The Finals System

[Mr Meeseeks]

The antidote to this is a 4 Division System.

AFL North (5 Teams)
AFL West (5 Teams)
AFL South (5 Teams)
AFL Central (5 Teams)

Yes, yes, I know we are 2 teams short of this - but its not that much further along the line - then every team is competing against 4 others for the Division crown.

All sorts of new medals and trophies can then be introduced as well, and the way the Draft works can also be modified in any number of ways.

I hate this idea nearly as much as the consolation finals. Why do we need all sorts of new medals and trophies???

Divisions/conferences can not be done fairly in our game anyway. Geographically it centres around Melbourne too much.

It works in the USA as the teams a fairly evenly spread across the country.

The 'antidote' is a 10 team finals series. More games, more for teams to play for, more teams in the race for longer, more money for the dunderheads in charge...

 

[gPhonque]

The old top 5 was perfect.

The best system was the original top 5 VFL finals system.

The Final 5 was far and away the best and fairest system ever.

gPhongue, I'm with you mate. I hate how if you finish 1st, win your first final but lose your Prelim you're gone.

I'm glad I'm not the only person with enough brains to realise this.

Finals are what matters.

Finals are what players work hard all year for.

Not to finish with the minor premiership and an easy route to the GF.

Coming from the person who suggested that I have a warped view of footy...?

Players don't work hard all year to play finals.

They work hard all year to win the Grand Final.

Therefore, it's simple common sense that we have a finals system that actually rewards the hard work (as you call it) the players have put in throughout the year and gives them an easier path to the Grand Final.

Once you're IN the Grand Final, you're on your own.

THAT'S what players work hard to achieve.

what are you disagreeing with me about?

Sorry, I didn't really make myself clear... (feck!)

I'm disagreeing that our finals should go to knockout rounds, and deny higher-placed teams the guaranteed double chance. You simply can't put a team who has finished top 3 and won their first finals game into a sudden-death Preliminary final. It makes the H&A season completely irrelevant.

The only time the H&A season should be irrelevant is the Grand Final.

It (top 3 teams being denied a double chance by being knocked out in one of the Prelims) has happened before too...

1997 - Bulldogs (finished 3rd, won first final, knocked out in Prelim by 4th placed team)
1998 - Bulldogs (finished 2nd, won first final, knocked out in Prelim by 5th placed team)
1999 - Essendon (finished 1st, won first final by 70 points, knocked out in Prelim by 6th placed team)
2006 - Adelaide (finished 2nd, won first final, only to be rewarded with a sudden death Preliminary Final against the team that finished 1st!)

Granted, the system has changed slightly since 97-99, but the same flaw remains.


Oh, and let's not forget Geelong in 2007....

......who finished 3 games clear on top of the ladder, and then went on to win their first final by 100+ points, were almost knocked out in a sudden death Preliminary Final (against the 6th placed team) as well. (luckily, they scraped though by 5 points...)

Q. Where was Geelong's advantage for finishing 1st that day?

A. It didn't exist, along with their "double chance."

It would have been an absolute disgrace if they'd been knocked out before the Grand Final in one game. Other teams got double chances in that finals series, and yet Geelong wouldn't have, despite finishing 3 games clear in 1st place?

It's a ridiculous system that needs to be fixed.

Two Preliminary Finals simply does not, and can not ever work.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Who knows if they do now anyway, the lopsided draw makes it nigh on impossible to tell. How many times out of the past dozen years or so have the two best teams definitely been in the GF?

Al least in the current system, there's the possibility of any 2 of the top 4 teams playing off in the GF. That possibility will be removed if your split the finals into conferences.

Take last year as an example. St Kilda and Geelong were clearly the 2 best teams of the year, well ahead of the rest. The year before it was Geelong and Hawthorn. If they were in the same conference, then they wouldn't have been able to meet in the GF. I don't think anyone wants that.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

I'm glad I'm not the only person with enough brains to realise this.

Brains? I think nostalgia is getting in the way of common sense a bit in this thread.

The top 5 worked ok when there was up to 12 teams, there will be 18 soon....

Stop and think about it. Imagine how many teams would be out fo the finals race by the half way mark if only 5 of 18 could make it!

