Football myths

[Dan26]

MYTH 1.) A team will lose becasue they are due for a loss.

This is rubbish. If a team is good enough they can keep on winning. Just becasue a team has won 8 in a row, doesn't mean they will drop the next one. Remember, a team that has won 8 in a row has also won two in a row.


MYTH 2.) Wayne Carey is the biggest influence on North Melbourne.

Denis Pagan is the biggest influence on the Kangaroos, end of story.


MYTH 3.) A coach is only as good as the players he has to work with.

While this is partly true, a great coach can have a big impact on a group of players, even if their overall talent is less than other teams. No one would say Geelong are deep in talent, but under a very good young coach, they have moved to second on the ladder. Apart from the coach, there have been very little personnel changes. With 18 players on the field, there are so many variables in league football (more so than any other sport), that a good coach getting all 22 working together can make a huge impact.....even if their overall talent is questionable. Combine great palyers with a great coach and you have a premiership calibre team (eg Essendon). Comibine good players with a crap coach and you have Adelaide. Combine average players with a good coach and you have Geelong and the Kangaroos. Combine crap players with crap coaches and you have Port Adelaide.


MYTH 4.) You can't win playing catch up football.

You can.......it's just harder.


MYTH 5.) Colonial crowds have been poor.

26,000 for a winless St.Kilda against the tiny following of the Kangaroos at Colonial on Saturday. The usually got less than that against each other at Waverley. Bulldogs getting 30,000 against Carlton is more than the two clubs would have drawn against each other at Optus, which is where that fixture would have been held last year. St.Kilda drawing 18,000 against Brisbane is exactly what the saints used to get against non-victorian sides when they were struggling. Sure, Colonial doesn't get the crowds of the MCG. No one expected it to.


MYTH 6.) Finals are pressure games.

Some are, but so are most home and away games. Finals, especially the Grand Final, rarely lives up to the hype. The Grand Final, particularly is all hype. Most finals are disappointing affairs that are not refelctive of a teams true ability. Sure, there will be a cracker every now and again (eg the 1999 preliminary final), but invariably the years best game is a home and away game. For example, 1999's best game was the Round 17 clash between the Bombers and the Kangaroos. A Classic.


MYTH 7.) The Grand Final winner is always the years best team.

Sometimes, not always. The home and away season, played over 22 weeks sorts out who the years best teams are. Not a one-off match played at the end of the year.


MYTH 8.) The AFL doesn;t care about the fans.

While the AFL may not seem to care about the fans, they are running a business and have to make monetary decision that are designed to make a profit. They have to. Footy fans have it so much better now than what we did in the 60's, 70, and 80's. There is a games on TV all the time, great stadiums, and still $14 entry for general admission. The AFL cares about the fans, but they care about other things too. It's a big business to run, and unfortunately some people miss out. You can't satisfy everyone, and these disenchanted people often blame the AFL. They have made wrong decisions, sure, and they could have treated the fans better at times, I agree. But to say they don't care about the fams AT ALL is ludicrous. They could still treat the fans better though.


MYTH 8.)Teams choke.

Can someone exlplain how 22 individuals all playing for the same team, all with different eccentricities and personalities, can all play badly at the same time ????? Upsets happen. There are many variables in football. Luck, weather, attitude, injury, coaching moves, match-ups, momentum, preperation, home ground etc. Just becasue a team loses a match they should have won doesn't mean they choke. It's all part of the unpredictability of football. Sometimes, teams will give up big leads. It happens, and it always will. Tennis players, and Golfers can choke. Individual palyers within a football team can choke, yes. But a whole team cannot choke. I don't like the word anyway. It seems these days, whenever a team loses a match, some idiot will say, "they choked". Is it the new buzz word, or something ??


MYTH 9.)Collingwood have Victoris biggest supporter base.

Sorry to disappoit Pie fans, but that title now belongs to Essendon, and has done since the mid 1990's. Survey, and official stats have shown. I don't really care, I just wanna win. But its a football fact.


MYTH 10.) Grand Finals are always one-sided.

Grand Finals are just a game of footy. There no more likely to be one-sided than any other game. Most of the Grand Finals in the 1990's have been one-sided, but in the 1960's and 70's we were blessed with close Grand Finals every year. Sometimes you get home and away games which are expected to be close which turn into blowouts. The GF is just a game of Football and it is no more likely to be close than any home and away game.


