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

[Westy Boy]

Originally posted by Dan24:

You you're right. Just put up an old topic and let the past posts speak for themselves. Sounds like common-sense to me !

HAHAHA

And it's taken you a year and 1500 odd posts to work this out, has it?

On the ball this year Dan, I expect to see more of the same next year.

BTW- Give me a logical reason why the AFL would embrace this change Dan... other than to stop your constant letters sent in which receive "interesting" responses from Wayne Jackson's secretary.

NOT HAPPENING JAN

 

[Dan26]

Westy,

I don't really want to go over it all again, but the fact that we have a "mindset" often means that we don't make the correct decisions. Ignoring the top team on the ladder is one of those incorrect decisions.

I't just so stupid. 6 months of hard work, comprising 95% of the season, just gets ignored. What a f*cking waste !! Instead, we have the "double or nothing" scenario of the finals series, which overrides the 95% of the season before it and deems it irrelevant. Double or nothing sucks.

It's Ludicrous in principle.

But because it has been done for 100 years means it HAS to be right, doesn't it ! (yeah right) I wish people would just be a bit more open minded and see that it isn't right the way it is.

We can still have the finals series that we all know and love, but under my systenm, it doesn't override the 6 months before it. It stands as a separate 4 week tournament to conclude the season. Something to win in it's own right. The FA Cup concludes the season in England and it is HUGE. And this is despite the winner of that event not being the whole season champion. They are only the champ of that tournament, yet that doesn't affect the "hype' or "prestige" of the FA Cup one little bit.

If that isn't sufficient reason for the AFL to change one day, I don't know what is.

 

[Westy Boy]

I don't think I worded that properly.

Ignoring what is "fair/right/ludicrous" for a second, why would the AFL change something that is going so well, which the public/clubs have absolutely NO problem with, for a 'risky' system which (granted has reasonable arguments for it) goes against 100 years of tradition. Imagine the day the AFL suggests it, going by the reaction from bigfooty people, there would be uproar. The papers would be going nuts with plenty of people dead-set against it, and I just reckon it would be impossible to implement. Imagine the logistics of changing every single little comp to a new system. The public will not allow it, and don't give me the National Comp in 85 argumnent again, because u know very well, that was just an expansion of the comp, and even if the 95% of people were 'against' it, they weren't exactly going to protest in the streets to stop it. This is different. IMO, no matter its merits, it will NEVER happen.

 

[Dan26]

Westy,

You are grossly over-reacting to this. There is "virtually" no change at all in the structure of the season. None, in fact. We would still have a H&A season, followed by the finals series, and then the Grand Final to finish the season.

The ONLY real difference is the recognition factor given to the top team. Why in the hell would the footy public NOT want the top team to be given more recognition ? Do you honestly think that footy supporters enjoy seeing the top team ignored ? I don't think they do; I certainly don't.

As for the fact that the finals series and H&A are separate tournaments, it is "unofficially" that way right now. Sure, the "official" line is that the GF winner is the whole season champion, but come on ! Everyone knows that the GF winner doesn't have to play well over the 6 month season. It's no secret. Everyone knows that the GF winner isn't always the best team. Under my system, "Playing wll in the finals" will still have to be achieved if you are to win the Grand Final. It doesn't change anything. The winner of the GF will still get all the "glory" they always used to get. No change there. I mean, how many people really regard the Crows as being "whole season champions" in 1998? Sure, 'officially' they were "whole season champions", but if you ask most people, they regard them as having won the finals series and only were the best team over 4 weeks. Why not just give the Crows deserved credit for winning that 4 wwek tournament (they were magnificent over that 4 weeks)? Why are we giving them credit for winning the whole 6 month season, in which they were inconsistent at best?

It just means that the ridiculous notion of the GF winner being the champ of EVERYTHING (including the 6 month H&A series) will be no more.

But as I said, the structure of the season, and the Grand Final itself, remains intact. Why would anyone NOT want that ????????

