The "ARGUS" finals system.

[Dan26]

As most of you know by now, I believe there should be more recognition given to the top team at the end of the home and away season (wait, don't go......read what I've got to say. It's different, I promise).

Now, for the most part I have concluded that this should be making the McClelland trophy more 'sought' after, because the years best team could have their season end after one loss in the Grand Final, which means, often the best team isn't rewarded.

We all know my feelings on that, but what if we DIDN'T give more recognition to the McClelland trophy winner, but instead, we adpopted th old "Argus" finals system.

The Argus system gives a TREMENDOUS advantage to the top team, and certainly makes all those 22 weeks of hard work worth it. Well, more so than it does now anyway.

It was used in the VFL up until 1930. Here is how it works :


FIRST WEEK : - Semi Finals

1st Semi-Final 1 v 4
2nd Semi-Final 2 v 3

The two winners (no matter who they are)clash in week two. If 1st loses, they advance to the "Grand Final" in week 3. If anyone other than 1st loses, they are out.


SECOND WEEK : - Final

Winner of 1st Semi-Final vs winner of 2nd Semi-Final.

If 1st wins this match (given that they must have won in the first week), they win the premiership. If 1st lose, they advance to the Grand Final in week 3.


THIRD WEEK : Grand Final

If 1st won in the semi-finals, then won again in week two, this match wouldn't happen. They would have "sealed" the premiership in week 2.

BUT, if 1st LOST in the first week, they immediately advance to the Grand Final and would play against the winner of the "final" in week 2.

Also, if 1st lost the "final" in the second week, they would play the "Grand Final" against the same team who beat them in the "final".

The mathematical probabilities for winning the premiership, are as follows :

1st - 62.5 %
2nd - 12.5 %
3rd - 12.5 %
4th - 12.5 %

The immediate thing that becomes apparent, is that the first placed team is in the Grand Final no matter what. Whether they win or lose in the "semi-finals" just determines whether they get "two" cracks at winning the premiership or just one.

For example, if they win their semi-final, they get the opportunity to win the premiership the next week in the "final". If they lose the "final", they get ANOTHER chance to win the premiership the next week in the Grand Final. Hence the advantage in winning the semi-final in week one.

Now, if they LOSE their semi-final, instead they only get one opportunity to win the Grand Final, not two. If they did lose their semi-final, they immediately advance to week three, and they get one crack at winning the premiership in the "Grand Final".

Now obvioulsy any system that has "FOUR" teams in it, can also be applied to 8 teams. You could have a final 8, which would mean "two" Argus systems. This would also mean 4 weeks of finals.

The good thing about it, is that the top team has a second opportunity should they muff their first chance at winning the premiership. Just because they win every match, doesn't mean their season will end, should they lose the "Final". If a double chance is supposed to exist for the top team, why shouldn't it also apply on Grand Final day, especially if they have won every finals match up until the Grand Final ?

It mystifies me, how currently, the top 4 teams in 2000 are striving for a double chance, which will disappear on preliminary final day !

I'm not saying we should do this, but I am just putting a different idea out there. If it was used with "8" teams it would give the top two teams almost every opportunity to play the Grand Final against each other, as the winner of one Argus system, would meet the winner of the other.

For example, 1,4,5 and 8th would comprise one Argus system, while 2,3,6 and 7 would comprise the other.

I suppose, if this happened, and the two winners played off in the true Grand Final, the Grand Final would still be the one-off match that I was critical of in the first place, as it overrides the H&A. Like I've been saying I LOVE the one-off nature of a Grand Final IF the final series is a seperate tournament. The Argus system is NOT a seperate tournament. It is similar to how it is now, with teams fighting in the H&A to get the best possible advantage come finals time. However, I still think the ARGUS system is intersting to consider.

Thoughts ?

 

[jod23]

Nobody has answered this thread yet cos its absolutly shocking. Thats the worst finals system ive ever heard of its a joke hahahahahah and what about 5th 6th 7th and 8th my lord no wonder they changed the system

2000 the year of the eagle

 

[Drakey]

YUK!!!!!!!!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Danny you're a nice guy who provides much needed intellectual 'oomph' to this site but sometimes mate I just wish you would take your hand off it - just for a minute or two ?

