I don’t mind that suggestion but it has 10 clubs twiddling their thumps for a long time. Do you see that as a problem?
-
AFLW Draft - Tonight at 7PM
The livestream will be available on womens.afl & the AFLW app. Join our live chat!
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Opinion Time to change the finals structure
- Thread starter Shaq attack
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I don’t mind that suggestion but it has 10 clubs twiddling their thumps for a long time. Do you see that as a problem?
In this exact and specific season, I have no issue with eliminating the bottom two clubs after sixteen weeks. I have the feeling that West Coast and Norf supporters would not have minded either
Yep undeserved home finals again.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
The only thing I’d like is for clubs to be able to CHOOSE their opponents
So team 1 gets a choice from 3&4
Team 5 gets a choice from 7&8
So team 1 gets a choice from 3&4
Team 5 gets a choice from 7&8
That would introduce a very interesting dynamic.
. Imagine the furiously motivated 3rd team after being chosen by the top team. Would love to see that.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
That would introduce a very interesting dynamic.
Yep it’s something they have done a bit in the Super League over in the UK. Works awesome
Because people still dont get that there was and still isnt such a thing as home finals.
The league decides where finals are played.
90s was when still needing to have a final each week at the G.
And that example re WC is pretty shit, 5th placed team lost...they became the lowest ranked team still in it (they were the lowest loser remaining in it from week1).
I think his argument is that 1st gets an advantage over 2nd, 3rd and 4th as they play eighth. They ofcourse lose the double chanceas all top four sides do.
So if just 2 drop out there are 16 left, how does it go from there?
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,350
To be fair that was due to the MCG agreement that meant one final every week at the G. If that wasn't in place we wouldn't have got screwed over.
The biggest problem (IMO) with the old McIntyre system was that two games in the first week only mattered if the two potential opponents in the second round were from different states.
The second problem (IMO) although not really that big of a deal was finals needed to be played in order of 4 v 5, 3 v 6, 2 v 7, 1 v 8 so the four teams in the middle weren't sure they would definitely be in week two by the time they started playing.
They just need to get rid of the pre-finals bye. It was a massive overreaction to Ross Lyon and also from a business perspective it gives the NRL a massive free hit just as the season is coming into its climax.
Yeah, fantastic post MR.
The other thing is, had there not been a bye this past weekend, there's no doubt both Geelong and Richmond would've "managed" a large number of their more senior players, both teams having little to play for ladder-wise. That would again rear the ugly head that prompted the introduction of the bye in the first place (eg. Freo & North 2015), thus undermining the AFL's apparently precious relationship with the betting agencies.
People have short memories at times.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 34,675
- 31,342
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Yeah ok, fair play
- Sep 7, 2009
- 7,874
- 9,316
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Real Madrid, Chelsea, Nuggets, Panthers
This was done before and was changed at the turn of the 21st century to the system we all know.
This is it. The media seem reactive to the downside of any system whenever that downside becomes topical.
I think it is one of the best things about Australian Rules that the champion is decided by which team can produce in sudden death finals when the gun is pointed at their head. For the best teams the rest of the season is just preparation for that time. I don’t know why people would want to upset that balance by essentially elevating the importance of near meaningless home and away matches and skewing the contest in the biggest and most important matches further in favour of the teams who did better in those matches.
Best v best at their best, sudden death and no excuses, the closer you can get to that in a finals series, the better, imo. And all teams know long in advance when the finals will be played and get every chance to prepare for the finals series. I think the pre-finals bye is one of the best things the AFL have ever introduced. It is only early days for it too. The AFL will get better at programming things to keep people interested in the bye week, and teams will get better at coping with how to manage their way through the week off or two weeks off for teams winning QF’s.
Last edited:
I prefer the current final 8 system as it is, even if the league goes up to 19 or 20 teams. It would be better to remove the bye but if the league does decide they want to keep the bye and also go to a final 10 then the following would potentially work as an alternative to wildcards.
You have all the finals being knockouts. The top 2 ranked teams get a week off to reward them in place of a double chance and then from then on it essentially rewards higher ranked teams by having them get easier opponents and home ground advantage in their knockout games. It also means an additional 3 more finals than we have under the current system. I've given an example below based on this year's finishing positions.
Week 1 – Qualifying Finals
1Geelong and 2Melbourne week off
Winner game 9 v Winner game 10
You have all the finals being knockouts. The top 2 ranked teams get a week off to reward them in place of a double chance and then from then on it essentially rewards higher ranked teams by having them get easier opponents and home ground advantage in their knockout games. It also means an additional 3 more finals than we have under the current system. I've given an example below based on this year's finishing positions.
Week 1 – Qualifying Finals
1Geelong and 2Melbourne week off
- 3Sydney v 10St Kilda
- 4Collingwood v 9Carlton
- 5Fremantle v 8Western Bulldogs
- 6Brisbane v Richmond
- 1Geelong v 2nd ranked loser
- 2Melbourne v 1st ranked loser
- 1st ranked winner v 4th ranked winner
- 2nd ranked winner v 3rd ranked winner
- Winner game 5 v Winner game 8
- Winner game 6 v Winner game 7
Winner game 9 v Winner game 10
Can't fault that system, well maybe 3rd-6th might tank the final round, but it would be my tick for a final 10 if it came in.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,350
Sadly this is the primary reason for the pre-finals bye. Such a shit relationship this is.
