Is Dan24's finals system right or wrong? VOTE NOW!

[Dan26]

ODN's,

Some time ago, I wrote to all the coaches regarding this. It has NOTHING to do with Essendon, just to prove to you, I'm not biased regarding this topic. One of the letters I got back was from David Parkin. Would you like me to type out what he wrote to me ? Given you're a Blues fan, I thought you might be interested.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Go ahead and post Parko's reply Dan.

The Superbowl is still better than the division title.

Just to complete the running tally of minor premiers.

Carlton 17
Collingwood 17
Essendon 16
Geelong 11
Melbourne 9
Richmond 8
South Melbourne/Sydney 7 (6+1)
Hawthorn 7
North Melbourne 4
Fitzroy 4
St Kilda 2
West Coast 2
Bulldogs/Brisbane/Fremantle/Adelaide/Port/University - 0

Under this system, you would have to retract your argument about Essendon being the greatest team ever.

------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[Dan26]

ODN's.

I only have to wait one more year. LOL

Here is Parko's reply :


Dear Daniel,

Interestingly, I receive many letters with ideas to improve our club, our game, our selection, our coaching, our medical practices etc etc. Every year. Not many present logical arguments, or information we are not already aquainted with. I find it most times, both time consuming and frustrating to reply.

There is great logic in your argument for recognising the team which finished top after 22 gruelling weeks (even though the uneven competiton/draw i.e everyone doesn't meet everyone twice, detracts a little from your argument). I have read your persuasive case on numerous occasions - as the AFL commission/Admin has too, but nothing changes. But to restructure a finals series (I have no problem with the sepearate tournament i.e knockout over 3 weeks, if recognition for top spot is adopted), which reduces the financial gain from 9 matches to 7, would be extremely difficult to sell to the governing body. Your ideas have great merit!

Good luck selling them.

Regards, David Parkin.

 

[Dan26]

ODN's.

Leigh Matthews also wrote to me, but unlike Parkin's it was typed, not hand written. It was probably from Matthews secretary, but he did sign it, at least. He said:

Dear Daniel.

Your thoughts are interesting. I agree the top team after 22 weeks is the best team that season.

Much of what you propse might well come to fruition.

Regards,

Leigh Matthews

 

[Dan26]

Terry Wallace wrote this to me:

Dear Daniel,

Thankyou for your letter, as I am always pleased to hear from passionate AFL supporters.

I can understand why you believe that there should be a major award (i.e McClelland trophy) for the team who is top of the ladder after 22 weks. Unfortunately,i cannot agree with you, as the current AFL fixture is so uneven, and gives some teams a greater advantage over other to finish top at the end of the home and away season. if we came back to an even based competition, where all sides played each other once or twice, I would whole-heartedly agree with your comment.

As a club who has never finished top, we would surely appreciate some recognition if this feat occurs in the seasons to come, but firslty, the AFL need to get structuring the home and away series right.

Once again, thanks for your time and effort and I hope you get great enjoyment from the 2000 AFL season.

Yours sincerley

Terry Wallace

.

I then wrote back to him saying that the finals series which he is defending is MORE uneven than the Home and away (i.e you only play 3 of the other 7 finalists, perhaps even avoiding the top team - as North did in 1999)

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
I have previously mentioned that I wouldn't like to see titles and pennants won for everything but it is helpful to look at how other countries run their sports. American football, baseball and basketball teams all win pennants or titles for finishing on top of their respective divisions and conferences. But as prestigious as these titles are they certainly don't compare to the NBA Championship, the World Series or the Superbowl. Occasionally, the best performed team all year loses but do you think the fans would change it for anything???

Obvisouly winning world series or a superbowl is better than winning a division crown. Nobody said that they were more prestigious.

However to get to these championship games you need to basically win your division or get a "wildcard" spot in the playoffs which is much harder to do than here in the AFL were you could finish in 7th position on the ladder, for example.

