To Shinboners (more importantly to anyone who thinks there should be double chances)

[Dan26]

Shinboners,

Do you realy think that under a final 5, that the double chance a team received is adequate ?

Sorry, but as I stated above, anything, which doesn't recognise the H&A seaosn at all, (even if it does give you two chances to make the GF) is not adequate in my opinion.

Even in the final 5, 1st could lose the GF match itself (eg 1982), and that ruins their season, even though they finished on top. If a double chance is to be there, it has to exist ALL THE WAY THROUGH (including the Grand Final).

This was how the old Argus system worked. Even if 1st lost the GF, they got another chance in the second Grand Final the next week. You can't just say : "Oh, but the double chance shouldn't apply to the Grand Final" If the double chance applys up to the Grand Final, then it should also include the Grand Final, otherwise it still comes down to one loss overriding 22 weeks, and rendering them irrelevant, which is unacceptable.

As I've said many times, a knockout format is the way to go, because that is the way the finals culminate now anyway. Since they culminate that way NOW, lets make them knockout the whole way through.

Do you see where I am getting with this ? A lot of people tend to read what I say, but not take it in.

Simply put, if the finals conclude currently with a knockout match, why isn't the whole finals series knockout ? No where else in the world is that illogical, but we are here in Australia. Surely that must tell us all something.

FINALS SHOULD BE KNOCKOUT. (but to go along with that the top team shouldbe called H&A premier and be given heaps of recognition)

 

[Daniel]

Under the new finals system, 7 out of 9 finals are knockout so the finals series is practically knockout anyway. Teams now know where they stand before each match.

Dan, you said that a lot of people read what you say without taking it in. I think it is much more likely that most people read what you say, understand it, but simply don't agree with it. I'm not necessarily one of them, but you must know that there are people who appreciate what you have to say without agreeing with it.

 

[Dan26]

Daniel,

But this very point (i.e double chances) is one of those things people don't "take in"

Even though the finals culminates with a knockout match, for some reason people think that the double chance makes sense (when it obviously makes no sense). If it makes sense, then why doesn't the top team get a double chance after their first finals loss (whenever that loss happens to be)

I think it is more that some people are so used to the way things are, that they don't realise common-sense even if it is straight in front of them.

Look at this years finals. 4th could lose to 1st and get a double chance, but if 1st loses in the PF or GF, they don't get a second chance.

You can't go half-assed. Either have NO double chancs at all (which is what finals are about - performing on the day), or have double chances for the top teams after ANY finals loss.

The second scenario would be impratical, since it would mean having two Grand Finals, if the top team lost the Grand Final at their first attempt (like the old Argus system), so it far more "appropriate" to have the GF as it currently stands : a one-off knockout match.

But if this is the case, the entire finals series must be knockout. Why shold there be a second chance in a tournament which prides itself on the "performing on the day" philosophy ?

To me there is no logical counter-argument. Like I've said, the top team can currently be eliminated after one loss in the PF andthe GF, so why can't they be eliminatd in the first week too. Same diff.

But for this to happen, 1st woiuld have to play 8th in a quarter-final.

P.S - people called Daniel are normally pretty intelligent individuals.

 

[dons_r_tops]

Dan24,
Agreed, all double chance or none,
A.1 vs 8,
B.2 vs 7,
C.3 vs 6,
D.4 vs 5.
then highest placed winner vs lowest placed winner so if 2 lost and 1, 7, 3, and 4 won
1 vs 7 and 3 vs 4
then winner takes all

Ps. This is Post 200 for me

 

[sainter]

Dan,

Whether the double chance is used or not is incidental.

Once a side makes the preliminary final or grand final, they are on their own. And rightly so!

I think where your opinion differs from mine is that the purpose of doing well in the home and away season is to give your team as good a chance as anyone to win the Grand Final.

A team that finishes in the top four deserves to be rewarded with a double chance. As much as it pains me to admit, Adelaide were worthy champions in 1997 because they were good enough to win from 5th position.

I know you believe in rewarding the top team after the home and away season but the fact is every game of the season is geared towards winning the Grand Final.

And if your proposal was introduced, how boring would this season have been, with the top spot basically all but secured 6 weeks ago.

PS - I do hide behind the name sainter but after your last comment I don't suppose there is anything wrong with revealing myself as another Daniel.

