-
Mobile App Discontinued
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.
Is Dan24's finals system right or wrong? VOTE NOW!
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #302
Onya Rooboy, im glad it was you
Sandie,
I'm sure Dan will get the 400th post.
I'm sure Dan will get the 400th post.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
CrowsOK,
I am not dispariging Adelaide at all. They were a very good team. I realise that the "objective" of all teasm is to win the Grand Final, but that doesn't mean that the team that does is - even if they meet that objective - is the years best.
The finals come down to one-off games. This means that ONE upset can stuff your season; One little upset. The home and away decides who the best team is, because it takes into account a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. In the finals, over 2 hours of football, you could lose one match. ManU often don't win the FA CUP, because even the best teams can lose one-off elimination matches. No one is immune from defeat.
As for the Crows fitness program, that is an opinion whether it helped them. Remember St.Kilda, won their last 7 H&A games in 1997, then they provceeded to have big second halves against Brisbane and the Roos in the finals. They won 9 straight going into the Grand Final. Would you question their fitness ? I wouldn't. I don't think it was fitness that got the Crows over the line, necesarily. To say this would imply that St.Kilda weren't fit. Come on ! It's the last week of the season, and the players have been training for 10 months and the Saints aren't fit! Of course they are fit. That's why they won 9 straight going into the match, including most second halves ! You can't look at one result and judge how good a team is on that one result.
If the Crows had lost to Geelong in the 2nd week of the finals (which didn't happen, but very easily could have because it was a close match), you probably wouldn't even have written what you did. You'd probably be saying how the Crows failed because they weren't good enough. the reality was that they were just as good, but because of the nature of one-off elimination matches, anything can happen.
Look, the Crows were obviously a good team, but they weren't necessarily the best. You seem to think that "IF" my system was used and top spot was something to aim for, that the Crows would have won it. You don't know that. In that hypothetical example, you don't know how the Crows would go. Personally, I still think they would have won 13 games. You probably think that if top spot decided the flag, that the Crows would have won enough games to win their objective. We don't know this.
What I do know, is regardless, of the Crows objective in 1997, and whether they succeeded, is that the current system is fundamentally wrong.
Sure, the Crows succceeded in fulfilling their objective, but in doing this, the 22 weeks of foty prior to the finals was deemed worthless. In my opinion, this is wrong. The actault team that wins the Grand Final is irrelevant. It's the principle.
This has got nothing to do with Adelaide. This trancends club loyalty. I am simply proposing an idea where the 22 weeks counts towards deciding who the years best team is. Despite what you say, the years best team is NOT found over 4 weeks of elimination mathces (where one loss can end your season), it is found over 6 months. All I am proposing is for the 22 weeks to count as the "home and away" premiership, and the 8 team knockout final series to count as "final series champions"
Someone said that they would still be linked. I don't think so. Same Old's summed it up. In Europe, the top teams in the domestic competitions qualify for the champions league. So, in effect the two are linked. But obviously, they are two separate competitions.
I'm simply proposing how it SHOULD be. Not how it is. How the Crows would go under my system in 1997 is a matter of conjecture. I still thik they would have finished 4th, but who knows ?
I am not dispariging Adelaide at all. They were a very good team. I realise that the "objective" of all teasm is to win the Grand Final, but that doesn't mean that the team that does is - even if they meet that objective - is the years best.
The finals come down to one-off games. This means that ONE upset can stuff your season; One little upset. The home and away decides who the best team is, because it takes into account a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. In the finals, over 2 hours of football, you could lose one match. ManU often don't win the FA CUP, because even the best teams can lose one-off elimination matches. No one is immune from defeat.
As for the Crows fitness program, that is an opinion whether it helped them. Remember St.Kilda, won their last 7 H&A games in 1997, then they provceeded to have big second halves against Brisbane and the Roos in the finals. They won 9 straight going into the Grand Final. Would you question their fitness ? I wouldn't. I don't think it was fitness that got the Crows over the line, necesarily. To say this would imply that St.Kilda weren't fit. Come on ! It's the last week of the season, and the players have been training for 10 months and the Saints aren't fit! Of course they are fit. That's why they won 9 straight going into the match, including most second halves ! You can't look at one result and judge how good a team is on that one result.
If the Crows had lost to Geelong in the 2nd week of the finals (which didn't happen, but very easily could have because it was a close match), you probably wouldn't even have written what you did. You'd probably be saying how the Crows failed because they weren't good enough. the reality was that they were just as good, but because of the nature of one-off elimination matches, anything can happen.
Look, the Crows were obviously a good team, but they weren't necessarily the best. You seem to think that "IF" my system was used and top spot was something to aim for, that the Crows would have won it. You don't know that. In that hypothetical example, you don't know how the Crows would go. Personally, I still think they would have won 13 games. You probably think that if top spot decided the flag, that the Crows would have won enough games to win their objective. We don't know this.
What I do know, is regardless, of the Crows objective in 1997, and whether they succeeded, is that the current system is fundamentally wrong.
Sure, the Crows succceeded in fulfilling their objective, but in doing this, the 22 weeks of foty prior to the finals was deemed worthless. In my opinion, this is wrong. The actault team that wins the Grand Final is irrelevant. It's the principle.
This has got nothing to do with Adelaide. This trancends club loyalty. I am simply proposing an idea where the 22 weeks counts towards deciding who the years best team is. Despite what you say, the years best team is NOT found over 4 weeks of elimination mathces (where one loss can end your season), it is found over 6 months. All I am proposing is for the 22 weeks to count as the "home and away" premiership, and the 8 team knockout final series to count as "final series champions"
Someone said that they would still be linked. I don't think so. Same Old's summed it up. In Europe, the top teams in the domestic competitions qualify for the champions league. So, in effect the two are linked. But obviously, they are two separate competitions.
I'm simply proposing how it SHOULD be. Not how it is. How the Crows would go under my system in 1997 is a matter of conjecture. I still thik they would have finished 4th, but who knows ?
The other point I want to bring up, is that every win you have should get you one win closer to your ultimate goal.
In soccer, whe ManU have a win, this gets them one win closer to securing top spot and therefore winning the premiership.
In AFL, every win you have gets you no closer to your ultimate goal. The wins are worthles, UNLESS you win in the 4 week finals series.
That's the whole point. I want them as two seperate tornaments, right ? What people don't get, is that for all intents and purposes, they are seperate now, but the AFL deems that it is one big 26 week season. But really, when you look at it, they are seperate now. It's just not "officially" acknowledged as such.
You currently cannot win the premiership in the 22 week H&A season. It's impossible. You could win every game, yet stupidly, this gets you no closer to winning the flag, even if you go 22-0. It all comes down to the finals series, which is effectively double or nothing. It all starts again in the finals.
See what I mean? It's really sepearte NOW for all intents and purposes. It's seperate becasue you can only win the flag in the finals series. You can't win anything in the H&A.
So, why not be able to win something in the H&A? Why not be able to aspire to best and to win more games than any other team? Why not be able to win the Home and away premiership ? Then, you can win the finals series premiership and do the "double"
In soccer, whe ManU have a win, this gets them one win closer to securing top spot and therefore winning the premiership.
In AFL, every win you have gets you no closer to your ultimate goal. The wins are worthles, UNLESS you win in the 4 week finals series.