MYTH 11.) People prefer to stand at the footy.

While there are always exceptions, most people will prefer to sit, and be in comfort.


MYTH 12.) The Kangaroos should have won more premierships in this current era.

North have probaly won more than they have deserved. North have made the finals 7 years in a row. Only once (1998) hasve they finished on top, so by rights, they have only been able to call themselves the best team once. Yet they have won 2 Grand Finals in 7 years. There are 8 teams in the finals, so you only habe a 1/8th chance of winning, yet North have won 2 out of 7 years. The Kangaroos have an AMAZING 13-5 finals record under Denis Pagan. This is beter than their home and away percentage. Two of their preliminary finals losses have been against the top of the ladder team (Carlton in 1995 and St.Kilda in 1997), and the other was an unlucky after the siren loss in 1994. In 1994 they only had a 13-9 win-loss record and would not have deserved to be called a premiership team anyway. 2 Grand Final victories in a system which allows 8 finalists is a fantsastic strike rate. They should not have won any more. North should be very happy with 2 out of 7.

 

[eagles_rule]

Dan24 I wish you would get off the topic of the top team needing more recognition. If the top team after the home and away series cannot win a grand final (essendon last year being a prime example) it is there own fault. I remember in 1991 when the Eagles were top of the ladder, then lost the grand final to hawthorn. The players were just not up to it. Many teams at the top of the ladder don't go on and win the premiership. Finishing top does not mean anything to the players, winning premierships does. Your obviously still filthy about last year when your team blew a premiership (hahahahaha good on you Carlton). So Dan24 would you just shut up in regards to this topic.

Another thing, when Collingwood once again becomes a power and Essendon struggles, im sure the crowd figures will reverse with Collingwood having bigger crowds.

 

[Dan26]

Well, excuse me, Eagles-rule.

Listen, I can tell you that Essendon has the most supporters. Forget how well the team is travelling, and the corresponding larger crowds that such a team attracts. I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the actual number of people who support a football club. About 16% of Victorians support the Bombers. More than any other team. Now if the team is winning, a larger amount of that 16% will go to the games than if they were losing.

Richmond for example have MASSIVE support. Often this isn't relected at games, becasue the team isn't performing well. But the following of the club is large.

Whether you like it or not, Essendon has overtaken Collingwood. Essendon's following is also fuleed by a huge amount of younger supporters, meaning that the 16% will rise and rise.

The team could be near the bottom (like Essendon was in 1997), and still 16% of Victoria will follow the team. In that case, less, and less of the 16% would go, because the team would be towards the bottom of the ladder. Any teams attendances would drop, but it doesn't affect the CURRENT amount of barrackers a team has.

As for your immature comment about top spot, I am sick of talking about it really. I've gone over it so many times, and I thought you would have "Got it" by now. Obviously you havn't.

First of all, if a team doesn't win the Grand Final, you say it;s their own fault. I'm not necessarill disagreing. All I'm saying is REGARDLESS of the result of the Grand Final, the "top of the ladder" team should have their acheivement recognised.

In 1991, West Coast were by far the best team. They went 19-3 with a percentage of about 160. They were phenomenal. Hawthorn beat them fair and square, but West Coast were still that years best team.

You say no one cares about top spot. They only care about winning the Grand Final.

I KNOW !!!!!
I KNOW !!!!!!
I KNOW !!!!!!

That's the god damn problem. The AFL doesn't recognise top sot so no one cares. They DO recognise the Grand Final winner so everyone cares. IF top spot was given more recognition, then YOU, would care more.

Why not reward two great teams for two seperate acheivement. Reward West Coast in 1991 for winning the Home and away premiership (just like ManU did last night by finishing top). THEN, award the 4 week finals series premiership to Hawthorn to conclude the season (like Chelsea and Aston Villa will do in a couple of weeks when they fight out the FA Cup)

I know no one cares (why does everyone keep saying that). That's the problem. The AFL need to recognise top spot so that we all do care.

Also, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH ESSENDON. I've been saying this for 5 years. I think it's stupid that Essendon were called premiers in 1965 when they finished 4th. Sure they won the Grand Final, but St.KIlda finished top of the table after 6 months. All Essendon won was a 4 week tournament. St.Kilda should have been caled Home and away premiers in 1965, and been recognised accordingly. Essendon should have been called Final series premiers.

