To Curious. Please don't anyone else read this.

[Dan26]

OK curious. You asked the question, so i will give you an answer.

Now a lot of my posts have admittedly been about top spot getting more recognition.

I will alter theat "slightly" and give this guy (curious) a list of things we can do to make people care more about top spot.

Now, if anyone is NOT interested (you shouldn't have clicked on this topic....you were warned). Please DON'T respond. If you respond, you obviously care and that is very gratifying.

OK here we go :

Curious,

You seem hell-bent on analysing every minute detail, a la cutting and pasting, but you don't seem to "GET IT"

There are a LOT of things the AFL can do to give top spot more recognition, and hence the public will "WANT" to win it more.

OK, here are some of the things we can do :

1.) Award prizemoney to the top team. Make sure itis MORE than the Grand Fianl winner, so as to be a symbloic gesture that finishing top is harder to do (which it is)

2.) Have a ceremony ON THE GROUND after the home and away match in which top spot is achieved. The club can do a lap of honour, and all players who participated in the home and away season get a medallion.

3.) Make the McClelland trophy larger in size. It's just a symbol, but symbols are important. Make the cup BIGGER and more elaborate than the cup that is presented on GF day.

4.) Have NO DOUBLE CHANCES in the finals, and treat all 8 teams equally. Why does this give more recognition to top spot ? Here's why : By doing this it "un-links" the finals from the home and away. It means the finals are a seperate tournament. Teams will not be striving to get a double chance because there won't be one !!!! Instead, they will be striving to get top spot.

You see, currently, the Home and Away is seen as a "means to an end." That's why it's not recognised as much. So, therefore, to make it something to aspire to in it's own right, we need to un-link the finals from the H&A. My proposal does that.

5.) Base the DRAFT on home and away finishing positions. If the point of the draft is to give assistance to those clubs which need it more, then it makes sense to award the draft on home and away finishing positions. This would mean Essendon, ater 1999 would be LAST in the order. What STUPIDLY happend last year was that Essendon were third last and they got an unfair advantage.

This is another gesture to the clubs that the Home and Away season is important because it is what the draft order is based on.

6.) Marjet the "home and away" premiership. Marketing helps. Look how the Grand Final is hyped. And make no mistake it's all hype. The Grand Final (despite being my favourite day of the year) rarely lives up to the hype.

7.) Include "top of the ladder" finishes in official AFL records. The AFL don't record the Minor premier. This is another thing they can do.

8.) The "home and away" premier raises their premiership flag before their first finals match in week one of the finals (similar to how the crrent GF winer raises the flag at Round 1 the next season)

You see, curious.......there are heaps of things you can do to give it more recognition. Heaps. Those are some of them.

And I stand by what I said : Currently people don't care. But I am 100% sure that if all the above things were done, we would have a hell of a lot more recognition for top spot and the public would want to win it.

I was also thinking : "OF course the public would want to win it. Why wouldn't they ??? Why would anyone NOT want to see the years best team rewarded instead of ignored ?"

Who wouldn't ?? (whilst retaining the GF as something to aspire to in it's own right, and having it as the last match of the year, thereofore ALWAYS occupying a special place in the football year)

 

[Laughing_Out_Loud]

Sore loser the winner of a Grand Final is best best best

there are no prises for second in this game

minor premiers dont count never have and hopefully never ever ever ever ever will

if it does I will leave this game to follow Rugby or something !!!!


YOU ARE A JERK YOU INFURIATE ME DONT INSULT ANY TEAM WHO FINISHES TOP !!

AT LEAST I CLAP EVERY TEAM WHO WINS THE GRAND FINAL (WITHOUT FAIL) MINOR PREMIERS I JUST FORGET !! IT AINT IMPORTANT

GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD !!

MINOR PREMIER IS NOTHING SPECIAL !!MINOR PREMIER IS NOTHING SPECIAL !!MINOR PREMIER IS NOTHING SPECIAL !!MINOR PREMIER IS NOTHING SPECIAL !!MINOR PREMIER IS NOTHING SPECIAL !!MINOR PREMIER IS NOTHING SPECIAL !!

now take it home for homework and read it and I'll post a test in about a week to see if you have got it right.

 

[curious]

I'm tempted to let it pass, but maybe some home truths might do Dan24 some good? Unlikely, but it is possible.

Why do I bother? Good question, its not really worth my time.

I do have a couple of reasons, though.

-Some people might read your diatribes and consider some of your views valid. I feel compelled to enlighten them.

-Your arrogance entitles you to be taken down a few hundred pegs.

-You are wrong on so many issues and can't see it when its right there in front of you.

-Your arrogance on any given topic is accurately reflected by the volume of your postings. You must be one who really likes to hear himself talk, judging on this evidence.

-The AFL like you are so far out of touch with what real fans think and want that they might consider some of the ideas you list in this topic.

-In case you hadn't considered it, its not a good idea to give minor premiers more recognition than what every other fan thinks its worth just because Dan24 thinks it is worth more recognition.

-You say "don't they teach maths in Adelaide" when in fact its you yourself who doesn't have a clue on the subject. If you don't know what is wrong with your statement, then you are more arrogant than even I had you pegged for. If you do know whats wrong with it, why do you even question why I bother to thoroughly refute such a notion?

-Like the vast majority of footy fans I am all too keen to see Essendon and its fans get their overdue comeuppance.

 

[Dan26]

Typical crap, curious.

You just posted to that to "get back" at my logic.

No substance behind it. No logical suggestions of your own. Just pitiful put-downs of someone who is prepared to offer suggestions to improve the game (me)

Go away.

 

[curious]

I told you it was unlikely.