That's the whole point. I want them as two seperate tornaments, right ? What people don't get, is that for all intents and purposes, they are seperate now, but the AFL deems that it is one big 26 week season. But really, when you look at it, they are seperate now. It's just not "officially" acknowledged as such.
You currently cannot win the premiership in the 22 week H&A season. It's impossible. You could win every game, yet stupidly, this gets you no closer to winning the flag, even if you go 22-0. It all comes down to the finals series, which is effectively double or nothing. It all starts again in the finals.
See what I mean? It's really sepearte NOW for all intents and purposes. It's seperate becasue you can only win the flag in the finals series. You can't win anything in the H&A.
So, why not be able to win something in the H&A? Why not be able to aspire to best and to win more games than any other team? Why not be able to win the Home and away premiership ? Then, you can win the finals series premiership and do the "double"
C
CrowsOK
Guest
Look, Dan, its very simple. If you put your system in place, there would be two types of season. One type like this year, where it is apparent half way bloody through who is going to be top at round 22. Another type of season would be like say 97 & 98 where it was not apparent till the result of round 22 who would be top - and hence one game could stuff up a clubs season.
Barely any different to the current setup. I couldn't stand a season like this one if there was no possibility of an upset in the finals.
The current system is fine. Your system is no better, and potentially much much worse.
Don't stuff with the current system and the occassion of the GF. It works. It gets people interested, it has a sense of occassion. People love it, its THE popular sporting event on the Australian sporting calander. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
My vote.
Barely any different to the current setup. I couldn't stand a season like this one if there was no possibility of an upset in the finals.
The current system is fine. Your system is no better, and potentially much much worse.
Don't stuff with the current system and the occassion of the GF. It works. It gets people interested, it has a sense of occassion. People love it, its THE popular sporting event on the Australian sporting calander. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
My vote.
- Moderator
- #308
I was going to reply to Dan on the other thread, but thought that should be left as much as possible for straight Yes/No votes. So this is a reply to Dan's comments on the other thread where he stated that mostly the ones who agree with him are the intelligent, rational posters.
Dan, I have reasoned logical arguments for voting against your system, which I have outlined before. Now I know you will write a lengthy reply and attempt to make me see the light with your oh-so-ever-more-logical-arguments-than-mine. However I believe my reasons are just as logical, just as passionately believed in and based on reasonable, rational thought. I also believe that for every argument you put up there is another counter argument.
I agree with you that finishing top spot should have more recognition. A suitable monetary award to the tune of $400,000-$500,000 to the top club. That alone makes it a prize worth striving for!
However I believe your proposal is flawed for several reasons.
My reasons are as follows:
1) I do not want the "season" broken into three seperate competitions. Pre-Season, H&A and post season.
2) It devalues the "Grand Final" as an event to the level of the pre-season Grand Final. For example, if the Brisbane Lions win the pre-season next February, well it will be nice but essentially it means nothing. The end of season competition (I will not call them 'finals') becomes similar. Will there be more prestige and kudos for the team winning the last match of the season, (essentially a lesser award under your proposal it appears) or the major premiership? For as you repeatedly say, surely the top team after 22 matches should be given the priority of the MAJOR premiership over a team winning four matches for a minor premiership.
3) I believe that while the current reward of a double chance for top spot has been diminished in recent years by the introduction of a final six and then a final eight, it can be addressed by methods other than Dan's. In my opinion, to restore a reasonable double chance as a reward for finishing in top spot, the finals should revert to a final five. So let's say Essendon win the double chance, go automatically into the second week, win that one (as you would expect) and go straight into the Grand Final.) Under a final five system a team finishing top spot need only win two matches in the final series to win the flag. A team finishing 2nd needs to win three, as does 3rd. They can still lose one match and still have a chance while 4th and 5th need to win four matches to win the GF. Lose one and they are out. Reverting to a final five and increasing the monetary award is in my view inherently better that the two competition system you are proposing. While we are at it, reduce the season from 22 to 15 weeks. Therefore we will have a 19 week season, with a final five. The top spot will get a effective double chance and the winner of the whole comp. will be decided over 19 weeks instead of the current 26. Instead of a current proportion of 15% of competition matches being finals, we would have a 21% proportion .
4) I do not want to know, perhaps weeks in advance who the 'premier' is going to be. This year for example there was no doubt from about Round 11 onwards who was going to finish at the top of the table. Sure in some years there will be close finishes, but in some eras under your system there may be many years perhaps where the premiership will be decided weeks in advance. With the major premiership effectively won, all other supporters of other clubs have to do is to sit around and wait for a knockout post season competition that is most likely to have less status that the Home and Away system and which my team even if they did struggle up to second could be knocked out in the first week! Where's the interest for me?
At least under the current system, as a follower of a lesser team than Essendon, I can follow the fortunes of my team with some interest, knowing that if they make the finals, the chance of winning the ultimate prize,is still there. Make the grand Final and who knows we may knock off the pace-setters. Ahhh, such is the unpredictability and excitement of the current system. Under your system Dan, the ULTIMATE prize has already been won, and all we have left is the chance of winning the last match of the year. Will coaches, players etc have the same urgency, spirit and fire in the post-season knockout competition knowing that the ULTIMATE PRIZE has already been won, or under the current system will they be pulling out all the stops to take that last step towards the "Holy Grail." (At this point I feel like breaking into a Hunter and Collectors song.)
We may as well have a one week post season one-off match with Teams 1 and 2 and make that an event (the Grand Final!). It will still be the last match, it will still be an event, it will do everything that Dan wants it to. However what is the point!!!! The 'real' competition has already been won and it could have been 'won' some weeks/months ago.
So in conclusion Dan, I oppose your proposal for the above reasons. I believe that should the competition structure be at fault (and I agree it is not perfect), there are better ways of rectifying them that introducing two completely seperate competitions. Reducing the finals back to a final five, reducing the season proper and introducing greater financial reward for top spot are far more realistic way to preserve all that is good about our current competition as well as addressing in part or in whole any imbalances/injustices etc.
To suggest on here that because I and others oppose your opinion that I/we are somehow less intelligent is a slight not only against me, but many other posters who obviously think about their football. I have three university degrees/diplomas, I am a few years under being double your age and I have been involved with AFL football clubs in a capacity for over twenty years. I estimate that when I started being closely involved with Fitzroy, you would have been about 3-4 years old. I don't doubt your capacity to think, or your right to have different opinions from my own..why then do you doubt mine, purely on the basis that I don't share the same opinion.
I've read all the posts on this topic. You are not going to convince me, especially when in my opinion there are more realistic and sensible ways to address your concerns. You might think I am resistant to change, but I don't believe that is so. I support reconciliation/Aboriginal land rights, I support the national competition, even though I lost my club as a result, I support player collective bargaining, I am one of the few that believe Colonial Stadium is a good idea and even though there are some initial problems it will come good. However I don't support change for change's sake. I have nothing against you personally and if nothing else you have convinced me or made me think more carefully about how we should recognise the 'minor' premiers. However your way is I believe, not the way.
Let the people decide!!!!
