Should the AFL introduce a 8th vs 9th play-off before finals series?

[Juddernaut08]

Excellent idea but doesn't go far enough. Let's extend the play in tournament to the top 18 teams.

1 week is a lot to base things on so we should make the tournament a bit longer, say 22 rounds. Then, we take the best performed 8 teams from the end of that extended play in tournament and play finals.

This play in tournament is so good that we could just do away with the h&a season.

 

[Scythe94]

Nobody wants that, which means it'll be introduced within two years.

Question – if Essendon wins a play-in from 10th but then loses the elimination final, does the count continue?

 

[RonnieRaven]

Why do we see the need to keep Americanising our game?

A club finishes 9th and is therefore not good enough to make finals.. so why give them any extra chance? Next thing you'll want a best of 5 game grand final series.

Where does it stop? A final 10?? Conferences; divisions??? Time outs during games?

Definitely a no from me.

I understand that thinking and I was a no.
But the 9th team getting a crack is no different to 8th getting a crack prior to the suns entry.
It would still be only rewarding the top half of the table.

 

[JackFlash]

No.

 

[Murraj1966]

Short answer: No

Long answer: Nooooooooooo

 

[Falcon3518]

As a Richmond supporter 100% yes, we’d have a chance to scrape in every year

But really no way

 

[simba_]

yeah so hinkley can set another record losing the first playoff final

 

[Dez!]

The play-in tournament in the NBA is s**t and devalues the regular season. You want make the playoffs/finals? Get in the top 8.

 

[hilly]

Question – if Essendon wins a play-in from 10th but then loses the elimination final, does the count continue?

Hell yes.

 

[Siberian Taiga]

Only one team has played finals after finishing ninth. Carlton.

So, no.

Seriously, now, it's still no.

 

[Underarm]

Not exactly. At end of home and away season, whoever finishes 8th and 9th play each other in a single game in the week before the actual final series starts to determine who takes the final finals position

You're describing a final 9 with 7 clubs getting a Bye week 1.

 

[dylan93]

No point fixing something that isn't broken.

When Tassie and a 20th team come into the comp within the next 5-6 years then they can work out some weird top 10 system (which will be a shame because the top 8 works so well IMHO).

 

[nickcat0]

No, the Finals should be reserved for the top performing teams.

I think the current status with 8 out of 18 qualifying is too many. Too often it rewards mediocrity, and teams get in when they've lost 9 or 10 games. Hell, Essendon got in last year with a record of 11-11.

If we're going to change it, I'd rather reduce it to a top 5 or 6 qualifying for the Finals, thus rewarding the teams who perform well all season, and removing the chance of an average team getting lucky in September. You don't deserve the chance to call yourself Premiers unless you've won at least 15 games during the regular season.

 

[The 747]

Yeah, nah.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

8th is usually just there for week 1.
9th isn't going to do much more.

It would be pointless.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Only one team has played finals after finishing ninth. Carlton.

So, no.

Seriously, now, it's still no.

And only one team has lost to a team finishing ninthmond.

 

[deck]

Can't see any downsides.

The fact 9 and 10 get to play finals is a downside that out weighs anything resembling a positive.

Maybe we should just give everyone a trophy.

 

[Coolangatta]

No, because I prefer the pre-GF bye over the pre-finals bye due to the concussion rule. Imagine Petracca or Charlie Cameron

23

Charlie Cameron

Age

29

Ht

180cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

9.6

2star

K

7.9

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.7

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

9.6

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.2

4star

missing the GF because of a concussion? Get. ****ed. Keep it at the top 8; maybe when there are 20 teams, change it, but I don't know how a top 10 finals system would work.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

No. Eight is already too many.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

* that. Too many s**t teams make it as it is. I like the top 5.

Elimination
Qualifying
1st Semi
2nd Semi
Prelim
Granny

 

[Milanista28]

7vs10
8vs9

Will be a thing within a decade

 

[emuboy]

After seeing the bizarre finals series produced when there was a pre-finals bye from 2016-2020, I would definitely say no.

The season ends at Round 22, and the next week the Top 8 commence a 4 week finals series. Keep it simple.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Yes, of course, this must happen for the good of the game.

However it should only be introduced after more important changes are made first.

For instance, we need wildcard entries into the play-offs, chosen by the commissioner himself.

And multiballs.

Why is there still only one ball in play at any given time?

Massive ovals, 36 players running around, eight sticks to kick through, several field umpires, but only one ball?

They have heaps of spare balls laying around, you can see them on the TV, so don't use that excuse.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

No

 

[WillHayward]

I'd go back to 16 teams and a top 6.

So many shitful games atm.

So many young kids out playing who just aren't ready.