Has this been the least fair finals system ever?

[mediaman]

Let's see how the finals worked out:

1 Essendon
2 Carlton
3 Melbourne
4 North
5 Geelong
6 Brisbane
7 Footscray
8 Hawthorn

Week 1 Winner
1 vs 4 1
2 vs 3 3
5 vs 8 8
6 vs 7 6

Week 2
Winner of top 4 games BYE 1 & 3
4 vs 8 <-- lowest rated top 4 loser plays lowest rated winner of bottom 4!!!
2 vs 6 <-- highest rated top 4 loser plays highest rated winner of bottom 4!!!


Week 3
1 vs 2 highest rated first round winner plays highest rated qualifier!!!!
3 vs 4 lowest rated first round winner plays lowest rated qualifier!!!!


While the rule that if you finished in the top 4 you keep your home ground advantage for the first 2 weeks of the finals is a good one (and could have been applied to the previous finals system), it appears that this system as it worked out in its first season of use, just doesn't work. The week 2 and week 3 finals match-ups were unfair, if we are supposed to be rewarding the highest ranked clubs.

You can argue that this year it wouldn't have made any difference, beacuse the team that ended up winning was clearly the best through the entire season. But all seasons won't be like this one. Admittedly, this system stopped 2 teams playing each other more than once in the preliminary rounds but, in a more even season, I suspect some fans would be upset.

What do you think?

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, it's f*cking stupid.

I've said it before, but it should be straight knockout. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 in quarter finals.

The 4 winners go to the semi-finals, where the highest placed team plays the lowest, and then the two winner go through to the GF.

For those that don't like the "knockout" format, remember two things.

1.) 7 of the 9 finals are knockout anyway in the current system

2.) Under the current system, the top team, can be eliminated after ONE loss in the Prelim or the Grand Final anyway. So, why can't they be eliminated in the first week too ? Same diff.

I've got no doubt, my system is the way to go.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Absolute rubbish

This was a much fairer finals system than the MacIntyre 8 that has been used previously.

Simply put, the teams that were supposed to be in the Grand Final were in the Grand Final.

It was 1st vs 3rd, sure 2nd didn't make it but thats there own fault, they shouldn't have lost a Qualifying Final and who can honestly sya that Melbourne didn't desrve to be the big one ?

Compare that to the last couple of seasons - very very average teams that finished in the bottom half of the 8 then LOST (yeah get that - LOST) a qualifying final were allowed to stay in the race and then proceed to a Grand Final.

If you are talking about unfair mediaman - how unfair was that ?

Now look at this year - 5-8 qualifiers went out after one loss. Thats fair I reckon, 5th and 6th don't deserve double chances.

And if you think teams like Carlton were not treated fairly - then grow up mate - Carlton LOST its qualifying final that means they were didn't get a week off and had to front Essendon in a PF. Again, what is unfair about that ? - If you lose you are penalised, simple really.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Can I just follow up - Ultimately I am with Dan24

- a properly seeded Knockout competition has got to be the way to go, stop all this 'double - chance' nonsense.

If the finalists are seeded properly, and play according to form then it will always be 1 v 2 in the grand final

 

[Dan26]

BSA

I think he has a fair point in that Carlton and essendon met in a prelim.

I know it was Carltons own fault, but really Essendon was pealised and had a tougher prelim opponent than Melbourne did. That's not very fair on the top team.

They could have structured it so there were NO cross overs. This would mean, Carlton would meet Melbourne in a preliminary final, while Essendon wold have met the Roos in a prelim. Sure, they would have been rematches, but so what ?

There have been finals rematches, for most of the century.

1v2 should only be able to meet in a Grand Final. Even if one of them loses (Carlton), it penalises the OTHER one (Essendon), becasue they then have to meet them in the prelim.

Of course all this happens, because of the stupid double chances. As you said in a previous post, double chances are contrived bullshit.

 

[Danni]

I don't really have to much opinion of the final system (past or present) but, what would the whole use of finals program be if it came down to 1 v 2 anyway? Why bother with other matches?

 

[RICE80SF]

Yes it was unfair that the Bombers played 2, 3 & 4 to win the flag, but I've always held the view that if you're good enough you should be able to beat anyone.

Certainly helps if you play on a neutral ground (MCG) other than an interstate venue, ala the Bulldogs, but they played at the GABBA because the dickheads lost too Hawthorn last round.

This years system is just further proof the Bombers of 2000 had the best season ever

. Gloat, Gloat, Gloat

.



------------------
RED & BLACK BACK to BACK 2001!