I'm not talking about how thigs ARE. I'm talking about how they SHOULD be. That's the thing you need to understand.

 

[Joel]

Dan24 you are a classic! Most of you posts are good, but you don't seem to get off the same topic. Eagles_rule is right, if a team isn't up to it when it matters most then they simply aren't the best team. Maybe during the season they were better than the other teams but werent the best (i know it doesn't make sense, but maybe you can make something of it). Anyway on the point of crowd support, you are forgetting something: Collingwood until during probably the mid nineties had the most amount of supporters, but as the team gradually became nothing but a pathetic mess the support wained (these aren't real supporters). I hate the term "bandwagon", and I aren't saying you are but some of Essendon's supporters at this stage are bandwagoners(and to some extent on the way back is our very own Collingwood bandwagoners). Most of these people follow a team because they are percieved as being successful and usually are, so why wouldn't these part time "football followers" (NOTE: Football followers) follow a team such as Essendon.

Also how do you know that your supporters will follow you when you have been losing? How long has it been since you experienced a DOWN time that Collingwood has had the last six years? Can you answer these question? No. You don't know what its like Dan, so don't try and pretend you do. This isn't a personal attack on you, just you remarks.

 

[Dan26]

Joel,

Fiar Dinkum, didn't you read my last post, or something.

Essendon led the league in atendance in 1997, a year in which we finished 14th.

Now, if Essendon were to have a sustained period of failure for 5 or 6 years, then naturally crowds would fall away. Just like Collingwood over the past 5 years, and Richmond over the past 15 years. This would happen at any club.

However, both Richmond and Collingwod have massive DORMANT support, and any hint of competitiveness will see the attendances at games featuring these teams to swell.

Essendon success in 1999 and 2000 has got nothing to do with our large following. If it takes 2 good years to have a following, the the Kangaroos should have the most supporters.

Essendon have accumulated supporters, throughout their entire history becasue they have been successful. 15 Premierships as well as 15 top of the ladder finishes. Since 1940, no team has played in the finals more often, or played in as many Grand Finals as Essendon.

That, my friend, is the reason for Essendons large support. Essendon will not begin to reap the rewards of the successful 1999 and 20000 seasons for another 10 years, when all the young kids who will start barracking for the Bombers get old enough to start buying memberships.

Do you noticehow Hawthorns small following of past years has increased to a sizeable number. Why ? They aren't winning, so where have all the Hawks supporters come from in recent years ? They are simply kids who started barracking for the Hawks in their glden era, and they are now in their early to mid 20's and can therefore start going to the football and getting a membership.

Trust me, Essendon have the biggest following. The 1999 and (so far) 2000 successsare irrelevent at the moment in terms of support. Support is based on PST succes. If it was based on current success, North Melbourne would have the most support.

 

[Dan26]

Joel, you said this :

"Eagles_rule is right, if a team isn't up to it when it matters most then they simply aren't the best team. Maybe during the season they were better than the other teams but werent the best (i know it doesn't make sense, but maybe you can make something of it)"

What the hell does that mean ????

Look, I love trying to get my point across (as all of you probably have found out), but even I am getting sick of continaully telling people, and having to explain to them that top spot deserves more recognition.

Just becasue a team isn't up to it on the day, doesn't mean they are not the best team. It's like saying Essendon who were beaten fair and square by Carlton deserve to be hailed as finishing "third", while Carlton deserve to be hailed as "runners-up"

That crap. Carlton do NOT deserve to be hailed as runner-up at all. At least not runners-up of the whole season. Runners-up of the 4 week finals series, yes, but as far as I'm concerned Carlton was 6th in the home and away, and they were the runner-up of a seperate 4 week tournament held during September.

Aston Villa and Chelsea aren't the two best soccer teams in England, yet they are playing off for the FA Cup. Now I know ManU didn't compete in the FA Cup this year but there have been plenty of times, where ManU have won the premiership (by finishing top), and have been knocked out in the early rounds of the FA Cup.