There would be around 10 teams out of it with a month to go.

Imagine how many dead rubbers there would be. Crowds would drop, fair-weather supporters would lose interest, struggling clubs would die, it would be a disaster.

A 10 team finals series provides us with more games meaning something deep into the season. It also still provides the oppurtunity for the top team to have an immense advantage. Possibly 2 weeks off leaving them very fresh for the Prelim.

Besides, as estibador said earlier in the thread. The minor premier is not always a reflection of the best team due to our incredibly lop-sided fixturing.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Brains? I think nostalgia is getting in the way of common sense a bit in this thread.

The top 5 worked ok when there was up to 12 teams, there will be 18 soon....

Stop and think about it. Imagine how many teams would be out fo the finals race by the half way mark if only 5 of 18 could make it!

There would be around 10 teams out of it with a month to go.

Imagine how many dead rubbers there would be. Crowds would drop, fair-weather supporters would lose interest, struggling clubs would die, it would be a disaster.

It wasn't the number of teams that made the final 5 system the best, it was the fact that the top 3 teams could lose any 1 game leading up to the grand final without being knocked out. With the current system, if the top 4 teams win the first game and lose the second, they're out. Under the final 5 system, they'd get another chance.

A 10 team finals series provides us with more games meaning something deep into the season. It also still provides the oppurtunity for the top team to have an immense advantage. Possibly 2 weeks off leaving them very fresh for the Prelim.

Remember what happened to Essendon in 1990, when they unexpectedly got a 2 week break. It's hard to say if that caused them to lose 2 finals to Collingwood or not, but I'm sure it didn't help.

Besides, as estibador said earlier in the thread. The minor premier is not always a reflection of the best team due to our incredibly lop-sided fixturing.

That's where the fixture itself needs looking at. How's this for an idea:

- Every team plays each other once. That's 17 matches a piece.
- Divide the ladder into 3 groups of 6 for the last 5 matches; top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6.
- Each team plays the other 5 teams in that group to jocky for position within that group. ie, teams in group 1 will finish 1-6 on the final ladder, their order to be determined by the last 5 matches combined with the first 17 matches.

That's about as even as you can get it. You'll know for sure that teams 1-6 all played the same teams twice. Teams 7 and 8 (after 17 rounds) will have an easier last 5 games, but cannot finish higher than 7th.

 

[gPhonque]

Brains? I think nostalgia is getting in the way of common sense a bit in this thread.

The top 5 worked ok when there was up to 12 teams, there will be 18 soon....

Stop and think about it. Imagine how many teams would be out fo the finals race by the half way mark if only 5 of 18 could make it!

There would be around 10 teams out of it with a month to go.

Imagine how many dead rubbers there would be. Crowds would drop, fair-weather supporters would lose interest, struggling clubs would die, it would be a disaster.

As much as I'd love to, I'm not really suggesting we go back to a Final 5.

But we have to come up with something better than the current Final 8 system.

A 10 team finals series provides us with more games meaning something deep into the season. It also still provides the oppurtunity for the top team to have an immense advantage. Possibly 2 weeks off leaving them very fresh for the Prelim.

More than half the teams in the finals? That's just ridiculous!

"Hey, screw the H&A season. Let's just play finals!"

Sorry, but a 10-team finals series is the "worst idea in this thread."

I'm sick of this whole "we have to reward the lower placed teams and supporters" rubbish. Why should 10th place be rewarded in any way? Is this a professional sporting competition or the special school's little athletics day where every kid leaves with a smile?

FFS.

If our entire sport is at risk of falling apart if we don't include more than half the clubs in the finals, then perhaps our game isn't as strong as we are led to believe.

Besides, as estibador said earlier in the thread. The minor premier is not always a reflection of the best team due to our incredibly lop-sided fixturing.

That's a good point, but how do we solve it?

Unless we play 34 H&A games per season, it's never going to be even.

That DOESN'T mean the H&A season should be irrelevant.

And for the record, yes - I believe the uneven fixture is almost just as big a problem as the Final 8.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

^^^

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the 10-team finals series. We'll also have to agree to disagree on the current system which I think is fantastic.

I'm not for a 10 team finals so that it can reward more teams, Im for it to avoid too many dead rubbers late in the season.

