Time to Scrap %. Points For Only.

[Lavender Bushranger]

The biggest issue with the game is the coaches.

They want dour, low scoring, clogged up stoppage fests.

Free flowing, high scoring games terrify them.

I'd guarantee that every AFL coach would prefer to win 1.1 to 1.0 every single week - than lose in high scoring and entertaining games. Hell, some supporters would too.

I don't blame coaches really - they lose games, they lose their job.

So that's what needs to be addressed. The evolution of the game into what we see today is no fluke. It's solely due to the above reason.

So...scrap percentage. You still get 4 point for winning, but % is replaced with Points For.

It's subtle, as winning games remains the priority - but kicking scores has a fairly significant benefit too.

It doesn't alter any fundamentals of the game itself either.

Discuss...

 

[00Stinger]

Stupid idea that is too flawed based on where you play most of your games

So a team playing indoor at the Docklands they have a better chance of a high scoring game rather than in the et down at Geelong

 

[hawkman]

I don't mind getting rid of percentage but only if it is changed to the points difference in for and against as that rewards attacking play more than percentage

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Stupid idea that is too flawed based on where you play most of your games

So a team playing indoor at the Docklands they have a better chance of a high scoring game rather than in the et down at Geelong

FWIW, these numbers were taken from season 2007:

average score leaderboards
telstra dome= 121*
Gabba/ gold coast= 114
darwin/manuka/ aurora= 109
Skilled Stadium= 104
ammi Stadium= 102
mcg= 101
subiaco= 99
SCG/ telstra stadium = 86

*Geelong kicked 222 points against Richmond that year in about R6

 

[Bald]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard/read.

 

[RUNVS]

Doesn't work. If a team gets unlucky and has a few more wet weather games than the rest that could be the difference between making the 8 and missing finals.

 

[Ocha905]

Doesn't work. If a team gets unlucky and has a few more wet weather games than the rest that could be the difference between making the 8 and missing finals.

On the contrary, a team that manages to squeak out some 60-40 point games in the wet is rewarded more than a team that wins 100-90. Teams are currently rewarded for playing in the wet/playing low scoring games (assuming they win of course).

 

[SSSSSS]

If you want high scores so badly just make a goal worth 20 points problem solved .

 

[00Stinger]

FWIW, these numbers were taken from season 2007:

average score leaderboards
telstra dome= 121*
Gabba/ gold coast= 114
darwin/manuka/ aurora= 109
Skilled Stadium= 104
ammi Stadium= 102
mcg= 101
subiaco= 99
SCG/ telstra stadium = 86

*Geelong kicked 222 points against Richmond that year in about R6

kind of backs up my point

 

[HTT]

So in a few games that are already iced we might get a 15 goal last quarter where neither team really cares about the other one scoring. Big whoop.
FWIW the ladder this year would've been unchanged.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

The biggest issue with the game is the coaches.

They want dour, low scoring, clogged up stoppage fests.

Free flowing, high scoring games terrify them.

I'd guarantee that every AFL coach would prefer to win 1.1 to 1.0 every single week - than lose in high scoring and entertaining games. Hell, some supporters would too.

I don't blame coaches really - they lose games, they lose their job.

So that's what needs to be addressed. The evolution of the game into what we see today is no fluke. It's solely due to the above reason.

So...scrap percentage. You still get 4 point for winning, but % is replaced with Points For.

It's subtle, as winning games remains the priority - but kicking scores has a fairly significant benefit too.

It doesn't alter any fundamentals of the game itself either.

Discuss...

Are you Steven Hocking ?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

The other main problem no one is mentioning is that 1 team can win 105-104 (lucky 1 point win) and another team can win 102 - 26 (80 point belting) and the first team is ranked higher. That doesn't make sense, especially if extrapolated over the season. (In other words, 2 teams could have the same number of wins and one team could have an average winning margin of 50 points and the other 20 points and the 20 points team could end up higher on the ladder).

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Are you Steven Hocking ?

No. Quite the contrare.

Although I generally think the current version of AFL sucks arse - I don't agree with tinkering with the fabric of the game as a solution to it.

 

[PhatBoy]

The fabric of the game, and most team ball sports, is to score points, and stop your opposition scoring points.

Why should value be placed on one of those skills over another?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The fabric of the game, and most team ball sports, is to score points, and stop your opposition scoring points.

Why should value be placed on one of those skills over another?

That fabric doesn't change - you still win by keeping your opponent to a lower score thsn yourself.

That remains the primary intention.

However there is incentive for coaches to bring something to the table to address the issue of low scoring, clogged up shitty defensive games.
And, they don't have to worry about getting sacked whilst doing it.

 

[kid_a]

The biggest issue with the game is the coaches.

They want dour, low scoring, clogged up stoppage fests.

Free flowing, high scoring games terrify them.