Furthermore you need to have a playoff system in the USA since the division winners need "playoff" against each other to see who the ultimate champion is.

You must remember that in baseball there used to be only 8 teams in each league (American league and National league) up until the late 1960's. And the only way you could get to the World Series is to win your respecitive league. There were no play-off or finals games


[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 27 November 2000).]

 

[ptw]

I have just read EVERY post on this topic.

So not sure if I really want to get into this...

Dan

Essendon in 1999 did lack something....they did not have the mental or physical aptitude to win when it really mattered. Does this override the other 22 weeks ? Yes.

That is what the game is all about. Finals are played at a higher intensity to H&A (debatable I agree), and the further you go into the finals series the more "appears" to be at stake. Essendon do not get recognition as being the best team in 1999, they do get it for being minor premiers, but that counts for very little. I see no problem with that as at the start of 1999 they knew what was at stake....they knew the rules and lost.

Most of what I have said adds very little, but here is my main point....

Essendon did so well in 2000 partly because the are a great side, but also becuase they had the "hunger" because they were the best side in 1999 and let it slip through their fingers. Therefore the lack of recognition as you put it does not detract from the competiton...it adds to it....gives it some spice (same could be said for North in 1999). ALso the reason why a lot of people (not me) begrudge Adelaide '97 & '98...this also adds to the competition. Yes the Crows would have still won something, but not something half as valuable as the premiiership.

btw - I warn you now...if you use the "Oh but it is change and that is why people are resisting it...we can break from tradition and everyone will love it etc" logic, I will use it against you in pages of endless posts to argue that we should start counting AFL premierships seperately from VFL as of 1990. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. ;-)

ptw

 

[Hawkforce.]

Dan you better be careful...

you might be charged under the new stalking legislation!

God only knows what letters those coaches have sent to the police?!

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by ptw:

Essendon in 1999 did lack something....they did not have the mental or physical aptitude to win when it really mattered. Does this override the other 22 weeks ? Yes.

That is what the game is all about. Finals are played at a higher intensity to H&A (debatable I agree), and the further you go into the finals series the more "appears" to be at stake. Essendon do not get recognition as being the best team in 1999, they do get it for being minor premiers, but that counts for very little. I see no problem with that as at the start of 1999 they knew what was at stake....they knew the rules and lost.

Most of what I have said adds very little, but here is my main point....

Essendon did so well in 2000 partly because the are a great side, but also becuase they had the "hunger" because they were the best side in 1999 and let it slip through their fingers. Therefore the lack of recognition as you put it does not detract from the competiton...it adds to it....gives it some spice (same could be said for North in 1999).
ptw

ptw,

You can't have it both ways. You firstly say that Essendon weren't the best side in 99 because they lost in the finals and that overides the H&A season.

Then you say that Essendon did so well in 2000 because they were the best side in 1999 and were getting "revenge".

So was Essendon the best side in the competition in 1999 or not?

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 28 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 28 November 2000).]

 

[Grendel]

Now i know how Dr.Frankenstein felt, his monster grew outta control too.

Funnily enough it seemed like a good idea at first. Just goes to show how wrong you can be.......

 

[Michele]

Dan24,

This topic is very interesting, but I wonder if Essendon had not finished on top of the ladder, would you still be so passionate in wishing to change the current format.

There are a number of problems with your suggestion -

1. The AFL fixture - it is not a draw, therefore (generally) any team which finishes 1st, does so because of the inequities of the fixture. (The formula changes each year; Essendon have favourable fixtures 2000, 2001 - so says the Ess, president.) Collo admitted on radio, the AWFUL tried to compensate lower teams over a 3 year cycle. The cycle is now 5 years. The team of "the 90s is looking beter.

2. The length of the season.

3. The propensity of the AFL to fixture Coll or Ess team v Carl, Rich to play each other twice - due to monetary factors, REGARDLESS of where each team finished.
(Syd, Haw, Geel, Bris, Adel, WC or the "team of 90s" don't get the same considersation. Before you comment - that's is a vast # of fans NOT catered for.

