Analysis Fixing the Ladder & The Great Lie of 6-6-6

[Unknown Entity]

The Problem:​

Footy in 2019 feels slower, it feels less exciting, and it feels unattractive, but as viewers, we are constantly fed the same story of how successful the new 6-6-6 system has been. It feels like I struggle to get through a week of footy without being told by some generic analyst that the new 6-6-6 was a “stroke of genius” and how old mate Gil should be showered in glory for having the “vision” to implement such a revolutionary change. Well, folks, I’m here to tell you it’s a lie. I mean, we all knew that, but I think it’s time someone looked at the data and showed you why, despite the statistics the media would like to convey, footy isn’t more attractive in 2019, and more than that, it’s getting worse. There are two important elements to this discussion, two issues plaguing footy, that can be fixed with one solution.

The Data:​

Footy “analysts” will tell you scoring is up and footy is more attractive in 2019. Correct, it is closer, but not as a byproduct of a higher quality game or more skilled teams, and not as a byproduct of improved scoring. Below is how scoring in 2019 is distributed, and how it varies compared to the last 4 years. Purely personal preference, but I’ve divided scores kicked by both teams into 5 categories: Less than 50 Points (I consider this obviously substandard), 50 – 74 Points (Very ‘meh’ football), 75 – 99 Points (The minimum of good footy), 100 – 149 Points (Now this is what we want to see), and 150 + Points (Jesus, my body can’t handle it). Is this subjective? Yes, of course, but I tried to categories games in a realistic way. Let’s start with looking at how scores viewed in isolation can make it seem scoring is about where it’s been the last few years, but how actually we have many more average games than good (Note, the Adjusted 2019 extrapolates the data out over 23 Rounds to allow for proper comparison):

Spoiler: Total Points

“Well, stranger from the Intranet, that doesn’t look so bad. Scoring is only down slightly in 2018 and we have closer, better games! Who are you to question Kingy!”? Right you are respected reader, however, let’s look now at the aforementioned scoring distribution:

Spoiler: Total Scores below 50

Spoiler: Total Scores between 50 - 74

Spoiler: Total Scores between 75 - 99

Spoiler: Total Scores between 100 - 149

Spoiler: Total Scores Over 150

The reason total scores seem only slight down on previous years, yet football in 2019 seems the most average it has ever been, is we have a huge influx in scores between 50 and 75 points, the highest it has been over the five year period and what I would describe as a tapering off of what I would deem as acceptable scores, between 75-100. The problem is those scores need to be pulled from somewhere, and it isn’t the lowest bracket. Scores between 100-149 (what I would deem to be the sweet spot of attractive footy) are significantly down, and it’s visible to viewers. Finally, here is the percentage distribution across the sectors over the given period:

Spoiler: Scoring Distribution 2015 - 2019

6-6-6 hasn’t fixed footy, it’s made it boring. The data is a lot to digest, but the key element to take away is that 2019 is the first year in the last 5 years where you’re more likely to watch a game of football where neither team kicks 75 points than any other result. In 2016 and 2017, you were more likely to see your team kick over 100 than under 75, in 2019, you have over double the chance of seeing your team not hit 75 than seeing them get over the century. Celebrating “close” games goes out the window at that point. You’re sacrificing attractive footy to try and manufacture a closer result and its palpable.

The Fix:​

There is no miracle fix, but I think there is a place to start: Bring in a bonus point for kicking over 100. Instead of trying to encourage higher scoring by bringing in indirect fixes, start encouraging coaches to actual kick higher scores. I always like to use the mindset of, What would Clarko do? The AFL tells coaches they want them to stop congestion, Clarko says “What’s in it for me and Hawthorn?” The AFL says they are bringing in the 6-6-6 rule, Clarko just says “That’s fine, ill just clog up transition so teams score sweet FA against us”. Hawthorn is yet to kick 100 points this year, you know why? Because why would they? What’s in it for Clarkson to kick 100? Nothing. Bringing in a bonus point has the opposite effect. Do you think Clarkson is going to leave potentially 23 bonus points on the table a year? Hawthorn will be hitting 100 points ever single week if it meant they had an advantage over poorly coached teams.

The secondary benefit of bonus points is that it strips away this current amateur system where the ladder is decided by percentage points. Team A. wins most of their games winning 75 - 60, Team B. wins scoring 100 – 80 every week. Who do we want playing finals? Right now, Team A. gets in playing a boring brand of footy. Teams season shouldn’t be defined because they kicked 4 more points than another team over a year, particularly if you’re going to have a fixture instead of a draw. "Jeez glad the Pies got to play Melbourne twice instead of GWS like Richmond had to, wonder why we have a better percentage?". The competition is too close. You may not like my idea of the bonus points, that’s fine, it's just an opinion, but one thing we can agree on is that football is less boring when teams score. The media wants you to think 2019 has been a great year but in fact, it has been defined by constant momentum shifts, where a stretch of 10 minutes where a team kicks 5 goals decides a game because both teams are lucky to score 10.