 

[Dan26]

What the f*ck ?????

Gees. Why did I bother ?

Bloodstained Angel..........what's going on ??

 

[dons_r_tops]

dan 24, If i get you correctly youre saying that there should be 2 top 4's
ie 1,3,5,7 + 2,5,7,9 then they play this argus finals system and the winner of each argus system play off in the grand final making the probability if winning this
1st 31.25%
2nd 31.25%
3rd - 8th 6.25%

tell me if im wrong

I know you will

 

[Dan26]

Dons are tops.

Yes, those stats are correct.

Look, I'm not saying it's the way to go. Far froom it. I was just presenting it is a topic of discussion.

The system was actually used for about 30 years, and the Rugby Leagye used it up until 1950, or so.

It's quite a well known system.

Under the final 8 from last year, 3rd (Brisbane), would have had to win 4 matches to win the GF. The percentages of winning 4 knockout matches are 1/16 or 6.25 %. Now I know it wasn't knockout for them in the first week, but after they won in the first wee, it was knockout from that point on. So, they ae not really treated any differently in the "Argus system"

In the Argus system, 3-8 have to win 4 matches in a row.

The advantages of the system (if it's used with 4 teams), is that first is in the Grand Final no matter what. If they win the semi-final, they get TWO chances at winning the Grand Final, while if they lose the semi-final, they only get one chance at winning it.

If adopted to fit a final 8, it would give the two best teams every opportunity to play in the Grand Final against each other. If another team got through, they would truly have earnt it.

I think most "neutral" supporters want to see the two best teams clashing in any given year.

In 1929, Collingwod went UNDEFEATED in the home and away. They lost their semi-final to Richmond, so they only had one chance to win the Grand Final. They played Richmond in the Grand Final in week 3, and beat them, thereby winning the premiership.

Now, like said, I'm not "necessarily" for it, but it is interesting to look at isn't it ?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Sorry D24

I have no satisfactory explanation, or excuse

It was a rush of blood to the head, and I should have have chilled a little before hitting the 'SUBMIT' button and I unreservedly apologise for my outburst.

 

[hawkforce]

Ohhh, Danny boy... the pipes, the pipes are calling...

 

[Daniel]

Without having seen it in action, I'm in favour of the current finals system, if a top 8 is what we must have. Do we all agree it will be better than the previous system? I thought this year's finals system was introduced very quietly with little debate, but perhaps I just missed all the publicity.

Dan24, the old system you detailed is interesting from an abstract viewpoint, but I certainly wouldn't want to see it used now. It's nice to know of old formats and league structures, but even in the minor premiers debate, I don't think it's sufficient to compare eras. Although people accepted the change then, football obviously didn't have the history behind it that it does now and I think change would not have been such an issue.

 

[Pessimistic]

The only advantage the top and second spot get from the new finals system is home state advantage. The top four will be victorian so expect howles of outrage nearer finals time

By the way, wasn't one advantage of the old finals system that firt played second ? That way us non- corporate types could witness the real match of the season. now the only way that will happen is if they both lose in week one, or both make the GF

 

[Roylion]

Personally I preferred the finals system that we had in 1999, where the higher you finished on the ladder, the greater your chances of getting a home final and a weaker opponent and therefore making it through to the Grand Final. The new finals system may be easier to understand (hence its widespread adoption by the footballing public) but I think that once the finals arrive there is little real advantage that finishing 1st (Essendon) will have over a side finishing fourth (say for argument's sake Melbourne), apart from if an interstate team meets a Victorian team. While the old system had a couple of weaknesses, such as Carlton finishing 6th, being thrashed in their first final and then beoing still alive to make the Grand Final, I'm still in favor of any system where the higher you finish on the ladder in the home and away season, the greater the chance you should have in winning the premiership. Unfortunately the new finals system doesn't provide that, as well as the old one did.

 

[Dan26]

Roylion.

Quite correct. The system used last year is the fairest mathematically.

