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

[Dan26]

Curious,

This is getting ridiculous.

You typed all that to come to the conclusion that there is virtually no difference.

Oh, I suppose, that the uneven finals draw (more un-even than the home and away) is conveniently forgotten by you, is it ?

The fact that you only have to play 3 of the other 7 finalists, for example. No comment about that.

The whole reason I started talking about all this is to conclude that the "top of the ladder" team deserves more recognition. Uneven draw or not, it is still harder to accomplish that than it is to win a 4 week tournament. That's my main point.

There are a number of other factors which you have failed to consider. Firstly, when a Victorian team travels interstate, they are at a distinct disadvantage at say, Subiaco, or Football Park.

When the Crows or Eagles, for example play at Colonial or the MCG, yes they are at a disadvantage, but they are MUCH better off than what their opponents would be if the roles were reversed.

For example, Adelaide vs Western Bulldogs. They are playing at Colonial this week, right ? Yes, it's an advantage for the Bulldogs, but if it were at Footy Park, it would be a MUCH BIGGER advantage to the Crows.

The only stadiums in Melbourne that carry a "significant" advantage are Optus Oval and Kardinia Park.

You didin't mention that. EVERY non-victorian side has a "significant" home ground advantage. Only Carlton and Geelong have what you would call a "significant" advantage.

With the Eagles visiting Colonial stadium three times this year, as well as the MCG, they have a more favourable draw than the Bombers. Essendon's "disadvantageous" matches are MORE disadvtantageous than the Eagles "disadvantageous" matches. For example, Essendon's travel matches, include visits to the Gabba, SCG, Football Park, and Subiaco this year. As well, as 14 neutral matches. The Eagles travel matches include visits to Colonial three times, and also the MCG. Disadvantageous ? Yes. But not as much as the Bombers "disadvantageous" matches.

It doesn't help the Victorian teams get to top spot at all. For crying out loud, you still have to play 22 matches, and win 85% percent of them to get to top spot. That's the point.

Even in the finals, it's been proven that the MCG is not really an advantage. It hosts 50 plus games a year, and is often filled by many "non-victorian" supporters. Many non-Victorian teams have had a lot of success on the "nearly neutral" MCG in finals.

This is the very finals series, which you are defending, I might add.

Yet these same teams (i.e non-Victorian teams) get a HUGE "significant" advantage in finals if they are a higher placed team at Subiaco or Football Park. Fair enough too. I'm not against that. You deserve to host a final if you are higher placed. I'm just drawing atention to the fact that the "finals series" (which you are defending) often has the Victorian teams drawn to play a "home" match at the semi-neutral MCG. If a final was at Kardinia Park, it would be a "significant" advantage for Geelong, but they only get the oportunity to play at the MCG come finals. I agree with that, by the way, but I'm just pointing it out to you.

So, as you can see, in finals, the NON-Victorian teams often have an advantage.

The whole poit I have been tryng to make is BOTH the finals series and the H&A are uneven. But the H&A, due to the fact that it's decided over a WHOLE season (not just one match), is simply a BETTER way of finding the years best team than the final series. Why do you think "top spot" in soccer is more treasured than winning the FA CUP ?

Yes, despite this, we can still have the finals series to keep people like you happy. You can still win the Grand Final as normal.

Just remember, it doesn't mater if you are from Victoria, or from OUSIDE Victoria, it is still just as hard to finish on top. Sure, there might be years where a team (any team), may get an advantageous draw and may avoid certain venues, but ON THE WHOLE it is still the best way of finding the years best team.

As I said, the finals draw basically decided the premiership in 1999, with the Kangaroos (through no fault of their own) avoiding Essendon.

Why should they be called "years champions" ? They should be "finals series" champions. But we should also reward the Bombers for finishing on top in 1999 as well. Just like Manchester United were "premiers" after finishing on top, then Chelsea were "FA Cup champions" after winning the last match of the year (Grand Final equivalent), the FA CUP.

At least you are only disagreeing about the "home and away" draw in your last post (which I have now explained to you). I'm glad you didn't disagree with all my other good points, as I take it you now understand them. Now, that I have pointed that out to you, there's not much left is there ?

Dan24 - 100.

Curious - 0.

I'm just joking, but you're a pretty sensitive fellow. Chill out a bit.

 

[curious]

ROFL.