4. Travelling of the interstate teams - I am not sticking up for them, but the fact is over time, the interstate teams will clock up more miles and that must have some effect on their game.

5. Why should "footy" an Australian game, played for Australians, follow some formula of overseas games? Gridion play-off for World Champions. Why are only the USA champions?

Michele

 

[Dan26]

PTW,

That's a load of crap, mate. You say Essendon didn't have the mental aptitude to win when it counts in 1999. Whta rubbish. I suppose Carlton did. If Carlton were so good then, why did they only finish 6th ????? Your post is probably THE most ridiculous post of the 210 posts on this topic.

You need to understand something. Upsets happen. They can happen in a final, just lke they happen in a home and away match. In that particular final, Essendon had NINE more scoring shots than Carlton. If Mark Mercuri's kick in the dying seconds bounced right instead ogf left, you'd be saying: "Essendon had the mental aptitude to win the close game"

Essendon were unlucky, end of story. They were better than Carlton. By writing that crap you wrote, you are basically saying that Carlton were a better team than Essendon over the whole year and they proved that by winning the game by a point. WHAT CRAP. Carlton were average and they caused an upset. A game of footy over a short two hour peiod has many, many variables. Anything can happen. Over the 22 week (44 hour) home and away season, you really do get an idea of who the BEST team actually is.

The result of one match doesn't tell you anything. Especialy when it is so close.

Remember also, I'm not talking about how it IS. I'm talking about how it should be.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Dan24:
I then wrote back to him saying that the finals series which he is defending is MORE uneven than the Home and away (i.e you only play 3 of the other 7 finalists, perhaps even avoiding the top team - as North did in 1999)

Stop CRYING DAN you big sook............

If your team had not choked North would have played them..........

 

[Dan26]

Michelle,

Rooboy's post below says it all.

I KNOW the H&A is uneven. But the finals series is MORE uneven. It seems that you are happy to have the premiership decided by this uneven 4 week tournament (where you only play 3 of the other 7 finalsits, perhaps avoiding the top team), but you don't want it decided by the home and away, because the Home and Away is uneven according to you. Yes, it's uneven, I know. But it's MUCH fairer than the finals.

Anyway, the finals will still exist to keep you happy. You can still win the "final series" and the "Grand Final" as per normal. So what's the problem? I don't get it ? Under my system, the structure remains identical, meaning that the uneven home and away season remains (as it does now) and the finals remain also. So, what's the problem ??????????

The only diffrence is that the finals won't override and deem 22 weeks of winning irrelevant.

You can say what you ant but 22 weeks is a BETTER way of finding out the years best team than a 4 week tournament. And under my system, you get the opportunity to win BOTH !!

What's the problem with that ?

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 28 November 2000).]

 

[Arch]

I just thought this important issue needed to be bumped back to the top of the page again.

Cheers

 

[Dan26]

Uh, thanks Arch *confused*

 

[Gonzo]

Yeah good on ya Arch

Cheers

Gonzo

 

[Gonzo]

DOH!

 

[saint_joffaboy]

yeah!!

 

[ptw]

take a pill Dan.

I stand by what I said. I accept that Essendon were a better side for the H&A series. But at the start of preliminary final day they knew what they had to achieve...and they failed. This is not just Carlton playing above themselves to snag an upset...if Essendon played as they should (being the better team and all) then they should win regardless of what Carlton did. The fact is that they didn't...why ? Because they lacked the skill (kicking for goal is a skill) or more particularly the mental aptitude to win the game....there is no other way to lose I am sorry....over 2 hours of football luck does not enter into it....as the better side they should have won by 6 goals, the very fact that they allowed themselves to get into the position where the ball bouncing one way or the other determines the game just highlights my point (they lacked the "right stuff" on the day).