Just as you are justifiably sick of the "we have to reward the lower placed teams and supporters" rubbish, I am sick of the "too mny crap teams will dilute the finals" rubbish. WHo cares? A final is a final and they are great to watch regardless of the skill. Besides, the teams in positions 7-10 would generally not last more than a week or two.

It doesn't matter how strong your competition is, 4 or 5 out of 9 games a week meaning nothing for the final couple of months is not good. Not good at all.

As for the fixturing, yeah its a mess, but it is here to stay.

 

[Father Jack]

Sorry, I didn't really make myself clear... (feck!)

I'm disagreeing that our finals should go to knockout rounds, and deny higher-placed teams the guaranteed double chance. You simply can't put a team who has finished top 3 and won their first finals game into a sudden-death Preliminary final. It makes the H&A season completely irrelevant.

The only time the H&A season should be irrelevant is the Grand Final.

It (top 3 teams being denied a double chance by being knocked out in one of the Prelims) has happened before too...

1997 - Bulldogs (finished 3rd, won first final, knocked out in Prelim by 4th placed team)
1998 - Bulldogs (finished 2nd, won first final, knocked out in Prelim by 5th placed team)
1999 - Essendon (finished 1st, won first final by 70 points, knocked out in Prelim by 6th placed team)
2006 - Adelaide (finished 2nd, won first final, only to be rewarded with a sudden death Preliminary Final against the team that finished 1st!)

Granted, the system has changed slightly since 97-99, but the same flaw remains.


Oh, and let's not forget Geelong in 2007....

......who finished 3 games clear on top of the ladder, and then went on to win their first final by 100+ points, were almost knocked out in a sudden death Preliminary Final (against the 6th placed team) as well. (luckily, they scraped though by 5 points...)

Q. Where was Geelong's advantage for finishing 1st that day?

A. It didn't exist, along with their "double chance."

It would have been an absolute disgrace if they'd been knocked out before the Grand Final in one game. Other teams got double chances in that finals series, and yet Geelong wouldn't have, despite finishing 3 games clear in 1st place?

It's a ridiculous system that needs to be fixed.

Two Preliminary Finals simply does not, and can not ever work.

All i was saying was how it worked, I didn't give an opinion. However, if you can come up with a better system that fits into four weeks, I'd be glad to hear it, and bear in mind that there might be 4 games between first and second, or 4 percentage points between first and fourth. They've got to the pointy end, they still have to come up with the goods, and we simply haven't got time to cover all the possible permutations. The system is the best we can do with what we have got, even if that might be harsh on occasion.

Al least in the current system, there's the possibility of any 2 of the top 4 teams playing off in the GF. That possibility will be removed if your split the finals into conferences.

Take last year as an example. St Kilda and Geelong were clearly the 2 best teams of the year, well ahead of the rest. The year before it was Geelong and Hawthorn. If they were in the same conference, then they wouldn't have been able to meet in the GF. I don't think anyone wants that.

Yeah, but who knows how it would have panned out if everyone played each other home and away. All I'm saying is that it is far from guaranteed we even know who the best teams are, let alone getting them in the GF against each other. It isn't going to be often that you get two teams clearly above each other.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Remember what happened to Essendon in 1990, when they unexpectedly got a 2 week break. It's hard to say if that caused them to lose 2 finals to Collingwood or not, but I'm sure it didn't help.

I didnt mean two in a row. That would be a disadvantage, I agree.

I put up a system a couple of pages back which I think will work well and reward each team proportionately more the higher they finish. In that system teams 1 & 2 get the first week off. If they keep winning they get the week off before the Prelim...

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Q. Where was Geelong's advantage for finishing 1st that day?

A. It didn't exist, along with their "double chance."

It would have been an absolute disgrace if they'd been knocked out before the Grand Final in one game. Other teams got double chances in that finals series, and yet Geelong wouldn't have, despite finishing 3 games clear in 1st place?

It's a ridiculous system that needs to be fixed.

Two Preliminary Finals simply does not, and can not ever work.

Dont forget they did have a week off before the Prelim. I consider that a pretty handy advantage in a cut-throat final. Plus had they been playing an interstate team, they would of had HGA.