In fact, none of the big three (Arsenal, Liverpool, or ManU) are in the FA Cup final. Now Joel, does this mean they aren't the best ? Of course not. We all know these three teams are the best, hence their standing in the premier league. We all know that as football fans, one match is not reflective of how good you are. Anything can happen in a one-off match.

The home and away premiers shold be declared after round 22 with a big ceremony. THEN, the finals should take place (that will keep you happy Joel). I love finas, they are a great time of the year. The finals should be a SEPERATE knockout elite tournament (no double chances) just featuring the elite 8 teams of the competition. The Grand Final will still be there, and you would still have to perform on the day to win it (that wil keep you even more happy, Joel.......you too Eagles_Rule)

That's how it SHOULD be. (not how it IS, but how it should be)

Please don't write back tellng me, "But Dan24, it's done this way". I don't care how it's done NOW. I'm talking about how things SHOULD be done.

 

[geelong4eva]

You make some insightful and well observed comments Dan24 which does prove that you know a hell of a lot about football, however i feel that your being a little harsh on the Roos. The Roos probably didn't deserve to make the preliminary final in 97, but they have done wondefully well considering their meagre resources compared to say an Essendon or an Adelaide. Whilst it's true that 16 percent of vics support Essendon, it's fair to say that 60 percent of other victorians loathe them with a passion. Whilst I think that Essendon has the best list in the comp, i doubt if would be good enough to beat the great Hawk teams of the 80's or the Blues of the 70's.

 

[bluegirl24021972]

Myth 11: People prefer to stand up at the football. I know I do!! - I usually find myself on my feet when my team scores a goal so therefore, the more often I'm on my feet the better my team is doing. What can I say? It's an irresistable urge!!

 

[myth 12]

Dan24 wrote:

Essendon led the league in atendance in 1997, a year in which we finished 14th.

In fact crowd figures normally quoted are crowd totals for games involving Essendon. This does NOT indicate "Essendon led the league" in the sense of a club drawing fans. There IS a difference. In most games Essendon play a significant part of the crowd are fans of the opposition club. In most games Essendon play their fans can attend because the game is in Victoria even if it is an away game.

Those two factors make a heck of a lot of difference to attendance figures at games involving Essendon when compared to games involving say Sydney or West Coast or Adelaide.

So Dan24 show us how you account for those factors applied to attendance figures to come up with your crazy idea that Essendon led the league.

 

[Dan26]

Obviously, if 980,000 watched Essendon play in 1997, then obviously this includes a proportion of "other" fans. I know this.

Unfortuantely it is impossible to quantify how many out of a crowd of 60,000 support the Bombers and how many supoort the opposition. But if you play in front of nearly a million people, it is a good indicator of your popularity.

Actually, I'll be honest, I tell a bit of a lie. In 1997, Collingwood narrowly pipped Essendon for the amount of people that watched them. Both Essendon and Collingwood played in front of nearly a million people each. (they were both in the high 900,000's) I don't have the figures with me at the moment.

In 1998 and 1999, more people watched Essendon than any other team.

Geelong4ever, I sincerley hope that the Geelong home game against Essendon in Round 11 gets switched to the vacant MCG on the Sunday. Who know, Essendon could be 10-0, or 9-1, and Geelong could be 8-2, or 9-1.

It is a potential 70-80,000 game. Geelong has massive support, and that game deserves to be at the MCG.

Also, I'm not being harsh on the Roos at all. I'm praising them. You're right, they have done particulary well with meagre resources (they lack depth), but they have a great coach, and a couple of champion players. I am simply saying that they have only finished on top once, so therefore they can only really say that under Pagan, they have been the best team on one occasion. Yet, they have won two Grand Finals.

For some strange reason, people say, "North should have won more Grand Finals". I can't believe people say this. North have done superbly well to win two, which is arguably one more than they have deserved under Pagan.

Perhps they lost in 1998 when they should have won, and they won in 1999 when they should have lost to the Bombers (but I won't get into that)

1996 was strange becasue they finished runner-up to Sydney after 22 weeks, and Sydney pumpled them by 76 points during the home and away. The Grand Final was played at the MCG, where Sydney had only played a couple of times, and hadn't been used to as many big games as the Roos. I remember how awesome Sydney were during 1996. They were sensational, both at home and away from the SCG. I thought they were just as good as North if not better that year. Unfortunately, North were too good on the day, but there wasn't much between North and Sydney that year.