So the Bombers knew what they had to do and they failed. They knew the rules of the game and the competition when they went into that game and they stuffed it up. They deserve no recognition other than being a good side in the year. Should they get a draft concession or the title of "Champions" or "Premiers" or whatever ? - NO. They knew the rules and they could not deliver.

Under your system the team finishing top would be labelled "Premiers". What if the team that finished 3rd had beaten them by 10 goals both times they played that year. Surely this team would also have claims to being better than the side that finished top. One on One they were a better team.

The rules do not have to be fair. They have to be equitable ie the same rules for all, but "fairness" is a subjective matter.

Quoting what other competitions do is nonsense as there are just as many examples of both types of systems. To achieve any change you must first convince people of the need to change....either that the current system is stuffed, or that a proposed system is fundamentally better in all regards, and does not bring with it a whole lot of other issues as well.

ptw

 

[Dan26]

ptw,

You're full of shit, mate. I'm talking about how it SHOULD be, not how it is. There have been heaps of Grand Final winners who were beaten by 10 goals by teams who they didn't play in the finals series, but do you mention this? NO. How convenient that you don't mention that. In 1999, Essendon beat North twice during the season, and obviously would have been red-hot favourites to beat the Roos in the GF. You see, you can twist the argument both ways, Don't bother twisting it any more.

There hav been years where ManU hav NOT won the FA CUP. They were eliminated earlier in the tournament. However, they still finished on top and won the premiership. Just because they didnt wint he FA cUP, are they labelled as chokers and underachievers ? No, they aren't.


You can't look at one loss as you do, and use that one match against a one-off opponent as a means of deciding who the years best team is. That's crap.

In 1999, Essendon should have been rewarded for being the best over 6 months. Carlton should have been rewarded for being the runner-up over a 4 week tournament. Stupidly, the Blues were called runner-up of the WHOLE SEASON.

What garbage. Runners up of the whole season. Give me a break. I've got no problem with losing. If we lose a one-off finals match, fine. If a team loses on the day, you lose on the day. You seem to think that upsets don't happen in finals. You seem to think that the best team always wins finals matches. You'e WRONG. Upsets happen in finals just like they happen in the home and away, but you would be too gutless to acknowledge this blatntly obvious fact.

The preliminary final in 1999 (for example) should have NOTHING to do with the 6 months of footy prior to that, in which Essendon (or whoever it happens to be) finished on top of the ladder.

The very fact that Carlton didn't deserve to be called runner-up of the whole season confirms I am right. Runner-up of the 4 week finals series, fine. I don't have a problem with that. But using that finals series to deem 22 weeks irrelevant, and meaningless, is utter crap, and totally unacceptable.

Once again, I'm talking about how the system SHOULD be. Not how it currently is. Don't go telling me how it is right now, because I already know. Don't waste your breath

If my system was used, you can still have the finals series which you love, anyway. SO WHAT'S THE F*CKING PROBLEM???? You will still need to win a knockout quarter-final or semi-final, to progress to the Grand Final, so obviously you will like this. You seem to love knockut matches, and my system delivers that for you. I'm thinking of you, you know ! You will still need to cope with the pressure of winning knockout matches, a la the FA CUP.

But this elite knockout finals series won't render 22 weeks of consistent winning meaningless, like it stupidly does now. The home and away season - given that it comprises 95% of the season - should be something to win and to aspire to in it's own right.

Any one-off match, over 2 hours against one opponent is not a fitting way to decide who is the years best team. The years best team is NOT found over 2 hours. It's found over 6 months. That is undisputable fact. I don't care what you say, I am right on that point. THE YEARS BEST TEAM IS NOT FOUND OVER 2 HOURS, IT IS FOUND OVER 6 MONTHS. Yet, I am still providing that exciting, 2 hour Grand Final to end the season as per normal, so what's the god damn problem? Geez !!

