
- Thread starter
- #26
Originally posted by CJH:
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!
I read Dan's opening statement and I agree with almost every point!
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!
OK, calm down. I'm scared too !
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Melbourne v Richmond - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Demons at 73% chance -- What's your tip? -- Injury Lists »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 7
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Originally posted by CJH:
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!
I read Dan's opening statement and I agree with almost every point!
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!
Originally posted by jod23:
And is it true that that stupid MCG contract that one finals game must be played at the MCG every weekend. If the Eagles finished top of the ladder and they made the Grand Final would the final be played at the MCG!!
Thats ludicrous!!!!!
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Originally posted by Hawkforce.:
What's your alternative Jod? Playing the GF at a ground with half the capacity?
This game is televised to the whole world for God's sake!
It's not a question of bias. The GF will be played in Sydney in the not too distant future.
Build a stadium with the capacity of the G and the Olympic stadium and West Coast will get to play GF's in WA.
Originally posted by Dan24:
People need to understand that if the winner of the Grand Final was "only" called Grand Final champions, that this wouldn't diminish the popularity of the Grand Final at all.
Originally posted by jod23:
Hawkforce - pull your finger out. If WC played hard all year to cement top spot then had to travel to Melbourne and play in front of a parachoial Melbourne crowd to win is just stupid. That contract better be changed.
No, no, no. Listen here.Originally posted by RogerC:
Honestly, 1 vs 8 in a knock out final. Who's going to buy that? If , for example, Hawthorn beat Essendon in the first final last year (not that they would have), and knocked Essendon out, it would have been a farce. People would have said, "What's the point?" I know I would have.
Originally posted by Dan24:
No, no, no. Listen here.
Currently, under the CURRENT system, the top of the ladder team can be eliminated after ONE (yes one) loss in the preliminary final. The top team can also be eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final itself. In 1999, Essendon finished on top, but were eliminated after one loss.B]
Originally posted by RogerC:
If, for example, the most important title was Premiers (regardless of the finals that follow the announcement of the Premiers), then there would have been little incentive for Essendon to compete in the finals series in 1999. They've done their work, they've won their prize. Anything that follows is just icing on the cake. What would probably happen, IMHO, is that the competing teams would immediately focus on pre-season, rest their best players to save them from injury, and treat the finals as a post season Ansett Cup. Perhaps not immediately, but inevitably. No matter what prestige is supposed to be attached to it.
Originally posted by Dan24:
Even nowadays, the Grand Final only decided the premier in name only.
Originally posted by RogerC:
In 1999, Essendon were beaten by Carlton in the PRELIMINARY FINAL. They weren't (and couldn't be) knocked out in the FIRST week by the EIGHTH placed team. That's the point I was making when I used the Hawthorn vs Essendon example. See the difference between my "First Week" and your "One Week"? You and I are arguing different points.