 

[Dan26]

Geelong4eva,

I agree that Essendon probably wouldn't be able to beat the Hawthorn teams of the late 80's. The 1988-89 Hawthorn teams were superb. The 1989 Hawthorn teams was probably the best team I have seen. To be able to go back-to-back, with all the other teams gunning for you since you are the reigning premiers is superb. They went 19-3 with a percentage of 153 in 1989. Forget the Grand Final itself. I'm talking about that special ability of Hawthorn to turn it on at will.

But I'll tell you if Essendon's 2000 team could beat them after the season is over. WE can't realy say now because we are only at Round 7. But Essendon is currently beginning to remind me of the 1989 Hawthonn and 1985 Essendon sides. They are awesome at the moment.

Actually now that I think about it, the only side I have EVER seen that I actaully thought was unbeatable was West Coast early in 1991. I sincerely thought that they wouldn't lose a game. At one satge they were 12-0 with a percentage of 200 !!!!!!!!!!!

It didn't matter whether it was home or away, they managed to double the score of their opposition. As the seaosn drew on, they seemd to tire, and eventually went 21-5 (including finals), but during the first half of 1991, the West Coast Eagles would have beaten ANY side in the entire 104 year history of the VFL-AFL. They really were that good. In many ways I believe the West Coast team of 1991 (who went 19-3 with a percentage of 162) was the best team of the 1990's. Three NARROW losses, meant they could have gone 22-0. OK, they didn't win the Grand Final, but the best team doesn't necesarily win the Grand Final as I have said many, many times.

 

[Grendel]

Dan myth whatever if you think the dons have the most supporters your kidding yourself, the eagles probably do with id guess at least 70% of the state of WA following them.
At a guess there are 1.2 million living in WA so figure it out for yourself.
The most in victoria? yeah Id say so but not clearly no one will ever know for certain just who that is out of the dons woods and blues ( and dont worry they are are huge amount of carlton fans out there, they just dont seem to go to the ffooty much, they probably hate optus like the rest of us do)

Also that the AFL cares(???) about its supporters, only the ones with credit cards and the beemers parked in the garage.

 

[Pessimistic]

Dan,
Just a small point.
A big part of Hawthorn's 1991 premiership was going over to perth and beating them at home. This is something no victorian team has been able to acheive (and probably won't as the finals system is different now)
That is, to win a final ourside Victoria.

Perhaps the amazing run of away wins by the crows in '98 is the thing that comes closest.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Dan24

Perhaps a way of getting more help and deserved special treatment for the minor premier is to go back to the old MacIntyre Finals systems of years gone by.

I think both the Final 4 and Final 5 system were very good in that the Minor Premier was given a substantial 'leg-up' in both systems

Is that what you are on about D24 ?

If you are advocating a system like in Soccer where there are seperate honours for 'league' and 'cup' winners then sure, it makes sense and rightly rewards the two winners of each competition but it will never happen in the AFL because the weight of history is against this system. There has always been a finals series and the winner of the GF is the undisputed champion for that year, its the Australian way Dan, and I think the average Australian footy fan (any code) wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[The Ball]

I agree with Dan24's theory on how the home and away season should be split up from the finals series. However, going back to the soccer situation overseas I think that if the finals series were to be played on a purely knock out basis like the F.A. cup, it probably would not be prestigious as the F.A. cup. This is because all the soccer clubs in the England can take part in that competition and not just the 20 elite premier league clubs. Thus there is a fundamental difference between Dan24 proposal and how the cup competion is played in England.

 

[Dan26]

Bloodstained Angel,

It's the TRADITIONAL Australian way for the premiership to be decided by top spot. Let me quote a passage from this footy book I've got :

"The VFA became the first properly organized major Australian Football competition in 1877. For 20 seasons, the premiership was awarded to the club finishing on top of the ladder. When the newly formed VFL organised it's first season in 1897, it was decided that the top 4 teams would contest a series of premirship deciding matches"

So, there you have it. That is how we arrived at the current debacle of the premiership being avheived over 4 weeks in September (hence often NOT going to the best team) INSTEAD of the TRADITIONL way of deciding the champion..........top spot.

