Progressive Finals Systems and double chances

[Herne Hill Hammer]

the top 5 was clearly the best system - I wonder if a top 10 (incorporating two top 5 systems - maybe odds and evens as you go down), with suitable crossovers at crucial points to avoid rematches until the GF or PFs, would ever work (eg if we went to 20 teams).
a top 10 with 18 teams is overkill - but, the AFL may just do it one day... $

I suggested this in another thread a little while ago and got roundly laughed at.

1v4v6v8v10
2v3v5v7v9

 

[FootyJunkie]

I think the AFL will stick with 4 weeks of finals.

When the finals expands (20 team comp, 10 qualify for finals), AFL will probably go with single elimination all the way with the Top 6 getting a week off. However, it would keep the Top 4 from meeting until the Prelims, so we miss out on 2 finals where they meet early like we have now in the QFs.

 

[precarious]

the top 5 was clearly the best system - I wonder if a top 10 (incorporating two top 5 systems - maybe odds and evens as you go down), with suitable crossovers at crucial points to avoid rematches until the GF or PFs, would ever work (eg if we went to 20 teams).
a top 10 with 18 teams is overkill - but, the AFL may just do it one day... $

I think the top 5 was ideal for a 12 team comp when the home and away draw was essentially "fair" -- i.e. each team played each other team once at home and once away. In that context, the top 5 provided an excellent incentive/reward structure, with clear benefit to 1 over 2 and 3 and, in turn, a clear benefit to 2 and 3 over 4 and 5.

However, because the home and away draw is not (and cannot) be fair with 18 teams, it makes less sense to have such a tightly meritocratic finals system. For example, this season, there would be little justification for giving big advantages to 1 over 2 and 3, and 2 and 3 over 4 and 5. Fifth-placed Adelaide quite possibly had the toughest draw and was within a game of first on the ladder. So I think a more "open" finals structure -- such as the current system -- makes sense given the nature of the home and away season.

If the AFL ever went to ten teams in the finals, I think something like your suggested system would be used. I remember an AFL survey a year or two ago in which one of the suggestions was similar to what you describe.

 

[footyfan1978]

I think the top 5 was ideal for a 12 team comp when the home and away draw was essentially "fair" -- i.e. each team played each other team once at home and once away. In that context, the top 5 provided an excellent incentive/reward structure, with clear benefit to 1 over 2 and 3 and, in turn, a clear benefit to 2 and 3 over 4 and 5.

Yes, spot on. Final Five certainly was best system I seen used, however due to the home and away draw not being balanced with 18 teams it just cannot fit now.
I think if we ever get to 20 clubs it could be brought back but only if the fixture is really evened up.
If we had 19 home and away games, possible to compromise and do it. However we lose 2 weekends of AFL football if we did that.
We would have 5 weekends of finals though which makes up one home and away weekend lost. The other two need to be made up of state of origin weekends somewhere during first half of season to sell me on the whole idea.

 

[The Gov]

Providing the games themselves are good the idea that two teams can meet twice is great.

West Coast in 2005 beat Sydney in the qualifier by 4 points, Sydney wins the GF by 4. Sydney wins the 06 qualifier by 1 point, WC win the GF by 1. Great rivalry and the system added to the drama of the whole thing.

As much as I was glad Hawthorn got knocked out this year their rivalry with Geelong is even more fiery than the one I just mentioned, if they'd backed up their classic from a few weeks ago with an equally close grand final that would have been amazing.

Also don't have any gripes with the current finals system. Significant advantage finishing top 4, the higher you finish within that the weaker team you end up playing (generally). Results are obviously influenced by injury, form, luck, which adds to the unpredictability of it (fantastic) but on the whole the better teams get a better crack.

As we've seen from the Bulldogs whilst it's near impossible to make a GF from outside the top 4 those sides can still give the whole thing a major shake up and give the side momentum and belief heading into the next year (they could easily go the whole way in my opinion).

And feel like 8/18 teams playing finals is better than the 8/16 it used to be - makes it harder to qualify. So yeah pretty happy overall with the finals format

 

[footyfan1978]

Clarkson's comments made me check the records for the 3-peat and 4-peat premiers.

As mentioned, Collingwood won both finals in 1927 and 1928, but suffered a finals loss in both 1929 and 1930 and had to use its double chance "challenge" to win the premiership.

Actually Collingwood had three finals in 1927.
They had a draw against Melbourne and had a replay match the following week that they won the following weekend. Richmond had not played a game in 3 weeks when they finally got to play Collingwood in the final as last two teams standing. Collingwood beat them so major premiership decided. If Richmond had have beaten Collingwood they would have retrospectively called in the preliminary final and then played again the next week calling on Collingwood's double chance "challenge" right as minor premier. Ultimately the other clubs new the minor premier was not dethroned if only beaten once. Had to be beaten twice for someone else to become the premier team of the season.

It is interesting how this eventually progressed into the top two teams getting a double chance straight after Collingwood's run of 4 premierships from 1931 season.
Also when looking at the records of each season , the 1929 stands out as Collingwood not losing a home and away game but then dropping their only game for season in first final so essentially getting a week off to challenge the best team of other two that played off the next weekend.

