Grand Final Problem!

[jod23]

Now ive heard all you ppl argue and argue over the minor premier been given something to recognise them as the best team of the year and then the finals be played as some little tournament of the best 8 teams and so on and so on. I think its stupid i think the real problem is theres only one Grand Final only one. Now back in 97 the Bulls were down 2-0 to the Knicks and they had played really bad basketball and deserved to be down 2-0 yet everyone knew that the Jordan led Bulls were better and lucky for mike and chicago it was a best out of 7 and they had time to turn it around and so they did taking the series 4-2 with 4 straight victories......my point being this. You've got one chance to get it right and i think it should be changed, if Hird and Lloyd got injured on the night of the Grand Final and Carlton won all Dons supporters would say they only won cos Lloyd and Hird were injured and rightly so. So after all that i strongly recommend making the grand final a best of three to be played over 3 weekends therefore if you have a bad game its not all lost and gone. You ppl argue that you want recognition for the Minor Premiership but what you really want is something to hold on to in case you slip up on Grand Final Day.

2000 the year of the Eagle.

 

[RICE80SF]

Yes I like the NBA line of thinking alot better than the Premier league. Hey wouldn't channel 7 love it, 3 weeks of over 50 ratings.

Jod, that was nice of Nisbett to offer Subi as a substitute for this weeks game at Colonial. What a guy.

BOMBER BLITZ IN 2000!

 

[Dan26]

It's not really an issue under my proposal, because the best team would already get recognised.

The Grand Final should NEVER be best of three.

The Finals series is for dramatic one-off matches. No second chances. Lose and you are out. Then, if Essendon DID lose the Grand Final due to injuries (as you are suggesting), it wouldn't matter so much as they would already have been recognised for finishing top.

Anyway, who is to say Lloyd and Hird couldn't be injured for all three matches !

No, I'm sorry, a best of three finals series is stupid (sorry).

The Grand Final is a special day, where you have to win. No second chance. A best of three would spoil that. It would also make the season too long.

Grand Final day is a specal day as it is the last day of the football year and always will be. It will be special regardless of whether top spot is rewarded or not (just like the FA Cup is, as it's the final match-up of the year and a chance for all supporters of all teams to celebrate the end of the season.) Don't ever change that.

 

[Daniel]

I have argued a similar line for the cricket World Cup final. Because one-day cricket is such a flukey game, it hardly seems right that the World Cup should be decided on a one-off match. It becomes especially ludicrous when you consider there is a best of three finals series for the annual three-team one-day competition in Australia and yet the world's most important cricket tournament is decided in one game!

But no, I still wouldn't want more than one Grand Final per year. Not unless it happens by chance, when both teams tie and it must be replayed a week later. I really hope to see this in my lifetime. I expect a replay will be much more difficult to organize today than it was in 1977.

 

[sainter]

The NBA do play an 82 game season plus an extensive play-off series.

Obviously there would be something wrong with a competition where upwards of 100 games are played and then the championship is decided by a one off Grand Final as such.

The Grand Final is more than an adequate ending to the greatest sporting competition in the world.



[This message has been edited by sainter (edited 14 June 2000).]

 

[hawkforce]

Just a thought.

The Grandfinal is the greatest sporting day in Australia with the possible exception of the Melbourne Cup.

Why don't we just leave it alone?

 

[jod23]

Thanks for the support Rice80 i think this is definitly the better way to go and Daniel good point on the World Cup cricket too it should be changed also.

Oh yeah and Dan24 this year i will concede that the dons are the best team in the league but lets say just for an example that the Eagles absolutly kill the Dons this week then they meet in the first round of the finals and the Eagles kill them again but then WC lose to the roos and are out and the Dons go on to win the Grand Final now are they better then the Eagles?

Just like Man U they could play Liverpool 3 times in the Year and lose all three but still win the title there not better than liverpool there just more CONSISTENT.

So the grand final needs to be a best of three it would be great more football for everyone and whoever won it would be deserved not a lucky win on grand final day.

2000 the year of the Eagle

 

[Bluey]

I think it's a bit of wishful thinking that:

a) The system will ever be changed;
b) A change would fix all the problems.

If the finals series is the be all and end all, it is up to the teams to play the game accordingly.

If you have secured your spot in the top eight by round 20 and are worried about the fitness of as couple of key players, you can afford to rest them in one or both of the remaining rounds in preparation for the finals series. Just like you'd get your best wallopers out on the pitch in a one-day international cricket match and save your other players for the tests.

No matter how you set up the system the teams will play the system to some extent, and well they should. With the current AFL system teams will try as hard as they can to win as many matches as possible in the H and A series to ensure the most favourable conditions in the finals series. THAT is their reward for finishing in the top four or six or eight.

If the draw for the finals series was completely random, THEN you would have something to complain about.

Look at the last Rugby League State of Origin. The whingers in Queensland were moaning about their loss due to bad umpiring. Then when they failed to win the next two matches it was because their spirit was broken or their confidence shot due to the loss in the first game.

There will ALWAYS be people who complain that they were robbed by 'the system'. Most of the time that is complete bull as all teams are fully aware of how the system works. If a team cannot take out the GF when they KNOW that is the objective, they have only themselves to blame. No excuses. End of story. Full stop.

 

[dons_r_tops]

Bluey,
Im surprised you got drawn into this at this length, still If the Afl had thought about it they probably would do it cause all they are interested in is Revenue so nobody tell them please as it would stuff up the game at the end of the season and probaly lead to the eagles trying to get 1 of the 3 finals played in perth or 2 if they finish top. NO THANKS don't need 3 finals Only 1

 

[The Ball]

Jod23,

"Just like Man U they could play Liverpool 3 times in the Year and lose all three but still win the title there not better than liverpool there just more CONSISTENT."

Being more consistant is being a better team. Liverpool could have lost to a bottom side such as Bradford while Man Utd could have won that match.

Remember, you have to try to win all your matches not just those against the biggest rivals or clubs, to win the title.

 

[Dan26]

The Ball,

That's right. It's hoe you measure up against the WHOLE competition over a gruelling 6 month schedule (not just against one opponent), which defines whether you are the best or not.

The "best" team and the Grand Final winning team have NEVER been synonomous with each other.

 

[jod23]

Bluey how you can say no excuses full stop an all that. Fair enough if both teams are fully fit, then there are no excuses but as i said in my previous post if there were injuries there would be excuses if the Dons lost three or four of there best players and lost then it would always be there in history an * in 2000 Carlton won but only because there were injuries. But if there was a game 2 and a game 3 then there would be competion because the players can come back and fight another day. The AFL definitly needs a best of three Finals series, it would be great. And im still not sold on the whole consistency deal.

2000 the year of the Eagle

 

[Dan26]

Jod23

Mate, listen.

You want a best of three, right ? Under my proposal, it is a best of 22 ! It's simply a batter way of finding who is the best.

(And the Grand Final stays, remember, as the "exciting" season finale, as a one-off match)

 

[jod23]

Well Dan24 you say you want it but you'll be pissed off grandfinal day when the bombers go down and you'll be wishing for a best oof three

2000 the year of the Eagles<----getting harder to keep the faith.