Revisiting An Old Subject - "4 Points For A Win"
- Thread starter LordLucifer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Engimal v3
a̴̺̾̂f̷͕̀ḻ̴̥̿.̴͎͚̓͝c̶̰̚ȍ̶̤͂m̷̛̯.̵̯̈́å̸̟u̴̦̘͌̑
Interesting idea, so I've done the maths according to your logic. 17/63 of games (27%) have a changed result.
Here is the ladder and results from 2024 so far - with a note that I haven't calculated percentages as you didn't mention how this should be done:
EDIT: Updated to fix some calculation errors
Here is the ladder and results from 2024 so far - with a note that I haven't calculated percentages as you didn't mention how this should be done:
EDIT: Updated to fix some calculation errors
Last edited:
Would definitely make the final minutes of draws more desperate.
I've always had an issue with how they do that in soccer though. The same number of points should be awarded for each game IMO. It is not completely implausible that two teams could conspire to have one win each - guaranteeing 3 points each, instead of possibly getting 2 each if both games are competitive draws.
How about we just leave it as it is?
OxfordCambridge
Senior List
- Nov 11, 2022
- 167
- 403
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt Football Club
How about 2 points for a win, 1 for draw, 0 for loss. The best, most simple system.
How about umpires bounce the ball the normal, easy, SAME way that footballers do. Bounce errors then favour no team.
How about having red behind posts to improve kicking accuracy. Fact.
How about the ANZAC game being a repeat of the previous GF. The game is then earned, not gifted.
The SANFL had many superior rules to the VFL that were dismissed by blinkered bigots in charge of the AFL.
How about umpires bounce the ball the normal, easy, SAME way that footballers do. Bounce errors then favour no team.
How about having red behind posts to improve kicking accuracy. Fact.
How about the ANZAC game being a repeat of the previous GF. The game is then earned, not gifted.
The SANFL had many superior rules to the VFL that were dismissed by blinkered bigots in charge of the AFL.
Engimal v3
a̴̺̾̂f̷͕̀ḻ̴̥̿.̴͎͚̓͝c̶̰̚ȍ̶̤͂m̷̛̯.̵̯̈́å̸̟u̴̦̘͌̑
Updated with some corrected calculation as well as a quarter-by-quarter breakdown of the premiership points.
Also with the OP's scoring system I would tweak it a bit.
1 point for an individual quarter win but 4 points for the actual match win.
So potentially a team could score 8 points in a match assuming they won all 4 quaters and the game.
1 point for an individual quarter win but 4 points for the actual match win.
So potentially a team could score 8 points in a match assuming they won all 4 quaters and the game.
i think every player on a team should earn points for any measured statistics, and perhaps lose points for things like frees against. maybe the captain's statistics could be worth double, and all players are tradeable meaning coaches can make wholesale changes easily.
You want the behind posts to be the same colour as the football (day games)?
I didn’t think of that. In soccer, I think the rationale behind three points for a win is to incentivise teams to play attacking to get triple the points they would get if the game is a draw, rather than just one more point.
Yep, teams would often, especially for away games, just play for a draw from the outset.
Problem with this is now when one side scores the first goal, there is a big incentive to go defensive from that point. It just delays it.
Yes it is pretty arbitrary, you could make it 6/3 or 8/4 or 54/27 and the effect would be the same. Keeping it small and simple is the best.
The one advantage 4/2 has over 2/1 is the ability to have whole-number penalties. I do recall ages ago I think a VFL U19 team got a 1 point penalty for something. So they were still higher on the ladder than teams with fewer wins than them (with draw = half a win) but below all the team with the same number of wins. Keeping all teams on a whole number of points is aesthetically better.
But it is a very unusual situation.
Not sure how that can be proven as a fact, very dubious.
Engimal v3
a̴̺̾̂f̷͕̀ḻ̴̥̿.̴͎͚̓͝c̶̰̚ȍ̶̤͂m̷̛̯.̵̯̈́å̸̟u̴̦̘͌̑
6 points for a goal, 1 point for a behind, 2 points for hitting the big sticks, 1/2 point for hitting point posts, -5 points for out on the full.
1 extra Premiership point for best goal celebration of the round as adjudicated by Ricky Nixon.
1 extra Premiership point for best goal celebration of the round as adjudicated by Ricky Nixon.
Its hard to believe North have won five quarters. But there were occasional five minute patches of hope in the first few rounds.
Engimal v3
a̴̺̾̂f̷͕̀ḻ̴̥̿.̴͎͚̓͝c̶̰̚ȍ̶̤͂m̷̛̯.̵̯̈́å̸̟u̴̦̘͌̑
North won quarters in 3 games this year - but totally whitewashed 4-0 in another 3. We won Q3 and Q4 against Fremantle, Q3 vs Brisbane, and Q4 vs Adelaide.
This would be 2 points total against Brisbane and Adelaide, and 3 points against Fremantle (2 for Q3 and Q4, and 1 for the draw that this game would be overturned to under LordLucifer's system).
So we'd go from 0 points under the current system, to 5.
Engimal v3
a̴̺̾̂f̷͕̀ḻ̴̥̿.̴͎͚̓͝c̶̰̚ȍ̶̤͂m̷̛̯.̵̯̈́å̸̟u̴̦̘͌̑
Out of interest, I did the 2023 season. Under LordLucifer's rules, the main change would have been that the Western Bulldogs would have played finals (finished 9th in reality) and St Kilda would have not played finals (finished 5th in reality, but 10th under the new system).
- Sep 26, 2017
- 27,122
- 44,722
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Is the game complicated enough with the rules? Why make it more so?
Grand finals too.
2009
St Kilda win the first three quarters by 2, 4 and 1 points, then lost the last and the game.
Three pts each, drawn game.
More drawn GF’s than premierships, how very St Kilda.
Also 1999 qualifying final WBvWC (won 1st, 3rd, 4th, lost the game)
Also 2000 qualifying final CarlvMelb (won 1st, 2nd, 3rd, lost the game)
In other words, it’s all about who wins, not how they win.
Why punish teams that hold on for a victory with no bench due to injuries?
Or teams that go big early and rest key players in coasting to the line?
Last edited:
This is the sort of idea that makes for an interesting model (same way you have your squiggle charts and so forth) but is too complex to be practical for the real ladder.
I'd say nearly all people are pretty happy with the highest score wins. Its simple, its fair and it works.
I'd say nearly all people are pretty happy with the highest score wins. Its simple, its fair and it works.
Let's make it you get an extra point depending on how far you travel. Each state distant is extra point.
Ie
WA <-> SA = 1 point,
WA <-> Vic = 2 points
WA <-> nsw/ tas = 3 points
WA <-> QLD = 4 points
Within your own state, 0 bonus points.
That will sort out travel disadvantages
Or maybe ... A win is a win, a loss is a loss, a draw...?
Why the constant need to make things more complicated?
Ie
WA <-> SA = 1 point,
WA <-> Vic = 2 points
WA <-> nsw/ tas = 3 points
WA <-> QLD = 4 points
Within your own state, 0 bonus points.
That will sort out travel disadvantages
Or maybe ... A win is a win, a loss is a loss, a draw...?
Why the constant need to make things more complicated?
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Bonus points for any teams games that are commentated on by BT or Underwood to make up for the having the coverage of the game destroyed by them
Similar threads