You can imagine over time that the thinking evolved that the finals system could be improved and simplified by knowing how many weeks it was meant to take and replacing the challenge system so if top team lost it's first final it had to play another final and win it to advance to the grand final. Before 1931 I suspect the final four Argus system only called it a grand final when the minor premier was using it's challenge right. I suspect the third weekend was normally just called the final before that. 1931 at the time must have been a bit like 2000 with a change in the finals format but no extra teams in the finals series. We changed the version of final 8 in 2000 so that the uncertainty of the games between 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 was removed and simplified. From 1994 to 1999 those games between 3 to 6 in first weekend were filled with uncertainty of being knockout games , chance to advance to prelim finals or double chance if you lost. The simplification of the newer version of final 8 of double chances only for top four and elimination finals for teams 5th to 8th took away that uncertainty that existed before. Similarly in 1931 the uncertainly that existed before of if they minor premier needed to use a double chance "challenge" in the first version of final four was removed when they simplified it by making 1 play 2 and the winner advancing to grand final and getting next week off and loser gets double chance to make it via preliminary final.

Basically we experimented as a league over history with a few finals system. The Argus System Final Four the lasted a good three decades was when even the idea of a finals series was probably in it's infancy for any football codes. Soccer as most of us know, in most countries has not finals systems traditionally. What we traditionally have called minor premier is their season premier in most cases. After the league ditched the earlier version of final four they replaced it with the McIntyre Final Four system.

We look back at Argus Final Four and seen some faults that were improved on just like we look back on Final Six in early 1990s and see it was totally flawed and thrown out after three seasons , then replaced with a final 8 system that also become clear had some faults after used a number of seasons and were improved on in 2000 with the more recent version.

 

[footyfan1978]

Right of challenge rule was a bit nonsense... essentially it meant the minor premier was always going to play off in the true "Grand Final" no matter what they did in the lead up

Pretty much. Was just an innocent first steps into finals systems from original ways of trying to work out premier season from home and away games.
However over time I think some clubs that were minor premier abused the system at times to manipulate it so fair chance some of them tanked their first final in order to suit them making the other teams play more matches and time it to come back and challenge in a the true "Grand Final" as you called.

In simple terms they were in essence, given a double chance to win the premiership.
It then got downgraded in 1931 to a double chance just to make grand final and finally since final 8's have been around in mid 1990s we have downgraded double chances now to just be a double chance to advance to the preliminary final stage. The minor premier now gets no real distinct advantage compared to most of the first 100 seasons. Most of us happy to accept it is simply spread to top four with more clubs involved and no balanced home and away system.

Providing the games themselves are good the idea that two teams can meet twice is great.

West Coast in 2005 beat Sydney in the qualifier by 4 points, Sydney wins the GF by 4. Sydney wins the 06 qualifier by 1 point, WC win the GF by 1. Great rivalry and the system added to the drama of the whole thing.

As much as I was glad Hawthorn got knocked out this year their rivalry with Geelong is even more fiery than the one I just mentioned, if they'd backed up their classic from a few weeks ago with an equally close grand final that would have been amazing.

Yeah, I actually miss more of the better teams meeting twice weeks later that used to happen more often in some previous finals systems.
In fact in 1972, Richmond and Carlton meet three times in the finals. Drew the first one, Richmond won the replay and then Carlton tactically turned the third meeting on it's head in grand final when they turned it into the most epic shootout grand final ever. That rivalry the two clubs have, no doubt cemented forever due to so many repeat meetings during those 1972 and 73 seasons. Would have been fun to be around then and see it.

Essendon and Hawthorn rivalry probably propelled up levels on what it was before due to meeting twice in 1984 with two quality finals. Football fans were spoilt when two highest ranked teams meet early in finals series.

As you pointed out the Swans and Eagles also developed a bit of a rivalry of repeat meetings a decade ago.
Wish it would happen a bit more often.
Unlike many here I will enjoy if Swans and GWS meet in the grand final and Swans get a chance for revenge on being beaten up in their first meeting in week one. That would go a long way to developing a true rivalry of feeling between the two clubs based in Sydney region.

 

[Seeds]

I suggested this in another thread a little while ago and got roundly laughed at.

1v4v6v8v10
2v3v5v7v9

You are suggesting five teams on the field at a time and wondering why you got laughed at?

 

[Gibbke]

Top five the best finals system invented...in fact there is not a single parallel universe where anyone has come up with a better format...

Top team gets everything handed to it on a platter as it should, two challengers who have to work but still get some protection, and two also rans given a bite of the cherry but getting the advantages they deserve, which are basically nothing...everyone else didn't make it because they weren't up to it, which isn't always the case these days...

And the repeat matchups - the Second Semis are some of the greatest football matches ever played in the history of the sport, and often before the same two teams met up in the GF. How can a repeat peformance between top sides be anything but a bonus...? In a seeded knockout, you get uneven, sometimes unintetesting, matchups all the way through until the filler is gone and you're finally left with the real deal...

The Final Five is a war of attrition, a story lasting four weeks, a campaign. This makes it much more absorbing than a mere knockout, which by the way isn't the norm for all pro sports - the Yanks play every sport except gridiron over formats of best of 3, 5 or 7, and soccer often uses aggregates over home and away double fixtures...