 

[Westy Boy]

Originally posted by Dan24:

1/ There is "virtually" no change at all in the structure of the season. None, in fact.

2/ Do you honestly think that footy supporters enjoy seeing the top team ignored ? I don't think they do; I certainly don't.

1/ When did I say the structure on the season would be changed???

2/ I love seeing it. It adds to the game. I love the fact that the whole season rides on one match. NO-ONE is complaining about it except.... YOU..... this would indicate that they are enjoying it. Another reason is that if the "premier" is known from round 17, this detracts from rounds 18-22, as everyone will be just waiting for the finals tournament. I don't like that, and I'm sure a lot of people are with me on this.

BTW- You don't seem to be getting my point. Why would the AFL change it, when NO-ONE has a problem with it. EVERYONE seems to be fine with the way it is now. Why risk it, to bring in a system whose popularity (judging by the reaction here) isn't assured. I just don't see the point in risking it, and I think the AFL is thinking along the same lines. It will NEVER happen!

 

[Hawkforce.]

and, without realising it, Westy doomed himself (like a fallen hero in Greek Mythology) to banging his head against a brick wall for eternity.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I have no problem with teams profiles showing X Pre Season flags, X day flags and X minor premierships. Even having a trophy awarded for finishing the H&A season first.

However to consider essentially having two comps to compete for, I feel does take away from all the manoeuvring to get yourself up for the finals. There are so many variables in the home and away season. Team A plays a team B with several stars out and wins by 100 points. When team C plays team B, the stars are back and team C only wins by two goals. At the end of the year there is only negligible percentage separating team A & C, yet A wins this great accolade. In truth Team C may have been better than team A during the year but didn't get the breaks that team A did. See, just like finals, lots of factors can come into play, even more so when you consider how long the H&A season goes for.

Most teams have finished top and walked away without the flag and a lot have not finished top and won it. I don't think the fact that a team won the flag necessarily looks glowingly on them in history. Any AFL history books that I have read suggest that Carlton were lucky to make the 99 GF and Adelaide played one good finals series and were assisted by the system in the second. Merely seeing a list of premiers year by year doesn't make me think that they were the standout team of the year. It's not until I read about that year that I form my opinion. Real fans know that in the early years of the VFL, that if the minor premier lost any of its finals matches, it could exercise its double chance and have another go. Rewarded the top team certainly, but if it was bundled out in the first game, the other teams would continue on and play another two matches and the minor premier could come back refreshed and challenge the real finals winner.

I think we spend all year aiming for that magic 8 and the chance to play finals footy. To spend 22 weeks aiming for top spot and then focus on a 4 week competition would take some of the gloss away from that one day in September.


I would hate to go the way of the USA and have pennants for everything even if you lose the big one.

In English soccer, their season ends when the H & A ends. They play the FA cup in between. The FA cup is the unknown, the H&A is often known weeks in advance. I don't think we could run our comp the same way with the FA cup style finals at the end of our season. There cup is as good as it is because they have teams from other divisions who they would not normally play against given the chance to win it. A four week finals series involving the same teams that were fighting it out for the 22 week minor premiership would not hold the same level of interest.

If a team is dominant during the H&A and bows out when the real pressure is on during the finals, then maybe they didn't deserve the accolades in the first place. Essendon 1999 were lacking something and got caught out. Essendon 2000 learned from that experience and were never going to let that happen again. Not winning the flag after finishing top does not have to be a wasted experience. I believe we can still take positives from those losses and that is the essence of our game. Learning in the face of adversity and improving. That is how the game is becoming better and better all the time. Through the pain and suffering of those before them.


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

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Westy Boy:

2/ Another reason is that if the "premier" is known from round 17, this detracts from rounds 18-22, as everyone will be just waiting for the finals tournament. I don't like that, and I'm sure a lot of people are with me on this.

Well this thing happened this year infact Westy. Everyone knew Essendon were going to finish on top of the ladder since round 18 basically.

We were all just waiting for the finals to start in essence. And that didn't seem to detract from people going to the football.

