The Finals System

[Demonic Ascent]

You cant deny that what I am saying makes total sense.

I would suggest you don't worry about the person making the argument. And you don't worry about their "style"

Just concern yourself with the logical, common-sense proposal being put forward.

What you are offering is not logical or common-sense though. The current system works fine and will work even better when the comp expands to 18 teams. Having 10 out of 18 make the finals is ridiculous. The current system is the best because it rewards teams 1 & 2 over teams 3 & 4; teams 3 & 4 over teams 5 & 6; and teams 5 & 6 over teams 7 & 8.

Your whole argument is based around the premise that the double chance is not genuine as if the minor premier wins in week 1 they do not get a double chance after losing. This completely ignores the fact that they get to advance directly to week 3 of the finals instead, getting a bye in week 2 which is effectively the double chance as they get to advance another week without having to play/win a game that week.

Everyone understands what you are saying. It's just that no-one agrees with you. Surely you can see that the current top 8 model we have is the best, most logical and fairest model to use going forward.

 

[Father Jack]

You cant deny that what I am saying makes total sense.

I would suggest you don't worry about the person making the argument. And you don't worry about their "style"

Just concern yourself with the logical, common-sense proposal being put forward.

But it doesn't make sense in that it isn't necessarily a better system. If a team finishes in the top 4 they currently have it guaranteed that they will play at least two finals. Fair enough. They may even get a good home advantage depending on the opposition. None of this wasting a whole season to finish on top then going out at the first hurdle. Once they get to the prelim then yes it is knockout. It is a nice blend of systems that rewards teams for their season. Where's the problem?

 

[Dan26]

What you are offering is not logical or common-sense though.

It is absolutely logical. To suggest otherwise shows a complete ignorance of the argument.

The current system works fine

Any finals sysrem "works." We've had 9 finals systems since 1897 and they've all "worked."

But a total knockout system works best of all..

The current system is the best because it rewards teams 1 & 2 over teams 3 & 4; teams 3 & 4 over teams 5 & 6; and teams 5 & 6 over teams 7 & 8.

The knockout final-10 rewards teams 1&2 over teams 3&4; teams 3&4 over teams 5&6; teams 5&6 over teams 7&8; and teams 7&8 over teams 9&10.

This was mentioned earlier. PLEASE read it to avoid me having to repeat things unnecessarily.

Having 10 out of 18 make the finals is ridiculous.

I accept that some feel 10 of 18 is too many. Although that isn't an argument about how the finals work - it's an argument about how many we have in the finals. Different argument.

I would argue it keeps the season alive for more teams. And that after the first weeks finals (7v10 ...8v9) we are then down to the eight number that you originally want anyway. So, what's the big deal?

You've got to take into account marketing and broadcasters desires, in terms of having meaningful games later in the season.

Your whole argument is based around the premise that the double chance is not genuine as if the minor premier wins in week 1 they do not get a double chance after losing. This completely ignores the fact that they get to advance directly to week 3 of the finals instead, getting a bye in week 2 which is effectively the double chance as they get to advance another week without having to play/win a game that week.

You havn't though this through.

The knockout final-10 sees the top team go straight to the prelim final after one win. Just like the current final-8. SAME THING

Under the knockout final-10 the top teams week off comes in the first week. Under the current sysrtem, their week of comes in the second week.

Under both systems they have a week off at some point before the Prelim Finals. The only difference is they face elimination in their first final. But it's against an easier opponnet (either 8th, 9th or 10th)

Under the current final-8 they play a HARDER opponent first up. The trade-off for playing that harder opponent is a second chance if they lose. The final-10 has an easier opponnet to get to the Prelim, with the trade-off for that easier opponent being elimination if they lose.

And as stated many times, it shouldn't make any difference if you face elimination in your first final. So what? You can be out after one loss with no double chance which is exactly what can happen under the current system.

And as stated earlier under both systems, the top team cannot be eliminated in the first week. Whether it be the current final-8, or a knockout final-10, the top team can only be eliminated from the second week onwards in BOTH systems.

 

[Father Jack]

I think that it is a good thing for the top team to be guaranteed at least two finals.

 

[Dan26]

But it doesn't make sense in that it isn't necessarily a better system. If a team finishes in the top 4 they currently have it guaranteed that they will play at least two finals.

Why should they be guaranteed two finals?? Finals are about performing on the day. That's why they are called FINALS

The only reason they get a double chance is because they play a high-ranked opponent first up. The trade-off for that difficult match is a second chance if they lose.