Don't get me wrong I LOVE finals. They are great. But they should be a SEPERATE knockout tournement, with quarter-finals, semi-final and the Grahd Final, held between the best 8 teams, culminating with the Grahd Final. Completely knockout.

NO DOUBLE CHANCES. A double chance goes against what finals are about; performing on the day.

So, you have the home and away premier, then the 4 week finals series champion. Grand Final day would still be the last game of the year, just lke the FA Cup is the last game of the year.

It's time we went back to tradition. That's the Australian way.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Hmmm ok point taken D24

We can all see what you are on about and you have raised some very persuasive arguements (in the Fairfax forum too I believe ?) But I just don't think its got any support out there in Footyland at the moment.

As I said earlier it may not have been the tradition 103 years ago but sure as hell is today and I don't think there is a football follower anywhere in Australia who would like to abandon the finals system for the English soccer set-up.

Even the National Soccer League in Australia had to abandon the seperate League Champion / Cup Winner system because Australians could not relate to it !

Also, do you really want the situation that we have in soccer now when the League Champion is often confirmed weeks before the season has ended ? - Thats pretty boring and has the effect of making alot of late season H&A games effectively 'dead rubbers'. Also with this system it is actually really hard to figure out who the top team for any year is. The League Champion and Cup Winner do not 'play-off' in a GF style match, there is the Charity Sheild but this is a season curtain-raiser with importance whats so ever for the teams involved.

D24 I think what you are advocating is a H&A season in which the top team is declared champion, then the champion club and the 4 or 5 teams below it play-off in a mini knockout competition at the end of H&A - I really think that this system would lead to confusion as fans struggle to identify the true premier, the definitive game of the season and which seperate competition has the greater prestige.

 

[Dan26]

Bloodstained Angel,

Should a team be penalised, just becasue they are, say, 4 or 5 games better than everyone ? Why should Manchester United be forced into a "Grand Final" match against the second-placed team (Liverpool), even though ManU are 10 points clear, and are therefore a deserved premier.

Just because a team, under my propsal, should they wrap up top spot with a month to go, this DOES NOT make thing less exciting. Here's why :

First of all, in 1995, Carlton wrapped up the McClelland trophy with a month to go(top spot), and their last few games were meaningless (until the finals). Under my proposal NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. Carlton would still have played their menaingless round 20,21 an 22 matches, but they would have been given more recognition for that achevement of heading the ladder.

THEN, after the home and away premier has been declared, the 4 week finals series tournament start. Knockout, and seperate from the home and away,.

As for your suggestion, if people would recognise them as seperate tournaments, that's up to the AFL. They need to market it. People in England recognise the FA Cup and the home and away championship as seperate tournaments, so with a bit of comminication, that won't be a problem.

If you want EXCITING knockout matches....... that is what the FA CUP (and otr final series is for). if you want to find out who is TRULY the best (even if it isn't as exciting), that's what out home and away season is for, and that is what the English premiership season is for. The FA CUP is basically there to add the excitement of a knockout competition.

We shouldn't be penalising a team by putting their WHOLE SEASON on the line if they are 4 games claer of everyone. I mean, what is the point playing the home and away season ? They HAVE to be seperate tournaments. First the home and away, then the 4 week finals series.

 

[Dan26]

Bloodstained Angel,

You pose an interesting question.

Will the public see them as seperate tournaments ?

They will, and here is why :

Currently, the home and away and the finals are linked. They are not seperate. Why are they linked ? They are linked becasue how well you do in the home and away is reflected on getting a double chance. For example, if you perform well, you get a top two postion, and therefore, a second chance.

How do we UN-LINK them ? We UN-LINK the home and away series from the finals series, by GETTING RID OF THE DOUBLE CHANCE. Currently, teams are striving to get a double chance. They are NOT striving to get top spot.

BUT, if you get rid of the double chance, teams will not not be striving to get a double chance BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ONE. Instead, they will be striving to finish on top, and be delared home and away premiers.

AND, for those teams that can't finish top, they can still fight to finish in the top 8, for the right to compete in the SEPERATE, elite, knockout, 4 week, finals series tournamnet.

This tournament, culminating with the Grand Final we all know and love would consist of quarter finals, semi-finals, then the Grand Final.

If you win both, you have done the double.