There were 91,000 at the MCG for match between Carlton and Essendon which, in reality, did not really mean anything since both teams position on the ladder would not have changed.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
However to consider essentially having two comps to compete for, I feel does take away from all the manoeuvring to get yourself up for the finals. There are so many variables in the home and away season. Team A plays a team B with several stars out and wins by 100 points. When team C plays team B, the stars are back and team C only wins by two goals. At the end of the year there is only negligible percentage separating team A & C, yet A wins this great accolade. In truth Team C may have been better than team A during the year but didn't get the breaks that team A did. See, just like finals, lots of factors can come into play, even more so when you consider how long the H&A season goes for.

More factors or variables come into play in a finals game than in a H&A game. That's because a finals game is a one-off.

Those same circumstances that you mentioned can happen in a finals game in which it is more deadly since there is no further games to take part in if your team loses a final.

And even if teams end up on the same number of points during a home & away season and one team edges out the other on percentage, it is akin to a team winning the grand final by a point.

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
In English soccer, their season ends when the H & A ends. They play the FA cup in between. The FA cup is the unknown, the H&A is often known weeks in advance.

The FA cup is played after the H&A season. Remember when Manchester United won the "treble", they won the FA cup after the regular season finished.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
I have no problem with teams profiles showing X Pre Season flags, X day flags and X minor premierships. Even having a trophy awarded for finishing the H&A season first.

However to consider essentially having two comps to compete for, I feel does take away from all the manoeuvring to get yourself up for the finals. There are so many variables in the home and away season. Team A plays a team B with several stars out and wins by 100 points. When team C plays team B, the stars are back and team C only wins by two goals. At the end of the year there is only negligible percentage separating team A & C, yet A wins this great accolade. In truth Team C may have been better than team A during the year but didn't get the breaks that team A did. See, just like finals, lots of factors can come into play, even more so when you consider how long the H&A season goes for.

Most teams have finished top and walked away without the flag and a lot have not finished top and won it. I don't think the fact that a team won the flag necessarily looks glowingly on them in history. Any AFL history books that I have read suggest that Carlton were lucky to make the 99 GF and Adelaide played one good finals series and were assisted by the system in the second. Merely seeing a list of premiers year by year doesn't make me think that they were the standout team of the year. It's not until I read about that year that I form my opinion. Real fans know that in the early years of the VFL, that if the minor premier lost any of its finals matches, it could exercise its double chance and have another go. Rewarded the top team certainly, but if it was bundled out in the first game, the other teams would continue on and play another two matches and the minor premier could come back refreshed and challenge the real finals winner.

I think we spend all year aiming for that magic 8 and the chance to play finals footy. To spend 22 weeks aiming for top spot and then focus on a 4 week competition would take some of the gloss away from that one day in September.


I would hate to go the way of the USA and have pennants for everything even if you lose the big one.

In English soccer, their season ends when the H & A ends. They play the FA cup in between. The FA cup is the unknown, the H&A is often known weeks in advance. I don't think we could run our comp the same way with the FA cup style finals at the end of our season. There cup is as good as it is because they have teams from other divisions who they would not normally play against given the chance to win it. A four week finals series involving the same teams that were fighting it out for the 22 week minor premiership would not hold the same level of interest.

If a team is dominant during the H&A and bows out when the real pressure is on during the finals, then maybe they didn't deserve the accolades in the first place. Essendon 1999 were lacking something and got caught out. Essendon 2000 learned from that experience and were never going to let that happen again. Not winning the flag after finishing top does not have to be a wasted experience. I believe we can still take positives from those losses and that is the essence of our game. Learning in the face of adversity and improving. That is how the game is becoming better and better all the time. Through the pain and suffering of those before them.

NO NO NO NO. Yes, there might be only percentage separating team A and C at the end of 22 weeks, but so what ? You're implying that the finals make up for any "percived flaws" in the draw. This is soooo untrue. The Home and away season might be a bit uneven, but the finals series is MUCH MORE uneven. Did you consider this ?