- May 25, 2014
- 10,110
- 14,784
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Excellent work.
Re. The bye - the 360 piece was laughable, saying that 40% of the time since the bye was introduced the winners of the QFs have both lost the PF compared to 0% before. Big number.
Well that’s five years data (2016-2020) so it’s 2 out of 5. Not a massive sample size but let’s see what they were.
First year was 2016, where one of the grand finalists was Sydney (who actually finished top but lost the QF) and the dogs (who won 15 games despite finishing seventh).
Second year was 2020 - COVID affected with hubs, shorter games etc and the QF winners were Port and Brisbane who hadn’t been disrupted as much. Beaten by Richmond and Geelong in the PFs, the other top four teams and arguably the better sides across the year anyway.
Whateley (and many others) aren’t a fan of the pre-finals bye. That’s fine, and they’ve probably got a point that it can level out the playing field a little. But last year it didn’t happen and one of the QF winners still lost in the PF while the other won theirs at a canter. I’m going to suggest that maybe the quality of the side and their preparation and commitment to the contest might have more to do with winning and losing big games than a week off pre-finals.
But as others have said, if there was a genuine disadvantage then top four teams would be putting in half-arsed efforts in the QF and then winning the next three. Don’t think we’ll see that happen intentionally any time soon.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
The eagles should have been eliminated if they finished 5th and lost.
How is losing when you finish 5th and staying in “shafted”?
Same as Adelaide 98. Finished 5th and got belted by 10 goals week 1 yet somehow stayed in and went on to win the flag.
Atrocious finals system.
Current system is the best.
jim boy
Umpires Association Head
- Admin
- #71
My stab at how it could work
W1 - 5x6(A) 7x8(B) 3x4(C)
W2 - 2xWinner-B(D) Loser-CxWinner-A(E)
W3 - Winner-D x Winner-C (F)
W4 - 1 v Winner-F
Home & Away ladder Advantages:
1 - GF spot
2 - SF spot against lowest ranked team
3/4 - Double Chance
5/6 - Semi against lowest ranked top 4 team
7/8 -no benefits
People will no doubt say unfair draw! But I say, the table is still pretty reflective (eg a ladder based on on the first meetings of all teams this year would still see geelong on top). Sure luck might play a part, but the answer is luck will play a part, it always plays a massive part. If we take out of the equation there would always be an undefeated team each year and team with zero wins. Doesn't happen. Anyway the challenge for the number 1 team is to keep form.
Incidentally the old 1920's finals system (argus) was actually not too bad. The first place team was given the advantage of a single slip up not being fatal. Second place team was guaranteed at worst a prelim spot. Every weekend was a single match, I like that focus. The biggest issue and fatal flaw was that 'Grand Final' was not necessarily final if the top spot team hadn't spent it's 'slip-up get-out-of-jail-free card'. Could never work now
W1 - 5x6(A) 7x8(B) 3x4(C)
W2 - 2xWinner-B(D) Loser-CxWinner-A(E)
W3 - Winner-D x Winner-C (F)
W4 - 1 v Winner-F
Home & Away ladder Advantages:
1 - GF spot
2 - SF spot against lowest ranked team
3/4 - Double Chance
5/6 - Semi against lowest ranked top 4 team
7/8 -no benefits
People will no doubt say unfair draw! But I say, the table is still pretty reflective (eg a ladder based on on the first meetings of all teams this year would still see geelong on top). Sure luck might play a part, but the answer is luck will play a part, it always plays a massive part. If we take out of the equation there would always be an undefeated team each year and team with zero wins. Doesn't happen. Anyway the challenge for the number 1 team is to keep form.
Incidentally the old 1920's finals system (argus) was actually not too bad. The first place team was given the advantage of a single slip up not being fatal. Second place team was guaranteed at worst a prelim spot. Every weekend was a single match, I like that focus. The biggest issue and fatal flaw was that 'Grand Final' was not necessarily final if the top spot team hadn't spent it's 'slip-up get-out-of-jail-free card'. Could never work now
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,894
- 32,389
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
Actually, in '96 we were shafted by winning our first game against Carlton and then being rewarded with an away game against Essendon, who had lost their first final AND finished lower on the ladder. This was because Brisbane were higher on the ladder and therefore got the non-MCG game after beating Essendon. I remember being rather annoyed at the time, and even moreso when something similar happened in '99.
Also after week 1 of the finals the opposition gets to pick your teams best 3 players to play for them, and you get to pick their best 3 players to play for you.
I also think there needs to be 2 different games happening at the same time on the same field, so Sydney can play Melbourne and Carlton and Collingwood can play each other but both matches sort of ignore each other while playing, every so often a Sydney player accidentally bumping into a Collingwood player who is in the way or vise versa but everyone bouncing off and continuing.
I also think there needs to be 2 different games happening at the same time on the same field, so Sydney can play Melbourne and Carlton and Collingwood can play each other but both matches sort of ignore each other while playing, every so often a Sydney player accidentally bumping into a Collingwood player who is in the way or vise versa but everyone bouncing off and continuing.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,894
- 32,389
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
The AFL doesn't like teams throwing games at the end of the season, and this is what will happen if there's no pre-finals bye. I mean, what makes you think that teams would stop doing it if they thought they'd get an advantage from it? I can live with the bye easier than a compromised last couple of rounds.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 34,675
- 31,342
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Pretty much the old top 8 system with two extra teams. Not bad.
