman's point of view.

Any sensible person would see it your way ant, but Dan is poorly programmed robot

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by ant
Fine Dan, I see your point, it's a reasonable one, but I disagree. I think the top teams earn a second chance in the first week of the finals, then after that it should be knockout. The top teams need to receive some form of reward other than home ground advantage for finishing high up on the ladder and the double chance serves that purpose. And we can't keep having a double chance all the way through the finals, that's impractical. Anyway, that's a layman's point of view.

I'm coming around the gPhonque's point of view that there should only be a final 5.

With the old final 5, the top team and a double chance to make it into the Grand Final , that is, firstly through the second semi final, and if they lost that, through the preliminary final.

The double chance as we know it now is merely a first week event where the top 4 teams have a "double chance" to stay in the finals...that is, if they lose, they will still survive...that's a world away from a double chance to make it into the Grand Final. After that first week, a loss and you're eliminated.

 

[Joel]

Dan - Bad idea, sorry!

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by Shinboners


I'm coming around the gPhonque's point of view that there should only be a final 5.

With the old final 5, the top team and a double chance to make it into the Grand Final , that is, firstly through the second semi final, and if they lost that, through the preliminary final.

The double chance as we know it now is merely a first week event where the top 4 teams have a "double chance" to stay in the finals...that is, if they lose, they will still survive...that's a world away from a double chance to make it into the Grand Final. After that first week, a loss and you're eliminated.

Thanks Shinboners, for being the only other person here who actually understands how well the Final 5 works. (or worked.)

(and i'm not going to say that that's the last thing i'll say in this thread 'cos it probably won't be. lol Beyond the point of no return now!)

Well, maybe.....

 

[ant]

That's all true Shinners, there's nothing wrong with the final 5, except that our teams wouldn't be a chance of making the finals this year if we still used it

 

[Roylion]

I also favor a Final 5 system. However due to the fact that less money will be made by the AFL, due to the Final 5 having four less matches than the Final 8, I doubt whether we will ever see a Final 5 again unless, at some point in the future, the competition is reduced to 12 teams.

A Final 7 wouldn't work and the Final Six was flawed as well. It's either a Final 5 or a Final 8, if we want four weeks of finals and a fair sliding scale of advantages to the teams finishing higher. A Final 5 is better in this regard that the Final 8, because it favored the side finishing as minor premiers much more than the current situation, by giving them a week off, a double chance if they lost and an easy passage (only needed to win two matches) to the premiership if they won. Currently the top side would also play at home, giving them a further advantage. 2nd and 3rd also give double chances.

A possible scenario if we had a Final 5 this year... WINNERS in capitals.

1. Essendon
2. Brisbane
3. Port Adelaide
4. Hawthorn
5. Richmond

Week 1 Essendon (bye)
Qualifying Final: BRISBANE vs Port Adelaide at the Gabba
Elimination Final: Hawthorn vs RICHMOND at the MCG. Hawthorn eliminated and finished 5th.

Week 2:
1st SEMI-FINAL ESSENDON vs Brisbane at MCG. Essendon through to Grand Final.
2nd SEMI-FINAL: PORT ADELAIDE vs Richmond at Football Park. Richmond eliminated and finished fourth.

Week 3:
Preliminary Final: BRISBANE vs Port Adelaide at MCG. Port Adelaide eliminated and finished 3rd.

Week 4:
Grand Final: ESSENDON vs Brisbane. Essendon wins the premiership.

It's a beautifully balanced system that gives significant added bonuses the higher you finish on the ladder...as it should be.

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know under the Final Five system, how many sides that finished minor premiers actually went on to win the premiership?

 

[gPhonque]

originally posted by Roylion
It's a beautifully balanced system that gives significant added bonuses the higher you finish on the ladder...as it should be.

Exactly.

With the current system, or any Final 8 system, we may as well not play 22 rounds of football.

However, a final 5 would make things much more interesting. It would give us back that aura that the finals used to have for a start. You know, the top teams playing off in September and not half the competition.

How can a side that finishes 8th be deserving of a finals place? It's just crazy. It's probably the one thing that if they changed it back, i'd be at the footy every week, unlike at the moment.

Finals football is a joke now, and has been since 1991 when the Final 6 came in and screwed up a perfectly good system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm convinced the AFL have never heard that saying before.

How can the team that finishes 1st be in a sudden death Preliminary Final after winning their 1st final?

A good system would prevent that from happening.

WHERE IS THE REWARD FOR FINISHING HIGH ON THE LADDER?

For a game in which everything comes down to the finals, we have such a stupid system that, as far as i'm concerned, turns the entire season into a bit of a joke.

Give us back our real finals football you greedy money hungry ****s.

 

[gPhonque]

sorry, one more thing.... (for the moment)

Originally posted by Roylion
I doubt whether we will ever see a Final 5 again unless, at some point in the future, the competition is reduced to 12 teams.

Or why not 14 teams? We had that from 87-90 and there were never any problems.

cheers

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

Originally posted by Roylion
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know under the Final Five system, how many sides that finished minor premiers actually went on to win the premiership?

Final Five 1972-1990 (19 Seasons)
Minor Premier Finishes
Premiers - 10
Runners-up - 5
Third - 4

The minor premier won the premiership for six straight seasons in 1984-1989 inclusive.