getting into grand- final or finishing higher on the ladder?

[DEES RULE!]

what would make you happier? to see your team finishing higher on the ladder or making it to the grand- final regardless of their possition in the top eight
and which team do you think did better the one with the higher possition or the one who made it to the grand- final?

i would obviously be happier with getting into the grand final thought i know some people who would rather finish higher on the ladder. i think ultimatly a team who finished higher on the ladder did well thoughtout the year but what really metters is the end result so i think that a team who made it into the grand final did do better over all!
what do u think?


------------------
you might not like it... but i really don't care!
GO THE MIGHTY DEMONS!!!

 

[Danni]

Even if the team that finishes 8th after the home and away, make it into the Final, don't they move up to 1st or 2nd anyway depending on whether they win or not?

 

[sandie]

Dees Rule
I would prefer my team to finish higher on the ladder than play in the GF.

What a stupid topic, anyone who would not prefer to be in the GF, must be as thick as 2 planks.

------------------
mantis

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, it's a bit of a silly question.

The way the season is done NOW, it doesn't matter where you finish on the ladder. It all comes down to the 4 week finals series. It's stupid, but that's the way it is !!!

So, obviously, under the current "recognition system", we would all rather make the Grand Final, because that's what gets all the recogniton and all the kudos. Ladder position currently don't mean squat, because no recognition is given to it.

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 04 December 2000).]

 

[Pessimistic]

Get into the GF

In 30 or so years people will look back tothe nineties and wonder whether WCE, North or Adelaide were the best team. (2 premierships)

The crows clearly did well here but with the team they had, should have come higher in ladder more often

 

[Dan26]

Pess,

NO ONE will look back in 30 years and "wonder" if the Crows were the best.

Even though they won the "premeirship", it is perfectly obvious to anyone reading a history book, that they weren't the best team.

I can look back on the decade 1910-1919 and wonder how god Fitzroy were with two premierships. In 1913 and 1916. In 1916, they won the wooden spoon and won the premeirship.

Yes, I am AWARE that the history books will still record it as a premiership, but the football pubic ARE NOT STUPID. Everyone knows that Fitzroys 2 flags in that era (due to the farcical nature of one of them) made them look better than they really were.

The footy public isn't stupid. They KNOW that sometimes the best team doesn't win the Grand Final.

 

[DEES RULE!]

well some of you might find this a stupid topic but a few months back when i was talking to this girl she thought that carlton did better than melbourne in 2000 because they finished 2nd and melbourne finished 3rd even thought melbourne made it to the gf and carlton didn't so i was just wondering if other people felt that way or if she was the only one.
i guess i just didn't express myself corectly when asking the question

------------------
you might not like it... but i really don't care!
GO THE MIGHTY DEMONS!!!

 

[Dan26]

Dees Rule,

You are 100% right. Carlton WERE undisputably a better team than Melbourne in 2000, and they SHOULD have been recognised as being second best. After all, after 22 weeks, they finished second right?

Melbourne SHOULD have been runner-up of the 4 week finals series tournament ONLY. Carlton should have been runner-up of thr 22 week H&A season. For some stupid reason, the AFL ignores the H&A season completely once the finals begin - as if it never happened. Melbourne were "officailly" the runner-up of the whole season, but really they should have been "third" in the home and away and runner-up of the 4 week finals series.

That's not how it is, but it's how it SHOULD be.

 

[GoEagles]

I know I'd much rather finish 8th and make the grand final then finish 1st and bomb out in the end week of the finals.

Dees, I totally agree with you that the end result comes down to the Grand Final, where the 22 rounds dont seem to count.

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Dan24:
Pess,

NO ONE will look back in 30 years and "wonder" if the Crows were the best.

Even though they won the "premeirship", it is perfectly obvious to anyone reading a history book, that they weren't the best team.