If the higher seeds play the lower seeds, the double chance is not needed, because the top team gets to play an easier opponent. The trade-off for playing that easier opponent is they face elimination if they lose. But the good thing is they face an easier opponent.

What is the big deal about going out at the first hurdle? St.Kilda last year very nearly were eliminated (WITH NO DOUBLE CHANCE) in their second hurdle.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF IT'S THEIR SECOND OR FIRST HURDLE? THEY ARE STILL OUT AFTER ONE LOSS.

The very things that could affect the top team in the current final-8 in a knockout PF (second hurdle) or GF (third hurdle) such as injuries, are exactly the same things that could affect the top team if they faced elimination at their first hurdle. So, what difference does it make?

Embrace knockout. Embrace it. We all love it. It's the true thing that fans love about finals - the fact that your season is on the line. You know this and love it yourself, so embrace it.

Remember, the top team cannot be eliminated in the first week in a knockout final-10. They have a bye, which they have earnt. They can only be eliminated from the second week onwards, just like the current final-8.

This whole ridiculous line of thinking that it's okay to be eliminated with no double chance in your second final, but not your first final, is so utterly ridiculous, it defies belief. What kind of logic is that? If it's okay to be eliminated with no double chance in your second final, then it's okay to be eliminated in your first.

If you don't perform on the day, you are OUT. That's the way finals should be.

 

[Father Jack]

Why should they be guaranteed two finals?? Finals are about performing on the day. That's why they are called FINALS

The only reason they get a double chance is because they play a high-ranked opponent first up. The trade-off for that difficult match is a second chance if they lose.

If the higher seeds play the lower seeds, the double chance is not needed, because the top team gets to play an easier opponent. The trade-off for playing that easier opponent is they face elimination if they lose. But the good thing is they face an easier opponent.

What is the big deal about going out at the first hurdle? St.Kilda last year very nearly were eliminated (WITH NO DOUBLE CHANCE) in their second hurdle.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF IT'S THEIR SECOND OR FIRST HURDLE? THEY ARE STILL OUT AFTER ONE LOSS.

The very things that could affect the top team in the current final-8 in a knockout PF (second hurdle) or GF (third hurdle) such as injuries, are exactly the same things that could affect the top team if they faced elimination at their first hurdle. So, what difference does it make?

Embrace knockout. Embrace it. We all love it. It's the true thing that fans love about finals - the fact that your season is on the line. You know this and love it yourself, so embrace it.

Remember, the top team cannot be eliminated in the first week in a knockout final-10. They have a bye, which they have earnt. They can only be eliminated from the second week onwards, just like the current final-8.

This whole ridiculous line of thinking that it's okay to be eliminated with no double chance in your second final, but not your first final, is so utterly ridiculous, it defies belief. What kind of logic is that? If it's okay to be eliminated with no double chance in your second final, then it's okay to be eliminated in your first.

If you don't perform on the day, you are OUT. That's the way finals should be.

Um, no, that isn't why they are called finals. It is a collective term, indicating the final part of the season. Some sports call them the 'post season'. Same thing. Your system seems to me to be one which shoehorns the finals into a knockout system for no good reason other than to make it a knockout system. It may have some merit, but the fact remains that the current system has worked very well, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a double chance, even if it is partial.

 

[Dan26]

and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a double chance, even if it is partial.

If a double chance is used it should be used either A.) all the way through the finals, or B.) Not at all.

I say not at all.

Option A was esentally the Argus sysrem used from 1898 -1930 where the minor-premiers received a second chance even if they lost the Grand Final.

What you are suggesting (the status-quo) doesn't make as much sense as pure knockout, because the current system can see the top team eliminated after one loss anyway! With no double chance. The current system is an "in-between" sysrem.

So, that being the case, why have the double chance? It's ludicrous. Apart from being unnecessary it goes agaisnt what people want. I would say that 99.999999% of the population like knockout football (which is what the Grand Final is) because we all like the fact that the season is on the line in one match. Knockout is the heart and soul, and the tradition of finals football.

That's what finals are about - performing ion the day. They are not about getting second chances for losing. I don't see how that can be realistically argued.

 

[gPhonque]

Do you honestly believe if you were born in the USA and had grown up with the NFL that you would hate that play-off system and you'd be proposing a change to a unique double chance format that was only used in Australia?

No, I wouldn't be proposing a double chance system. Because that is NFL football, and that is how it is done.