I have thouroughly shown anyone who can read why your views are wrong.

You do not have and arguably never have had a good idea.

Go away yourself, or start to listen to others, either way everyone wins over the current situation.

 

[Dan26]

You say, I'm arrogant !

You make suggestions that someone else's opinion is "wrong".

You can make that comment about statistics. Because someone can be proven worng.

But, on the issue of "top spot', it is compltely different. How can you even keep a straight face and then clam that top spot DOESN'T deserve recognition ?

How can you keep a straoght face and say that the years best team over 22 weeks (whoever it happens to be) shouldn't get rewarded ?

(Remembering that the Grand Final still exists as something to win in it's own right.)

I think you are the most arrogant and ill-informed person on this forum. I love Grand Final day as much as anyone, but to say that the current "double or nothing" scenario is adequate, given that the years best team can lose a one-of match and not be rewarded for their stunning season long acheivements is ludicrous. It's almost as if thses current home and away matches, which comprise 95% of the season don't mean anything.

they should all count towards winning the "homeand away" premiership, and THEN we can have the Grand final, which would just be the conclusion of a 4 week tournament.

Now, if YOU can stop being arrogant yourself and at least listen to what is being proposed, you might learn something.

Wayne Jackson actually likes the idea, as does David parkin. I've written to all the coaches, and the AFL.

One day it will happen. One day.

 

[curious]

Dan24

The main reason I conclude you are arrogant is "Don't they teach maths in Adelaide". It has a strong undercurrent of pure intolerance and bias about it. You stand accused of arrrogance not by me but by your own words here.

You are wrong about your denial of "each win brings you closer to the next loss". It does. The main reason is psychology. After many consecutive wins players get cocky. Kevin Sheedy is all too well aware of this and goes to extraordinary lenghts to try to stop his players getting cocky. At one point before the game versus Roos he even tried to insist that Bombers were underdogs.

Your notion of "coin toss => gamblers fallacy" is wrong because the games are not independent. Footy games are not like coin tosses. Players get cocky. Players get injured. etc. etc. Your starting assumption is wrong. Your math and logic are feeble. Putrid. Go back to school.

As far as top spot getting more recognition, I, like many many other fans (the vast majority), think its a very bad idea. Top spot is flukey. Just like the GF it comes down to a game or two (in most seasons). The draw is lopsided, as it must be when there are 16 teams and only 22 rounds. What the *HELL* is so special about being on top after 22 rounds, compared to 21 rounds or 23 rounds or any other number of rounds?

The conclusion of a 4 week tournament amongst the teams which have done better during the (unavoidably lopsided) minor round is by far and away the best way to decide the seasons honours. The GF runner up deserves more recognition than is currently afforded them, yes, but the minor round premiers? - no big deal.

Many many fans have expressed this view or similar to you over and over and over.

The real worry is that you and your equally out-of-touch-with-the-people mate Jackson might actually go down this wrong path.

I repeat- listen to what the fans in general are telling you!!! Listen, listen, listen!

Minor round top spot is nothing to fuss over! Thats what everyone is trying to tell you.

It IS so very very arrogant not to listen to that (and thats my second reason for tagging you so). You have no equivalent reasons for thinking I might be arrogant (or at least none that you can express coherently).

 

[Dan26]

God, you're a loser.

I've stated many times I love the Grand Final, but as Denis Pagan even admitted last year, the years best team doesn't win the Grand Final, necessarily.

The best team is found over 6 months, not 2 hours on Grand Final day. It's true.

I've said many times, the draw is not even. You're right. Neither is the finals series, that you are defending. North Melbourne last year, played 3 finals agaisnt 7th 3rd and 6th. Is that even ? The answer is NO.

WOW ! What an achievement. They beat 7th, 3rd and 6th.

Essendon's effort in winning 18 out of 22 and heading the ladder is HARDER than winning, say, 3 matches over a 4 week tournament. BOTH acheivements deserve recognition. Yes, BOTH.

In soccer, top spot is the premiers. There is NO GRAND FINAL. They DO, however have exciting one-off knockout matches to keep fans like you happy. it's called the FA Cup. It's seperate to the "home and away" premiership.

Why don't you write to English soccer and tell them they've got it wrong. Go on, write to them.

It would be stupid if Manchester United were forced to play the 2nd placed team, Liverpool, in a Grand Final match. ManU were 10 points clear. They don't need to play a one-off match to decide the best team. That's already been proven.

The traditional meaning of a "season" in both VFL/AFL, back at the end of last century (and soccer also), is to find the best team over a "season" of matches. It was the traditional way of finding the premiers in Aussie Rules, until the breakaway VFL was formed.

Now I LOVE the Grand Final, but it should not override 22 weeks of hard work. There is no reason why a team can't win both and do the "double". What an achievement that would be.


You say a team can luckily win a couple of matches to get top spot. Is your head screwed on right ? The whole point about "top spot" is that it is proven iover 6 months. You can't just "fall into" top spot. Thr Grand Final can be won by luck. You can avoid a particualar opponent (like North avoided Essendon), or youcan have a lucky, close win on Grand Final day. You could play an opponent that you have the "wood" on. You can get an injury on Grand Final day.

But over the course of a whole seaosn, we can really see who the best is agaisnt ALL opponents. It's the ability to play well and peak over the whole year, not just over 3 matches. It's harder to peak over 22 matches, than it is to peak over 3 matches. That's a fact. What are you gonna do, argue that ???

And about your disparaging remarks about the "due for a loss theory", you are full of utter crap. Total and utter crap.