I'd like to put a counter viewpoint. In 1997 after 19 rounds Crows were top, and arguably the best team at that point. They had instigated a tough regime at training though at that time in order to be able to ease of in the finals. They perhaps overdid it a bit and it cost Crows a game or two, and they slid to fourth. The extra training was relaxed in the actual finals and there the benefit showed and a truer indicator of their actual strength, winning four finals. Crows effectively sacrificed top spot in the minor round in favour of a good run at the finals.

In 1998 they had undertook a similar extra training regime in the lead-up to finals. They went a little easier that time, though. But the real trouble in 98 was earlier when they lost a couple of close ones they shouldn't have- Crows had a long injury list at that time. But the players returned for the finals and the extra training relaxed, and Crows were back to their true form.

Your problem Dan24 is you place way too much emphasis on the win/loss over the minor round.

What you seem not to realise that the objective is NOT to come top of the minor round. The objective of an AFL season is to firstly make the finals round, then to win the finals. Most clubs and coaches know this and they plan accordingly.

Some people like Dan24 simply haven't worked this out yet.

 

[fighting fury]

Being a tiger fan, I was pretty pleased that the tigers finished where they did. They nearly got there! Of course the ultimate GF would have been a miracle, but look at the history. They get into this pattern they just can't break, but I'm hopeful one day that may change.

Carlton always seems to come out of nowhere, or I'm not looking properly. Watching so many teams playing (Friday night, Saturday and Sundays), gets a bit much after a while. But that was then.

I'm just happy when the tigers when any game. But that's just me, easily pleased!

------------------
Welcome to the jungle

 

[Richmondfan#1]

lol fighting fury. I'm afraid ALL Richmond fans have to learn to be easily pleased.

[This message has been edited by Richmondfan#1 (edited 04 December 2000).]

 

[AlfAndrews]

I didn't think it was a stupid question at all.

But then, according to Sandie, I would probably be "as thick as two short planks", which I thought was a dead-set scream coming from an intellectual pygmy like her.

Imagine this scenario. You win all 22 Home and Away games, then bomb out in the Preliminary Final. In other words, you've won 23 games and lost 1 for the season. You finish 3rd over-all.

Imagine this scenario. You scrape into the eight with 11 wins. You win your first three finals and then get annihilated in the Grand Final. In other words, you've won 14 games and lost 12. You finish 2nd over-all.

In both cases, imagine how much joy and how much despair you experienced over the WHOLE season.

I would argue that the person who sees their team win 23 out of 24 matches has had a lot more FUN than the person who only sees their team win 14 out of 26. In the first instance, you've only gone home swearing once ... whereas in the second instance you've gone home swearing 12 times.

Make sense?

But then, I'm as thick as two short planks, hey Sandie.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[This message has been edited by AlfAndrews (edited 04 December 2000).]

 

[elt]

Interesting point Alf but then again the person whose team makes the GF got bragging rights in that week leading up to it. Plus the thrill of seeing them win some finals matches.

Then again I am most likely one of the sheep that will just accept whatever is given recognition

Baaa baaa ... off to the shearing shed for me.

 

[DEES RULE!]

dan24,
regardless of the gf, carlton did finish 2nd on the ladder because they stop counting after the last round of the home and away season but the fact is melbourne made it to the grand final and calrton didn't because melbourne beat carlton, now my question is who do u think did better over all (over all being the key word) carlton who finished 2nd and didn't make it to the gf or melbourne who climbed from being 14th last year to finish 3rd and get into the grand final?
i think melbourne but maybe thats just coz i'm a melbourne supporter... i really don't know!

 

[lioness]

I don't think this was a stupid topic at all, and who knows, perhaps there IS someone out there who would prefer a higher ladder position than a GF. For me though, I would prefer the GF, like pretty much everyone else on here. Never experienced a GF with my team in it, been as far as a Prelim. That was OK, but I want more!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

 

[dees01]

I would much rather be in the Grand Final. For example, I did not expect to win the GF this year so I enjoyed the week. The Grand Final Parade, the last training session all the media hype it was great. The game obviously was not great but I didn't expect it to be so I was not shattered.