This is the funniest stuff I have heard in ages.

Starting with just three premises: 1 that there are three types of games; 2 that there are two types of draw; and 3 that travel games are hardest, neutral games next, and host games easiest, I was able to completely rip the rug out from under you Dan24.

All of those assumptions you had already stated as your own beliefs. Your only comeback is: "it doesn't make much difference".

Thats a beauty. Again I say, ROFL.

Of COURSE it makes a difference. One game is all it takes. And you want all the glory to go to teams based on that undeserved one game.

The rest of your points are just as feeble.

So I'll try one more time Dan:

The minor round is flawed and uneven. The major round is flawed and uneven. The people want the recognition to go to the winner of the major round. Thats their preference.

Dan24 wants a sort of pat on the back for the winner of the major round, and recognition to go to the minor premiers (demonstrably for no good reason).

Lets have a vote then:

People - about three million (footy fans)

Dan24 - 1.

ROFL.

Goodbye.

 

[Dan26]

Curious,

I don't think so.

One game decides the finals series. It does NOT decide the home and away (as I seem to have mentioned to you numerous times). It is won over the CUMULATIVE total of, say 17 wins over 22 weeks. Not one match. Do I really need to explain it again to you ?

We have both basically said, that BOTH are uneven. We all know this. But of the two uneven concepts (the home and away, and finals), the home and away is BETTER than the finals for finding out the years best team. Hence, it should be recognised *obviously*. Yeah, you need to be good to win the GF. But you only need to be good over 3 matches, NOT 22 weeks.

YOU are the one who makes assumptions. Obviousy, as anyone can see, Essendon playing a home game at Colonial Stadium agaist West Coast, is NOT as big an advantage, than if it were at Windy Hill in 1991. Essendon vs West Coast at Windy Hill is MORE of an advantage than Colonial. The non-Victorian clubs get this huge advantage for ALL their home matches (bar local derbies) I don't really think that is an assumption. It's a fact. IF it's an assumption, it's a "logical" assumption. Often in football, logical assumptions need to be made. A lot of the things you are talking about can't be measured or quantified. Yet, you try to do just that !

You can't say the public dont want it when you have NO IDEA HOW THE PUBLIC WILL REACT. How do you know ? How do you know how the public will react if top spot was given more recognition ? I seem to have to continually address the issue that the public will accept whatever is given recognition.

Of course they don't care about top spot NOW. If it was recognised, they would. Remember, top spot was the way they used to decided the premeirship, then they introduced a Grand Final. The public accepted the "new" Grand Final straight away, because the League gave it recognition.

You seem to have ignored that (again).

I notice you have refused to argue my points on your last couple of posts. Instead, you have "conveniently" ignored nearly all of the points I have made. If you conveniently ignore certain things, and only concentrate on "putting people down", then you won't be as convincing as you think you are.

BOTTOM LINE :

* Top spot is harder than winning the Grand Final.

* Because of this, it should be given recognition

* SO SHOULD the Grand Final, but it shouldn't override 22 weeks of hard work.

* People don;t like change, but they grow to accept it and like it (see VARIOUS posts above). They don't like the GST even though other countries have showed it was the way to go.

If you honestly believe the the football public would NOT want to see the top team rewarded rather than ignored, you are a fool. What person, in their right mind, would NOT want to see the years best team rewarded, whilst STILL KEEPING the Grand Final as smoething to win in it's own right ?

I think if the recognition was given to it, teams (and the public) would aspire to it. It's easy for you to claim no one wants top spot when there is no recognition given to it. Very easy. But you need to "suppose" for a minute that the 9 or so points I made in my first post on this topic were implemented.

It's accepted in Soccer. You finish top you are the champions. The public like that. They also like the fact that the FA CUP (like our Grand Final) is the last match of the season.

Let's suppose they did it differently. Let''s suppse in the Soccer they had a GRAND FINAL (like us), that overrides the home and away season. They would accept this too, IF that was they way of deciding the premeirship.

They will accept whatever is the way of deciding the premeirship.

Regardless, top spot should still be given more recognition. It is fair on the players who put in the hard work, and the supporters who watch their team play every week. Even if everything stays how it is NOW, with no change, we should still at least acknowledge the "minor premier" for their seasons achievements

It's fair and just, that we do just that. WE should acknowledge an achievement rather than ignore it.