Teams get cocky do they ? Carlton got cocky in 1995 did they. I must have missed something, while they kicked everyone's ass. They didn't appear too cocky on Grand Final day. They were worried before the game, but they were professional and won the GF be 10 goals. They were cocky after the siren, but you can afford to be.

Essendon were cocky against the Eagles were we ?I don't think so, buddy. I'm sorry, but after 15 wins, you'd think you'd be learning that you don't HAVE to lose. It's up to the individual team if they are cocky or not. Essendon, despite not being at their best, were once again professional.

You don't have to lose a match. There is no rule. Yes, I agree, there are many variables, but I also believe the MOTIVATION to keep the winning streak alive, and the CONFIDENCE that goes with it, are contributing factors why a team doesn't have to get beaten. Thse variables are much more influentail than "cockiness".

You'd think after Carlton won the GF with their 16th consecutive win in 1995, you would have learnt something, but obviously you havn't.

I suppose Port Adelaide is gonna beat Essendon simply because we have won 15 in a row. I'll admit it's a danger game, but I think your brain needs a transplant.

 

[servo]

Dan, 1stly I am not Curious.

But he has articulated what I have been trying to say to you in less words.

We have 16 teams and 22 rounds. It is impossible to have an even or fair minor round unless every team plays every oyher team the same number of times both home and away. (ie: 30 rounds) This is not going to happen in a hurry.

Curious makes another good point in that you refuse to even acknowledge that your plan may be flawed in any way whatsoever. You continue to defend it against every one else in here and yet still cannot conprehend that you may not be correct.

Dictionary Meaning: Arrogant: overbearing, haughty. This does describe your attitude and reactions on thissubject. That is why the lable arogant is apt.

 

[Dan26]

Sevro,

I can only put the idea out there for the public to consume. That's all I can do.

You shouldn't use the words "right" and "wrong" in regards. to this. No one is necessarily right or wrong.

It's about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.

Unfortunately Servo, you bring up a point, which I have discussed before : The uneven draw.

I have stated many times, that the draw is not even. But, as you are probably aware, it is MORE even than the finals series (which will still exist as a knockout tournament anyway, so, what's the big deal ?)

In the H&A, you play everyone. Sure, you play some twice and some once, but you play EVERYONE at least once over the course of a gruelling seaosn. is it totlly even ? No, it not. Bit neither is a finals series, in which you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalists, and in the Kangaroos case luckily avoiding the top team.

The uneven draw plays a much larger part in the finals, than it does in the home and away. You can't fluke top spot. After 22 weeks, the cream rises to the top.

Sure, 30 weeks would be better, but 22 weeks is the "current" best way of finding out who the years best team is.

Then the finals series, would happen as a straight knockout tournament, which is getting back to the escence of what play-offs are about.......performing on the day.

The finals series, would be much better this way, as every match is elimination, and all 8 teams are trwated equally.

That will keep you and curious happy.

I still think that for anyone to claim that a 4 week tournament, where you only play, say, three teams, is a better way of finding the years best team than 6 months of matches against ALL TEAMS is a fool.

Write to English soccer and tell tham they've got it wrong.

 

[Joel]

Why has English soccer got it right?

 

[Dan26]

Joel,

They've got it right because they conclude the season (as we do), with a great day. A one-off match, where everyone can get together and watch the big match (the FA Cup)

We have a similar situation called the Grand Final. But our Grand Final overrides all the matches beofre it. Makes them irrelevant.

In Soccer, you STILL have that "Grand Final" style match, but the home and away matches are NOT irrelevant. They are all important in contributing to getting top spot and winning the premiership.

Then, if you are good enough, you can win those knockout matches, and win the FA CUP also. Such an achievement (i.e the double) is the ultimate in that sport.

You see, every win ManU has, they can say : "OK, that's one win closer to securing top spot and winning the premiership"

But, for Essendon, these wins are irrelevant. Each win gets the Essendon club no closer to winning the premeirship, which is silly. You should be able to win BOTH the home and away and the finals series.

If a club like the Kangaros win this years Grand Final (and they may deserve to win ON THE DAY), we will have the ridiculous situation of a team calling themslves champions of the WHOLE SEASON, due to their victory in ONE match, while a team which potentially wins every game gets no reward.

No, I'll be first to congratulate the Roos if they perform better than their opponesnts (whoever the happen to be) and they win the Grand Final.

But, obvioulsy, North Melbourne, as we can see from their performances are NOT the best team. So, why should they be called "season" champions. They shoild be called champions, yes, but ONLY the champions of the finals series.

That means they get rewarded (as they should), while the best team of the year also gets rewarded.

That's why they've got it right.
Oh, I'd beter watch myself, beofre curious goes on one of his "cut and paste" rampages. They have the "most appropriate" way of rewarding BOTH the top team and the FA Cup winner (Grand Final equivalent)

 

[curious]

Long post follows. Dan24 stuff prefaced by ">".

>I've stated many times I love the Grand Final, but as Denis Pagan even admitted last year, the years best team doesn't win the Grand Final, necessarily.

True. Also true - the years best team is not necessarily the one on top after round 22. E.g. team on top after round 21 or even some other team.

>I've said many times, the draw is not even. You're right. Neither is the finals series, that you are defending.

Agreed. The draw is not even. The finals are not even. (Your finishing claim is not my position). Anyway- honours for the year should go to ? - where ? The vast majority of the fans (not me but the popular majority) say - to the winner of the finals series. Thats the arguement, not the misrepresented position you try to argue against.

>BOTH acheivements deserve recognition. Yes, BOTH.

Your opinion. My point is- its an opinion NOT shared by the vast majority of fans.

To insist as you do that your opinion is what should be held by all others- that is pure arrogance.