I'd guarantee that every AFL coach would prefer to win 1.1 to 1.0 every single week - than lose in high scoring and entertaining games. Hell, some supporters would too.

I don't blame coaches really - they lose games, they lose their job.

So that's what needs to be addressed. The evolution of the game into what we see today is no fluke. It's solely due to the above reason.

So...scrap percentage. You still get 4 point for winning, but % is replaced with Points For.

It's subtle, as winning games remains the priority - but kicking scores has a fairly significant benefit too.

It doesn't alter any fundamentals of the game itself either.

Discuss...

absolutely disagree, the percentage system is the best as it accounts for relative dominance of matches.

In pouring rain a team that wins 60-30 is more comprehensive than a team who wins 130-99 in sunny conditions, yet they will now be disadvantaged because the won by one less point.

Points difference will only mean teams who are lucky enough to play in either good weather or against teams with poor defences on the day will get an extra advantage.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

absolutely disagree, the percentage system is the best as it accounts for relative dominance of matches.

In pouring rain a team that wins 60-30 is more comprehensive than a team who wins 130-99 in sunny conditions, yet they will now be disadvantaged because the won by one less point.

Points difference will only mean teams who are lucky enough to play in either good weather or against teams with poor defences on the day will get an extra advantage.

A 60-30 score barely happens in dry weather - let alone pouring rain.

 

[kid_a]

A 60-30 score barely happens in dry weather - let alone pouring rain.

huh?

Sorry but that is not addressing the point at all, and tbh is just untrue.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

absolutely disagree, the percentage system is the best as it accounts for relative dominance of matches.

In pouring rain a team that wins 60-30 is more comprehensive than a team who wins 130-99 in sunny conditions, yet they will now be disadvantaged because the won by one less point.

Points difference will only mean teams who are lucky enough to play in either good weather or against teams with poor defences on the day will get an extra advantage.

I acknowledge that wet weather would create a unfair advantage - but disagree about being lucky to play a team with a weak defence. That same advantage still applies now.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

huh?

Sorry but that is not addressing the point at all, and tbh is just untrue.

The highest scoring team in the comp only averaged 10 goals per game this season.

They were the only team to avergae over 10 per game.

 

[kid_a]

The highest scoring team in the comp only averaged 10 goals per game this season.

They were the only team to average over 10 per game.

Shortened quarters really need to be considered here.

And that still doesn't address the point that points difference is far too dependent on conditions, and it still doesn't address how a team controls a match relatively.

loose Example.....

Essendon 8.9(57) def. Adelaide 6.3(39)
is more of a complete and impressive victory(and a complete victory takes into consideration your ability to limit the other teams scoring as well as your own ability to score) than....
St.Kilda 12.8(80) def. Geelong 9.6(60)

Essendon won by 2 points less, but had a much higher percentage of the total match score which indicates their victory was a superior performance, particularly if that match occured in bad weather conditions which made it more difficult to score.

Its harder to score in wet conditions, thats just fact, so teams who play in these conditions more often....which is merely down to luck of scheduling will be punished through no fault of their own.

 

[Final Siren]

So in a few games that are already iced we might get a 15 goal last quarter where neither team really cares about the other one scoring. Big whoop.
FWIW the ladder this year would've been unchanged.

Mmm, that's a good point... this scheme could actually produce games where both teams can improve their ladder position by agreeing to let each other score freely.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

Topic is definitely worthy of debate and looking at the past few seasons, it would have had some impact.

2020 - No change.
2019 - Lions replace Cats on top, Eagles replace Magpies in 4th. Minor changes outside top 8.
2018 - Minor changes outside top 8.
2017 - Demons replace the Eagles in 8th. Minor changes in the bottom 4.

The conclusion is it's not the big deal some people will try to make it, by using extreme examples from a game or two, when the ladder takes into account all games across a season.

 

[Richo83]

I don't agree with the proposal as it's impacted by weather too much. But I will say this, people who obsess over the rules and their implementation, non-implementation, changing etc. are focusing on the wrong issue. The problem is, as the OP said, the coaches. Coaches have made the game congested and clogged because they choose where players go. You really think it's the umpiring which leads to flooding and a swarm around the footy? No, it's coaches. You really think it's the rules which encourage players to play the chip mark chip mark possession game? No, it's the coaches. We could have the same game with the same rules and the same players but with different coaching philosophies and have games where scoring is much higher.

Ultimately you could tweak the rules or how teams are ranked or whatever but the fundamental issue is that coaches focus more on not losing than winning and that coaches are obsessed with control, control of the ball, control of their opponent and control of their own players. I've seen games played in the pristine conditions of Docklands which are utterly boring defensive snoozefests. You can't tell me that's just the rules.

 

[Roby]

Percentage is probably one of the best things about AFL. Of all things to scrap, this never crossed my mind.