 

[AGame]

Hey fellas,
Let you in on a little secret.
It's a game.
A good one at that,but it's still a game.
BTW I'll vote for Dan24,why change the tradition;we love granny day.
Also I don't give a rats khyber about bloody soccer;so that didn't help.
.........sorry to interrupt.

 

[chev1977]

why dont we give a premiership to a team every month who finish's on the top of the ladder


that way we can all share the recognition !!


LOL what a joke

ok no I have a better idea why dont we give a premiership to the winner of a Grand Final !

Team who finish's second a golden wooden
spoon

Minor premier a bronze wooden spoon


last team a real wooden spoon

all teams below the premier a box of Kleenex tissues and that way we can all share something !!!


Winner of G/F is best end of story !!

 

[Dan26]

Chev,

If you finish on top after the conclusion of 22 weeks of matches, you are the best. You have proven you have been able to win more games more often than any other team.

In England, the FA Cup, is the last match of the season. it is like our Grand Final. Chelsea won that. Do you think that Chelsea are the best soccer team in England ? They KNOW they aren't the best and so do the fans. By the way, this has got nothing to do with soccer, it could be ANY sport)

Manchester United were the best. Why ? They won more games than anyne else. They finished top, and to do this, you have to win more often than anyone.

Denis Pagan, even said last year that the best team doesnt win the Grand Final necessariy. There have been HEAPS of years where the years best team hasn't won the Grand Final.

Now, whether you agree on my propsals for recognition are one thing. BUT, to actually think that the years best team ALWAYS wins the Grand Final is stupid of you.

That's got NOTHING to do with my argument for "recognition". Nothing at all.

I'm talking about who is actually the best. Every coach as said at some time, that the best team doesn't always win the Grand Final. They all know this. You know it. The fans know it. The coaches probably don't care if they're not the best. As long as they win the Grand Final.

They can think that way, if they like. Fine, it's up to them. But they all know that sometimes the years best team doesn't win the Grand Final. Going by that theory, Carlton, who finished last year as runner-up, were a better team than the Bombers who finished 3rd (after finishing minor premeirs)

Now, even the most ardent Carlton fan knows that they were not as good as the Bombers.

Answer me this ? Are Chelsea the best soccer team in Engalnd because they won the FA Cup? I don't care if you don't care about soccer. It could be any sport. Tell me, who is the best team in England ? I don't think you've got the guts to answer that question.

Even poor old curious (whether he agrees with me or not), knows that the best team often fails to win a one-off match in Septemer. Even the best teams can lose a match. No one is unbeatable.

 

[servo]

OK Dan lets address your theory from a few other angles.

1/- The Brownlow goes to the person who polls the most times and not necessarilly the most votes. That rewards the consistent performer rather than the highest vote winner.

2/- Coleman medal goes to the player with the most shots at goal because that rewards the player with the best ability to put himself in a scoring postion and not necessarilly the one who kicks the most goals.

3/- Norm Smith medal goes to the player most responsible for getting their team to the GF and not necessarily to the best player on the day.

4/- All Australian selection only goes to players of Aboriginal descent because they are the only true Australians.

5/- Grand Final umpiring panel selected on the basis of the most decisions made during the season and not necessarily the ones who only make correct decisions.

6/- Give the team that finishes first in the preliminary games the premiership and not necessarily the team that wins the Grand Final.

7/- Give any new coaching job to whoever promises to make the most positional changes and trade the most players rather than the one which only makes correct positional changes and only trades duds for champs.

You know what, I agree with you now, you have convinced me. Your way of thinking has no flaws at all. We must push for all these changes to the system which has only been successfull for a little more than 100 years. What was i thinking before??

BOMBERS FOR MINOR PREMIERS 2000

 

[Dan26]

Servo, you have a new level of d*ckhead-ness.

That is the fair-dinkum most inane, pointless drivel I have ever read.

The Brownlow as it currently stands rewards excellence, because it will got to the player who polls the most votes over the whole year. Not just one match. Just like, the team that wins the most games of the year.

That kind of makes you look stupid now, doesn't it. Makes you look like a right-royal knob, after what you wrote.

I suppose you think the MNorm Smith medalaist, shouldbe called the years best player do you ?

I know you're rying to take the piss, but your "suggestions", have nothing to do with what I've been saying.

What, are you running out of ideas or something ?