Dan, I have reasoned logical arguments for voting against your system, which I have outlined before. Now I know you will write a lengthy reply and attempt to make me see the light with your oh-so-ever-more-logical-arguments-than-mine. However I believe my reasons are just as logical, just as passionately believed in and based on reasonable, rational thought. I also believe that for every argument you put up there is another counter argument.
I agree with you that finishing top spot should have more recognition. A suitable monetary award to the tune of $400,000-$500,000 to the top club. That alone makes it a prize worth striving for!
However I believe your proposal is flawed for several reasons.
My reasons are as follows:
1) I do not want the "season" broken into three seperate competitions. Pre-Season, H&A and post season.
2) It devalues the "Grand Final" as an event to the level of the pre-season Grand Final. For example, if the Brisbane Lions win the pre-season next February, well it will be nice but essentially it means nothing. The end of season competition (I will not call them 'finals') becomes similar. Will there be more prestige and kudos for the team winning the last match of the season, (essentially a lesser award under your proposal it appears) or the major premiership? For as you repeatedly say, surely the top team after 22 matches should be given the priority of the MAJOR premiership over a team winning four matches for a minor premiership.
3) I believe that while the current reward of a double chance for top spot has been diminished in recent years by the introduction of a final six and then a final eight, it can be addressed by methods other than Dan's. In my opinion, to restore a reasonable double chance as a reward for finishing in top spot, the finals should revert to a final five. So let's say Essendon win the double chance, go automatically into the second week, win that one (as you would expect) and go straight into the Grand Final.) Under a final five system a team finishing top spot need only win two matches in the final series to win the flag. A team finishing 2nd needs to win three, as does 3rd. They can still lose one match and still have a chance while 4th and 5th need to win four matches to win the GF. Lose one and they are out. Reverting to a final five and increasing the monetary award is in my view inherently better that the two competition system you are proposing. While we are at it, reduce the season from 22 to 15 weeks. Therefore we will have a 19 week season, with a final five. The top spot will get a effective double chance and the winner of the whole comp. will be decided over 19 weeks instead of the current 26. Instead of a current proportion of 15% of competition matches being finals, we would have a 21% proportion .
4) I do not want to know, perhaps weeks in advance who the 'premier' is going to be. This year for example there was no doubt from about Round 11 onwards who was going to finish at the top of the table. Sure in some years there will be close finishes, but in some eras under your system there may be many years perhaps where the premiership will be decided weeks in advance. With the major premiership effectively won, all other supporters of other clubs have to do is to sit around and wait for a knockout post season competition that is most likely to have less status that the Home and Away system and which my team even if they did struggle up to second could be knocked out in the first week! Where's the interest for me?
At least under the current system, as a follower of a lesser team than Essendon, I can follow the fortunes of my team with some interest, knowing that if they make the finals, the chance of winning the ultimate prize,is still there. Make the grand Final and who knows we may knock off the pace-setters. Ahhh, such is the unpredictability and excitement of the current system. Under your system Dan, the ULTIMATE prize has already been won, and all we have left is the chance of winning the last match of the year. Will coaches, players etc have the same urgency, spirit and fire in the post-season knockout competition knowing that the ULTIMATE PRIZE has already been won, or under the current system will they be pulling out all the stops to take that last step towards the "Holy Grail." (At this point I feel like breaking into a Hunter and Collectors song.)
We may as well have a one week post season one-off match with Teams 1 and 2 and make that an event (the Grand Final!). It will still be the last match, it will still be an event, it will do everything that Dan wants it to. However what is the point!!!! The 'real' competition has already been won and it could have been 'won' some weeks/months ago.
So in conclusion Dan, I oppose your proposal for the above reasons. I believe that should the competition structure be at fault (and I agree it is not perfect), there are better ways of rectifying them that introducing two completely seperate competitions. Reducing the finals back to a final five, reducing the season proper and introducing greater financial reward for top spot are far more realistic way to preserve all that is good about our current competition as well as addressing in part or in whole any imbalances/injustices etc.
To suggest on here that because I and others oppose your opinion that I/we are somehow less intelligent is a slight not only against me, but many other posters who obviously think about their football. I have three university degrees/diplomas, I am a few years under being double your age and I have been involved with AFL football clubs in a capacity for over twenty years. I estimate that when I started being closely involved with Fitzroy, you would have been about 3-4 years old. I don't doubt your capacity to think, or your right to have different opinions from my own..why then do you doubt mine, purely on the basis that I don't share the same opinion.
I've read all the posts on this topic. You are not going to convince me, especially when in my opinion there are more realistic and sensible ways to address your concerns. You might think I am resistant to change, but I don't believe that is so. I support reconciliation/Aboriginal land rights, I support the national competition, even though I lost my club as a result, I support player collective bargaining, I am one of the few that believe Colonial Stadium is a good idea and even though there are some initial problems it will come good. However I don't support change for change's sake. I have nothing against you personally and if nothing else you have convinced me or made me think more carefully about how we should recognise the 'minor' premiers. However your way is I believe, not the way.
Let the people decide!!!!
Roylion
I think you have said before that we share similar concerns so I wont repeat what I thought was an excellent post (especially as you are clearly coming from a intellectual disadvantage in that you disagree).
I have also thought about a 15 week comp, but not with a final 5. It has the advantage of allowing more time for the finals which would then allow for teams to play each other more than once (1 home, 1 away).
Ultimately I don't support a 15 round H&A as it has more negatives than positives, but it is interesting to play around.
ptw
I think you have said before that we share similar concerns so I wont repeat what I thought was an excellent post (especially as you are clearly coming from a intellectual disadvantage in that you disagree).
I have also thought about a 15 week comp, but not with a final 5. It has the advantage of allowing more time for the finals which would then allow for teams to play each other more than once (1 home, 1 away).
Ultimately I don't support a 15 round H&A as it has more negatives than positives, but it is interesting to play around.
ptw
Yeah, more prize money would be good.
Well while "officially" the H&A season and the finals series the same "competition", unofficially they really act as though they are seperate. Here's why.
If the finals series is a continuation of the H&A series then why are there different rules for each. For example, if there is no "extra time" period in the H&A season why is the an "extra time" period in the finals. Well in the first three weeks anyway.
The "end of season finals" as you put it, would not be the same as the ansett cup. And here's why.
The Ansett Cup is played before the season starts. Thus clubs often(but not always)put out sides "full" of young players so as to give them a taste of how top class footy is played. Coaches also use these games to "test" different positions for various players.
In addition, clubs often tend to not play their "franchise" players in case those players get injured and subsequently miss the H&A season.
So often the teams that make the semi-finals or finals are not reflective of the best teams in the competition.
On the other hand if the new end of season finals system were implemented, the finals would have the best teams from the league competing in it because through five or six months of matches of the regular season the "good" teams can be seperated from the "not so good" teams.
Furthermore, because the finals would be played at the end of the H&A season, clubs would not have to "rest" the best players from their teams since they will have 6 to 7 months to recover if any injuries would happen. This is not to say that coaches would rest players anyway.
Even with the final five system with double chances, the top of the ladder team can lose in the grand final where the double chance can't even be used.
In reality, finals games should not have double chances since that goes against the principle of what finals are about.
This happened this year (and in other seasons as well), where we were all just waiting for the finals to begin.
In addition, when the season is much more closer between the top teams and the lower teams imagine the excitment (if the "new" system were implemented) of the last few rounds if you, your team that is, loses or draws a game and that result means you might not be able to finish on top.
