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

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
glory of winning that one day in September???

Dan, if Essendon won the H&A season and Carlton won the Grand Final and I was to revel in our Grand Final victory, somebody like yourself would be likely to belittle the achievement as being nowhere near as good as your H&A premiership. My point is, if the achievement can be belittled as being only a four week tournament compared to the real stuff, then it will lose something. It loses prestige, it loses status. I'm not twisting anything anywhere. You are the spin doctor on these boards.

Old dark navy's,

While you are asking the question to Dan, I would like to respond to your argument as well.

A grand final victory would be the "lesser" acheivment of the two. So I, as an Essendon supporter, would be entitled to say the bombers where the best team of the season since they had won the "league" title.

However, that does not mean that you, as a Carlton supporter, could not enjoy a grand final victory. I know I would be.

Also, I could not say that Carlton were a crap team, in that particular season just because they had "only" won the grand final series. That acheivement is to be congratulated since you(Carlton) had to go through the best teams of the season, in a Knock-out situation, in order to win the trophy.

But again that does not mean Carlton where the best team that year.

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
My point is, if the achievement can be belittled as being only a four week tournament compared to the real stuff, then it will lose something. It loses prestige, it loses status. I'm not twisting anything anywhere. You are the spin doctor on these boards.

Well, obviously, it would lose something. That is the title of "premiers" and rightfully so. However, I would not call that a "loss since", even today, fans and supporters know that the team that wins the grand final does not necessarily mean that they are the best team that year.

Furthermore, the percieved "loss" of the current finals system will mean that more prestiege will go to the "league champion".

So it all levels out in the end.

About the spin doctoring, well I'll leave that for Dan to answer, but I have not been doing it.

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 02 December 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

ODN's

I have NOT been changing my opinions to suit myself. Firstly, I said that it's a proud record for Carlton to have never won a wooden spoon. Secondly, I also said that they were unlucky to not get one in the late 1800's, with only St.Kilda's incompetence, preventing this.

Both things I stated are facts.

You also said that if Carlton won the GF, Essendon would say: "well, we won the premiership".

Darn right. Essendon complted the hardest achievement possible, (like ManU have done in recent years)

BUT, as I seem to have stated MANY thousands of painful times, the Grand Final match itself, will be the BIGGEST one-off individual match of the year, and if the Blue-baggers won that (like winning the FA CUP), you would revel in the glory of victory on the one special day in September.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:


My point is, if the achievement can be belittled as being only a four week tournament compared to the real stuff, then it will lose something. It loses prestige, it loses status.

I'll just cut and paste my previoius message, because ODN's obviously didn't read it:

"As I stated, the Grand Final is currently separate to the H&A anyway, when you think about it. No matter what system we use, you can't actually win the Grand Final until the final series begins. Currently, the H&A is rendered meaningless, unless you win the final series tournament. So, in reality it is already a separate conmpetition. The fact that you can't win the premiership until the last 4 weeks of the season proves this. So, obviously, they should "offically" be separate things to win.

 

[Hawkforce.]

Manchester United did not even COMPETE in last year's FA cup! They withdrew to focus on a) Champion's League b) Premiership and c) to compete in the fledgling World League Cup in South America.

Will you two stop making comparisons with English Football? You are embarrassing yourselves!

And Dan, most of us understand the simple concept of "if it looks like shite, and smells like shite... IT PROBABLY IS SHITE!"

you made your point, and it was a fair enough one. But in the process of defending it, you become so entangled that you can't recognise when you are talking shite.

And don't tell people who've made a perfectly good point that they are ignorant and frustrating.

They haven't sunk to your level... yet.

 

[Dan26]

Hawkforce.

I am fully aware that MAnU didn't compete in the FA CUP, but there was HUGE controversy about that decision. This year, they are back in it as they should be.

Don't make up crap just to put me down. Like some of the others, you can "twsit" words to make things sound favourable to you, and if I really wanted to, I could "twist" it back around the other way. But what's the point?

 

[Hawkforce.]

What crap did I make up?

How did I twist it?

Hello?

Hello?

 

[James2]

As most people have responded to this topic, I will too.

After all, who would waste their b/day continually repeating the same point?

Try your best Daniel

The AFL season consists of 22 H/A rounds and a four week finals series.

To win the GF you have to perform consistently over a 26 week period ( the 22 rounds + finals). The last time I checked 26 weeks is longer then 22.