>Why don't you write to English soccer and tell them they've got it wrong. Go on, write to them.

Couldn't care about soccer. My own view would be that they do have things wrong- not enough scoring for example. This could be easy to solve- eg make the goal wider. But is that what soccer fans want? Apparently not. Do they want a GF? Apparently not. So my advice to soccer would be- don't change it.

The point is- aussie footy fans DO want a fast-paced exciting game with frequent scoring and high marking. And they DO want the seasons honours to be decided by victory in the GF play-off. Thats what they want. Again my advice would be- don't change it from that.

>You can't just "fall into" top spot.

Absolutely you can. In most years, top spot is not known until the result of the last or second-last minor round game. Just as much a fall-in as a GF victory. Years like this one, where the minor round premier is evident many weeks before the end of the minor round, are rare. Probably rarer than are GF upsets. Work out what that means and get back to me (hint: its not good for your viewpoint).

>Thr Grand Final can be won by luck. You can avoid a particualar opponent (like North avoided Essendon), or you can have a lucky, close win on Grand Final day. You could play an opponent that you have the "wood" on. You can get an injury on Grand Final day.

More or less true. The problem is, thats not being argued. Here is the arguement: - minor round premiers can and very often does depend on the outcome of just one or sometimes two games. So do finals series outcomes. The public prefer the finals series. Not me or him or AFL or any other party- the majority of the public. They want it that way.

>But over the course of a whole seaosn, we can really see who the best is agaisnt ALL opponents.

Not so. The draw is not even. You don't play ALL opponents the same number of times. Also Essendon for example get something like 17 matches without having to travel. Much less perilous to lose very many games than a team that has to travel ten times. Its more likely that a good team with a low-travel draw will finish minor round premiers than an equally good team that has to travel much more often.

>It's harder to peak over 22 matches, than it is to peak over 3 matches. That's a fact.

That is quite true. But the problem here is that if two teams has a set of say 15 good games (and wins) and seven not-so good games and more or less equivalent form throughout the season- but for one team most of those seven not-so-good games come at home against weaker opponents, but for the other they just happen to come away against strong opponents- you can end up with a very different outcome over the minor round. I have modelled this. Also there can easily be a variance of two or three ladder placings over games where the point spread is less than ten points.

This is of course all just as true for the major round. The point is: the public wants the honours to be decided by the major round.

Sheesh, why the hell can't you see that? Are you blind?

>And about your disparaging remarks about the "due for a loss theory", you are full of utter crap. Total and utter crap.

I didn't say a team was due for a loss. I said a loss becomes more likely. Due mostly to the psychology of the situation. Ask Essendons head coach if HE doesn't think a loss is more likely if complacency sets in. Thats not to say that it WILL set in or that a team WILL lose after many wins- only that some factors which can contribute to a loss become more significant risks. Footy games are not independent of one another. Thats the fact.

No crap about it mate.

>I suppose Port Adelaide is gonna beat Essendon simply because we have won 15 in a row.

Not at all. This like most of your post is a strawman arguement. You are arguing against things that are not the opponents position.

The arguement you must defeat is this: An Essendon loss against Port this round after fifteen wins is more likely (due to possible Dons complacency) that a loss against Port in round 1 was (assumption being that all other factors are equal).

>I'll admit it's a danger game.

Hell, you might even agree ...

>but I think your brain needs a transplant.

... even though you are an arrogant so-and-so.

BTW your paranoia about my cut and paste shows only how effective it is to post your own words back at you to cut you down.

 

[Dan26]

Curious,

What a waste of time that must have been for you.

Do you think you have to prove to everyone the value of your intellect ?

Let's get one thing straight. You CANNOT fall into top spot. You say, it often comes down to the performance in one game.

NO !!!

If you finish on top, it is the CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCES over, say 17 victories that will get you top spot. It is the combined wins over 6 months, not a performance over 2 hours that will deliver top spot to you. It's about consistently winning. If a team secures top spot after their last home and awaty game, it is not just that win which got it for them. It's that win PLUS the other 16 victories.

I'm suprised you didn't mention that.

Also, when you talk about soccer, the sport itself is irrelevant. It is the method of rewarding their winners that I am talking about. it could be lawn bowls, for all care.

You also talk about the uneven draw again. I might add, that the 1999 Grand Fianl was won by a team which played 7th, 3rd and 6th. Their easy draw in the finals is what effectively won them the premiership. OK, I know they earnt the right to play 7th, as they finished 2nd, but the fact that North avoided Essendon is pertinent. This is the main point. Due to the fact that they avoided Essendon, the premiership was decided. Just due to that one game ! The finals "draw" decided the premeirship.

Now, as I said, the home and away draw isn't even either. You said that yourself, but you can't "avoid" someone in the home and away (you can avoid them in finals). It's also been proven that the ladder doesn't change much from Round 15 (after everyone has played once) to Round 22.

it's mathematics again. Over such a large number of matches (22), even if you get an easier draw, it is still a better method of working out who the years best team is, than a short tournament, where you can be out after one game.

But, as said, I want BOTH. The Grand Final is still there, so I believe you will be happy.

The other thing is you keep on talking about how the public "don't want" things. My friend, do you even realsie what the first post of this topic was ?

The first post I posted was about ways to give top spot more recognition. Things we can do, to reward the top team, hence making the public see it for what it is. That being, the hardest thing to accomplish (finishing top)

Remember at the turn of the century, top spot was the premiership. People accepted this. The VFL then introduced a Grand Final and the public accepted it right away.

THE PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER IS GIVEN RECOGNITION.

See, it's not given any recognition currently, so we don't care, but if it WAS given recognition, then we would.