Why wouldn't the coaches and players "not be pulling out all of the stops" to win the end of season finals.
Presently, coaches pull out everything in the H&A season, which at the end of the 22 rounds, basically means "nothing". So why wouldn't they(the coaches)have all the urgency in winning the "new" finals series. They would, in my opinion, because it is the best 8 teams in the country battling it out, in a knockout basis, for the "glory" of winning an elite finals series and to participate in the last match of the season.
The people won't decide. It will probably be the AFL and the coaches.
- Moderator
- #311
Same Olds said....,If the finals series is a continuation of the H&A series then why are there different rules for each. For example, if there is no "extra time" period in the H&A season why is the an "extra time" period in the finals. Well in the first three weeks anyway.
There is ONE different rule to avoid the possibility of draws. There is no doubt they are the same competition (officially or not) as the prize/reward all clubs are striving for competition (to win the competition) is the same as in Week 1 of the finals as Round 1 of the H&A.
Same Olds said, "On the other hand if the new end of season finals system were implemented, the finals would have the best teams from the league competing in it because through five or six months of matches of the regular season the "good" teams can be seperated from the "not so good" teams.
Furthermore, because the finals would be played at the end of the H&A season, clubs would not have to "rest" the best players from their teams since they will have 6 to 7 months to recover if any injuries would happen. This is not to say that coaches would rest players anyway."
They are not finals! It will be a completely different competition. I don't believe coaches and players will take it as seriously as they do now. Players with niggling injuries will take the opportunity to rest, players who might be on the verge of coming back from serious injury will most likely continue to rest. The State of Origin was supposed to be the showpiece of Australian football and a high honor and yet elite players use the week as an opportunity to rest and recover. Would the same happen if the State of Origin was held at the end of the year? I believe so. There is no guarantee that the end of season competition will not go the same way. There is unlikely to be the desperation to win as the major competition as the real/major premiership has already been won!
Same Olds said: Even with the final five system with double chances, the top of the ladder team can lose in the grand final where the double chance can't even be used.
One of the attractions of our competition and indeed the Australian ethos, is the underdog that takes the prize against all odds. That is one of the main attractions in my view of watching sport..... any sport. Many of the most stirring moments in sport have come from a David defeating a Goliath. Finishing on top of the ladder stacks the odds of winning the flag heavily for that team....maybe not as heavily as it used to (and this is a problem).
Same Olds said "This happened this year (and in other seasons as well), where we were all just waiting for the finals to begin.
Speak for yourself. I take it you are an Essendon supporter. Even though top spot was decided, for me the competition was not yet over, as it would be under Dan's system. First there was the added interest of seeing whether Brisbane would make the finals, then what position they would finish in and then whether they could win enough matches to come up against Essendon and possibly against the odds win. Under Dan's system I woudn't really care where we finished, to compete in a four week end of season competition as the system is ALL knockout. Therefore my interest in the competition would be lessened and I would be less likely to go along and watch a do or die match. What for! The competition has already been won! At least the interest of finishing as high as possible means that my team could pick up a possible double chance and if so even if my team loses a match in the finals there is the possibility of living to fight another day (the next week). As well as that we are still striving for the competition prize.
Same Olds said: "In addition, when the season is much more closer between the top teams and the lower teams imagine the excitment (if the "new" system were implemented) of the last few rounds if you, your team that is, loses or draws a game and that result means you might not be able to finish on top."
Yes, that would be quite right, when the season is close and in most years would only be between two or three teams anyway. However what about the years when it is not close? There is plenty of excitement at the moment as each team strives to get as high as possible and a more favorable position including a possible top four position and double chance.
Same Olds said Why wouldn't the coaches and players "not be pulling out all of the stops" to win the end of season finals.
Because they are not finals! It is a seperate end of season competition. The ultimate prize, the flag whatever has already been won!
Same Olds said "Presently, coaches pull out everything in the H&A season, which at the end of the 22 rounds, basically means "nothing". So why wouldn't they(the coaches)have all the urgency in winning the "new" finals series. They would, in my opinion, because it is the best 8 teams in the country battling it out, in a knockout basis, for the "glory" of winning an elite finals series and to participate in the last match of the season."
The ultimate prize, the major prize, the Cup, the flag, whatever you want to call it has been decided. Presently at the end of 22 rounds, the competition winner still has to be decided, thereby giving players, coaches, officials and supporters motivation in order to be a part of the premier team. However under Dan's system, after the major premier has been decided, I don't believe the same motivation will be there. I know my enthusiasm for a four week completely seperate post season competition...(they are not finals) would be less.
Same Olds said: The people won't decide. It will probably be the AFL and the coaches.
Of course. I meant the people on this board. The AFL has shown by the re-scheduling of their 2001 fixture that they are willing to consider the public's opinion. The vote on the Big Footy Board will be perhaps be a pointer to what the wider Australian Football Public thinks if any proposal such as this ever is seriusly proposed.
There is ONE different rule to avoid the possibility of draws. There is no doubt they are the same competition (officially or not) as the prize/reward all clubs are striving for competition (to win the competition) is the same as in Week 1 of the finals as Round 1 of the H&A.
Same Olds said, "On the other hand if the new end of season finals system were implemented, the finals would have the best teams from the league competing in it because through five or six months of matches of the regular season the "good" teams can be seperated from the "not so good" teams.
Furthermore, because the finals would be played at the end of the H&A season, clubs would not have to "rest" the best players from their teams since they will have 6 to 7 months to recover if any injuries would happen. This is not to say that coaches would rest players anyway."
They are not finals! It will be a completely different competition. I don't believe coaches and players will take it as seriously as they do now. Players with niggling injuries will take the opportunity to rest, players who might be on the verge of coming back from serious injury will most likely continue to rest. The State of Origin was supposed to be the showpiece of Australian football and a high honor and yet elite players use the week as an opportunity to rest and recover. Would the same happen if the State of Origin was held at the end of the year? I believe so. There is no guarantee that the end of season competition will not go the same way. There is unlikely to be the desperation to win as the major competition as the real/major premiership has already been won!
Same Olds said: Even with the final five system with double chances, the top of the ladder team can lose in the grand final where the double chance can't even be used.
One of the attractions of our competition and indeed the Australian ethos, is the underdog that takes the prize against all odds. That is one of the main attractions in my view of watching sport..... any sport. Many of the most stirring moments in sport have come from a David defeating a Goliath. Finishing on top of the ladder stacks the odds of winning the flag heavily for that team....maybe not as heavily as it used to (and this is a problem).
Same Olds said "This happened this year (and in other seasons as well), where we were all just waiting for the finals to begin.
Speak for yourself. I take it you are an Essendon supporter. Even though top spot was decided, for me the competition was not yet over, as it would be under Dan's system. First there was the added interest of seeing whether Brisbane would make the finals, then what position they would finish in and then whether they could win enough matches to come up against Essendon and possibly against the odds win. Under Dan's system I woudn't really care where we finished, to compete in a four week end of season competition as the system is ALL knockout. Therefore my interest in the competition would be lessened and I would be less likely to go along and watch a do or die match. What for! The competition has already been won! At least the interest of finishing as high as possible means that my team could pick up a possible double chance and if so even if my team loses a match in the finals there is the possibility of living to fight another day (the next week). As well as that we are still striving for the competition prize.