Peole say that Carlton should have been eliminated after finishing 6th and perhaps they should have. But if you look at this year, 6th plays 7th so one of 6th or 7th will survive into the second week anyway.

I still think the best way to do it, is to have the finals completely knockout, and have everyone treated equally, but have it as a seperate tournament to the home and away, which can be won by finishing top.

Then, the equation is simple. If you win, you progress to the next week. If you lose, you're out. Knockout. Just like finals should be.

 

[sainter]

I have to admit that I didn't think there was much wrong with last years final eight system either. The only real problem seemed to stem from the agreement between the AFL and the MCC to play one match at the MCG every week.

Why is it better to have a system that is easier to understand but does not adequately reward the higher placed teams?

 

[Dan26]

And we all know the best way to reward the highest finishing team, don't we Sainter?

It's right thee staring us in the face, Dr William McClelland.

 

[Daniel]

Sure, the previous system served its purpose and the negative publicity about being "too confusing" for the poor ignorant footy supporters was laughable, but I still prefer this one if we are to have a final 8. It depends on your perspective of how teams should be rewarded. If only the top two teams should have the most advantage, then last year was better...but I prefer the top four to be collectively given a better chance than the bottom four. Making the top four is the achievement to be strived for now.

I believe home finals in the second week for the highest-ranked losers from the first week is a fair reward.

By the way, congratulations on the 500th Dan24 (just getting in early

).

[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited 25 June 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Daniel,

Not long ago, I wrote a reasonably lengthy letter to Wayne Jackson, regarding the need for the finals series to be knockout, with all teams treated equally, and seperate from the "home and away" premiership.

I kept the letters on the computer, so I will cut and paste a snippet of it, that I believe is relevant given your last post.

"...........no doubt you get many suggestions on how to improve the finals system from many well-credentialled people. I think these people tend to miss the point. Hypothetically, you could have the fairest finals system ever invented, giving the top teams greater percentage probabilities of winning the Grand Final than their lower ranked counterparts. But if the top team can lose one match (even if that one loss is in the Grand Final itself), what does it matter ? If the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary final, or the Grand Final, they why can’t they be eliminated in the first week too ? They can be eliminated after one loss anyway, so what difference does it make if that one loss is in the first week, or the third week ?"

There it is. It's a valid point. Essendon was eliminated after one loss last year in the third week. So, why couldn't they be eliminated in the FIRST week after one loss (if they had lost). Same diff.

 

[elt]

Can anyone explain to me how the new finals system with it's guarantees of home finals for top 4 finishers fits with the MCC agreement?

The one advantage I can see of this system over last years is the bottom four finalsists arre guaranteed they won't get a double chance whereas under the old 1v8 and 2v7 system they would usually get one.

 

[Daniel]

Dan24,

That's quite reasonable, if the AFL were to adopt your system of rewarding the minor premier.

But as I stated, I am looking at it from the existing situation of a top 8 non-knockout finals format. Juxtaposing the two formats, this year's and the one we had for the previous six years, I prefer the current one. But I'm not saying it is ideal or is the format we *should* have.

 

[Roylion]

Dan24,

I disagree totally with your idea of having seperate competitions for the home and away the season having two (three if you count Ansett Cup!) competitions.

How would the AFL maintain public interest in the home and away competition, where a side such as Essendon or Carlton was dominant? Under your idea the home and away competition could be essentially over with two or three rounds to go. For example this year, (if your idea was in place), we might as well bring the home and away competition to a close right now a full six rounds before it is scheduled to finish! Essendon has essentially won the competition and all other teams have no chance. Carlton will finish second. In the meantime some of the other teams who will contest the finals are marking time, with the outcomes of their matches, largely unimportant, except for those, yet to register 12 or so wins on the fringes of the eight, who might play in the knockout competition. The finals competition might as well start, with the teams that are in the eight at the moment. In fact even the position a team in the eight finishes isn't important, as you propose a simple knockout competition only, with all things being equal. Lose and you're out! This will actually cut the knockout competition to three weeks. 8 teams to 4 teams to 2 teams. You might as well include all 16 teams and make it an end of season knockout pseudo-Ansett Cup running over 4 weeks.