That is where you miss the point Dan.

We follow the AFL - Australian Football League.

Just because the NFL uses a knockout system, that doesn't mean we should.

Just because soccer uses a round ball, it doesn't mean we should.

Our game is unique for many reasons.

The way we conduct our finals series is one of those reasons. Just because it may be unique to our game doesn't mean it's a bad thing Dan.

Now read this next sentence carefully Dan:

FACT: I will never support a knockout system.

*cue Dan*

"But you already do because the Grand Final is a knockout game!"

And once again, Dan misses the point.

Rinse and repeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive–compulsive_disorder

 

[Dan26]

No, I wouldn't be proposing a double chance system. Because that is NFL football, and that is how it is done.

That is where you miss the point Dan.

We follow the AFL - Australian Football League.

Just because the NFL uses a knockout system, that doesn't mean we should.

Just because soccer uses a round ball, it doesn't mean we should.

Our game is unique for many reasons.

The way we conduct our finals series is one of those reasons. Just because it may be unique to our game doesn't mean it's a bad thing Dan.

Now read this next sentence carefully Dan:

FACT: I will never support a knockout system.

*cue Dan*

"But you already do because the Grand Final is a knockout game!"

And once again, Dan misses the point.

Rinse and repeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive–compulsive_disorder

Dude, it's a TRADITION of Aussie Rules Football that we have knockout finals. Whilst double chnaces have existed they have never been the heart and soul of what finals are all about.

Finals are about performing on the day.

And you miss the point about the NFL. Its not about what country they are from. It's about the system they use. Their sport is a football code that is played at one week intervals. Its their winter sport just like Aussie Rules is our winter sport.

Now if you fundamentally think a double chance system is better, you would propose the NFL change their sysrem, because you must think their system is "stupid"

You seem to think that finals systems are "part of the sport"

NO!

what happens out on the ground is part of the sport. How the play-offs/finals function are up the ruling body. Soccer, for instance traditionally gives it's premiership to the top team but that very same sport in Australia has a finals series. So, it's got nothing at all to do with the sport itself. Its all to do with the ruling body of that particualr competition and what they deem the best way to determine the season champion.

If the AFL got rid of the finals and just gave the flag to the top team, it would still be the same sport. The rules of the sport would still be the same.

If you support a double chance system, you logically must support the NFL changing their system.

The notion of finals being about "performing on the day" just doesn't have any resonance at all with you, does it?

Even though the very system we use is almost knockout anyway. We just need to iron out the kinks in the first week, to make it the system that our sport traditionally demands - pure knockout. The way finals are designed to be. And it's what the fans want.

To suggest fans don't love knockout football is an insult to the fans. We all love knockout football.

You'll come around eventually. You know my argument is solid as a rock. There is not one aspect of the argument I can't refute with logic and common-sense. I have faith that you'll see the light. I honestly do. I have a belief that when somethign is truly right people will come around eventually. They just need to understand the logic, and put aside any bias from their own experiences.

You're old school. I get that, and I like that about you but I'm know I'm 100% right on this.

I know some people don't like my absolute conviction, but they will have to get used to it on this one topic, becasue I KNOW I am right.

 

[Father Jack]

If a double chance is used it should be used either A.) all the way through the finals, or B.) Not at all.

I say not at all.

Option A was esentally the Argus sysrem used from 1898 -1930 where the minor-premiers received a second chance even if they lost the Grand Final.

What you are suggesting (the status-quo) doesn't make as much sense as pure knockout, because the current system can see the top team eliminated after one loss anyway! With no double chance. The current system is an "in-between" sysrem.

So, that being the case, why have the double chance? It's ludicrous. Apart from being unnecessary it goes agaisnt what people want. I would say that 99.999999% of the population like knockout football (which is what the Grand Final is) because we all like the fact that the season is on the line in one match. Knockout is the heart and soul, and the tradition of finals football.

That's what finals are about - performing ion the day. They are not about getting second chances for losing. I don't see how that can be realistically argued.

See, here's where you have got it arse about face, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we can't have this 'dual' system. None. This, therefore, makes the second bolded part irrelevant, even with your somewhat arrogant assertion of what 99.999999% of people want. Knockouts are part of our finals system, but not the be-all and end-all. Never have been. That is the one constant with our various finals systems, they have never ever ever been purely knockout, and there has never been a push to make them so, because very few people want it that way.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Can everyone stop replying to this guy? There is absolutely no point.