Same Olds said: "In addition, when the season is much more closer between the top teams and the lower teams imagine the excitment (if the "new" system were implemented) of the last few rounds if you, your team that is, loses or draws a game and that result means you might not be able to finish on top."
Yes, that would be quite right, when the season is close and in most years would only be between two or three teams anyway. However what about the years when it is not close? There is plenty of excitement at the moment as each team strives to get as high as possible and a more favorable position including a possible top four position and double chance.
Same Olds said Why wouldn't the coaches and players "not be pulling out all of the stops" to win the end of season finals.
Because they are not finals! It is a seperate end of season competition. The ultimate prize, the flag whatever has already been won!
Same Olds said "Presently, coaches pull out everything in the H&A season, which at the end of the 22 rounds, basically means "nothing". So why wouldn't they(the coaches)have all the urgency in winning the "new" finals series. They would, in my opinion, because it is the best 8 teams in the country battling it out, in a knockout basis, for the "glory" of winning an elite finals series and to participate in the last match of the season."
The ultimate prize, the major prize, the Cup, the flag, whatever you want to call it has been decided. Presently at the end of 22 rounds, the competition winner still has to be decided, thereby giving players, coaches, officials and supporters motivation in order to be a part of the premier team. However under Dan's system, after the major premier has been decided, I don't believe the same motivation will be there. I know my enthusiasm for a four week completely seperate post season competition...(they are not finals) would be less.
Same Olds said: The people won't decide. It will probably be the AFL and the coaches.
Of course. I meant the people on this board. The AFL has shown by the re-scheduling of their 2001 fixture that they are willing to consider the public's opinion. The vote on the Big Footy Board will be perhaps be a pointer to what the wider Australian Football Public thinks if any proposal such as this ever is seriusly proposed.
Thank god for Same old's.
I was going to repeat much of what he said, but now I don't have to ! Phew !!!
Same Old's, has summed it up perfectly.
The point YOU miss Roylion, is the fact that it is "unofficially" a seperate competition anyway. You have spent some time saying how it is one 26 week season, with the result in doubt until the last week of the season.
Now look, under the current system (yes CURRENT), you cannot win the premiership during the home and away. It's imposible. It simply can't be done. You can go 22-0, and it won't mean shit, unfortunately. You can ONLY win the flag ONCE the finals series starts. So, effectively, they are seperate right now (unofficially). Can't you see this? Therefore, why not have the H&A, which is currently irrelevant and forgotten once the finals start, as something to aspire to win in it's own right?
Does ManU winning top spot affect "enjoyment" of the seperate FA CUP at all? Of course not ! Under my system, the "knockout tournament" will be the only part of the seaosn where a trophy hinges on the result of one match. It won't lose anything. The mere fact, that it is knockout (the H&A obviously isn't knockout) ensures it will maintain excitement and enthusiasm from the footy public. In many people eyes, the FA CUP, whilst it is not the major prize, is more exciting than the "top spot" premiership. Our Grand Final would be similar.
Currently, teams that can't finish top, have nothing to play for in the home and away. They just have to wait until the finals start. You go on about how their season is still alive. It's only alive once the finals start. Well, under mine, they will still be able to attempt to qualify for the seperate tournament (like qualifying for the champions league in soccer), by finishing in the top 8.
Make no mistake, the Grand Final will always be huge. You seem to think it won't be. It is part of our culture. By definition, it has never decided the "premier" team anyway (by definition premier means best).
Anyway, I can twist your argument around the other way. Imagine the excitment of a home and away season with top spot up for grabs at round 22. Over the last 100 years, this hasn't meant anything. Sure, the top team often got a double cahnce, but so what ? They can still lose the Grand Final and be eliminated after one loss anyway !!! You only seem to mention the negatives to suit yourself, and conveniently forget the positives. Never mind that 95% of the season will actually mean something from now on, in addition to KEEPING the Grand Final as an event as it has been for the last 100 years(FA CUP style)
I believe your final 5 analysis is wrong. I've said it before that the finals should have all 8 teams treated equally, with no double chances. Currently, if the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF,or he GF, then why can't they be eliminated after one loss in the first week too !! Same diff. Essendon beat the Roos by 125 points and our reward was a knockout PF and GF. Meanwhile the Roos, who finished 4th got a double chance.
No, I'm sorry, double chances are stuffed up. If the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF and the GF, they also should be able to be eliminated after one loss in the first week (they would be playing 8th, of course). Of all the points I make, I think that is one of the most obvious !!!
I was going to repeat much of what he said, but now I don't have to ! Phew !!!
Same Old's, has summed it up perfectly.
The point YOU miss Roylion, is the fact that it is "unofficially" a seperate competition anyway. You have spent some time saying how it is one 26 week season, with the result in doubt until the last week of the season.
Now look, under the current system (yes CURRENT), you cannot win the premiership during the home and away. It's imposible. It simply can't be done. You can go 22-0, and it won't mean shit, unfortunately. You can ONLY win the flag ONCE the finals series starts. So, effectively, they are seperate right now (unofficially). Can't you see this? Therefore, why not have the H&A, which is currently irrelevant and forgotten once the finals start, as something to aspire to win in it's own right?
Does ManU winning top spot affect "enjoyment" of the seperate FA CUP at all? Of course not ! Under my system, the "knockout tournament" will be the only part of the seaosn where a trophy hinges on the result of one match. It won't lose anything. The mere fact, that it is knockout (the H&A obviously isn't knockout) ensures it will maintain excitement and enthusiasm from the footy public. In many people eyes, the FA CUP, whilst it is not the major prize, is more exciting than the "top spot" premiership. Our Grand Final would be similar.
Currently, teams that can't finish top, have nothing to play for in the home and away. They just have to wait until the finals start. You go on about how their season is still alive. It's only alive once the finals start. Well, under mine, they will still be able to attempt to qualify for the seperate tournament (like qualifying for the champions league in soccer), by finishing in the top 8.
Make no mistake, the Grand Final will always be huge. You seem to think it won't be. It is part of our culture. By definition, it has never decided the "premier" team anyway (by definition premier means best).
Anyway, I can twist your argument around the other way. Imagine the excitment of a home and away season with top spot up for grabs at round 22. Over the last 100 years, this hasn't meant anything. Sure, the top team often got a double cahnce, but so what ? They can still lose the Grand Final and be eliminated after one loss anyway !!! You only seem to mention the negatives to suit yourself, and conveniently forget the positives. Never mind that 95% of the season will actually mean something from now on, in addition to KEEPING the Grand Final as an event as it has been for the last 100 years(FA CUP style)
I believe your final 5 analysis is wrong. I've said it before that the finals should have all 8 teams treated equally, with no double chances. Currently, if the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF,or he GF, then why can't they be eliminated after one loss in the first week too !! Same diff. Essendon beat the Roos by 125 points and our reward was a knockout PF and GF. Meanwhile the Roos, who finished 4th got a double chance.
No, I'm sorry, double chances are stuffed up. If the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF and the GF, they also should be able to be eliminated after one loss in the first week (they would be playing 8th, of course). Of all the points I make, I think that is one of the most obvious !!!