The suggestion that a team that finishes 5th at the conclusion of the 22 rounds but wins the GF, is not the best team because they were lucky in a "one-of" game, is baseless.

To illustrate:

If a team only wins 2 of its first eleven matches, but then wins the last eleven of the H/A season (13 wins about 5th on the ladder) plus three, maybe four finals, that team has won 14/15 games in a row. Clearly that team deserves to win the premiership despite finishing 5th after the completion of the 22 rounds.

In any event, how often has the Grand Final been won by an undeserving team ie. a team that has had a lucky run late in the season? Not often. The current system is not as unfair as you claim Dan.



------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.

 

[Visro]

My god.......16 pages of absolutly boring argument with people repeating the same thing.......YAWN!

------------------
I was put on this Earth to complete a certain number of tasks. I am so far behind I will never die...

 

[Dan26]

James,

Under the current system, the Grand Final winner is never a bad team. But they are not 'necessarily' the best.

But what's your point ? The Grand Final WILL STILL BE THERE. Let's say my system was around in 1997 - Adelaide would STILL HAVE WON THE GRAND FINAL. Fortunatley, they wouldn't be called "whole season champs", and nor should they. St.Kilda would have been "Home and away" premiers, and the Crows would have the Grand final glory. As it should be. Why should the Crows be called whole seaosn champions, when for the first 22 weeks, they only finished 4th?

With mine you win both ways. You get credit for winning the Grand Final AND winning the Home and away.

I don't get why you wrote what you did, because the 22 week home and away season and the 4 week final series (or 3 week under my proposal) would still be there. You act as though it won't be there.

I've said time and timwe again, that they are unofficially sepearte now anyway. You CANNOT win the premiership currently UNTIL the 4 week final series starts. So, the 22 weeks beforehand is usless, excpet towards making the finals (which you will still be able to do with my system). If you CANNOT win the flag until this 4 week tournament starts, then it is basically a separate tournament anyway, since everyone is just waiting for the finals to start. It's just not "officially" acknowledged as being separate, that's all.

And James, why in the hell does a team that finished 5th and played well over a 4 week tournament deserve to be called 'whole season champions'???? With the empahasis on "WHOLE SEASON". I've got no problem with calling them "4 week tournament champions", or "finals series champs", or whatever, but 6 months of winning deserves more reward than 4 weeks of wining. However, BOTH should be acknowledged.

 

[sabre_ac]

Ok here is another view on the subject.
At the moment the current finals system need an overhaul.

And dans system may work if not for a few factors.

It is always going to be harder for non vics teams to become dominant or finish first for the simple reason that they play 11 aways games while all victorian teams play a maximum of 6.

Sure say a saints v Roos match might be called the kangaroos home game.But the crowd can still be evenly weighed and each supporter from both teams has the opportunity to attend.
I am a great believer in crowd support.
Teams like the dockers and eagles are always up against it due to lack of support.
Furthermore airline fatigue is another factor, lack of preparation time and lack of sleep are all contributing factors.

These last 3 might be minor but become steadily worse as the year progresses.But corwd support is not minor.

This is the reason why the eagles of the early 90's (who i belive could have matched it with essendon this year) underachieved.They only finished first once yet made the grand final 3 times in the space of 4 years.Yet under Dans system they would not have been reconized as the dominant team as maybe they should have.

That said though.
The current system has problems of its own.

My first change would be to make
Of the two grand finalist , the higher of the 2 on the ladder should have the grand final in there own state.
And that should go for all finals.
To prevent the same incident occuring , when the eagles were forced to play at the MCG, because of some contract.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by sabre_ac:
This is the reason why the eagles of the early 90's (who i belive could have matched it with essendon this year) underachieved.They only finished first once yet made the grand final 3 times in the space of 4 years.Yet under Dans system they would not have been reconized as the dominant team as maybe they should have.

Didn't West Coast finish on top of the ladder 2 times('91, '94). I not sure about the '92 season.

 

[Dan26]

Same Old's

You are dead right. The West Coast Eagles finished on top, and were H&A champions in 1991 and 1994.

They were premiers two time also - in 1992 and 1994.

Over a long period of time, the mathematics should work out that you should finish on top, "approximately" the same number of times as you win the Grand Final.

 

[sabre_ac]

Ok i missed that
But Dan and same olds
They still doesn't go against my arguement.
That there is a definite advantage with the vic sides.
When some teams play only 3 away games while others can play 11.
That is why your minor premires cant be used.