In the home and away, you play everyone at least once over 22 weeks. You play 22 matches over 6 months. In the finals, you play 3 or 4 teams only; and to top it off, if you lose, you're out ! The finals are MORE unfair than the home and away. So, you're wrong there. Anyone can lose a one-off match. it doesn't deserve to dem irrelevant 22 weeks of hard work beforehand. Even the best teams lose "one-off" matches.

Aiming for top spot over 22 weeks, would take NOTHING away from the finals if they were a separate tournament. Nothing. You would still be fighting to compete in the elite 8 team finals series anyway. Remember that. For those teams that couldn't finish top, they could still aim to compete in the SEPARATE 4 week tournament. The ONLY real difference is that the winner of that separate 4 week tournament is ONLY the champs of that particular tournament. Of course, to make it a separate tournament, ALL 8 teams would be treated equally. Double chances are stupid. Currently, the top team can be eliminated after one loss, in the PF or GF anyway. So, why can't they be eliminated after one loss in the first week too ? Same diff !

ODNB, you also mention the FA CUP. Although it is played in between, the FINAL is the last match of the season. In terms of "hype" and "event status" it is similar to our Grand Final. The FA CUP winner is NOT declared the champion of the whole year, but this doesn't detract from it one little bit.

Similarly, if our Grand Final winner was simply declared "finals series" champions, it wouldn't affect the Grand Final at all. Currenly, the GF doesn't go to the best team anyway, and the public know this. They're not stupid. The Grand Final is an event. It has NEVER shown who the years best team was. Never. It is an event. Because it's an event, it will always be big. The FA CUP doesn't need to be a match where the winner is "premiers" of the whole season. That would be stupid. The years best team is NOT found over 4 weeks, or a couple of matches. It's found over 6 months.

You also said that a team that bows out in the finals after finishing top perhaps didn't deserve to be there anyway. This is the attitude that pisses me off. You are saying that the 1999 Essendon team was lacking something. Bullshit. They were easily one of the two best teams, but they just lost one match. Upsets happen. Upsets happen in Home and away matches and finals. Unfortunatley, the finals override the H&A and deem all that hard work irrelevant. So, if your upset loss happens in the finals, you don't get rewarded for your season.

To say that Essendon were lacking something because they lost ONE match by ONE point is ignorant. I suppose, you think, that because Carlton won that match, that they were just foxing for the whole year and were really the second best team ! What crap. They were the 6th or 7th best team, and they caused an upset. By saying Essendon lacked something, you're implyin that Carlton didn't lack anything and deserved to be in the Grand Final. Do you even realise what you are saying ????

I've got NO problems with losing. But I DO have a problem with not being recognised for the 18 win season. Meanwhile, Carlton, were unfairly recognised more than Essendon for winning one match. If a team finished top, but lost in the finals, declare them home and away premiers. I look it at, as if we were trying to do the "double" (i.e win both pemierships) but we failed and had to be content with just the top spot premeirship. Unfortunatley, the reality is we got nothing, because the AFL deem that the finals override the home and away season, even though it comprises 95% of the season.

Carlton should NOT have been called Runner-up. they should have been runner-up of the finals series, but 6th in the home and away. Stupidly, they were runner-up of the whole year. Stupid isn't it. Ridiculous.

Also, you say that finals are "real pressure" I think this is exaggerated. To say this, you ae implying that players don't give 100% in the Home and away. Finals are just a game of footy. I've seen Grand Finals, where the intensity was lacking. I've been to 9 Grand Finals, so I know what I'm talking about. I don't believe hype. I look at a match, and judge it, for what it is. The 1999 GF was, IMHO, not a very intense or pressurized game. There were HEAPS of home and away games that had more pressure and intensity. The "hype" of the Grand Final make us believe things about pressure which are not true.

Anyway, you can still have the "pressure" and "intensity" of finals in my proposal, so what's the problem ??????? The finals will still be there. You will still need to win "knockout" finals matches to win the Grand Final, so what's the problem? The only difference is that the winner of the GF will ONLY be the premiers of that particualr finals series tournament.