Dan
If the season is presently 26 weeks long, then stating that a team cannot win after 22 is not saying anything at all. Under your system the season is 22 weeks long. You can't win the premiership after 15...so what ??? Under the present system there is of course still reason to play even if you can't finish top, as you still have a chance to win the flag, whilst you have a chance to make the eight. Teams in third place after 17 rounds who can't fnish top are not just biding their time until the finals, they are in fact trying to finish second as it gives them some advantage for the last 4 weeks of the season.Under your system, the team in the same situation really has nothing to play for as they cannot win the flag come what may.
Your comments about double chances miss just one point (generally I agree with you on this). The double chance means nothing if you win...agreed. In the 1st week of the finals Essendon won so they did not need to use their double chance. For North it did mean something. So they are useless when you win but come in handy when you lose....that is the whole idea. Essendon could still be knocked out with one loss, but not in the first game, which is still of some advantage.
ptw
If the season is presently 26 weeks long, then stating that a team cannot win after 22 is not saying anything at all. Under your system the season is 22 weeks long. You can't win the premiership after 15...so what ??? Under the present system there is of course still reason to play even if you can't finish top, as you still have a chance to win the flag, whilst you have a chance to make the eight. Teams in third place after 17 rounds who can't fnish top are not just biding their time until the finals, they are in fact trying to finish second as it gives them some advantage for the last 4 weeks of the season.Under your system, the team in the same situation really has nothing to play for as they cannot win the flag come what may.
Your comments about double chances miss just one point (generally I agree with you on this). The double chance means nothing if you win...agreed. In the 1st week of the finals Essendon won so they did not need to use their double chance. For North it did mean something. So they are useless when you win but come in handy when you lose....that is the whole idea. Essendon could still be knocked out with one loss, but not in the first game, which is still of some advantage.
ptw
- Moderator
- #314
The point YOU miss Dan, is the fact that there is no "winner" of the competition until after the Grand Final. The winner of the competition is not known until approximately 5.00 pm on the last Saturday in September. Rightly or wrongly, (rightly in my view) at the moment, the Home and Away and the finals system are part of the SAME competition, despite the fact that in the finals component of the SAME competition, the format is different. Players still get credit for playing senior football for their club in finals, the same as they do in Home and Away matches. It's interesting that they don't get credit for senior games with their club for Ansett Cup matches, which is clearly a seperate competition. This is because finals and Home and Away are regarded as the same senior competition.
Sure the Grand Final is huge. Why? Because it is the culmination of the season, where the prize that clubs have striven for so long is decided. The last two teams left standing from the final eeight who themselves battled for supremacy over 22 weeks are striving for that position.
Dan would you agree that if the State of Origin (where the best footballers in the land play) was held after the Grand Final as was the finals match of the season, that it would become a hugely popular one-off match simply because it was the last/final match of the season. I doubt it? What are they playing for? A bit of fun. Which is more important a four week knockout competition amongst half of our AFL sides or a 26 week season where all sides compete and then some are eliminated through various means?
Sure there may be excitement in some years under your system, but my guess is that there would many 'boring' years. If 2000 had been the year your system had been introduced it would have been one of the most boring years on record. I would have lost interest months ago...because I know who the winner was going to be. Moreover I wouldn't be looking forward to the 2001 season as much either because there is a fair chance that Essendon is going to decide the premiership weeks in advance of Round 22. At least under the present system, there is some interest even if this occurred, because Essendon have NOT won the competition. That is yet to be won and if I qualify it could be my team that does it.
Under a final five system Dan, your victory over the Roos by 125 points would have propelled you into the Grand Final, with a week's rest, after a weeks rest, while all the other clubs battle it oout. Now even if the Grand Final were a knockout, if Essendon (who finished on top and were clearly the best team, had two weeks rest to get players to recover from niggling injuries, freshen up battle weary legs, etc.) could not win the game against a side (that may have played three hard finals games possibly suffering injuries on the way etc.,) then perhaps they don't deserve to be called the year's best team anyway. However upsets do occur and this is one of the things that makes our existing competition so exciting.
Sure the Grand Final is huge. Why? Because it is the culmination of the season, where the prize that clubs have striven for so long is decided. The last two teams left standing from the final eeight who themselves battled for supremacy over 22 weeks are striving for that position.
Dan would you agree that if the State of Origin (where the best footballers in the land play) was held after the Grand Final as was the finals match of the season, that it would become a hugely popular one-off match simply because it was the last/final match of the season. I doubt it? What are they playing for? A bit of fun. Which is more important a four week knockout competition amongst half of our AFL sides or a 26 week season where all sides compete and then some are eliminated through various means?
Sure there may be excitement in some years under your system, but my guess is that there would many 'boring' years. If 2000 had been the year your system had been introduced it would have been one of the most boring years on record. I would have lost interest months ago...because I know who the winner was going to be. Moreover I wouldn't be looking forward to the 2001 season as much either because there is a fair chance that Essendon is going to decide the premiership weeks in advance of Round 22. At least under the present system, there is some interest even if this occurred, because Essendon have NOT won the competition. That is yet to be won and if I qualify it could be my team that does it.
Under a final five system Dan, your victory over the Roos by 125 points would have propelled you into the Grand Final, with a week's rest, after a weeks rest, while all the other clubs battle it oout. Now even if the Grand Final were a knockout, if Essendon (who finished on top and were clearly the best team, had two weeks rest to get players to recover from niggling injuries, freshen up battle weary legs, etc.) could not win the game against a side (that may have played three hard finals games possibly suffering injuries on the way etc.,) then perhaps they don't deserve to be called the year's best team anyway. However upsets do occur and this is one of the things that makes our existing competition so exciting.
Grrrrrrrrr
Roylion, why in the hell do you keep bringing up the Ansett Cup. This is a PRE-SEASON competition. It is NOT part of the season. It is pre-season. It is held before the season starts. In my system, there are TWO trophys to win, in two competitions with BOTH of these competitions being part of the season. They are NOT pre-season. Your State-of-Origin comment is irrelevant.
You continually ignore the facts I bring up about the FA CUP. The FA CUP is not the biggest thing to win, yet it is still massive. However, because it is a one-off match and it decided a trophy BASED ON THAT ONE MATCH, it is huge. In mnay people eyes, it is more exciting than the top spot stuff, even though the top spot stuffhas already been won by the time the FA CUP final takes place.
This year wouldn't have been un-exciting as you put it. Let's look what would have happened. Essendon would have wrapped up the home and away premiership by Round 19. What actually happened was that Essendon hadn't won the "whole season" yet, but the H&A season was still in your eyes, boring, because we were just playing out time until the finals start. The premiership currenly canot be won UNTIUL the 4 week tournament starts. SEE ! THAT'S WHY IT'S SEPERATE NOW, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. The 22 weeks is declared irreleant once the finals begin, therefore the current GF winner (even Essendon this year) has really only won a 4 week tournament. Essendon got no credit for 21 wins which is utterly stupid.
In my system, the knockut finals would begin, which would be what many people would be waiting for, since they are knockout, and therefore more exciting. It also just features the best 8 teams - it cuts out the crap. Essendon would be attempting to do the "double". Everyone would be wondering if they could win the 4 week tournament to add to their home and away premiership. If another team won the GF, so be it. If that happend, that team would get the glory of winning on that one special day. The Grand Final is the Grand Final. Yet, Esendon would still have won "something", which indicated that they were the best.