Note: Data is courtesy of www.afltables.com​

 

[HTT]

Just stop changing rules and allow the game to develop naturally. Clubs aren’t going to prioritise a bonus premiership point over a win. Case in point: Richmond’s last month. Percentage would be incredibly useful for us, but continuing to play risky football wasn’t worth it.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

We really do need a moratorium on 'ideas'!

 

[Kwality]

I thought the top 6 played each other twice, wrong !!

 

[Unknown Entity]

Just stop changing rules and allow the game to develop naturally. Clubs aren’t going to prioritise a bonus premiership point over a win. Case in point: Richmond’s last month. Percentage would be incredibly useful for us, but continuing to play risky football wasn’t worth it.

I don't think to leave things the way they are is the answer, I think you can make changes so long as you're confident the changes will actually affect the outcome you're trying to achieve.

The AFL needs to identify the issue they have or the desire they have and seek out the best solution for the situation. E.g, they want to reduce stoppages, well then change a rule that actually reduces stoppages, like increasing the number of free-kicks given for incorrect disposal or reward tackles by favouring the tackler instead of the ball carrier. Instead, they come up with all this half baked fixes like throwing the ball up quicker and 6-6-6 in blind hope it somehow fixes stoppages.

It starts with incentivising coaches to adapt their game styles and you'll start to see change. Why would any coach who wants to play a loose in the defensive 50 not just sit a wingman on the defensive corner of the centre square and run them back in after the ball up? What's the disadvantage in doing that?

Encourage higher scoring = Coaches developing game plans to score more = Faster moving game styles = Fewer stoppages and congestion.

 

[Luv_our_club]

I thought the top 6 played each other twice, wrong !!

The AFL don't follow the 6-6-6 formula when creating the fixture. For example, in 2018 and 2019 the Tigers have not had a top 6 fixture (they were premiers in 2017 and the next year they finished first on the ladder).
Surely you handicap a team like Richmond with a difficult fixture if the 6-6-6 model has any integrity. Instead another team that finishes below the Tigers is given that handicap.

 

[Kwality]

The AFL don't follow the 6-6-6 formula when creating the fixture. For example, in 2018 and 2019 the Tigers have not had a top 6 fixture (they were premiers in 2017 and the next year they finished first on the ladder).
Surely you handicap a team like Richmond with a difficult fixture if the 6-6-6 model has any integrity. Instead another team that finishes below the Tigers is given that handicap.

The AFL play favourites, nothing new for Eagles supporters.

 

[Billy Not Really]

We have to go back.

At this point changing and adding rules is putting band-aids on a sinking ship.

Whatever rules we had around 20 years ago seemed to work, footy looked more lively.

 

[Rotayjay]

Whatever the AFL does to make footy higher scoring or more exciting, you can bet your last dollar that it will have the exact opposite effect. Coaches are too cluey - they are full-time analysts whose sole job is to WIN, not to create a spectacle.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Mot many 3 word sentences is this thread.

I will step out as you step in.

 

[Do the Dew]

The bonus point is an awful idea. Controlled so much by weather that can make it unfair to teams that play outside in horrid conditions vs inside.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Give redundancies to everyone who is paid to be involved with the laws / rules of the game committees. For anyone that does it as a volunteer tell them don't come Monday.

As long as you employ people in the roles, they will consider it their duty to make changes because that's what they are there for.

 

[mcgarnacle]

The bonus point is an awful idea. Controlled so much by weather that can make it unfair to teams that play outside in horrid conditions vs inside.

Variables that also affect percentage too. Percentage is such a lazy way to break a tie break of competition points the table.

Given the fixture is so unbalanced, tiebreakers should be as follows:
1 - head to head result(s) during season
2 - strength of wins
3 - strength of fixture
4 - percentage

 

[Fadge]

I can never understand why people think higher scoring = better and more attractive football.

If you really think that is the case, do yourself a favour and check out the 2002, 2005 and 2006 Grand Finals.

 

[Fadge]

Variables that also affect percentage too. Percentage is such a lazy way to break a tie break of competition points the table.

Given the fixture is so unbalanced, tiebreakers should be as follows:
1 - head to head result(s) during season
2 - strength of wins
3 - strength of fixture
4 - percentage

Nah. Percentage is a conclusive and consistent way of determining a result.

Head to head - Team A plays Team B once, at the start of the season, lose by a point and are ravaged by injury before and during the game. Team B has a comparitively easier draw.

Under your theory, Team B 'wins' the tie break?

 

[The Dice Man]

I dont mind the idea of a bonus point for scoring over 100. Really changes things up and even a losing team can scrap a point. Good thread and well presented even if many will disagree.

 

[HTT]

I don't think to leave things the way they are is the answer, I think you can make changes so long as you're confident the changes will actually affect the outcome you're trying to achieve.

The AFL needs to identify the issue they have or the desire they have and seek out the best solution for the situation. E.g, they want to reduce stoppages, well then change a rule that actually reduces stoppages, like increasing the number of free-kicks given for incorrect disposal or reward tackles by favouring the tackler instead of the ball carrier. Instead, they come up with all this half baked fixes like throwing the ball up quicker and 6-6-6 in blind hope it somehow fixes stoppages.