Re-visit, the first post and have a look at the things we can do to give the hardest prize in football more recognition

The whole point about football, is being the best. Every team wants to be the best. If a team accomplishes that aim and wins every game, but loses the Grand Final, it is stupid to not reward them. Sure they didn't do the "double", but they at least won one of the two trophys up for grabs.

Remember, I'm talking about how it SHOULD be. Not how it IS.

Obviously, the public would want to see the best team rewarded rather than ignored. It's not replacing the Grand Final (as you seem to think). It's complementing the Grand Final.

I don't really want to get into a slanging match with you, but you really should be more receptive to ideas. You don't really seem to take anything in, which is sad. I suppose neither of know exactly how people are going to react to ANYTHING, so I don't think it's a good idea for you to go around telling everyone how "right" you are. No one knows.

Suffice to say, it comes back to what is approprite, and it is appropriate to reward the years best team over 6 months, which is what a tradtional "season" was designed to do. Then, we can have the Grand Final.

The fact that the GF wil still be the natural conclusion to the season, make me wonder what all the fuss is about. You will still have to be the best "on the day" to win the GF.

Do you actually have any ideas of you own, or do you just spend your time picking on other peoples ideas ? All you seem to do is respond to other people, rather than create anything of your own.

Now, I'm not having a go at you, I just find my proposal is common-sensical.

 

[Dan26]

Curious,

Also, you said this :

"The arguement you must defeat is this: An Essendon loss against Port this round after fifteen wins is more likely (due to possible Dons complacency) that a loss against Port in round 1 was (assumption being that all other factors are equal)."

You are making a HUGE assumption.

Who knows what the motivating factors are now ?

I would think that the motivation to keep an unbeaten run alive (with the prospect of an unbeaten season looming) would be a tremendous asset to guard agaisnt complacency.

As would the confidence gained from 15 straight wins. This confidence it could be argued, would not have been as high in Round 1.

All other factors are NOT equal. And why would they be ? These are human beings playing a sport with an oval ball.

These two factors (motivation, and more confidence than they would have had in Round 1) I would predict would be more contributing factors than complacency.

With the thousands of varaibles, that exist in a game of football, you are making a huge statement, saying things like that. You seem very sure of yourself.

The book makers seem to disagree with you, as Essendon are $1.08 this week. The shortest price of the year.

Anyway, why would a team be complacent if they are winning ? You could argue when a team loses, the morale drops and a "we don't care" attitude develops.

St.Kilda are a good example. Their performance seem to be getting worse.

Gee, are Essendon going to be complacent agaisnt Carlton in Round 20, after 19 consecurtive wins ? I don't think so. Losing drops morale, and often more losses follow.

Just some things to ponder.

 

[curious]

Dan24 went over ONCE AGAIN (unbelieveably!) his tired old points. Almost every one of them.

He STILL fails to address the point that is repeatedly thrust at him- the people don't want more recognition for minor round premiers. This is more than adequately addressed by responses to his postings.

They don't want it. They see one team on top say at round 20 or 21, another team at round 22. They see it has all come down to that last game. They see their own team perhaps miss a game, and top spot, because of an injury, a poster, plain dumb luck, or an tough draw. They see that their one chance to even it all up is the finals.

The people are more than happy to have the GF be the ultimate and unadulterated goal of the season. DON'T MESS WITH THAT.

This is the message from the people, Dan. Ignore it in your arrogance and mess with the finals and people will turn from the game.

Also you write, amongst other things:
"All other factors are NOT equal. And why would they be ? These are human beings playing a sport with an oval ball."

Dolt. Other factors of course would not be equal. The point lamebrain is that we are not talking about other factors. IF there were no other factors, then the possibility that Bombers (or whoever, its a generic point, its not about essendon in particular) could get complacent is a risk that applies after many consecutive wins but doesn't apply after a few wins or after a loss.

God you are difficult to get through to.

Again I come back to - listen to the people. Listen to those who know (not me, choose almost any experts). The experts and other fans alike will tell you- the GF is sacrosant, don't mess with it, and also "each win brings you closer to a loss".

They say these non-Dan24 things for a reason. Just lower your arrogance level for just a moment and maybe you might hear their wisdom.

We can all live in hope.

 

[Dan26]

Curious,

You make so many assumptions that it is hard to take you seriously.

Did you conveniently ignore the statement that "THE PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER IS GIVEN RECOGNTION"

They will. They accept top spot in the premier league because it gets all the recognition. In the NBA, the BEST OF 7 get's all the recognition, so people accept it.

Hell, there was even a time when the SUPERBOWL didn't exist, some 40 years ago. Peopple still loved and accepted the sport however, and whatever method was being used to declare the champion team BEFORE the superbowl existed.

You've got to understand something about people. They are resistant to change. It could be anything in life. People are resistant to the GST, even though other countries have shown it is the way to go.

In the mid 80's, about 90 percent of Victorians did not want a National competition. Thank God, we didn't listen to them. Change is often for the better, and once people get acustomed to it, they grow comforatable.

This is not a major change. The GF is still there, but quite rightly, it won't render the home and away season useless. Do you honestly think deep down people like to see all these games rendered meaningless ? Do you like seeing 176 home and away games (which is 95% of the season) rendered meaningless ?

If you look at human history (especially in the AFL), obviously the public are going to be resistant to anything that changes.

But given that the GF will still exist as the natural conclusion of the season, I see NO reason why the public will not want to see the years best team rewarded rather than ignored.

Do you honestly believe the public would NOT want to see the years best team rewarded raher than ignored, in ADDITION to still being able to aspire to win the Grand Fina as per usual ? Who wouldn't ?