 

[sandie]

alfie
You make me laugh. Naturally being a pies supporter you would settle for a higher position on the ladder, because there is no way the pies will make a GF in your lifetime.

------------------
mantis

 

[ant]

If you want to find out the teams that won the most games for every year, check out who finished top of the ladder. If you want to find out who was the best team, the premier team for each year, check out who won the Grand Final.

As for the thread topic, definitely make the GF and then win it. For years now every team knows that what happens during the year means squat if you don't make and then win the GF.

 

[rickster]

Carlton are the better team, period.

Melbourne gets into two or three GFs in 30 years and then gets thumped by 10 goals. I'm not saying the Cats have a good record of late, however watch out this year we have the potential.

 

[Dan26]

Dees Rule

Melbourne were not as good as Carlton this year. Soory, but they weren't. The positions after the finals aren't necessarily reflective of how good good the teams actually were. The home and away ladder positions are much more reflective of this.

 

[Bee]

Getting into a GF of course! Carlton's disappointing finish to the season was shattering. Finishing second on the ladder means bugger all. Essendon and Melbourne ended up with the glory and it was bloody hard to take. Those last few weeks, with injuries etc. were devastating. Finishing second was no compensation.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by CrowsOK:
I'd like to put a counter viewpoint. In 1997 after 19 rounds Crows were top, and arguably the best team at that point. They had instigated a tough regime at training though at that time in order to be able to ease of in the finals. They perhaps overdid it a bit and it cost Crows a game or two, and they slid to fourth. The extra training was relaxed in the actual finals and there the benefit showed and a truer indicator of their actual strength, winning four finals. Crows effectively sacrificed top spot in the minor round in favour of a good run at the finals.

This is such a big misconception. If the Crows were so good, why didn't they win more games than anyone else? Essendon did in 2000; Carlton did in 1995. Surely, if they were the best team, they logically would have been able to win more games than every other team.

All this training crap is bullshit. You act as though they "planned" to lose. Like it was all "part of the plan". Listen, they had been training since November. The players fitness levels were at a peak after 10 months of training, and you can't really change it. Running them into the ground at training won't accomplish anything. The Crows were trying to win games at the end of 1997 to get a top two spot. They failed and would have been shattered. Fortunately, they performed during the 4 week finals, which is, for all intents and purposes a completely separate competition.

I know, that technically, it is part of the 26 week season, but really, it is two seperate competitons. In the Home and away, you are trying to get the McClelland trophy. There is nothign else to aim for, becasue there is NOTHING else to win. That's all you can win ! The Premiertship CANNOT be decided until the finals series. It's impossible. The only thing you can actually "win" in the H&A is top spot. So your years performances are soley dependent on that 4 week finals tournament. The 22 weeks before hand is irrelevant. It's f*cked up, but that's they way they do it.

The Crows were the best team in the finals series. They were the 4th best over the SIX MONTH 22 game home and away season. Stupidly, that 22 weeks was irrelevant, and just because the Crows were the best over 4 weeks, they are called the "whole season champions", when they SHOULD have been called "finals series" champions. Why is it good for the AFL to have the H&A (which comprises 95% of the season) irrelevant once the finals starts?

It's pretty stupid.

 

[blues^rock]

Or,
i'm not gonna get into this all over again but i'd just like to say that although a climb from 14th to grand-final SOUNDS good, (and it normally would be) the point is you should never have been 14th in the 1st place!!! the year before that you made it to the preliminary final!!! so i think that you can't use that to make melbourne sound better thanb they really are.
oh and by the way i am the carlton supporter she talked to to come up with this subject which is why i don't want to get into it AGAIN in case you wanted to know

------------------
blues rule
AND STOP GENERALISING
ABOUT CARLTONS SUPPORTERS
WE AREN'T ALL STUCK UP PRICKS

 

[DEES RULE!]

i really dont think they care and this topic is not pin- pointing you anyway.
oh and by the way i think that your old signature sort of indicates that calrton supporters are stuck up plus i didnt generalize all i said was that the supporters i met (i mean fanatic supporters)so far have been idiots.