The double chance - a curse on finals systems since 1902

[Chiz]

Almost every VFL/AFL finals system has included a double chance for one or more of the higher ranked teams. After a knockout final-four system in 1901, it was decided in 1902 that the minor premier should have a second chance if they lost the Grand Final (which meant their opponent had to beat them twice!).

From there as the finals systems have evolved and expanded to include more teams, the double chance has remained in some form - it is an accepted part of the system. Interestingly, the vast majority of major sporting leagues outside of Australia do not give any team a double chance - higher placed teams are sufficiently rewarded with home finals, byes, and weaker opponents. Why no double chance? Because the double chance is a curse on the finals.

The main problem with any system that gives teams a double chance is that it allows for two sides to play each other twice in the finals. There are two reasons this is undesirable:

• the build-up and excitement leading up to a match is greatest when uncertainty about the result is high. When two teams have recently played this uncertainty is greatly reduced (especially if the first game was one-sided).
• one team may have to defeat the same opponent twice to win the premiership (why should they have to prove they can beat them a second time?)

The AFL clearly recognise that this is an issue. However, instead of moving to a knockout system, they have instead compromised the integrity of the finals to minimise the chance of the same two teams playing twice. Consider the preliminary finals - to avoid a repeat of the qualifying finals, the opponents are switched. Typically, the highest seed plays the third seed, and the second seed plays the fourth seed.

Why should the second seed get the easier game? We complain about the inequities in the fixture time and again, but this major inequity somehow seems to slip through the cracks.

The problem is the double chance. Finals are about performing on the day - all or nothing, no second chances. It is time for the AFL to move to a knockout system.

My proposal:

Top 6: automatically qualify for finals, receive a week off
7-10: play two wildcard matches to determine final two spots

Then proceed to a seeded knockout final 8 system over three weeks.

 

[red+black]

#IB4L

 

[doona]

The main problem with any system that gives teams a double chance is that it allows for two sides to play each other twice in the finals. There are two reasons this is undesirable:

• the build-up and excitement leading up to a match is greatest when uncertainty about the result is high. When two teams have recently played this uncertainty is greatly reduced.

Personally as a Swans fan the games verse West coast in 2005 & 2006 were amazing and a product of the double chance:

2005
Qualifying Final
West Coast 10.9 (69)
Sydney 10.5 (65)

Grand Final
West Coast 7.12 (54)
Sydney 8.10 (58)

2006
Qualifying Final
West Coast 12.12 (84)
Sydney 13.7 (85)

Grand Final
Sydney 12.12 (84)
West Coast 12.13 (85)


______________________


I am biased but 2 of the best years of football for me. Heartbreak, Success, .......

 

[Handsuper47]

The current finals system is perfect. Leave it alone.

 

[caitsith01]

The current finals system is perfect. Leave it alone.

No it isn't. 5th to 8th are a total waste of time.

The double chance isn't the problem IMHO - it's the week off. Statistically it's just super unlikely that anyone will win 4 straight finals where at least two teams get a week off and only have to play 3 finals.

 

[caitsith01]

My proposal:

Top 6: automatically qualify for finals, receive a week off
7-10: play two wildcard matches to determine final two spots

Then proceed to a seeded knockout final 8 system over three weeks.

Why not just use the actual top 8 for three weeks of knockout finals where the best teams are on opposite sides of the draw. Simple. An extra round of 'wildcard' finals is not needed.

 

[VolgaBoatman]

I think the finals system is fine as it is, though I didn't mind the previous model which was statistically fairer.

 

[mottrain]

Is the OP a Dan26 alias???

 

[LeeARM]

I can't see the current finals system going anywhere but I do agree that this system is pointless for the teams placed 5 to 8. I think Collingwood in 07 was the only team outside the top 4 to make it to the Prelims in this system.

I don't mind the idea of a knockout top 8 like this

A: 1st vs 8th
B: 2nd vs 7th
C: 3rd vs 6th
D: 4th vs 5th

E: A Winner vs D Winner
F: B Winner vs C Winner

GF: E Winner vs F Winner

A top 6 would be more competitive but it would create too many dead rubber matches towards the end of the season

 

[Donakebab]

No it isn't. 5th to 8th are a total waste of time.

The double chance isn't the problem IMHO - it's the week off. Statistically it's just super unlikely that anyone will win 4 straight finals where at least two teams get a week off and only have to play 3 finals.

What do you propose, a top 4? Enjoy the season when half the teams shut up shop and start tanking when their chances of top 4 are out the window. This system works as it keeps the majority of the league competing for something and occasionally you get something like Adelaide 1997. Worth it.

 

[Topkent]

I can't see the current finals system going anywhere but I do agree that this system is pointless for the teams placed 5 to 8. I think Collingwood in 07 was the only team outside the top 4 to make it to the Prelims in this system.

I don't mind the idea of a knockout top 8 like this

A: 1st vs 8th
B: 2nd vs 7th
C: 3rd vs 6th
D: 4th vs 5th

E: A Winner vs D Winner
F: B Winner vs C Winner

GF: E Winner vs F Winner

A top 6 would be more competitive but it would create too many dead rubber matches towards the end of the season

It really makes the Home and Away season pointless apart from Home and Away finals
Though I think the AFL would be way more interesting if the 8th place team could win the finals
This years finals would be way more interesting if it was elimanation and the Hawks got to play the Tigers in week 1

 

[Sydney Bloods]

in that case it should just be a final 4 play off series.

gets rid of the extra baggage allows all teams to get home finals

even helps the draw out.

everyone plays each other once, top four enter finals playoffs 1 home 1 away with tie breaker if needed.

regular season rounds 1-9-bye week -10-17- regular season end - playoffs rounds 18-23, if there's no stand out winner tie breaker for first vs second and third vs forth based on %. with whatever teams have better percentage hosting the tie breaker.

why should teams with fluctuating form have an equal chance as those that have done the hard yards all year?