 

[Dan26]

PTW,

Oh, and just because a team plays bad for one match (regardless of if they know the consequences of losing), this should NOT override all that happened before it in the previous 6 months. Sometimes, teams have an off day. ManU could put in a shocker in the FA CUP final, and they'd be devastated. They would be shattered. But this would be totally irrelevant to them finishing on top and winning the premiership. The two are separate. AS THEY SHOULD BE.

Imagine if ManU lost the FA CUP Grand Final and someone told them, that because of this, they also lose the "premeirship", because that FA CUP final renders all those "premiership" matches over 6 months irrelevant. Imagine what a farcical thing that would be? That's basicaly what we have here in the AFL.

The home and away season gives teams the chance over 6 months to prove how good they are, over the long haul. A knockout cup, like our finals series, is based a lot on luck. Luck on who you play, and the many variables that exist in such a short tournament. Over a long season, not as many variables exist. The best teams come to the top over a long period of time. Why in the bloody hell do you tink they declare the top team "premeirs" in soccer.? Why don't you write to English soccer and tell them they've got it wrong. And why do you think they used to do it in Aussie Rules ? There is logic behind it, you know.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Dont worry everybody, I have taken my medicine....I feel all better now.

PA1870

 

[ptw]

Dan

from time to time you put up some good posts. That was not one of them.

"I don't care what you say, I am right on this point"

Thats Nice

Even after hundreds of posts on the topic the vast majority of people don't agree with you. But you are right because everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about. If only people would listen to you then they would know what is right. Perhaps we could just ban everyone from this site except you and then you could just tell us all what is right and wrong and we could save everyone a lot of time and effort.

I understand every point you make, every time you make it....over and over and over again. I am listenning to you....I JUST HAPPEN TO DISAGREE.

I fully understand that you are proposing something new and not arguing what is the present system (think "lets start the AFL records from 1990...but I won't go into that).

Yes I do think that a system where the best team is decided in 2 hours is right. The crux of my arguement is that I don't want the finals system devalued to the level of the Ansett cup (exactly what would the difference be Dan ? - except in 1 comp you atrt with 16 and the other with 8 teams).

You state that...

"If my system was used, you can still have the finals series which you love, anyway. SO WAHT'S THE FUC*KING PROBLEM???? - again very nice.

The problem is that the finals under "your" system would not mean more than the Ansett cup which is not very much in the scheme of things. I see this as a backward step. Why in fact would you exclude the bottom 8 from "your" "finals"....it is a seperate competition anyway ?

The current system is fine so long as the rules are set out at the start and they are the same for everybody. There should be advantages for finishing 1st vs 2nd vs 3rd and so on (which the finals system presenly lacks to some extent) so the H&A is not meaningless....however the teams also have to win when it counts.

I never said upsets don't happen in finals, they happen all the time. But they are not just caused by the underdog playing above themselves, the favourite also plays poorly....and if Essendon played poorly (relative to their ability) in the 1999 prelim then they don't deserve to be called runner's up. Yes it is only 2 hours as opposed 22 rounds, but I happen to like to the fact that it is 2 hours with everything on the line....it creates hunger when they lose ....so close but yet so far....from the major prize (not some second rate comp played after the real premiership race is over, and it creates legend when the underdog gets up.

ptw - who is full of shit.

[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 28 November 2000).]

 

[ptw]

Dan- who is always right

follow up posts cause confusion.

Yes I might write to the English football assoc and tell them they are wrong.

I suggest you write to the following:

1. World Series Cricket
2. NFL
3. Rugby League
4. NBA
5. NBL
6. American Baseball
7. Professional Snooker Association
8. Shefield Shield Cricket
9. National Netball Comp
10. THE SOCCER WORLD CUP
10. 11. 12. etc etc etc

Why the obsession with English Football ?


If I were you I would then say....

"WHY THE FU*K DON'T YOU DO US A FAVOUR AND GO OVER THERE AND FOLLOW THAT IF IT IS SO FU*KING GOOD THEN"

but I am not rude, and I do not need to swear to get a point across so I wont.

ptw - who is full of shit