It starts with incentivising coaches to adapt their game styles and you'll start to see change. Why would any coach who wants to play a loose in the defensive 50 not just sit a wingman on the defensive corner of the centre square and run them back in after the ball up? What's the disadvantage in doing that?

Encourage higher scoring = Coaches developing game plans to score more = Faster moving game styles = Fewer stoppages and congestion.

The AFL was confident the changes they made would increase scoring. Lo and behold - they didn’t. With very few exceptions the coaches of AFL teams are collectively the 100 brightest football minds in the country. Few others know exactly what makes them tick, and if you don’t know that, how can you possibly affect their mindset. The first priority for coaches is to ensure everything they already know is in place. The most recent development was defensive. When you introduce a rule that aims to reduce the effectiveness of these developments, the only coaches will try to do is bring them back.
Leave the rules alone, coaches aren’t so busy fixing what they already had, and they have time to work out tactical ways to beat said defensive tactics - that will truly destroy them.

 

[D-N-R]

Why is scoring the be all and end all? Of those games that are over 100 points and 150 points, how many were one sided floggings?

Whilst a close game might not necessarily be a skillful or free flowing game, there is at least some chance for either team which can keep the viewer interested until the end.

Do the same charts but organise them in terms of margin and you might be closer to separating good seasons from bad.

 

[The Dice Man]

Why is scoring the be all and end all? Of those games that are over 100 points and 150 points, how many were one sided floggings?

Whilst a close game might not necessarily be a skillful or free flowing game, there is at least some chance for either team which can keep the viewer interested until the end.

Do the same charts but organise them in terms of margin and you might be closer to separating good seasons from bad.

I think the thing that's lost here a bit is that footy appears to be better when teams are offensive, rather than defensive. Instead of coaches trying to minimize their opponents score, they may favor tactics that increase their own chances of scoring.

I think the bonus point could be a good incentive to make coaches more aggressive and attacking, instead of being negative and defensive.

There is no tweak to 'on field' rules, more a change in what the result effects. It has merit IMO.

 

[psychobrown]

"Footy in 2019 feels slower, it feels less exciting, and it feels unattractive"

Footy in 2019 sounds like a 5 year marriage

 

[Johnny Karate]

I understand that some people are playing devil’s advocate and saying that high scoring footy doesn’t equate to good footy. However, a lot of the games this year aren’t classic encounters like WC vs Sydney in the mid 2000s where an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

What is taking place is rolling mauls, zones and timid ball movement orchestrated by psychopathic, nincompoop, control freak coaches as an all time dummy spit because they can’t have their fluorescent pink pests out there illegally blocking. They’ve completely ruined the game. I’m against capital punishment but for AFL coaches I’d make an exception because you’d have to be human to have human rights.

Thank Christ for Brisbane, West Coast and Richmond making some football semi-bearable.

As for the OP, I don’t see the harm in a bonus point to try and open up the game a bit.

 

[The Dice Man]

"Footy in 2019 feels slower, it feels less exciting, and it feels unattractive"

Footy in 2019 sounds like a 5 year marriage

Footy is great in 2019 if you're a Lions supporter.

 

[D-N-R]

I think the thing that's lost here a bit is that footy appears to be better when teams are offensive, rather than defensive. Instead of coaches trying to minimize their opponents score, they may favor tactics that increase their own chances of scoring.

I think the bonus point could be a good incentive to make coaches more aggressive and attacking, instead of being negative and defensive.

There is no tweak to 'on field' rules, more a change in what the result effects. It has merit IMO.

Maybe it would but as mentioned above, weather might play a big part in favouring some teams or venues over others.

I think coaches are trying to open games up. Playing on quickly, tapping or soccering the ball has become quite common in recent times. I've certainly noticed it with my team (wce) and with Richmond as well. It probably started with Clarkson's Hawks.

Successful strategies will be adopted by other coaches given time.

 

[The Dice Man]

Maybe it would but as mentioned above, weather might play a big part in favouring some teams or venues over others.

I think coaches are trying to open games up. Playing on quickly, tapping or soccering the ball has become quite common in recent times. I've certainly noticed it with my team (wce) and with Richmond as well. It probably started with Clarkson's Hawks.

Successful strategies will be adopted by other coaches given time.

Weather shoulndt be considered as the game is played in all kinds of conditions, and lets not get into the equality of the FIXture.

Perhaps thats the biggest problem, an uneven fixture. Nothing balances while that is out of whack.

 

[D-N-R]

Also, this idea of bonus points presupposes that both coaches will be happy to play open football.

If a mid table team is playing a top team, they might very well decide that 4 points is enough and resort to defensive tactics to win the game rather than a straight shoot out.

Would either coach in this weekends Rich WCE or Geel Bris games try for the extra point or would they play conservatively and settle for the 4 points? I'm guessing the latter.

The bonus points might be good if one team is confident they can flog another team but it won't make those games any more interesting. It will simply mean that playing those teams will be a bonus if you're lucky enough to get drawn twice against them.