Trust me, it is in the AFL's best interests to rewards the Home and away champ (which comprises 95% of the season) whilst RETAINING the Grand Final as something to aspire to and win in it's own right. Everybody wins. The finals are still there; the GF still concludes the season; and the top team is called premiers as a reward for 6 months of excellence.

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 26 November 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Westy Boy:
Another reason is that if the "premier" is known from round 17, this detracts from rounds 18-22, as everyone will be just waiting for the finals tournament. I don't like that, and I'm sure a lot of people are with me on this.

Westy, is this the WORST thing that you have ever written???? How many times do I have to say it. The structure of the season is still the same. Currently, if a team is 4 games clear with 4 weeks to go, we are all just sitting around waiting for the finals.

In my system, if a team is 4 wins clear, we will all be sitting around waiting for the finals. Wow, big difference (sacastically)

EXACTLY THE SAME, Westy.

The only difference is, that at the end of the season, the top team would be recognised for their effort, and then we can begin the knckout finals series to conclude the season as we have done for 100 years.

As someone else said, in Round 20 this year Essendon and Carlton - who were both secure in 1st and 2nd spot - drew 91,000 (which would have been 130,000 if the ground was big enough) to see a meaningless match.

It jsut goes to show that the public aren't as stupid as you think they are. They knew who the two best teams of the year were in 2000, despite the results in the 2000 finals series.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Dan, for #$%$% sake, do the world a favour and take a valium. Fair dinkum, anyone who doesn't agree with you gets put down. Guess what there is a lot of people who don't agree with you. You would think you were the world's greatest authority on football.

Do you think our country can carry a setup similar to the FA cup? As I mentioned the FA Cup also contains teams from lower divisions. It is not a second comp consisting purely of the same teams that are in the H&A season. Therein lies its attraction. It's different and it has nothing to do with the standings in the H&A season. I also believe that teams would not take the opportunity to blood new players wherever possible for the fear it may cost them a match or percentage. The home and away season is a good setup for blooding players, experimenting with positions against the lesser opposition so you have another option come finals time. Coaches would be too scared to take risks.

God, the 1999 loss really stuffed you up didn't it? I have openly admitted that Carlton were lucky to get there in 1999. Don't go putting words into my mouth. Isn't that what you say to everyone else? Bloody hypocrite!

Yes, Essendon were lacking something on the day. The 2000 Bombers were never going to be caught out. They weren't lacking therefore they won the GF. Essendon in 1999 were infinitely more beatable than 2000.

As I pointed out most teams have at one point or another won the minor premiership and not the flag. Funny how all your bleating happens when it is to Essendon's advantage. You mentioned that just because this has been happening for 100 years that it doesn't make it right. Isn't the fact that it's been happening for a hundred years in essence the argument you use to debate the people who want to recognise the AFL as a new competition apart from the VFL????? Manipulate the facts when it suits you. To tell you the truth, I don't really care about this topic. I was offering an opinion without putting down anyone else's opinion. Now, it is personal again. You have exposed yourself as the ignorant one. Ignorant to anything or anyone else that does not pat you on the back. This is just an excuse to enhance your team's statistics.

It seems you are obsessed with enhancing statistics. Your abuse and arrogance does not make you right, quite the contrary.

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

[This message has been edited by The Old Dark Navy's (edited 26 November 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

NO NO NO NO

You're missing my point again. I shouldn't have used 1999 as an example, because the usual reaction I get is : "You just say that because you barrack for Essendon"

This is not true. I have ben saying this for MANY years. Over the last 5 or 6 years, I have been very vocal in my desire to see the top team get more recognition.

And OBVIOUSLY, over the course of 100 years, there are times when the top team is NOT going to win the Grand Final. As if the top team is going to win for 100 consecutive years. What is your point exactly ???

Look, all I want is for the top team to get recognised. Loyalty is irrelevant. Essendon, could finish 8th, and win the Grand Final, and it wouldn't change my feelings one little bit.