Regardless of whether you think the Prelim/current system works or will ever work, its makes for - usually - the best two games of the season.

 

[Wallaby]

Unless we play 34 H&A games per season, it's never going to be even.

And there - right there! - is the answer!

Play 34 games.

Why not?

Soccer players play up to 50 games a season. Rugby League plays a 26-round season. NBA basketball plays 82.

Why is 22 a magical number?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I didnt mean two in a row. That would be a disadvantage, I agree.

I put up a system a couple of pages back which I think will work well and reward each team proportionately more the higher they finish. In that system teams 1 & 2 get the first week off. If they keep winning they get the week off before the Prelim...

Sorry, I though you were suggesting a system that would give teams 2 weeks off in a row.

 

[Father Jack]

And there - right there! - is the answer!

Play 34 games.

Why not?

Soccer players play up to 50 games a season. Rugby League plays a 26-round season. NBA basketball plays 82.

Why is 22 a magical number?

Um, maybe because they are different games which tax the body differently?

 

[FootyJunkie]

Why is 22 a magical number?

Because the cricket grounds that the AFL uses are only available for 27 weeks in a year due to contracts that were set when the VFL had 12 clubs and had a fair 22 round season, plus finals, plus SOO. Despite all this talk that the AFL would be expanding to 24 rounds, it seems they over looked the cricket. I think we're going to have a 22 round season from 2012.

The AFL wants two prelims, so 1st is never going to have any exclusive advantage.

The fact that not everyone plays eachother twice warrants having a final series... are 1st really where they are on merit or due to an easy draw?

I sure hope the AFL don't expand to a Final 10. A Final 9 that runs 5 weeks with one wild card playoff (giving 1st-7th a breather before the REAL finals) in Week 1 i can live with.

 

[Charlotte]

You don't if you win your first game and then lose the Prelim. That's called an instant knockout.

What we have at the moment is NOT a double chance.

It's just an easier path to a Preliminary Final.

Considering the aim of our game is to a) make the Grand Final, and b) win the Grand Final, then the current finals system, which only helps teams get to a Preliminary Final, basically makes a complete mockery of the 22 rounds of football we play leading up to it.

Might as well not play 22 rounds of football and just have a 16-team knockout finals series.

Final 5 was flawless, fair, and rewarded teams appropriately for their performance throughout the season.

Actually, I lie - there is one flaw, and that is the fact it doesn't make the AFL rich.

But surely, we could have a Final 5 series for the TRUE finalists, and then a "best of the rest" type of competition for the other teams? That way, we get the best Finals system, there is still something to play for for the remaining teams, and the AFL gets more games and more money.

Just a thought.

See I look at the "double chance" to be a double shot at the Grand final. If you finish 1 -4 and then lose you have another shot at it trying to make it. If you finish 1 - 4 and win first week you go through to the next round so you have another shot at the Grand Final and play against a team that has had to fight hard for the last 2 weeks.

 

[Dr Awkward]

I actually really love the current finals system, I think its a really good way to sort out a premiership team.

The problem is that with 20 teams going for eight spots there are going to be a hell of a lot of meaningless games in the second half of the year when many of the bottom 12 cant make it.

 

[Dr Awkward]

The people complaining about the fact that you can finish top, win a game and then lose the prelim and you are out:

The fact that you get a week off means that you really are in the box seat to win the prelim against a weaker team at home that has just played two finals. Plus I like the fact that the prelim is just one game because the 'high stakes' are what makes finals great. The top team is given every chance to make the granny, its in their hands.

Generally in the last 5 or 6 years the best 2 teams have made the grand final.

 

[gPhonque]

See I look at the "double chance" to be a double shot at the Grand final. If you finish 1 -4 and then lose you have another shot at it trying to make it. If you finish 1 - 4 and win first week you go through to the next round so you have another shot at the Grand Final and play against a team that has had to fight hard for the last 2 weeks.

Sorry, but the double chance has ALWAYS meant that you were guaranteed the chance to lose a game before the Grand Final.

Top teams don't have that chance anymore.

Therefore, they don't have a double chance.

Your definition of "double chance" is completely inconsistent with what it has meant throughout the history of our game. You do realise that, don't you?