His argument is flawless, everyone else is ignorant and none of us know whats best for us.

I'm disappointed I did so many times, this thread was alright 5 or 6 pages ago.

I know some people don't like my absolute conviction, but they will have to get used to it on this one topic, becasue I KNOW I am right.

[YOUTUBE]Nh33bGAxl58[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Dan26]

See, here's where you have got it arse about face, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we can't have this 'dual' system. .

Yes we could have (and do have) the dual system. But it could be so much better and more exciting if it was pure knockout.

Knockouts are part of our finals system, but not the be-all and end-all.

Knockout and performing on the day is the heart and sould of what finals have been about. That's what the Grand Final is about. That's what the Preliminary Finals are about and these are the finals that the fans enjoy the most.

, and there has never been a push to make them so, because very few people want it that way.

People are just used to the way it has always been.

We tradtionally never had two Prelim finals did we? And the top team traditionally never faced elimination on Preliminary Final day with no double chance.

That was introduced only in 1994, and the fans love that "new" aspect of the current finals system. The two knockout Prelims, only have a 16 year history but the fans love them.

Why? Because fans love knockout football. We all do. You do. I know you do. Its a guess but I'm certain you love the excitement of knockout games. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Some people simply get used to how things had always been and are naturally resistant to change, but I know there is a market for a pure knockout finals series, because deep down I believe it's what the fans crave.

 

[Father Jack]

Yes we could have (and do have) the dual system. But it could be so much better and more exciting if it was pure knockout.



Knockout and performing on the day is the heart and sould of what finals have been about. That's what the Grand Final is about. That's what the Preliminary Finals are about and these are the finals that the fans enjoy the most.



People are just used to the way it has always been.

We tradtionally never had two Prelim finals did we? And the top team traditionally never faced elimination on Preliminary Final day with no double chance.

That was introduced only in 1994, and the fans love that "new" aspect of the current finals system. The two knockout Prelims, only have a 16 year history but the fans love them.

Why? Because fans love knockout football. We all do. You do. I know you do. Its a guess but I'm certain you love the excitement of knockout games. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Some people simply get used to how things had always been and are naturally resistant to change, but I know there is a market for a pure knockout finals series, because deep down I believe it's what the fans crave.

The whole time the final five was in operation the top team could go out with one loss in the prelim.

Again, you mistake opinion for fact. Try and frame your argument without telling me what i do and do not prefer. Unless you do that there is no point continuing the discussion.

I agree that you have ruined the thread with your, um, arrogance.

 

[Dan26]

The whole time the final five was in operation the top team could go out with one loss in the prelim.

lol.

Wrong.

 

[Father Jack]

actually you are right, they did have to lose to get into the prelim final in the first place. my mistake.

 

[Roby]

Yes it IS enough. It's more than enough.,

It's enough in the NFL.

The AFL is not NFL. That fact you say it's enough doesn't make it so. Neither does the overwhelming majority who prefer the current system. But if you have to wonder if 95% of fans, fans who have experience knock-out finals, want the current system, the fact you are so polar about this makes me wonder if everything is all there.

What is it you're against? You like the current system, which means you like the fact that the team can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final and Grand Final. So you like the fact that the top team doesn't get a double chance. So, do you like double chances or do you not? Which is it?

Maybe you fail to understand a nuance of humans. Humans are able to create their own reality. That's right, their OWN REALITY. Maybe this is a concept which is new to you. But if we choose to create a finals series with the 4 teams getting a double-chance with then knockout matches from then so, so be it. We have stated our reasons for doing so and you have presented your case. When you consistently reiterate sentences like 'embrace it' you appear more like zealous religious fanatic trying to impose dogma rather than having intelligent conversations.

And guess what you will say next? 'But it's not a final if it's there is a double chance, final means finality.' Again you want to deal with absolutes because your brain cannot handle small nuance and margins. Final actually means coming to an end. The top 4 double chance is just a means to an end. It qualifies for another end, another final.

We like to see the top 4 play-off each other in the first week. Win that and you get a home final with a week off. 80% who have the week off win the Prelim. That means you get ample reward in the top 4 win, on the top of the effort/reward for the H & A. The top 4 gives you an even better chance. No team under the current system out of the top 4 has ever won a premiership. Suggesting that if they were to do it it would well deserved. Your system would probably allow undeserving advancement and premiers.

Ever been to a qualifying final in the first game of finals? National Anthem, massive anticipation with 80,000 at the MCG, chills down the spine stuff. YOU SHOULD EMBRACE IT. Embrace the current system.