And remember, upsets happen. They can happen in finals just like they can happen in the home and away. In 2000 Essendon were overall a better side than they were in 1999. But in 1999, I still believe we were the best team, except the competition was a bit more even. No one is immune from defeat. Even the best can lose a one-off match. I believe Essendon would have won the 2000 premiership, even if we had won it in 1999.

The Essendon team of 1999, the Kangarros team of 1998, and even Carlton's 1976 team were all hard done by. Their brilliant home and away seasons were unrecognised, because they lost one match.

Old Dark Navy's....you need to realise something. The years best team is not found over 2 hours. There ae too many variables that take place over a short 2 hour match. 2 hours agaisnt a One-off opponent over a short period of time is not sufficient to determine the years best team.

6 months of football IS sufficient to determine the years best team. How can you say a team has deficiency's when you are only looking at their performance against ONE measly opponet over TWO measly hours ?? See what I mean ?

15 different opponents over 44 hours will decide if a team has any deficiencys.

 

[Dan26]

Enhancing Essendon's statistics ???

WHAT THE F*CK ???????

This has NOTHING to do with loyalty. Read all my past posts and you will see. Carlton were screwed in 1995, because they weren't recognised for their 20-2 season. It was irellevant. They were only recognised for winning the Grand Final. They should have been recognised for BOTH.

In fact, if the top spot premiership was awarded, Carlton and Collingwood would be the leaders having won 17 each to go with their 16 and 14 Grand Final wins respectively.

Essendon has 16 of both. 16 Final series wins and 16 "top spots"

I a not trying to enhance statistics. I just want what is fair and right for the competition.

 

[Frodo]

Wow, big thread and lots of backreading needed.
Bloodangel summed it up quite well in post 3. League champion and Cup champion with the 'double' being the greatest accolade.

After Essendons regular season last year there could be no doubt they were by far the best team. But they could have had a final just like the doggies match and not won the flag. No recognition for such a side would have been a travesty of justice.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Still don't agree with basically having two comps. A fresh 4 week finals series after one team has already celebrated their real victory would be nothing more than a consolation comp.

I would be more inclined to have a guaranteed double chance for the minor premiership so they couldnt get beaten in a prelim and be out with only one loss. Hard to do though. Or better still, have a round robin finals series with each team starting with points based on their ladder position. Or even a best of three grand final series like the one day cricket. The minor premier would not be guaranteed of getting there though. Myhabe a combination of the points handicap finals and then a best of three grand final series.

Don't get me wrong either. I was not happy that Adelaide won two flags from 13 wins seasons. I just can't accept that last day in September being overshadowed by events four weeks earlier.

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

 

[Dan26]

Frodo,

Exactly. Some people think that two hours of football against one particualr opponent is the best way to determine who was the best team over 6 months. Apparently, if a team loses a one-off finals match, by a small margin against a one-off opponent, then this means they weren't really that good in the first place. This is the rubbish that some people try to convince you.

You're right. Essendon lost to the dogs, and an upset could have hapened a few weeks later in the finals. You never know.

Yep, there are far too many little variables over a short 2 hour match, for it to be a relevant tool, in deciding the years best team. The Dogs beat Essendon in Round 21, but this doesn't mean they were a better team over the course of the year.

 

[Dan26]

ODN's,

It won't be overshadowed. In England, the "top spot" premieship is the main prize, but the FA CUP Final, is the individual biggest one-off match. Similar to my proposal.

The FA Cup tournament as a whole is NOT as big as the 6 month season. BUT, the actual FA Cup Final is the BIGGEST match of the year. It's an event, it concludes the season, and it is a celebration of the year.

I totaly disagre with your double chance scenario. Finals are not about getting second chances. The beauty is that they are knockout. What is great is if the finals are an 8 team knokout comp. One loss and you are out. The ramifications of losing are so immense in this separate knockout finals series, that the matches would obviously generate tremndous interst.