 

[Danni]

Just a genuine question here. Why do ppl seem to think that the Gabba is a such a 'home ground advantage'???

Maybe in years past, but not this year. My god, there was no atmosphere at all for a number of matches played there. I mean seriously - Lions get in front - ppl start the mexican wave for the last qtr, cause they are bored!!

It was very hard to be there with no passion and atmosphere from the crowd. And honestly - for a few games this year, there were nearly just as many oposition supporteres as there were Lions fans.

Don't take the Lions-home-ground-advantage to seriously. Teams have proven it is no obsticle, and honestly - qlders are only just getting into AFL. They are still very fickle. You won't get too many there week in and week out, yelling screaming and barracking for the Lions, if they are losing~!

 

[mediaman]

I'd suggest that the week 2 was just as unfair as the week 3 of the finals ie.

the highest placed winner of the bottom 4 had to play the highest ranked loser
(unfair on both teams)

AND

the lowest placed winner had to play the lowest placed loser
(an advantage for both teams compared to their match-ups if they had played on rankings)


By the way, I'm not suggesting that the previous system was better, for the reasons that are often cited and that we've had fair examples of recently in the past few years.

But if we're keeping this system, shouldn't it go on rankings?

And the alternatives? Straight knock-outs while potentially fairer would "rob" the AFL of 2 finals matches, so I can't see that being accepted soon. More kudos for the "minor premiers" as European friend of mine and soccer supporter mentioned to me, and as mentioned by Kevin Sheedy too, I believe. (Possibly in a nervous lead up to the preliminary final.)

Note to anyone interested: I don't usually indulge in put downs, ranting, verbal abuse or childish taunts UNLESS I'm actually at a football match. So you can save any you have for me when I see you there.

 

[Arch]

This is a letter in the "Inside Football" Mag. Man I laughed SO hard. It goes:

BLUE MURDER
I watched the Carl-Ess prelim final and couldnt help but think that the odds were deliberately stacked against the Blues. Yes, I am a Carlton fan, but hear me out. For example, Ess had a weeks rest, while the Blues had to play a tough final agnst Brisbane. Also, we finished second on the ladder, yet had to play the 3rd team (Melb), while Essendon had a far easier run by playing the 4th team (roos). The finals system sucks !!!!!

Grant Steele
Oak Park, Vic.

_____________________________________________

Now I wont bother even picking this to bits.
Its just too funny. (and it got printed- can u believe it ?????

LMAO.

A.

 

[Dan26]

I read that too Arch.

Typial Carlscum supporter thinks they've got a god-given right to have the easiest run into the GF, no matter where they finished.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Fair enough Dan24

The so-called 'cross-over' whilst well-intentioned hasn't really worked.

Carlton should not have had to 'cross over' to the other side of the draw. Who cares if they meet twice in a finals series ?

Under the old MacIntyre 5 system this used to happen all the time and yet everyone agrees this system is the best (for a double-chance kinda set-up anyway)

cheers

 

[Stealth bomber]

No, this current system is still better than the Mc-8, but it's still not right either. It's gotta be straight knockout, no double chances.

A double chance is useless for the top two teams because in most cases they won't lose in the first round anyway.

A double chance would have only been advantageous to Essendon had they lost to North, but not if they had lost to Carlton or Melbourne.

A 6 seed can get to the Grand Final by beating a 7 and then a 3 or 4. But the 1 seed had to beat a 4 and then a 2. This is so wrong.

 

[tiger0012]

Well it would be more sensible to do it differently but I like it the way it is.

 

[Richmondfan#1]

I don't mind TOO much how the finals system works as long as we get to play and watch FOOTY!!!!

 

[The Dutchman!]

The current system is a complete and utter joke and the AFL are very lucky that Essendon were good enough to win despite it otherwise they would have looked well stupid (again).

How on earth can you justify a system where a team finishes 5 games clear on top of the ladder and still has to play 2,3 and 4th "one more time" to win a flag? Its ridiculous to the point of almost providing a disincentive to win in wk 1 - ie: you'd get the weaker teams from then on and easier path to the GF!

There is no way that 1st should ever have to play 2,3 and 4th again to win. This needs fixing or results in finals will contintue to be generally at odds with season form.

Either a return to a final 5 (best system but unlikely) or a divisional basis)

Just my 2c worth.

Dutch

PS. "We are sixteen, goin on seventeen... we'll... take care... of you" (lurv the sound of music gag huh?)

 

[Guest]

The quicker the AFL changes to conference system and dumps the double chances in the finals the happier I'll be!