In fact this has been taked about for years, and in princile I think there is a lot of support for the McClelland trophy winner to get more recognition. Both from football circles and from the public.

Seems win/win to me.

You've got to understand that just because things are the way they are doesn't mean they are perfect. Hell, according to you, we should not change anything.

Remember (and this is important), it has been shown in ANY SPORT, with the many different ways of declaring the premeirship, that the public will accept whatever is given recognition.

Let's have the best of both worlds. Let's be selfish. Let's award two trophys to the home and away champion and the finals series champion.

All the coaches I wrote to agreed with me, except Terry Wallace, who "partially" agreed. Wayne Jackson also agreed, but as the AFL has already had 5 different finals systems in the last 10 years, they obviously, weren't prepard to make a change just yet.

It's like the public loving the final 4, and not wanting the final 5. But, they grow to love the final 5. Initially, there was oposition to the final 8. Now, lets see if you can find someone who DOESN'T want 8 teams in the finals !

It's all common-sense. The years best team (top of the ladder) just has to get recognition. It is what rewardng competitiveness is all about. You play to be the best, so you should get rewarded, if you accomplish that.

It's all about what is fair and right.

I don't need to get into another argument about the "merits" of the home and away draw. I've already explained that top is acheived through 17 wins (for example), not just one win. it is the CUMULATIVE total.

It doesn't come down to a one-off match like the Grand Final. It's won over 6 months.

Now stop beig childish, and try to understand that the PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER IS GIVEN RECOGNITION.

Read the opening post on this topic. Don't "ignore" it out of spite. Read it.

 

[The Ball]

Although I would like the draw to become even, it really does not need to be. There is no real home ground advantage for any
Victorian teams play each other actually, unless your Carlton or Geelong.

For example, the Kangaroos play Richmond at the MCG, which is the home ground for both teams. So there is no advantage for either team. So its like playing at a neutural venue, which it is. Thus, there is no reason to play a game at home and then one away.

Also, with the current finals system in place it does not give adequate home ground advantage for some teams.

For instance, Essendon could finish first and so play the forth placed side which could be Richmond. Carlton finish second and play, for example Brisbane. Carlton has more easier first up game than Essendon, as they play a interstate side dispite finishing in a lower position on the ladder.

Thus, if someone argues that the regular season is for qualifying for the finals, which it currently is, then the current system does not give adequate advantages to teams finishing in higher positions.

 

[Dan26]

Curious, you wrote this :

"They see it has all come down to that last game. They see their own team perhaps miss a game, and top spot, because of an injury, a poster, plain dumb luck, or an tough draw. They see that their one chance to even it all up is the finals."

I cannot believe you wrote this. I am ASTOUNDED. Absolutelt astounded that you could fail to see simple things.

Obviouly luck plays a factor in anything. But it plays far MORE of a factor in a short tournament than it doesn in a long 6 month season. 6 months gives teams a chance to rise to the top over the course of a gruelling season.

How mnay times do I have to say that it is the CUMULATIVE total of wins that earns you top spot. Not necessarily one particular game. That is very easy to understand.

Injuries (unless it is a season ending injury) is far more influential in finals (hence it plays more of a part with luck) than in the home and away.

In the finals, if you get an injury, you will probably miss the whole FINALS SERIES. Or you could mis the prelim, or GF, and your team can lose.

But in the H&A, your season doesnt come down to one match. It is the CUMULATIVE total of wins added up over all 22 weeks.

it gives the best teams a great chance to prove themeselves something they are not often able to do in the finals, as luck play more of a role.

Remember, I'm talking about rearding BOTH. Yes, BOTH. Everyone wins.

 

[Dan26]

The Ball,

You are 100% right

The Home and away. doesn't give enough advantages to the finalists.

You play 22 weeks to get a double chance. Big f*cking deal.

All that effort just to get a double chance. So what ? And its a double chance that disappears on Prelimianry Final and Grand Final day anyway.

All the more reaosn to make the home and away season something to apsire to in it's own right, rather than a means to an end like it currently is.

 

[servo]

WOW Curious & Dan24 what are u 2 doing?


I am not even gunna try to read all that. (but I did) You 2 could go on for ever and not convince each other of anything.

Curious I am confused by much of what u say but I think I tend to agree with you.

Dan I have read it all before except for the Roos avoiding Essendon stuff last year. What are you trying to say?. In a sense the final series is like a seeding system. 1st should not play 2nd until the GF. It is not the Roos fault that Essendon forgot to get to the GF otherwise they would have met each other. Avoidance has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

I know it's not the Roos fault that they avoided Essendon. I've said time and time again that the Roos should be rewarded for last seasons achievements. But ONLY as far as being "finals series" premiers.

The reason I highlighted the fact that they avoided Essendon, is to draw attention to the fact that the finals draw is un-even due to the "short" nature of a 4-week tournament.

My probelm is NOT the finals series tournament itself, but the fact that it overrides all the home and away games before it. That's not fair. it's not fair for the teams who put in the effort and the fans who watch their teams play. In a way, we are cheated, because the matches don't mean anything.

Yeah, servo, it is currently used as a seeding system. The H&A is used to get a double cghance at the moment, which as I said above is a terrible reward for all that hard work.

A double chance that disappears on preliminary final day is your reward for finishing high on the ladder over 6 MONTHS of hard work ? No, I'm sorry, but that sucks. A "home and away premiership" cup would be a much more fitting reward for all that hard work.

Then, the teams can go on and play the "exciting knockout finals series", which will "end" the season, but it WON'T stop the home and away champion from being recognised. it won't override 22 weeks of hard work, which is my main point all along.