Anyway, I think the public don't realy care about the title of "premiers". They just want to win the Grand Final. If a team finished 4th and wins the GF, they will be happy. This shows that the Grand Final won't lack anything if it is a separate tournament. Currenty, the fans don't care about being the best, they just want the "glory" of winning the Grand Final. My system provides that. the "glory" and "event status" of the Grand Final remains, whilst also recognising the years best team over 22 weeks.

 

[Frodo]

I can see the concern that the knockout would be an anticlimax but I don't think it would happen. The league would be won on a regular match day with the outcome probably depending on a few results that weekend. This cannot compare to the grandeur of the GF at the MCG. It is such a special event that every player and supporter would be rarin to get there.

Again, bit like soccer. The league titles are won but then there is the FA Cup final at Wembley afterwards, and that is a national icon.

 

[Dan26]

Frodo.

Exactly. I'm glad someone can see the logic. It doesn't matter if our Grand Final doesn't decide the whole year champion. It doesn't need to.

It has NEVER decided who the years best team is anyway, so why should that team be called "whole year champions"

Over 100 years the Grand Final has always determined who the best team was over 4 weeks (as opposed to the best over 22 weeks)

Accordingly, the Grand Final winner SHOULD just be declared champions of that 4 week knockout tournament. Why should they be declared champions of everything, when they may have only finished 8th, for example ?

The Grand Final is a huge event, and it doesn't need to override 6 months of hard work for it to be big. It will be big anyway.

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 26 November 2000).]

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I would not care about winning a grand final if it was considered in a lesser light to the minor premiership. It would be a consolation only. The fans of the club that one the minor premiership could still take away your glory by saying that it is only a four week comp and they were the reigning champion. May as well, hold the Ansett cup at the end of the home and away season.

Dan, I certainly wouldn't have you believe that any team that one the flag in similar circumstances to 1997/8 was the best team that year. It would only be the fans of that team that could suggest that. As this forum has shown, most people don't concur with this.

Recognise the minor premiership, great! Just don't elevate it higher than the Grand Final. Change the finals structure to give the minor premier every opportunity to win the flag.

I believe also that it is the uncertainty of football, the upsets and the fairytales that give hope to all footy fans and captures the publics imagination. I think this proposed change may bring about an air of predictability and turn people away from the game.

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

 

[Frodo]

Okay, well how about a minor premiers cup and medals given out on Grand final day to the minor premiers players. By naming it 'minor' it keeps the flag as the top trophy.

 

[Dan26]

ODN's.

Oh stop exaggerating. In England, the FA CUP isn't as prestigious as the "top spot" premiership, but the fans that win the FA CUP still have huge bragging rights.

The "event" of the FA CUP and our own "Grand Final" are very similar. It's an event and it's great to win. Our Grand Final is aleady set as the culmination of the season, so it's "event status" is already entrenched into us.

The H&A premiership SHOULD be elevated higher than the Grand Final. Why in the bloody hell do we give more recognition to a 4 week tournakment and we give less recognition to something that is harder to achieve (finishing on top). This makes no sense.

It is NOT good to have 95% f the season irrelevant. Why is this good ?



[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 26 November 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Frodo,

You're right. It should be called the H&A premiership.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Dan, I am not exaggerating. It is the way I feel. I'll say again, there is not always something amiss with people who don't share your ideas. If your plan was the way to go, the AFL would have already implemented it. Almost everybody on this forum would be agreeing with you. They are not which suggests that this is a contentious issue where there is no winning argument.

You go ahead and state your case. You won't convince me. I am every bit as intelligent as you, I just see things differently.

I will make one final concession. I could tolerate the minor premier being given the title of AFL Champions 2001 and the Grand Final winner being AFL Premiers 2001. We could then count flags and championships. The Grand Final should not be considered lesser than the Championship though. Equal, at least.

Frodo, good to see some compromise. Not a bad idea but the minor premier would feel pretty lousy picking up medals on Grand Final day if they did not win the Grand Final. Bit like Maurice Rioli throwing his Norm Smith medal away.

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