The Association Football AFL Thread

chef

Moderator
Oct 5, 2007
28,106
17,700
Kyabramovich
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
s**t end to the season but the Pups did good this year. Another preseason and get our trade targets and we'll be there abouts again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bradesmaen

Hall of Famer
Apr 8, 2007
36,537
10,083
London
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SJ Sharks/Everton/NY Jets
The bye doesnt bother me, it allows a thursday night game and everyone to have their teams as fit as possible.

We were just beaten by a better team.
I know, just saying that had it been a week earlier you would have still had momentum and they likely would have had one or two missing. Similar to when you got 5 players back in 2016 that wouldn't have been back the week before.
 

Kram

I'll brik u
May 2, 2007
55,678
70,452
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Chicago Bears, de Boer, Arsenal
The bye was a good change, one of the few things the muppets at the AFL have got right.
 

Bradesmaen

Hall of Famer
Apr 8, 2007
36,537
10,083
London
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SJ Sharks/Everton/NY Jets
The bye was a good change, one of the few things the muppets at the AFL have got right.
Disagree. Gill has never done anything right.

The bye was all your fault lol. Brought in because Ross was a campaigner and rested nearly his whole side
We were a game clear on top, can do what we want. AFL just don't like being made to look stupid.
 

chef

Moderator
Oct 5, 2007
28,106
17,700
Kyabramovich
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Chelsea
I know, just saying that had it been a week earlier you would have still had momentum and they likely would have had one or two missing. Similar to when you got 5 players back in 2016 that wouldn't have been back the week before.
Fair enough, im not one to worry about things out of our control. Giants just too good
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
77,719
100,885
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
Just because Scott is too dopey to take advantage of a week off at Geelong doesn't mean the bye is a bad idea.
You’re so predictable, you simply cannot refute or argue anything with me without some personal element.

If it’s not some quip about Scott it’s about <insert state joke here>.

Fans of numerous clubs dislike this bye. It makes a farce of the competition. You fight for 23 rounds to find your spot in the final 8 and now there’s a rule that takes away a top 4 advantage.

You get 3 advantages in the top 4.
- 1-2 home finals, unless you are NM, WB, St.K or Geelong
- A double chance week 1
- a possible rest week two while 5-8 have to play 4 knockout finals after 22 H&A finals.

This s**t rule creates a dead weekend, takes away 1 of the 3 advantages of finishing top 4, and is utterly not required. Also seems to hinder QF winners who lose momentum with two tests in 3 weeks
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
87,300
48,085
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
On cue the bellwether proves the bye is s**t.
Dry your eyes mate.

Having a week off for the AFL awards and to allow all teams to be as strong as possible for the Finals, as well as removing any advantage of playing R23 a day earlier than your opponent is a great idea. Add to that the fact it disincentivises tanking in R23, add to that the fact it creates more anticipation and focus on Finals, etc. The only people that cry about it are supporters of teams that perennially lose week one or after a bye which is, let me check my notes, Geelong.
 

Bradesmaen

Hall of Famer
Apr 8, 2007
36,537
10,083
London
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SJ Sharks/Everton/NY Jets
Dry your eyes mate.

Having a week off for the AFL awards and to allow all teams to be as strong as possible for the Finals, as well as removing any advantage of playing R23 a day earlier than your opponent is a great idea. Add to that the fact it disincentivises tanking in R23, add to that the fact it creates more anticipation and focus on Finals, etc. The only people that cry about it are supporters of teams that perennially lose week one or after a bye which is, let me check my notes, Geelong.
He's right though. It takes away an advantage of finishing top 4 or having your position locked in Round 22. Allowing teams to be as strong as possible isn't a good reason, as you always play with what you have. Why not delay it another year for allow Ward to be back? A bye has also been shown to kill the momentum of sides in streaks. Rarely do you have a bye and come out looking great on the other side. Richmond is the rare case this year.


