The Success of the Finals System

[Gydafud]

Disclaimer: This is not a thread proposing a change to the current system, or to somehow devalue any Premiership won under a particular system.

The way that our current finals system is structured is to give as much possible advantage to the Top 2 teams on the AFL ladder so that they can utlimately face off in the Grand Final. After Geelong and Brisbane both failed to make the GF this year, I started to wonder how often that actually happens, and how successful the current system (and previous 4 systems) had been at achieving that goal.



Each finals system had the following success rate of getting the Top 2 to show off in the Grand Final



Teams that finish in the Top 2 get the advantages of their system, but its rare that both teams can capitalise on those advantages. However, a team from the Top 2 has still gone on to win the flag 15 out of 33 times (45%). It does seem interesting that more often than not, the final system is not working as intended for the top 2 teams. It is even rarer though that both teams fail within the system, twice in the last 48 seasons (4%).

Does this mean anything? Not really, I just enjoy looking at data and the history of our game and thought it might be fun to share it.

 

[Luv_our_club]

- The uneven fixture and various home ground advantages mean that the top two teams on the ladder are not always the best teams imo

and

- If the finals system changed so that the top 2 teams got a greater advantage, then I would argue Richmond would have aimed for and finished top 2 this year.

- Very good teams like Richmond would have started this year just aiming for top 4, balancing the benefit of winning H/A games against the benefit of being fit and healthy in September.



My concern about the finals system after 2019 is whether or not the bye week helped GWS get into the GF and led to a shellacking.

 

[Gydafud]

- The uneven fixture and various home ground advantages mean that the top two teams on the ladder are not always the best teams imo

and

- If the finals system changed so that the top 2 teams got a greater advantage, then I would argue Richmond would have aimed for and finished top 2 this year.

- Very good teams like Richmond would have started this year just aiming for top 4, balancing the benefit of winning H/A games against the benefit of being fit and healthy in September.



My concern about the finals system after 2019 is whether or not the bye week helped GWS get into the GF and led to a shellacking.

Can't disagree with the first part. It is really hard to know who the best 2 teams are without a true home & away season of 36 games, but we know that will never happen.

It is curious to think what impact the bye has on the Top 2 making the GF. It seemed a bit of a steady swing back and forth, but we are now currently in the midst of longest period where both members of the Top 2 haven't made the GF and none since the bye was introduced.

 

[Zgope1]

i love that the dogs won in 2016 and everyone said it was because of the new system but since then the teams that have won have not only had double chances but they've also won their qualifiers. it's almost like the dogs were deserving

 

[Dr Awkward]

The AFL making the draw harder depending on your previous year results means that the ladder at the end of the home and away is not as accurate as it used to be. Brisbane were a good side but should not have been top 2.

Also now that we have an 18 team comp, there is more randomness in the top 2 than previous eras with 10 or 12 teams.

 

[TP86]

The sample size of pre-finals bye is now big enough to justify a new bracket from 2016-present given how different the pattern of results have been compared to the comparably predictable run 2000-2015.

 

[And_ROOS]

If the AFL need a finals bye, it should be the week before the GF to let the best 2 teams have that extra time to have as close to their best team as possible. Although in my opinion, they shouldn't have one at all. Have the season bye, have finals, teams who win their top 4 matches get the break, teams that lose have to gut it out.

There was literally no advantage for Geelong finishing top. Likewise there was way too big an advantage for Collingwood finishing 4th. Teams 5th to 8th shouldn't get a week off advantage at all.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

It helps the injured teams. Giants and Richmond were the two teams that got hit hardest by injuries this year.

 

[BEEG]

If the AFL need a finals bye, it should be the week before the GF to let the best 2 teams have that extra time to have as close to their best team as possible. Although in my opinion, they shouldn't have one at all. Have the season bye, have finals, teams who win their top 4 matches get the break, teams that lose have to gut it out.

There was literally no advantage for Geelong finishing top. Likewise there was way too big an advantage for Collingwood finishing 4th. Teams 5th to 8th shouldn't get a week off advantage at all.

Top of the ladder should get some kind of advantage no idea how we work that into the current system.

I like the idea of the bye being before the GF

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

The finals system argument would be redundant if Kenny loggins was the pre-match entertainment in the GF. Can you imagine f##king "dangerzone" and "footloose" blaring in front of 100000 cheering people!!!! The players would be so f##king inspired there'd be goals dropping like no-ones business from both teams.... Deadset......