You seem to think that the FA CUP lacks something since it isn't the main thing to win, and the top spot premiership has already been decided. This isn't the case, and you of all people should know this. The FA CUP is huge because it is an event and it is the last match of the seaosn, and the culmination of a knockout tournament. Yet, apparently, you don't seem to acknowledge this.
Do you think Chelseas were "diappointed" that they "only" won the FA CUP? Do you think the coaching staff didn't take the FA CUP final seriously since the "top spot" premiership had alreadty ben decided ? Do you think Chelsea fielded a below strength team since the top spot stuff had already been won ? Of course not.
My finals series is the culmination of the season They have 6 months before the start of the next season, so obviously they will be going hell for leather. It's the Grand Final, for crying out loud. There is no next week.....liteally.
The other VERY important point, is that for 100 years, the fans havn't really cared about the title of "premiers". They just want to win the Grand Final match. They don't care if they are not the best, they just want to win that match for the glory. It's the same in England. While everyone wants to win the main prize (top spot), if there was ONE PARTICULAR ONE-OFF GAME that the fans could choose to win, it would be the FA CUP. In the AFL, the GF has not necessaarily gone to the best team anyway, so calling them "whole season champions" is an insult to the fans intelligence.....including yours.
If Essendon finish 8th, I don't WANT to be called whole season champions. After finishing 8th, I would be quite happy to get GF glory and bragging rights and be calld "finals series champions". I want to "EARN" the title of premiers. I don't want to fluke it.
You are grossly underestimting how huge the GF will still be. The fans love the glory and 'event' of Grand Final day. So, what if they're not caled 'whole season" premiers? This has never been important anyway. The Grand Final is about the MOMENT. It's a one-off match over 2 hours. You are grossly undervaluing the MOMENT of the Grand Final.
Chilli Afterglow
Senior List
- Dec 1, 2000
- 234
- 2
Dan24
How can something unofficial be a fact? Are you passing subjective opinion off as facts again Dan?
The finals series is not a separate competition. It is an extension on the home and away season. They are entirely related to each other. The finishing positions of the top 8 sides after the home and away series is the starting positions for the finals.
Now that is a fact!
Conversely the Ansett Cup and the Home and Away series ARE separate competitions. They actually bear no relevance to each other. Therefore it is right to view these as separate tournaments.
------------------
So much for the afterglow
How can something unofficial be a fact? Are you passing subjective opinion off as facts again Dan?
The finals series is not a separate competition. It is an extension on the home and away season. They are entirely related to each other. The finishing positions of the top 8 sides after the home and away series is the starting positions for the finals.
Now that is a fact!
Conversely the Ansett Cup and the Home and Away series ARE separate competitions. They actually bear no relevance to each other. Therefore it is right to view these as separate tournaments.
------------------
So much for the afterglow
I've never stated that there not "officially" the same competition, however you shouldn't have different rules if they are the same. Over the 26 weeks, the same rules and regulations should apply.
That "David vs Golith" analogy you used would be even more approriate if the new system were implemented. For instance, imagine the top team(the champions) losing to the 8th place team. It would create major headlines while under the current system (well, the previous MacIntyre system from '94-'99) it wouldn't because there would be a double chance senario.
To further my piont the "David vs Goliath" senario can not happen under the current system. The top of the ladder team cannot be called Goliath because they haven't even won the competion as you've stated before. That senario can only really happen if the new system were implemented. Case in piont, the F.A. Cup, that's were this senerio can happen and not in the regular season.
Roylion,
Are you basing your judgement on whether or not a particular system is better on whether it is more exciting? I think it is a wrong way to have a system that is based primarily on "excitement" and not "fairness". That is not say that the new system would not be exciting. It would since your adding something to the regular season, the part of the season where the vast majority of games are played.
However a system that is put in place needs to find the "best" team of the season and reward them adequately and that is what the season is really all about.
Well in years that it is not close, it's just not close. Clubs will still be trying to get into the end of season finals anyway. The upside of this is when the finals come around the lower placed teams have even more incentive to beat the H&A champs, since they would be ovewhelming favorites.
Nevertheless, the majority of seasons are close and thus would go right down to the wire in the last few rounds. Thus, winning games would be of the utmost importance.
Imagine how much more exciting and thrilling would the 1987 season would have been if the new system were in place.
As I stated before coaches put in 100% time and effort into winning games in the H&A season even if their team has secured a finals position. I don't think this would change if the new finals syste were implace.
I think your confusing that the winner of the grand final is "undisputedly" the best team of the season. But as a lot of people have said, the best team doesn't necessarily win the grand final. Coaches and teams know this.
[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 07 December 2000).]
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Moderator
- #320
Same Olds, I disagree with all of your points. However we are now just going around in circles. I believe I have a logical counter argument, just as you and Dan believe you have a counter argument to anyone who disagrees with you. We have different viewpoints on this and we're not going to convince each other. I am just as convinced I am right, as you are. So be it.
In my view the Home and Away top team can be rewarded in other ways, that preserve the good things about our existing competition. Under a final five system the top team is rewarded by only having to play twice in the finals to win the flag. Coupled with a significant financial reward, this is not only fair, but enables other teams in the finals to maintain a chance of winning by upsetting the leading team (e.g 2000's Essendon.. who could only be a called a Goliath at the end of H & A season). If Essendon for example are truly the best team then with a week's rest they should be able to win in the seoc dweek and progress straight to the Grand Final in a fortnight.
Coaches put in 100% more time and effort into winning games in the Home and Away season because to maximise their chance of winning the flag they need to finish as high as possible, either to secure the double chance or to play a weaker opponent. The trophy/title is yet to be won. If the comp was seperate it is my view that with the major trophy won, there will be less incentive to win a four week post season tournament. Don't call them finals. Under your system there is no possible way they could ever be called 'finals' to a competition. It is a contradiction in terms, as it is a new separate competition with a different trophy/prize
Let's leave it at that. (Probably fat chance knowing Dan). I am definitely not conceding defeat, but I think none of us has anything new to add to the debate. We both think we are right. Let's agree to disagree.
In my view the Home and Away top team can be rewarded in other ways, that preserve the good things about our existing competition. Under a final five system the top team is rewarded by only having to play twice in the finals to win the flag. Coupled with a significant financial reward, this is not only fair, but enables other teams in the finals to maintain a chance of winning by upsetting the leading team (e.g 2000's Essendon.. who could only be a called a Goliath at the end of H & A season). If Essendon for example are truly the best team then with a week's rest they should be able to win in the seoc dweek and progress straight to the Grand Final in a fortnight.
Coaches put in 100% more time and effort into winning games in the Home and Away season because to maximise their chance of winning the flag they need to finish as high as possible, either to secure the double chance or to play a weaker opponent. The trophy/title is yet to be won. If the comp was seperate it is my view that with the major trophy won, there will be less incentive to win a four week post season tournament. Don't call them finals. Under your system there is no possible way they could ever be called 'finals' to a competition. It is a contradiction in terms, as it is a new separate competition with a different trophy/prize
Let's leave it at that. (Probably fat chance knowing Dan). I am definitely not conceding defeat, but I think none of us has anything new to add to the debate. We both think we are right. Let's agree to disagree.