The problem is that with 20 teams going for eight spots there are going to be a hell of a lot of meaningless games in the second half of the year when many of the bottom 12 cant make it.

So what?

What is this obsession people have with wanting to keep every game "meaningful?" I mean, if that's all people want, then let's not play the H&A series at all, and just play finals so that every game "means something."

There are always going to be teams who can't make the finals. It's just how sporting competitions work. The idea is for those teams to improve and try to do better next year.

If we just keep on adding more teams into the finals, it just cheapens the achievement of actually making the finals. We've already done that by putting half the competition into the finals. Let's not cheapen it further by adding more teams.

People seem to have forgotten that making the finals should be an achievement, and not a formality.

(but I guess that's what having half the clubs participate in them does...)

The fact that you get a week off means that you really are in the box seat to win the prelim against a weaker team at home that has just played two finals. Plus I like the fact that the prelim is just one game because the 'high stakes' are what makes finals great. The top team is given every chance to make the granny, its in their hands.

The current system with two Preliminary Finals is definitely entertaining - I'm not arguing that. Yes, it's high stakes etc...

But at the same time, we have to find a balance between "entertaining" and a fair way to sort out the Premier team of the entire season that actually takes the bulk of our season (being the H&A rounds) into account, and rewards the better teams appropriately.

The current system (with two Prelims) is weighted far too heavily towards entertainment, than it is towards having relevance to the H&A rounds.

And again, if we have a system that doesn't truly take into account the H&A rounds, then why bother playing them?

 

[Father Jack]

Sorry, but the double chance has ALWAYS meant that you were guaranteed the chance to lose a game before the Grand Final.

Top teams don't have that chance anymore.

Therefore, they don't have a double chance.

Your definition of "double chance" is completely inconsistent with what it has meant throughout the history of our game. You do realise that, don't you?



So what?

What is this obsession people have with wanting to keep every game "meaningful?" I mean, if that's all people want, then let's not play the H&A series at all, and just play finals so that every game "means something."

There are always going to be teams who can't make the finals. It's just how sporting competitions work. The idea is for those teams to improve and try to do better next year.

If we just keep on adding more teams into the finals, it just cheapens the achievement of actually making the finals. We've already done that by putting half the competition into the finals. Let's not cheapen it further by adding more teams.

People seem to have forgotten that making the finals should be an achievement, and not a formality.

(but I guess that's what having half the clubs participate in them does...)



The current system with two Preliminary Finals is definitely entertaining - I'm not arguing that. Yes, it's high stakes etc...

But at the same time, we have to find a balance between "entertaining" and a fair way to sort out the Premier team of the entire season that actually takes the bulk of our season (being the H&A rounds) into account, and rewards the better teams appropriately.

The current system (with two Prelims) is weighted far too heavily towards entertainment, than it is towards having relevance to the H&A rounds.

And again, if we have a system that doesn't truly take into account the H&A rounds, then why bother playing them?

The system has worked well, and is a good one considering the limitations it works under. Most premiers come from top two, and all from top four under this system. Seems fair to me.

 

[gPhonque]

The system has worked well, and is a good one considering the limitations it works under. Most premiers come from top two, and all from top four under this system. Seems fair to me.

It didn't work well in 97, 98, 99, or 06. It almost failed monumentally in 07 as well.

So there's 4 (almost 5) years in the past 12 that the system has failed and a top 3 club has been knocked out after one loss.

Hell, Adelaide's "reward" in 2006 for finishing 2nd and winning their first final was to meet the minor premier West Coast (who were beaten by a point in their first final) in a sudden death Preliminary Final!

It's a terrible system.

 

[Dr Awkward]

The current system (with two Prelims) is weighted far too heavily towards entertainment, than it is towards having relevance to the H&A rounds.

I don't think so, I think its weighted pretty well. Its very difficult for a team who plays in a semi-final to go and knock off the top team in a prelim, especially if they have to travel away from home.

Wouldn't you agree that the last 10 years we have had some really great grand final match ups? Its not that often that it isnt the best two teams. Yet its still often enough to make it exciting.

 

[Dr Awkward]

It didn't work well in 97, 98, 99, or 06. It almost failed monumentally in 07 as well.