Oh wait, don't embrace it. Go watch NFL. Go, see ya later, do not come back.

 

[JHF1870]

Please tell me?

When did two sides play in a grand final that weren't the best two sides over the season?

When did we last have a Grand Final winner that wasn't in the top Four prior to the finals?

As far as I can see since 2000 only Port Adelaide probably didn't deserve to be playing a Grand Final. Having said that who would have matched Geelong that year.

So in conclusion, do you really think the finals has not given us the best possible result? The fact is the finals system obviously works, but people want to tweak it merely for their own satisfaction.

 

[Father Jack]

Please tell me?

When did two sides play in a grand final that weren't the best two sides over the season?

When did we last have a Grand Final winner that wasn't in the top Four prior to the finals?

As far as I can see since 2000 only Port Adelaide probably didn't deserve to be playing a Grand Final. Having said that who would have matched Geelong that year.

So in conclusion, do you really think the finals has not given us the best possible result? The fact is the finals system obviously works, but people want to tweak it merely for their own satisfaction.

Dunno, Port finished second and defeated the third place team before flogging the fourth placed side. Fair to say they deserved it.

 

[Dan26]

Please tell me?

When did two sides play in a grand final that weren't the best two sides over the season?

Adelaide were one of the best two sides in both 2005 and 2006.

Port were one of the best two sides in both 2002 and 2003 (they were 5 wins ahead of Collingwood in '02 and three wins ahead of Collingwood in '03)

Carlton were the second best side in 2000.

So, over the last completed decade there were 5 Grand Finals that featured the best two teams and five that didn't.

But that has nothing to do with any of this. Unless you have a final-2 there is the possibility under any system that the top two sides won't make it.

 

[doovies]

The old final 6 systems were riddled with anomalies for the sake of getting one extra final out of it than it should. The proper final 6 system sees 1 and 2 have a week off and play each other in the old 2nd Semi Final, while 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 play off for the right to play in the old 1st Semi Final. It's a boring system though.

50% of clubs making the finals should be the limit though.

If the AFL really wanted to make more $$$, they could do the following Final 8.

Have two "groups"
Group A - 1, 2, 7, 8
Group B - 3, 4, 5, 6

Week 1 Qualifying Finals
1 v 8
2 v 7
-----
3 v 6
4 v 5

Week 2 Qualifying Finals
1 v 7
2 v 8
-----
3 v 5
4 v 6

Top 2 in a Group proceed to the Preliminary Finals, but they are re-ranked based on seeding... so if 2nd came first in Group A and 1st came second in Group A, they are re-ranked 1st then 2nd for the group in terms of determining the Preliminary Finals.

Preliminary Finals
Group A 1st v Group B 2nd
Group B 1st v Group A 2nd

Teams with the higher seeding hosts.... If 2nd ends up second in Group A after re-ranking and 3rd came first in Group B after re-ranking, 2nd still hosts their Prelim against 3rd.

GF - Preliminary Final winners play off.

So if done on the current ladder.

Week 1

1. Collingwood v 8. Hawthorn
2. Geelong v 7. Sydney
3. St.Kilda v 6. Carlton
4. Western Bulldogs v 5. Fremantle

Week 2

1. Collingwood v 7. Sydney
2. Geelong v 8. Hawthorn
3. St.Kilda v 5. Fremantle
4. Western Bulldogs v 6. Carlton

Only slight issue is in regards to fixturing.... having a final on the Sunday in Week 2 could force a Sunday afternoon Prelim the following weekend if both teams qualify for the Preliminary Finals and both are staged at the MCG (neither team could play on Friday night, meaning neither Preliminary Final takes place on Friday Night)... the GF would have to be on a Saturday Night.

Fixture

Week 1

Friday Night
Collingwood v Hawthorn - MCG
Saturday
Western Bulldogs v Fremantle - Etihad Stadium
Saturday Night
Geelong v Sydney - MCG
Sunday
St.Kilda v Carlton - MCG

Week 2

Friday Night
Geelong v Hawthorn - MCG
Saturday
St.Kilda v Fremantle - Etihad Stadium
Saturday Night
Collingwood v Sydney - MCG
Sunday
Western Bulldogs v Carlton - MCG

Are you joking??? So you're saying that 8th should get the same chance as 1st. Thats ridiculous

 

[Dan26]

So in conclusion, do you really think the finals has not given us the best possible result? The fact is the finals system obviously works, but people want to tweak it merely for their own satisfaction.