Roylion,
The other thing I want to say, is that a double chance is a terrible reward for 22 weeks of hard work. That's all you get for 22 weeks of winning ? A second chance that you may not even get if you lose the GF ?
A more fitting reward would be to be called "home and away" champions.
They simply HAVE to be separate Roylion, since having them linked as one big 26 week tournament makes the H&A a "means to an end". It shouldn't be a means to an end, since it become irrelevant once the finals begin (which, as I've said, effectively makes them seperate now, unofficially anyway !!!!)
We have both told you how the Grand Final won't lose anything. I have said how the "moment" of the GF is what counts. Both Same Old's and I have mentioned how the FA CUP is huge in it's won right even though the top spot premiership has been won. But still, you can't be convinced !!
If you disagree, I'd really like to know why. I'd love to see you respond to Same Old's post, where he went over every one of your points logically rebutting all of them (yes logically). Perhaps, if you go over his post and try to rebut his rebuttal, then you will finally see !!! While you're attempting your rebuttal, you'll probably say to yourself, :"Hey, they're right. I get it now"
The other thing I want to say, is that a double chance is a terrible reward for 22 weeks of hard work. That's all you get for 22 weeks of winning ? A second chance that you may not even get if you lose the GF ?
A more fitting reward would be to be called "home and away" champions.
They simply HAVE to be separate Roylion, since having them linked as one big 26 week tournament makes the H&A a "means to an end". It shouldn't be a means to an end, since it become irrelevant once the finals begin (which, as I've said, effectively makes them seperate now, unofficially anyway !!!!)
We have both told you how the Grand Final won't lose anything. I have said how the "moment" of the GF is what counts. Both Same Old's and I have mentioned how the FA CUP is huge in it's won right even though the top spot premiership has been won. But still, you can't be convinced !!
If you disagree, I'd really like to know why. I'd love to see you respond to Same Old's post, where he went over every one of your points logically rebutting all of them (yes logically). Perhaps, if you go over his post and try to rebut his rebuttal, then you will finally see !!! While you're attempting your rebuttal, you'll probably say to yourself, :"Hey, they're right. I get it now"
How can you disgree with EVERYTHING he said, . Come on !!!
His David and Goliath rebuttal was a perfect response to your initial response. Perfect. He said the david and Goliath battle will still be there (which it will), yet for some obscure reason, which i don't understand, you don't agree.
So, is there ANYTHING we have said that you agree with? Anything?
His David and Goliath rebuttal was a perfect response to your initial response. Perfect. He said the david and Goliath battle will still be there (which it will), yet for some obscure reason, which i don't understand, you don't agree.
So, is there ANYTHING we have said that you agree with? Anything?
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #323
You fools are laying all your eggs in the FA cup basket.
You are also suggesting our new 4 week tiddly winks final series would rank alongside the FA cup in importance.
Would you imagine that players of sides 2-8 would be playing the finals series every bit as hard as they did the real prize "the majestic home and away premiership?"
Half the crowds and half the T.V sets around Australia would have been turned off half way through the 2000 season if this system was in place. Some would have returned as a matter of interest to see how their team fared in the race for the consolation prize but there would not be nearly as much passion for a prize that could be sneezed at by another club.
Dan, you say the.......oh, excuse me...Grrrrr!!!!! That's the appropriate response now isn't it???? You say that Grand Final is part of our culture and would remain so. Well, you are changing that culture. How could even you, "the great NostraDANus" foresee this change having no affect on the Grand Final. Maybe it is so deeply ingrained in our culture because of it's significance? That of the premiership decider!!!! Do you think nobody would go to the Grand Final if it wasn't such an event. Take away the dancing children, the parades, the reminiscing voiceovers and the celebrity national anthem, would people say, no thanks, not for me? No! People would go in droves because it was the fight for the ultimate prize in football. Not the fight for the consolation also rans.
Now jump up and down, rattle your chains and shriek loudly, I still see you as a silly man with his Mother's best sheet over his head with one eye cut out.
To all others
I will be departing the scene for a few weeks as of tonight or tomorrow. (not jail or anything extreme, just moving, new job, and a lack of funds for telephone lines etc).(maybe those $5 a minute shopping centre internet hit and runs..hmmm).
I implore you Grendel, leave the post going so I can come back refreshed for post 700 or something.
------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body
You are also suggesting our new 4 week tiddly winks final series would rank alongside the FA cup in importance.
Would you imagine that players of sides 2-8 would be playing the finals series every bit as hard as they did the real prize "the majestic home and away premiership?"
Half the crowds and half the T.V sets around Australia would have been turned off half way through the 2000 season if this system was in place. Some would have returned as a matter of interest to see how their team fared in the race for the consolation prize but there would not be nearly as much passion for a prize that could be sneezed at by another club.
Dan, you say the.......oh, excuse me...Grrrrr!!!!! That's the appropriate response now isn't it???? You say that Grand Final is part of our culture and would remain so. Well, you are changing that culture. How could even you, "the great NostraDANus" foresee this change having no affect on the Grand Final. Maybe it is so deeply ingrained in our culture because of it's significance? That of the premiership decider!!!! Do you think nobody would go to the Grand Final if it wasn't such an event. Take away the dancing children, the parades, the reminiscing voiceovers and the celebrity national anthem, would people say, no thanks, not for me? No! People would go in droves because it was the fight for the ultimate prize in football. Not the fight for the consolation also rans.
Now jump up and down, rattle your chains and shriek loudly, I still see you as a silly man with his Mother's best sheet over his head with one eye cut out.
To all others
I will be departing the scene for a few weeks as of tonight or tomorrow. (not jail or anything extreme, just moving, new job, and a lack of funds for telephone lines etc).(maybe those $5 a minute shopping centre internet hit and runs..hmmm).
I implore you Grendel, leave the post going so I can come back refreshed for post 700 or something.
------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body
I think that Dan makes a valid point (I will wash my mouth out later) that the team that finsihes first needs more recognition. But I feel that this should be achieved either by:
ONE:
Going all the way with the analogy of Premiership/FA Cup. Have them as two completely seperate competitions. In your proposal Dan, they are still linked, because you have to finish in the top eight to compete in the Cup. So, have a winner takes all league, and a cup to replace the finals and ansett cup, maybe expanding it and inviting teams from outside the AFL for their moment of glory. This is too dramatic a change I feel.
TWO:
Reworking the finals system to better reward the higher finishing teams, and reducing the number of teams in the finals.
ONE:
Going all the way with the analogy of Premiership/FA Cup. Have them as two completely seperate competitions. In your proposal Dan, they are still linked, because you have to finish in the top eight to compete in the Cup. So, have a winner takes all league, and a cup to replace the finals and ansett cup, maybe expanding it and inviting teams from outside the AFL for their moment of glory. This is too dramatic a change I feel.
TWO:
Reworking the finals system to better reward the higher finishing teams, and reducing the number of teams in the finals.
.
There not linked, sbagman. Let me give you an analogy. The qualification procedure for the champions league goes on the rankings of the domestic league of each club that has qulified. However, this does not mean they are part of the same competition or are linked.
[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 07 December 2000).]