So there's 4 (almost 5) years in the past 12 that the system has failed and a top 3 club has been knocked out after one loss.

Hell, Adelaide's "reward" in 2006 for finishing 2nd and winning their first final was to meet the minor premier West Coast (who were beaten by a point in their first final) in a sudden death Preliminary Final!

It's a terrible system.

The finals system was completely different in 97 and 98 mate. I think it was different in 99 as well. I dont see what was wrong in 06?

 

[Father Jack]

It didn't work well in 97, 98, 99, or 06. It almost failed monumentally in 07 as well.

So there's 4 (almost 5) years in the past 12 that the system has failed and a top 3 club has been knocked out after one loss.

Hell, Adelaide's "reward" in 2006 for finishing 2nd and winning their first final was to meet the minor premier West Coast (who were beaten by a point in their first final) in a sudden death Preliminary Final!

It's a terrible system.

firstly I'm talking about this version, and secondly if Adelaide couldn't beat an interstate side after having a week off (and with a nice lead at half time to boot) then they didn't deserve to be there. They got their reward and the fact that other results didn't go their way didn't matter. I don't know why you are so hung up on this 'second chance' thing either, I don't see a problem in having to perform in the last two weeks.

 

[gPhonque]

The finals system was completely different in 97 and 98 mate. I think it was different in 99 as well. I dont see what was wrong in 06?

I know it was different. I posted as much a couple of pages back. However, it wasn't "completely" different, mate. In fact, it was exactly the same as it is now except that it's now 1v4 rather than 1v8, 2v7, etc... in the first week.

That aside, the flaw I'm talking about (knockout Prelims that remove the double chance) remains anyway. It's exactly the same under the current system.

As for 06, Adelaide finished 2nd and were denied the double chance.

firstly I'm talking about this version,

As I just pointed out to Dr Awkward, that's irrelevant.

and secondly if Adelaide couldn't beat an interstate side after having a week off (and with a nice lead at half time to boot) then they didn't deserve to be there. They got their reward and the fact that other results didn't go their way didn't matter.

Ok, but to use your same logic, surely then, if West Coast couldn't beat Sydney at home in the first week, then they didn't deserve to be there either?

I don't know why you are so hung up on this 'second chance' thing either, I don't see a problem in having to perform in the last two weeks.

Look, in a way, neither do I. If I team can't perform at the end, then perhaps they don't deserve to be there.... etc etc... I understand your argument.

But at the same time, I also believe that it's important that the H&A rounds should have a significant affect on the finals.

The Final 8 system does not do this, as I've shown.

As I said, we have to balance "entertainment" with "what is fair" for the teams who have busted their arses all year and finished up the top of the ladder.

The best way to do that is to provide higher placed teams with a guaranteed double chance. If they completely choke and lose 2 finals in a row, then you'll hear no arguments from me (or anybody) that they still deserve to be there.

You seem to think that the entire season is about the 4 weeks at the end. I believe the preceding 22 weeks should have a bit more of an influence over what happens in those last 4 weeks, or else they almost become irrelevant and we might as well just pull the names out of a hat.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[iluvparis]

I am staggered at some of the claims on here that the current system is 'perfect', 'the best', 'entertaining'. Surely you guys are deluded. I cannot see how anyone with any reasonable intelligence cannot see the system is farcical!

How is it entertaining when all that happens in the Prelims is the opponents from the QF's are swapped - meaning if you finish on top you actually face a tougher preliminary final opponent - farcical!

And for those arguing that if you have less teams in the finals there will be too many dead rubbers consider this. Under the new system in the Semi-Finals, the losers from the first week have almost a 100% winning record in the second week. In other words - the result of those games are virtually pre-determined - farcical!!!

And if you think a few dead rubbers at the end of the season is going to severly hurt the game then our game is in serious trouble. The NFL has only 12 of 30 teams make the finals and it is the world's premier sporting league even though half the teams are out of the running by virtually halfway through the season. The same applies to Major Leauge Baseball. If you think tanking is a problem than rorting the finals system to solve it is the ultimate theory of the second best - fix the draft then you muppets!

An 18 team comp with a top 5 with every Melbourne final at the MCG would result in epic finals football IMHO.

Anything else.....FARCICAL!!!!