Why should Adelaide be declared premiers of the WHOLE SEASON in 1998. They deservadly won the Grand Final, but they should NOT get any credit for the home and away season, in which they finished 5th. North Melbourne finished on top, and shpuld have been recognised. They weren't. Adelaide were deservadly recognised, but that recognition should not carry any further than the finals series, which they won. NOT the home and away season, where they were 5th.

I'm sure the public would accept it. Who wouldn't want to se TOP SPOT get rewarded instead of ignored, in ADDITION to still having the Grand Final as something to aspire to in it's own right.

 

[mtffafl]

You do raise some interesting arguments Dan...

I'm neither one way or the other on the issue. It does make sense for the best over the season to be recognised, but does it really matter whether that recognition is official or not???

No one sees Adelaide as the team of 97/98 (except their supporters)... And I still think of '91 as the year of the Eagles, despite being beaten in the GF.

Official recognition I guess is important to some, but who knows where to go.

Mayeb they don't need to be 'seperate' competitions. Keep everything as it is, except also give a cup/medallions to the team that finishes on to pof the ladder.

i.e. This year, Essendon gets a trophy for finishing on top of the ladder, and then they go on and blow their double chance with 2 successive chokes (that is apparently a myth

... am I being too harsh on Essendon???)


But you get what I mean. Why they need to be seperate tournaments is what I don't understand.

BTW - If you covered the reason they must be seperate, sorry, I only skim read the topic to date. It is full of many long, long posts.

Matt

 

[servo]

Dan

I agree generally with your Myth analysis. Except for Myth 7, The AFL cares about its supporters.

The AFL are money mad. They are neglecting the average fan and destroying the future of the game.

By pandering to the corporate dollar the game is slowly but surely being priced out of Joe Blows range.

Worse still, with at least 1 game available to the television viewing public on Friday nights, Saturdays, Sturday nights, Sundays, Sunday nights and some Monday & Thursday nights, support for any other level of the game is dwindling rapidly.

Less adults and especially children are playing the game now. Given another 10 years of these trends and we wont have the quality of players coming through to keep the spoilt lounge room viewer interested.

I have grave fears for this the best game the world has known.



[This message has been edited by servo (edited 29 April 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Oh, another myth :

After reading a few pousts in here recently, I have to comment.

MYTH - Umpires are biased.

Of course they're not. I swear, you get the feeling that some supporters on here actually think that the umpires say to themselves : "Gee, I think I'll deliberately favour one team today. I'll deliberately make controversial decisions to penalise them"

Umpire are trying as hard as they can to umpire to the rules of the game. If you lose, don't blame the umpires.......blame the players. Luck evens out over a season.

 

[sainter]

Dan, I think the problem is that it doesn't just even out.

You are right that they do not set out to be biased, yet their incompetence at certain stages can have a direct bearing on a match result.

Perhaps if a shocking decision cost your team a Grand Final berth or even victory, you may see it differently.

With their pay increase over the past few years, they have to be held accountable for their decisions and unfortunately it is not allowed to happen.

 

[servo]

Dan24 you are confusing bias with cheating.

If umpires deliberately set out to favour one team against another that is cheating.

Bias is a natural tendency to lean one way, as in a lawn bowl. A tendency to see the merits of one side at the expense of another unintentionally. Something that we are all guilty of here in this forum i think.

So umpire bias a myth? No, a natural fact that cannot be avoided or corrected, just observed and complained about.

 

[Dan26]

Sainter,

NO, if it happened to my team, it would not affect my thinking at all. I have said time and time again, the team is irrelevant. Club loyalties are irrelevant.

I am quite capable of looking at things from the "right" perspective and I am quite capable of makng rational judgements.

You should know, you've read enough of my posts.

I'm just sick of reading BULLSH1T like umpires favour Victorian teams. Stats have showed that any "home" team gets the advantage in the long run. That's the extent of it.

NO one team is at a disadvantage. All teams are treated the same. You might get the bad end one day, but it will work out in the long run.

Every year, we have the pointless discussion on umpires. They have a very hard job. Imagine YOU trying to do it. It will NEVER EVER change, so lets not even talk about it.

It's taken me over 300 posts for me to bring up a "post" on the umpires, because any discussion on them is irrelevant.

NO TEAM is disadvantaged more than any other team. That's the bottom line.