Help Needed Re Prelim 2002

[The_Best]

Were the Crows entitled to the home final but robbed due to the mcc contract? Thanks

 

[-WWJD-]

Nope. We were shafted the week before, had to play Melbourne at the G when it should've been played here.

Collingwood earnt the right to host the Prelim.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Nope. We were shafted the week before, had to play Melbourne at the G when it should've been played here.

Collingwood earnt the right to host the Prelim.

Correct.

Before last week, I think we were the only non-Melbourne team to win their "home" final at the MCG.

 

[DaveW]

One wonders whether the Crows were deserving of a home preliminary back in 1993. That was when there was only one prelim final, so there was no alternative but to stage it at the MCG, regardless of whom was the higher ranked side.

Even though we finished 5th and Essendon 1st, it was us actually took the high road to the preliminary. We contested the 2nd (second chance) semi final with Carlton. We lost that match and had to play the winner of the 1st (elimination) semi final, Essendon.

That's very similar to the five four or five format. i.e. the loser of the 2nd semi plays the winner of the 1st semi. No one would dispute for instance that this weekend, the WWT Eagles, as the losers of the 2nd semi, are higher ranked than Sturt, as the winner of the 1st semi.

Of course, this wasn't under a final four of five system, but a bastardised final six system. We benefitted from a highly dodgy structure where one of the 3rd/4th/5th teams would shoot above one of the top two teams. Basically the 1st or 2nd team would get screwed, just for losing to the other top two side.

I don't think we really did deserve a home preliminary in 1993. And I don't think it was even an issue at the time. But given the structure of the finals back then, it's food for thought.

 

[marvin]

One wonders whether the Crows were deserving of a home preliminary back in 1993. That was when there was only one prelim final, so there was no alternative but to stage it at the MCG, regardless of whom was the higher ranked side.

Even though we finished 5th and Essendon 1st, it was us actually took the high road to the preliminary. We contested the 2nd (second chance) semi final with Carlton. We lost that match and had to play the winner of the 1st (elimination) semi final, Essendon.

Your premise is wrong Dave -

1993 finals:

Week 1: Carlton (2nd) beat Essendon (1st)
Adelaide (5th) beat Hawthorn (4th)
WCE (6th) beat Kangas (3rd)

Week 2: Essendon beat WCE
Carlton beat Adelaide

So the PF was Essendon (1st) vs Adelaide (5th), both of whom had won one and lost one final. Hard to sustain an argument that Adelaide deserved a home final, anymore than you could argue that the team that wins the 5 v 7 final in the current system deserves a home final vs the loser of 2 v 3 because they are coming off a win rather than a loss.

The problem, as you say was the awful finals system after the first week of the finals, which relegated a top 2 team (Essendon) to a knockout match, and promoted a 3-6 team (us) to a double chance.

 

[Mad Dog]

One wonders whether the Crows were deserving of a home preliminary back in 1993. That was when there was only one prelim final, so there was no alternative but to stage it at the MCG, regardless of whom was the higher ranked side.

Even though we finished 5th and Essendon 1st, it was us actually took the high road to the preliminary. We contested the 2nd (second chance) semi final with Carlton. We lost that match and had to play the winner of the 1st (elimination) semi final, Essendon.

That's very similar to the five four or five format. i.e. the loser of the 2nd semi plays the winner of the 1st semi. No one would dispute for instance that this weekend, the WWT Eagles, as the losers of the 2nd semi, are higher ranked than Sturt, as the winner of the 1st semi.

Of course, this wasn't under a final four of five system, but a bastardised final six system. We benefitted from a highly dodgy structure where one of the 3rd/4th/5th teams would shoot above one of the top two teams. Basically the 1st or 2nd team would get screwed, just for losing to the other top two side.

I don't think we really did deserve a home preliminary in 1993. And I don't think it was even an issue at the time. But given the structure of the finals back then, it's food for thought.

kicking 8.22 (or there abouts) against Carlton and 42 points up at half time against Essendon....I don't know if we deserved any better. GFs don't come anymore gift wrapped than 93 for us ............even worse to stomach is we probably would've smashed Carlton in the GF if we had held off the Bombers

 

[DaveW]

marvin - All I'm saying is that if you consider the 2nd week in isolation, we were effectively a top-2 side in a final-4 system. (Even if we should not have been.)

Mad Dog - yep painful to think about.