That logic doesn't make any sense.

In 2007 6th-placed Collingwood came within 5 points of beating top-placed Geelong.

In 2001, 6th-placed Hawthorn came within a whisker of beating top-placed Essendon.

If those two results were reversed, and 6th made the Grand Final both years (which nearly happened) would you argue the the finals system doesn't work?

Over a long period of time there will be occasions where lower placed sides make the Grand Final.

The fact that it hasn't happend yet in this finals system (even though 6th nearly made it in both 2001 and 2007) doesn't mean the system is perfect. The sysem is NOT knockout so it cannot be perfect because finals should be knockout. That's what finals are about - performing on the day.

Last year 3rd and 4th received a double chance, then both those teams had the opportunity to beat 1st and 2nd in preliminary Finals, and if they did beat them, 1st and 2nd would have been out after one loss, while 3rd and 4th would have received a second chance. Ridiculous. And Indefensible.

The whole concept of allowing double chances just for the first final, but not for the second final that the top team plays is depely flawed, and totally against the traditional ideology of what finals are about.

If it's good enough to be eliminated in the Prelim after one loss, then it's good enough to be eliminated after one loss in any game.

 

[gPhonque]

Last year 3rd and 4th received a double chance, then both those teams had the opportunity to beat 1st and 2nd in preliminary Finals, and if they did beat them, 1st and 2nd would have been out after one loss, while 3rd and 4th would have received a second chance. Ridiculous. And Indefensible.

The whole concept of allowing double chances just for the first final, but not for the second final that the top team plays is depely flawed...

Agree 100%.








(wouldn't have happened under the Final 5, or any system with a similar method to the Final 5. ie. A system that only has one Preliminary final....)

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Why should they be guaranteed two finals?? Finals are about performing on the day. That's why they are called FINALS

The only reason they get a double chance is because they play a high-ranked opponent first up. The trade-off for that difficult match is a second chance if they lose.

Your system gives minimal advantage to those finishing higher up the ladder. All the teams will be aiming for is to sure up a position in the finals. There is no real advantage from finishing 3rd to finishing 10th. A team will merely win enough games (say 11) to ensure a finals birth and then manage their list for the remainder of the H&A system to ensure their players are fresh come finals time.

The bottom line is the current system we have is a good one that works fine and is the best possible system. It is logically the best system as it rewards those teams which finish higher up the ladder. When there is an 18 team comp it will also ensure less than 50% of teams make the finals. Your inability to comprehend this is astounding.

Bottom line is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[JHF1870]

That logic doesn't make any sense.

In 2007 6th-placed Collingwood came within 5 points of beating top-placed Geelong.

In 2001, 6th-placed Hawthorn came within a whisker of beating top-placed Essendon.

If those two results were reversed, and 6th made the Grand Final both years (which nearly happened) would you argue the the finals system doesn't work?

Over a long period of time there will be occasions where lower placed sides make the Grand Final.

The fact that it hasn't happend yet in this finals system (even though 6th nearly made it in both 2001 and 2007) doesn't mean the system is perfect. The sysem is NOT knockout so it cannot be perfect because finals should be knockout. That's what finals are about - performing on the day.

Last year 3rd and 4th received a double chance, then both those teams had the opportunity to beat 1st and 2nd in preliminary Finals, and if they did beat them, 1st and 2nd would have been out after one loss, while 3rd and 4th would have received a second chance. Ridiculous. And Indefensible.

The whole concept of allowing double chances just for the first final, but not for the second final that the top team plays is depely flawed, and totally against the traditional ideology of what finals are about.

If it's good enough to be eliminated in the Prelim after one loss, then it's good enough to be eliminated after one loss in any game.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that can you dispute grand final winners in the last Ten years? they all deserved to be there and they all deserved to win.

 

[Roby]

Agree 100%.








(wouldn't have happened under the Final 5, or any system with a similar method to the Final 5. ie. A system that only has one Preliminary final....)

Another Essendon supporter agrees with Dan.

Let's see... will Essendon finish in the top 4 anytime soon, even the next decade? Nope. Will they finish top 10. Maybe.

Does Essendon have the capacity to have an inconsistent season but still beat the top sides? Yep. So the new system would reward the most mediocre of sides like Essendon above anyone else. They would gain the most relatively. We can smell the BS from there Dan. Your pathetic attempt, is what it is.