We still dont have a even comp.

 

[Dan26]

sabre,

You're missing the point. Essendon may only have 4 or 5 away games (where they travel), but nearly all of the Victorian games are neutral (when they are at the MCG or Colonial agaisnt another vic side)

I remember looking at the 1999 season. West Coast had their usual 10 home matches, 10 away and 2 neutral (the local derbies)

Essendon had 4 home (advantageous), 4 away (travel games) and 14 neutral.

As you can see, Essendon's 4 advantageous games equaled their disadvantageous games. Similarly, West Coast's 10 advantageous games equaled their 10 disadvantgeous games.

So really, there is no advantage either way. You've got to remember, that a home game by a vic club against another vic club (unless Geelong is the home team) doesn't present an advantage.

 

[sabre_ac]

Hold it Dan

Dons 4 "advatange"=4 away
with 14 neutral

Right

Eagles/Dockers 10=10
No Nuetral

Comon you have to see the advantage in that.

Not to mention problmes with travel that steadily get worse as the season progresses

 

[Dan26]

Sabre.

The Eagles have TWO neutral games - against the Dockers, where they have NO home ground advantage.

If Essendon have 4 advantage games, 4 disadvantage games and 14 neutral (as was the case in 1999), then West Coast with 10/10/2, are EXACTLY the same. If advantageous equals disadvantageous, then there is nothign to complain about. Do you hear me whinging that we don;t have a home ground advantage?

See how you can twist it both ways ? You have a home ground advantage at Subi that Essendon can only dream about.

 

[ptw]

Dan24

I agree with you re interstate advantages...it all evens out in the wash...except that MCG finals rule which the AFL wants to change anyway.

You said on the other thread that I supported more recognition for the H&A top team. I do.

You failed to mention that I don't support your way of doing it, which is at the expense of the finals system.

I don't say it has any more merit, but in times past teams have won the right to challenge the top team. If you had a final 5, where the 2-5 finals series to decide who has the right to challenge the top team for the flag.

1. The finals still mean something
2. There is instant GF right for the H&A top team
3. They can still lose.

Clearly a final 5 is not going to happen with 16 teams but the priniple is still the same. If you could get the number of weeks for the 2-5 finals down (say 2 weeks 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 with the winners playing next week) then 1 could play the challenger twice which would help in the "oh but they only played bad for 2 hours the whole season" thing.

Just thought I would try to stop the endless round and round arguments.

ptw

 

[ptw]

.....of course the top H&A team would have a 3 week rest between games....hmmmmm have to think up a way around this.


ptw

 

[Michele]

Oh no,

16 Pages!!! What happened to Grendel's Y/N

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Dan24:
James,

Under the current system, the Grand Final winner is never a bad team. But they are not 'necessarily' the best.

But what's your point ? The Grand Final WILL STILL BE THERE. Let's say my system was around in 1997 - Adelaide would STILL HAVE WON THE GRAND FINAL. Fortunatley, they wouldn't be called "whole season champs", and nor should they. St.Kilda would have been "Home and away" premiers, and the Crows would have the Grand final glory. As it should be. Why should the Crows be called whole seaosn champions, when for the first 22 weeks, they only finished 4th?

Dan24, this complete bunkum.

Remember, the OBJECTIVE of an AFL season is firstly, to get into the finals, then to win the finals. That is what teams set out to do at the start of each season. They do not set out to be minor round premiers necessarily. Nope, the aim is to make the finals, then play well for the finals round.

Adelaide did this in 1997 better than any other club. They met their objective (the same objective that all the teams have) the best that year.

In 97 and 98 Adelaide were they best team *because* they met the objective and all other teams did not.

Your arguement is a bit like "I'm world champ at tennis because I can hit the ball even further than Sampras can".

Perhaps, but can you hit it *IN*. Thats the objective.

 

[Frodo]

"They do not set out to be minor round premiers necessarily"

Crows, I would like to think that every club goes out to win every game (until they are not finals contenders and play rookies for experience), which means trying to be minor premiers.

Okay, I accept that all teams try to peak for the finals but it's the same for all. The whole point is that the minor premiers could finish 22/22 and get beaten by someone that scraped in 10/12. Now that is footy and good on them but the minor premiers brilliant regular season performance gets no recognition at all. Surely those guys should get a minor premiers medal to show their kids and grandchildren.