 

[Faysals Swans]

You should all be lawyers, the game is fine stop picking at everything.

 

[Underarm]

Why not just use the actual top 8 for three weeks of knockout finals where the best teams are on opposite sides of the draw. Simple. An extra round of 'wildcard' finals is not needed.

because when 8th beats 1st everyone will realise how good the double chance system is.

 

[Furn2]

It adds interest to the entire season. The battle for top 8, top 4, top 2 etc. With so many teams from the 1 state and the GF always at the G, a straight knock out could potentially mean no difference between 1st and 8th.

Looking at last year 11-11 Carlton plays 19-3 Hawthorn at a neutral venue, depending on other results, Carlton could then play again at the G in a semi and GF.

 

[Chiz]

Why not just use the actual top 8 for three weeks of knockout finals where the best teams are on opposite sides of the draw. Simple. An extra round of 'wildcard' finals is not needed.

The obvious problem with this is:

It really makes the Home and Away season pointless apart from Home and Away finals

Essentially saying a home ground advantage is not sufficient inventive to finish higher. The wildcard matches solve this problem nicely.

 

[red+black]

Ok I'll bite. I do prefer 2 prelims compared to when we just had 1. However, rather than start at a Final 8, I prefer to start with the Final 2 then work backwards.

Thus, assuming favourites win, the Grand Final should be 1 v 2.
Assuming favourites win, the Preliminary Finals should be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3. It annoys me that tennis does not guarantee this.
Assuming favourites win, the Semi Finals should be 3 v 6 and 4 v 5.

So I guess what I'd probably do is have Qualifying Finals of 1 v 3 and 2 v 4. But that's arguably not a better system. Maybe let 1 (or even 1 and 2) have a home prelim even if they lose in Week 1? I don't know what's the best solution.

I'd kind of like Week 1 and Week 3 to be both 1 v 4 and 2 v 3, but no one would want that.

 

[Chiz]

because when 8th beats 1st everyone will realise how good the double chance system is.

Do you really deserve a double chance of you lose to 8th?

 

[Inferno]

I can't see the current finals system going anywhere but I do agree that this system is pointless for the teams placed 5 to 8. I think Collingwood in 07 was the only team outside the top 4 to make it to the Prelims in this system.

Hawks in 2001 did too.

Imo that it's been a bit incredible it hasn't happened more though. The lower team has only won twice from 26 games played in the currently system, or 7.6% of the time. I think if you give it time (by that I mean a few decades) we'll see a higher proportion of 5-8 teams making it through to the prelims simply because their odds of winning are realistically higher than 7.6%, especially when you consider all the very close semi finals that have been played like WC vs. Carl 2011, Coll vs. Adel 2009, Syd vs. Geel 2005 etc. that could've easily gone the other way.

tl;dr - the system is fine, don't change it.

 

[LeeARM]

Hawks in 2001 did too.

Interesting that both the Essendon vs Hawthorn game in 2001 and the Geelong vs Collingwood game in 2007 were so close seeing as they were 1st vs 6th.

 

[caitsith01]

The obvious problem with this is:

Sorry, what?

A top 8 knock out finals series is basically what we have now, with a few tweaks. It doesn't make H&A pointless at all.

Even if it was a 'straight' knock out there is still a huge incentive to finish higher:

1. Get weaker opponents for more finals
2. Get a home final

Easy.

For example, on the current ladder you could have finals like this, assuming favourites win:

Round 1:

Swans v Crows in Sydney
Cats v Bombers in Melbourne
Hawks v North in Melbourne
Freo v Port in Perth

Round 2:

Swans v Freo in Sydney
Cats v Hawks in Melbourne

Round 3:

Swans v Cats in Melbourne

All pretty tasty matches, favourites should win in round 1 but the chance of an upset is there.

Or you could do it more 'evenly', i.e.:

Swans v Port in Sydney
Cats v North in Melbourne
Hawks v Essendon in Melbourne
Freo v Crows in Perth

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

Again I am going to post what I said in an earlier thread today:

Why does everyone constantly want to change our game? Just leave it the way it is.

 

[caitsith01]

What do you propose, a top 4? Enjoy the season when half the teams shut up shop and start tanking when their chances of top 4 are out the window. This system works as it keeps the majority of the league competing for something and occasionally you get something like Adelaide 1997. Worth it.

As above, what we have now but lose the double chance/week off part.

 

[caitsith01]

because when 8th beats 1st everyone will realise how good the double chance system is.

When 8th beats 1st the race for 8th the next season will suddenly be a hell of a lot more interesting.

At the moment 7th and 8th are basically a battle to see who can be ritually slaughtered in rounds 1 or 2 of the finals.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

really the way it is now, might as well only have a finals series for the top 4. the rest of the finals are just the good old '5th place well done for trying' ribbon they give to kids as junior sporting events.