No one wants to see great work unrewarded.

 

[curious]

Dan24:
'Did you conveniently ignore the statement that "THE PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER IS GIVEN RECOGNTION"'

Ignored it because its self-evidently untrue.

Witness the effective rejection by the public of Colonial in Melbourne with its emphasis on corporates. People will still go because they have no choice and thats where their team is playing, but in the public view it stinks and has been rejected. Despite all the hype and promotion.

Witness the intense protest from all and sundry your idea engenders. People WILL NOT accept it.

"Obviouly luck plays a factor in anything. But it plays far MORE of a factor in a short tournament than it doesn in a long 6 month season. 6 months gives teams a chance to rise to the top over the course of a gruelling season."

Happen to disagree with this from experience. Crows have at times been the absolute form side in the comp. Towards the end of '98 Crows were beating sides regularly by 70 points. They had a huge percentage and killed the doggies in the prelim (arguably the seasons top side looking at the minor round ladder). Crows were obviously a heaps better side than doggies. Yet because of a few losses earlier in the season by narrow margins Crows finished fifth. Their first meeting against North that season was a classic case of being robbed of a game. North get a ladder boost, Crows got a handicap.

Good job for us we were the top form side that year. We had to stuggle through five consecutive away games to hold the GF cup.

Yet even though Crows were the top form side, still they are accused of getting a "lucky" win. Actually twice accused. Thats bull they won it clearly. Crows were the better side.

Crows got little enough recognition for a couple of magnificent efforts as it was. Your suggestion attempts to dilute that even further. You want more recognition to minor round premiers, knowing that the 17 odd games that Victorian sides get in their home state each season gives Vic sides the edge when it comes to getting top spot.

A Vic side getting to minor round premiers is a good effort yes, but it is an effort assisted by the cushy draw. Given the draws assistance I say its very fair that minor round premiers get little recognition.

Tough luck, I say. If a side wants to get recognition they will just have to scrounge for it through GF victories. Just like Crows have had to do.

 

[Dan26]

Curious,

You're making mistakes again.

First of all, Colonial has not been rejected due to "corporates" as you suggest. It is the second biggest stadium for AFL in the country. The problems were to do with ticketing, and the like. Problems that will be fixed. If it's been rejected, then those are the reaosn why. Not corporates.

Suffice to say, the crowd of 28,000 at Bulldogs vs Kangaroos is about 10,000 more than what it would have got at Optus Oval, where it would have been played last season.

You will notice, that once they get inside the accolades regarding Colonial have been huge. I can understand this, as I think it is the best football watching stadium I have seen.

If it were to be pulled down and a new stadium built, people would be saying "Why did they tears down good old Colonial ? I don't like the new stadium."

People don't like change, but they grow to love it.

Someone else on this forum said something similar to that, which I believe is true. The crowds at Colonial have actually been very good.

Now, about your defence of the Adelaide Crows. I never said they fluked it. Hey, if you're too good on the day, you're too good on the day. The Crows DESERVE to be recognised for their achievements in 1998. But that achievement should ONLY cover the finals series. This is all they won. They won a 4 week tournament. DON'T gve them any credit for the Home and Away. North Melbourne won that. Anyway, it's official, North Melbourne were officially presented with the McClelland trophy in 1998. I'm just saying that recognition should be increased SUBSTANTIALLY (see my first post on this topic)

I don't necessarily think that the Crows were heaps better than the Doggies. That's a HUGE exaggeration. The Doggies actually beat the Crows by easily during the home and away. Yeah, they got thrashed in the prelim, but does that mean the Crows are 11 goals better ?? No it doesn't.

In 1999, St.Kilda thrashed Essendon by 7 goals. Does that mean the Saints were 7 goals better than Essendon in 1999. Obviously not. Hence the problem of using a one-off match to decide the years best team. The bet team is found over 6 months, not 3 matches in September. Denis Pagan, and Malcolm Blight even admitted it !!!!!!

You can't draw conclusions from one match. Certainly not in so far as finding out who the years best team is. The years best team is NOT found over 1 match. It's like saying Carlton, as they were runner-up in 1999, were a better team than Essendon, who OFFICIALY finished 3rd. Now, not even a Blues supporter is going to cliam they were one of the top 4 teams. They were an also-ran. Hell, they should have been eliminated after week one of the finals. Their finals series should have ended in disgrace after that loss.

That's another reason, why the finals should be completely knockout. Finals are about performing on the day. No second chances. Finals are not about getting second chances. It goes agaisnt what I believe finals are about.

If the Crows were the years best teams as you say, then why didn't they win 16 of 17 Home and away matches ??? Why ?

You say they lost close ones. That's all part of the long season. North Melbourne, who finished top, also lost a couple of narrow ones. It's the CUMULATIVE effect my friend. You can lose a close final too (I know all about it).

Also, it is quite possible that IF the Crows were eliminated in the first week (as they could have been), you wouldn't even had bothered writing your last post. They probably SHOULD have been eliminated (as should have Essendon in 1996)

If the LOSING 5th placed team, was eliminated (as they would be this year, and under my proposal), we'd all be saying stuff like :

"The Crows didn't stand up when it counted. they got thrashed by Melbourne and got eliminated. Gee that ten goal loss proves they struggled this year....."

You know, stuff like that. That's what people would be saying. In fact, YOU would probably be saying it.

Now, I'm not down playing their acheivement at all. I'm glad they beat North actually. Bit ONE win, against a one-off opponent, doesn't mean you are the years best team. Like I said, what if the Crows were eliminated after week one ? They still would have been the same side with the same players. Would your opinion of them change ?