An article from 2 years ago but it shows you how teams struggle after byes. It makes for a worse spectacle as well.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
87,300
48,085
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
He's right though. It takes away an advantage of finishing top 4 or having your position locked in Round 22. Allowing teams to be as strong as possible isn't a good reason, as you always play with what you have. Why not delay it another year for allow Ward to be back? A bye has also been shown to kill the momentum of sides in streaks. Rarely do you have a bye and come out looking great on the other side. Richmond is the rare case this year.


An article from 2 years ago but it shows you how teams struggle after byes. It makes for a worse spectacle as well.
No it doesn't. The advantage of finishing top 4 is that you get a second chance if you lose your first match. Simple. The end.

Byes haven't been a fixture since 2011, what a stupid article. Prior to having an official bye, we had the split round, so teams still had a week off.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
87,300
48,085
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
He's right though. It takes away an advantage of finishing top 4 or having your position locked in Round 22. Allowing teams to be as strong as possible isn't a good reason, as you always play with what you have. Why not delay it another year for allow Ward to be back? A bye has also been shown to kill the momentum of sides in streaks. Rarely do you have a bye and come out looking great on the other side. Richmond is the rare case this year.


An article from 2 years ago but it shows you how teams struggle after byes. It makes for a worse spectacle as well.
By the way, how many teams that win the Qualifying Final have made the GF since that Finals system was introduced?

Seeing as teams supposedly struggle after the bye, I would assume not many?
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
87,300
48,085
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
You have an unhealthy obsession with arguing with anyone on anything.

I don’t argue back with you cos you’re not worth the effort, and on AFL matters, clueless.
And yet here you are. I made a simple comment about the bye that is shared by many, you cried about another excuse for why your team lost. Move on and get over it.
 

Bradesmaen

Hall of Famer
Apr 8, 2007
36,537
10,083
London
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SJ Sharks/Everton/NY Jets
No it doesn't. The advantage of finishing top 4 is that you get a second chance if you lose your first match. Simple. The end.

Byes haven't been a fixture since 2011, what a stupid article. Prior to having an official bye, we had the split round, so teams still had a week off.
The advantage of finishing top 4 means the winners of those getting no advantage as everyone gets a week off anyway to rest up.
 

Kram

I'll brik u
May 2, 2007
55,678
70,452
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Chicago Bears, de Boer, Arsenal
You’re so predictable, you simply cannot refute or argue anything with me without some personal element.

If it’s not some quip about Scott it’s about <insert state joke here>.

Fans of numerous clubs dislike this bye. It makes a farce of the competition. You fight for 23 rounds to find your spot in the final 8 and now there’s a rule that takes away a top 4 advantage.

You get 3 advantages in the top 4.
- 1-2 home finals, unless you are NM, WB, St.K or Geelong
- A double chance week 1
- a possible rest week two while 5-8 have to play 4 knockout finals after 22 H&A finals.

This s**t rule creates a dead weekend, takes away 1 of the 3 advantages of finishing top 4, and is utterly not required.
The average footy fan for the most part is an idiot.

It takes away absolutely nothing from the teams that finished higher unless you are a desperate excuse maker.

Positives
- Makes it more likely that teams have their best players out there fit and healthy for the biggest games of the year. It all looks easy watching from the couch eating a bag of potato chips but if you've played footy yourself at any level you would know how sore players are by this time in the season and how many niggles they carry.
- Eliminates the chance of teams being tempted to strategically rest players in the last round which makes a farce of these games that still decide ladder positions for finals and draft picks.
- Nobody plays on Sunday week 1 so they have a short week into round 2.
- WA teams could finish 3rd or 4th and if they played away in round 22 it potentially means they could travel the length of the country 2 weeks in row despite finishing top 4. Vics that barely travel I can understand a bit the silliness but anyone over here west with how much our teams travel against the rule is an idiot.

Neutral
- Allows for Thursday night final, good when it isn't your team but s**t if you want to attend the game in person.

Negatives
- Only one I can think of is as an AFL fan it's a bit of a long wait looking forward to the biggest games of the year, but if you can't wait for a few extra days and watch the state league/ammos that weekend instead, or heaven forbid do something else non footy you are a bit of loser let's be honest.
 

Top Bottom