Highway to the danger zone
Ride into the danger zone

 

[longsuffreosupp]

A bye before the GF would be good. Then you can have all your awards and whatnot during the bye week..

 

[Damon_3388]

Honestly think they should just do away with the bottom two finalists, and have a final 6. Single elimination, Top 2 get a bye first week, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 week one.

Inb4 people go on about that one time the Dogs won it from 7th.

 

[Hotdees]

i love that the dogs won in 2016 and everyone said it was because of the new system but since then the teams that have won have not only had double chances but they've also won their qualifiers. it's almost like the dogs were deserving

You may still have won in 2016 without the bye but the bye gave you a much greater chance. Without it , it Would of been back to back trips to Perth in round 23 and week 1 of the finals missing a few players that got up to play because of the week off.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It helps the injured teams. Giants and Richmond were the two teams that got hit hardest by injuries this year.

If this was true, the elite players would just injure their own team mates.

 

[Zgope1]

You may still have won in 2016 without the bye but the bye gave you a much greater chance. Without it , it Would of been back to back trips to Perth in round 23 and week 1 of the finals missing a few players that got up to play because of the week off.

The finals were always gonna start the same date. Bye or no bye, the players would’ve been ready for that date.

 

[newcs]

Pre-finals bye, 2016 - present = 0%

 

[NoobPie]

Without being a fan of the "wild card" crypto ten team finals, one option would be to play 7th to 10th in elimination finals and 3rd to 6th in another round of qualifying finals.

This would clearly advantage a top 2 finish (over 3rd and 4th compared to the current system)

It is worth remembering that under the old final 5 the team that finished top would often play one game in 28 days leading into a GF. I know the difference is all teams get the prefinals bye under the current system but there still is far from a large enogh sample size to conclude the current system is a disadvantage to qualifying final winners

 

[kickazz]

My concern about the finals system after 2019 is whether or not the bye week helped GWS get into the GF and led to a shellacking.

I was thinking of starting a thread about it, but perhaps the finals bye should be between the prelims and the granny.

I haven't fully assessed the pros and cons but I figure that finals are brutal games that take thier toll. Sometimes by the end of the month players are cooked. An extra week off could mean fewer dud Grand finals.

 

[HTT]

Honestly think they should just do away with the bottom two finalists, and have a final 6. Single elimination, Top 2 get a bye first week, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 week one.

Inb4 people go on about that one time the Dogs won it from 7th.

I just like how the current system prevents the two best teams from knocking each other out, regardless of where they finish within the top 4. Straight knock out brackets don’t ensure that, and we know the draw has inequities, 1st and 2nd aren’t necessarily the two best teams.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

West coast losing in Round 23 to Hawthorn basically gift wrapped the flag to either Collingwood or Richmond.
I have no doubt Richmond are the best team in the comp but the finals were turned on their head once the Eagles lost that game.
We had some great finals though this year.

 

[00Stinger]

Get rid of the pre finals bye and have a week off before the Grand Final

 

[Damon_3388]

I just like how the current system prevents the two best teams from knocking each other out, regardless of where they finish within the top 4. Straight knock out brackets don’t ensure that, and we know the draw has inequities, 1st and 2nd aren’t necessarily the two best teams.

The system I proposed prevents the top two meeting before the GF (1st plays winner of 3v6, 2nd plays winner of 4v5), and if they're not good enough and lose before then, then tough s**t, they've blown it, they're out.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

No finals. 1st vs 2nd in a 3 game play off series.

 

[NoobPie]

The system I proposed prevents the top two meeting before the GF (1st plays winner of 3v6, 2nd plays winner of 4v5), and if they're not good enough and lose before then, then tough s**t, they've blown it, they're out.

I think Harry's point is about the "best two" teams rather than the "top 2" teams

The current system allows for any top 4 team to play off in the GF. The only finals teams guaranteed not to play off in the GF are the elimination final opponents

 

[Damon_3388]

I think Harry's point is about the "best two" teams rather than the "top 2" teams

The current system allows for any top 4 team to play off in the GF. The only finals teams guaranteed not to play off in the GF are the elimination final opponents

Well, once we get to finals, I'm happy for things to be a bit more cut-throat, without the "two bites of the cherry" system we currently have.

The system I proposed allows any team to make the GF, they just have to keep winning. Want a better "seeding" and better "odds"? Win more in the H&A season.