 

[Michele]

Dan 24,

Are you seriously trying to say, in 1999 Essendon had played games against these teams twice, Carlton, North, Richmond, Collingwood and Melbourne all at the MCG and they were 'neutral' games.

In 1999, Essendon played 7 of their last 8 H & A games at the MCG.

Doesn't sound very neutral to me, more one-sided. Your own president said it was a good draw!

Michele

PS Watch out for the cricket on Thursday!

 

[sainter]

Michele,

The very fact that there is absolutely no equality in the draw should be enough to suggest that Dan's suggestion is not in the best interest of the league. And that is not taking into consideration the many other valid points made already.

Look at Essendon's draw -
9 matches at Colonial
9 matches at the MCG
4 interstate games

Does life get any better?

We are playing 12 at Colonial, 2 at Subi and the G and 1 at Optus, SS, Football Park, SCG, Manuka Oval and the GABBA.

Obviously it is near on impossible to create an even draw but still!

And I will be very happy if Malcolm Blight continues to have his teams peak at the right time of the season. Finals time. Everything before hand is a lead up to when the real action starts.

------------------
Fortius Quo Fidelius

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Dan24:
ODN's

I have NOT been changing my opinions to suit myself. Firstly, I said that it's a proud record for Carlton to have never won a wooden spoon. Secondly, I also said that they were unlucky to not get one in the late 1800's, with only St.Kilda's incompetence, preventing this.

Both things I stated are facts.

You also said that if Carlton won the GF, Essendon would say: "well, we won the premiership".

Darn right. Essendon complted the hardest achievement possible, (like ManU have done in recent years)

BUT, as I seem to have stated MANY thousands of painful times, the Grand Final match itself, will be the BIGGEST one-off individual match of the year, and if the Blue-baggers won that (like winning the FA CUP), you would revel in the glory of victory on the one special day in September.

The point here is fact or no fact, in one post you promoted Carlton's record re wooden spoons because it suited your argument at the time. Then in another post you downplayed the achievement because it suited the argument at the time. It might be fact but that is not the context you are using it for and you know it.

The second point is you have admitted somebody couldn't lay claim to any bragging rights if their team won the GF because the team winning the H&A premiership would be better. However, you have also suggested that the final series and grand final would lose nothing compared to now. Now, if you are playing for less than you used to play for, is it still just as significant??? Any sane person would have to say no.

Don't give me this absolute bullshit line about people not reading your posts. You are the one who cannot adequately and factually rebutt our posts. Your whole act is becoming rather tiresome. You are indeed pigheaded and not just about topics you believe in. You will not give an inch anytime, anywhere.

I have suggested a AFL premier for the GF and a AFL champion for the H&A. Like the NFL, NBA, etc, the team winning the Superbowl for example is the years best team regardless of their record to get into that position. The teams that win their respective conferences are the champions ot that conference. Maybe we should adopt the two division comp, that would blow your idea out of the water.

You know, creative writing does not necessarily equate to constructive writing. It's more like a license to invent or fabricate. Stand by for the next painful post. I guarantee we have all banged our heads against the brick wall every bit as much as you.


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

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Frodo:
"They do not set out to be minor round premiers necessarily"

Crows, I would like to think that every club goes out to win every game (until they are not finals contenders and play rookies for experience), which means trying to be minor premiers.

Okay, I accept that all teams try to peak for the finals but it's the same for all. The whole point is that the minor premiers could finish 22/22 and get beaten by someone that scraped in 10/12. Now that is footy and good on them but the minor premiers brilliant regular season performance gets no recognition at all. Surely those guys should get a minor premiers medal to show their kids and grandchildren.

The point I'm trying to make is this- Crows in 97 could have gone all out to get minor round premiers after round 19. They chose instead to start an extra training routine to build up for finals. Deliberately chose to. They even said at the time it may cost them a minor round game or two. It did.

Now Dan24 wants to make some stupid claim that in 97 Crows were not the best team because they were not minor round premiers. Thats rubbish.

Why is it rubbish? Because the Crows were NOT trying to make minor round premiers. They could have, but they didn't go for it. Instead they deliberately went for a flag.

And achieved that flag. As is the objective of an AFL season.

Ergo, having attained that objective, which is what every club was trying to do and only Crows managed to do, Crows were the best side in 97.

By definition.

If the objective was to be minor round premiers, then thats a different story. But the point is, if that were the objective, Crows would have taken a different tack.