Having two-three competitions in the one season tends to in my opinion make the whole thing a little bit frivolous and therefore less valuable, as we have seen with one-day cricket. Who takes the Ansett Cup seriously? Who would take a three week knockout seperate competition very seriously, especially after winning the top prize for the Home and Away competition, which under your scheme would become the most important prize of the season. To win ONE 26 week competition is a significant and worthwhile achievement, to win TWO competitions over 25-26 weeks seems to me to be less so.

For me at least, the interest in the AFL competition is maintained by knowing that even with Essendon so far ahead of everyone else (at the moment), they still have not won the ultimate and ONLY prize, as far as I am concerned and indeed may not at all. Essendon as it has finished on top should be given the greatest CHANCE to take out the premiership flag, as it was last year. As a result of finishing in the top two (under the old system) and the top four (under the new system) it is guaranteed to continue even if it does lose in the first week. Moreover if it won in the first week (under the old system), the team finishing top, gets a fortnight to prepare for the next match which is a knockout, compared to possibly 6-7 days for its challenger. This is a significant advantage and a just reward for a team who has finished in top position. The fact that the Bombers lost to Carlton last year, after clearly being the best team in the competition during the home and away season is not a fault of the competition structure. Indeed Essendon were quite rightly favorites. They had a fortnight's rest, had a chance to rest injured players, etc. and got these as a result of finishing on top, playing 8th and winning in the first week. These were luxuries that were not afforded to Carlton. Yet Carlton won!

Surely this is one of the great attractions of our game that the team that should win and has all the advantages dosen't always. To me adopting your idea would rob the AFL competition of much of this essence that makes sport so exciting. it would make the competition much more clinical and predictable....and therefore less attractive and less fascinating. That in my opinion would be a great pity.

 

[The Ball]

Roylion,

You said

"Essendon as it has finished on top should be given the greatest CHANCE to take out the premiership flag, as it was last year. As a result of finishing in the top two (under the old system) and the top four (under the new system) it is guaranteed to continue even if it does lose in the first week. Moreover if it won in the first week (under the old system), the team finishing top, gets a fortnight to prepare for the next match which is a knockout, compared to possibly 6-7 days for its challenger. This is a significant advantage and a just reward for a team who has finished in top position. The fact that the Bombers lost to Carlton last year, after clearly being the best team in the competition during the home and away season is not a fault of the competition structure. Indeed Essendon were quite rightly favorites. They had a fortnight's rest, had a chance to rest injured players, etc. and got these as a result of finishing on top, playing 8th and winning in the first week. These were luxuries that were not afforded to Carlton. Yet Carlton won!"

The problem with what your saying is Essendon does not have any more chance of winning the preimiership then all the other teams, really, despite the fact they will probably finish on top. The only thing they will probably get is home-ground advantage. But this will not matter if they play a Melbourne based side, say like Melbourne because it will be played on a neutural venue, the MCG.

About your point about Essendon lost to Carlton last year, yes they should of, I know. However, Carlton got flogged in the first final and should of got eleminated, but they didn't.

Secondly, they got a home final against the Eagels which they should not have got anyway.

Lastly, Essendon played Carlton on the MCG, which is neutral. Thus Essendon did not get any advantage by finishing top.

So that means that Carlton got three favours from last years finals system while Essendon did not get any really, well except for the weeks break.

I'm not whinging but just pointing the fact that Carlton got luxuries last year.

 

[Dan26]

Roylion,

I seem to continually address the same points, but often I have no choice.

First of all you go on about how the unpredictable nature of the finals is one of the great things about our game. Well, the finals will still be there, so I don't know that the big deal is.

Surely we shouldn't penalise the top team (whoever it is), just becasue they are better than everyone. We should reward them.

Secondly, I HAVE to address the issue of the home and away season being "OVER" a few weeks before the end. "Arch", who is another regular poster on here asked me exacty the same thing.

Let me explain. Currenty, the home and away season is as good as over anyway. We are really just waiting for the finals to start. In 1995, the season was effectively over as well, and we were just waiting for the finals to start. So what is the difference ?