You say crap like a team can "fall into" top spot (which I have already explained CAN'T happen.....see above), and they can make up for it in the finals after the "perceived" injustices of the home and away.

You can take that another way, and say that you can fight all season to finish top (under my proposal), there-by PROVING you are the best side. If you FAIL to finish top, you can still attempt to get something out of the year by winning the Grand Final.

Or, a team could lose the Grand Final, due to a "bad finals draw", or an "injury", but over the home and away season, they had the "opportunity" to show how good they were by finishing on top, and being the best. They didn't have this opportunity in the finals.

You love bending words to suit your own arguments, but a lot of what you say is fundamentally flawed.

Also, Victorian sides do NOT get an advantage in the home and away. Yes, they play 17 games in Victoria, but most of these are NEUTRAL. There is no home ground advantage.

I'll give you an example. This year, the Eagles play 22 home and away matches. For 10 of those, they get an advantage over their opposition. 10 times, they travel and are at a disadvantage, while 2 are neutral (against the Dockers)

Now, look at Essendon. Of our 22 matches, only 4, do we get an advantage. This is when we play at Colonial against a non-Victorian side. We also travl 4 times.

Our remaining games are neutral. We play 14 neutral games. A "home" mach agaist Richmond or Carlton at the MCG is no advantage, I can tell you. Any match at Colonial, or the MCG against another Victoria club is neutral. Both Colonial and the MCG hold in excess of 40 matches, so they are neutral grounds.

So, as you can see, Essendon have the same number of "advantageous" games as we do "disadvantageous" games. We have 4 of each. The Eagles, also have the same number of "advantageous games as they do "disadvantageous' games. There is no difference. Carlton, are perhaps the only team that get an advantage.

Did you even consider this ?????

I LOVE the Grand Final. It's my favourite day of the year. But if you win it, you should just get credited, for winning the 4 week tournament. NOT THE WHOLE SEASON. it's not fair on clubs and spectators, to render the matches irrelevant.

And YES, the public will accept whatever is given recognition. They accepted "top spot" before the Grand final existed, and then, once the GF started, they accepted that straight away too, even though it had no tradition at the time.

 

[curious]

Dan24 wrote:
"Also, Victorian sides do NOT get an advantage in the home and away."

I don't believe it! AGAIN you present an argument against something your opponent DID NOT SAY. Do try to get it right for once. The claim was they get an advantage in getting TOP SPOT. Thats very different, and I'll show you exactly how.

Dan24:
"This year, the Eagles play 22 home and away matches. For 10 of those, they get an advantage over their opposition. 10 times, they travel and are at a disadvantage, while 2 are neutral"

Yep.

Dan24:
"Now, look at Essendon. Of our 22 matches, only 4, do we get an advantage. We also travel 4 times. Our remaining games are neutral. We play 14 neutral games."

We agree so far. So how do we get to different conclusions?

OK, here is the analysis, to keep this relatively short I'm going to go quickly and abbreviate, so do try to keep up. In the AFL there are three types of matches: a neutral match played betweens teams from the same state (denoted N), a travel match where a team must play interstate (denoted T), and a home match where a team hosts a visitor from inetrstate (denoted H, for host).

There are two types of draw. Low-travel teams get roughly a 5T-12N-5H draw (in shorthand, I'm sure you follow). High-travel teams get a 10T-2N-10H draw. Got it so far? Good. OK lets look at two average teams, team A and B, each team wins 1/5 of T matches (this is the average result), 1/2 of N matches (average) and 4/5 H matches (must be so, since in every T match there is an H opponent). These rates of winning represent the approximate real rates of average teams and reflect the relative difficulties of T,N and H matches.

OK, average team A with a 5T-12N-5H low-travel draw wins 1T-6N-4H matches which comes to 11 in a season. Team B (high-travel) wins 2T-1N-8H = 11 wins also. All fair and square and even you say? Great, we agree so far. For your edification, yes I did consider this.

But what about the struggler teams? Now say A and B teams are both strugglers, equally poor. Each wins no T matches, say 1/6 N matches and 3/5 H matches. Low-travel team A wins 0T-2N-3H = 5 wins. High-travel team B wins 0T-0N-6H = 6 wins. Look at that, the high-travel struggler teams are advantaged by having all those easy home games! They miss out on the spoon which goes to a low-travel team which is in reality the same standard! Shame, shame.

Now, what were WE talking about, though? Oh yes, good teams. Contenders to win top spot. Each good team might win say 2/5 T matches, 9/12 N matches and 4/5 H matches. Low-travel draw team A wins 2T-9N-4H = 15 wins if its a good team. A contender for top spot here!

High-travel team B wins 4T-2N-8H = 14 wins. I've given them 2N games, they might only get one, making 13 wins. Might make the four.

Look at that. Team A and B, equally good, winning equivalent matches at EXACTLY the same rate, yet poor old team B ends up one or two of games shy of top spot. Just because of its high-travel draw. No other reason.

Team A wins top spot. Minor round premiers. You want to give accolades to team A in such a season. They simply don't deserve it over team B. Its a good job then that the accolades come from winning the GF, where team B has at least a chance to overcome this lopsidedness of the draw (so far as being minor round premiers goes).

It gives team B some chance of redress, even though the GF is pre-determined be a T game for team B who probably has to play a team A which is gifted a H game or an N game at least. But thats another story.

Exactly like I claimed by the way. Analysis over. I know this maths stuff is a bit hard for you guys that come from states where they are a bit lax on teaching it (ha ha). Do try to avoid being so arrogant when you don't really know your stuff though. One day you just might be pulled up for it.