There have been many, many years where top spot has been decided a few weeks from the end of the season. Now, in those years, let's SUPPOSE that top spot was given more recognition than what it recieived. How would that have changed things ? The answer is that it wouldn't have changed things at all. The only difference would be that the top team woukld have been recognised for their effort, rather than ignored. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

For those teams that can't finish on top and win the "home and away" premiership, they will still be striving to get into the top 8 and compete in the elite knockout finals series tournamnet. So, there will still be heaps to strive for for the other teams.

The top 4 teams would obviously get a home ground advantage in the finals in the "quarter finals" in the first week. Currently, there is not really a great deal of advantage finishing first or second anyway. Currently, the top teams still have to go through a knockout preliminary final and the knockout Grand final to decide the "premiership winner"

So, it's not really much difference.

Did you know that in the NBA in America, they play an 82 game seaosn, and fight for 16 play-off spots. ALL PLAYOFF spots are the same. There is NO advantage. They have two conferences, and they have 1v8, 2v7 etc etc in each conference. Each of the series is knockout. The top teams get home ground advantage.

So, we have a working model in the NBA. All playoff spots are the same and yet there is still a great deal of interest in the "home and away" season anyway. They don't give top spot much recognition over there either. Imagine if they did !!!

Did you know the NBA playoff work like this with everyone treated equally ?

I stated above the important point, which you may have ignored,. It is VERY important. Here it is :

If the top team can be eliminated in the third week after one loss, and also they can be eliminated in the Grand Final after one loss, why can't they be eliminated in the first week too ? The top team can go out after one loss anyway, right ? So, what difference does it make if that one loss is in the first week or the third week ?

Look , all my proposal would do, is give the DESERVED recogition to the top team, whilst retaing the finals series as something to win as well.

If you wondering what people would make of the finals series, use your imagination. In England the FA CUP is the final match of the year. Because of this, it gets tremendous publicity. it is the culmination, and a celebration of the year. Despite this, everyone knows that it doesn't go to the best team.

Now look at our Grand Final. Everyone knows that it doesn't necessarily go to the best team. People know this NOW. People aren't stupid. Yet, like the FA Cup, it would be the last match of the year. A celebration, if you like. Just like it is now, a great national day. Grand final day is a special day and will always be that. It will ALWAYS be the last day of the football year, and because of that, it will occupy a special place in everyone's heart. Just like the FA CUP does in England.

If the Kangaroos or Tigers for example win this years Grand Final, everyone will know they aren't the best team. Everyone would know. They wouldn't be fooling anyone. Even the supporters of the Tigers (if they were to win the Grand Final), would realsie they weren't the best, and that they just won "ON THE DAY".

People aren't stupid. Don't isult their intelligence. Obviously EVERYONE wants to win the Grand Final, but it's about time we gave more recognition to the team that wins more game than any other. The Grand Final wil still be the biggest individual one-off match of the year. Always. But the CUMULATIVE effect of the home and awya seaosn, where the years best team is found MUST be given more recognition.

it's stupid that all thse matches we are playing now are virtualy menaingless. Surely, we would be better of if the home and away (which comprises 95% of the seaosn), was seen as something to aspire to. Why should we virtully ignore and "cast aside" a part of the season, which comprise the bulk of the season ?

 

[Hirdhasbigears]

Wayne Jackson probably threw your letter in the bin when he saw it was from you. There was no need to mention it was reasonably lengthy. If your posts are any indication, I feel sorry for Jacko. By the way, I meant to mention this-stop stealing my material and twisting it around to your own stupid, foolish, filthy, insipid, arrogant, Essendon loving, rambling and crap-talking know-it-all advantage. OK!

 

[Dan26]

Actually, he wrote back and said that it will probably happen at some point, but due to the fact that there have already been 5 different finals systems in the last 10 years, they would not be prepared to change again "straight away"

Fair enough.

Anyway, it means Carlton would have got rewarded "twice" in 1995. Once for winning the home and away (which was a remarkable achievment that year with 20 wins), and then they would be rewarded for winning the Finals Series (which is slightly easier to achieve becasue they only had to win 3 matches)

They would have done the "double"