 

[WCE2000]

Sainter is exactly right. Once a side gets to the prelims then they're on their own.
If a team is not good enough to win the grand final on the day why should they be given a second chance.
Example:
In the Grand Final, West Coast finish 1st on the table and play Essendon who finished 4th.
Essendon defeat West Coast in the Grand Final, but as minor premiers West Coast have the right to challenge them.
Second Grand Final:
West Coast defeat Essendon and take the flag. Wouldn't Essendon fans be pretty pissed off because they won the grand final and then had the flag stolen.

That is totally unfair.

------------------
for all your footballing needs visit my web-site atwww.bigfooty.com/users/afl/eastsydney

 

[Guest]

Double chances are simlpy revenue raising, they exist to have the extra week in the finals.

All finals should be cut-throat under last year's system 1v8, 2,7 etc. But what is the point in arguing, the AFL will NEVER cut back on the number of finals.

 

[WCE2000]

i cant agree with you there Happy Hawker. That would be plain redicolous if 1st place Essendon got the exact same advantage as 8th place Hawks/Richmond/whoever.
But also i think that that it is ridicoulous giving one team a second shot at the Grand Final after they lose the first game.
The old finals system was the best one;
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5
That gives the biggest advantage to 1 and 2, and on a sliding scale, 3 have the next best advantage, followed by 4 etc,.
With the current finals systems teams 1, 2, 3 and 4 have exactly the same advantage were the cant get knocked out in the first week.

------------------
for all your footballing needs visit my web-site atwww.bigfooty.com/users/afl/eastsydney

 

[molar]

Lets give the team that finishes on top of the ladder every opportunity to win the GF. WE can award them the premiership after the home and away season. The other seven teams can play a sort of mock finals system where they are allowed to win any game except the GF.

 

[Daniel]

Dan24,

It’s a question of semantics, as double chance is a misnomer because it’s not technically a double chance. Does the AFL officially refer to the top-four’s reward as a “double chance”, I wonder? Is this what they actually call it?

The only time the top team can't be eliminated is in week 1, then after that there is no double chance. So what it should really be called is an insurance final: you get your money back if you lose your first gamble, but after that you’re playing for keeps regardless of whether you won or lost the first time.

I agree with you on this. If you look at the overall picture, having 2 non-knockout finals and 7 knockout doesn’t make sense. I think the problem is that the AFL can’t stretch an eight-team finals competition over four weeks without doing this and four weeks of finals is apparently what they want.

 

[Dan26]

WCE2000

That very example you used was the finals system that was in place in various leagues (notably the VFL from 1900 to 1930) Sometimes there were two Grand Finals, becasue the top team lost at their first attempt.

Happyhawker knows what he is on about. Good on ya mate !

You can't go half assed. Have either double chances all the way through, or NO double chances.

Fr those that missed it, my prioposal had the finals treating all 8 teams the same in a knockout format (1v8, 2v7 etc). The "reward" for finishing on top is the title of HAA premier, while the GF winner is only the champins of that 4 weeek tournament.

Sainter,

it would not be boring. If top spot was wrapped up with 3 weeks to go, everyone would just be waiting for the seperate 4 week tournamet to start, right ? That's just how it is now, effectively. Everyone knows Essendon has wraped up the McClelland trophy, and we have all just been waiting for the finals to start. So, how would it be any different ? Under my propsal, there will still be the "fight for the top 8", for those teams that can't finish on top, and it will also reward the years best team (the top team), and the "real" premier. By real prmier, I mean the dictionary definition of the word premier.

 

[Bomber]

No, its not called a 'double chance'. Top 2 have a week off OR double chance - ie only applies for first week of the finals.

Also, the game has been played for over 100 years, if, over time, people wanted the top finisher recognised, public demand and perception would have done that. Obviously, it hasnt happened. In most years its touch and go who is the best team - the draw is so uneven its not funny. As a general rule nobody really cares who finishes top, except for gaining an advantageous position for when the so called 'real' season begins.

 

[Dan26]

Bomber,

It migth interest you to know that in the VFA, up until the VFL began in 1897, the premiership was decided by finishing on top.

When the VFL started in 1897, they introduced a "finals series", which was, really, the first sporting organization anywhere in thr world to decide the premiership this way.

People accepted "top spot" back in the last 1800's. When that was abolished, they accepted the finals series (in it's various forms). Whatever the AFL decides to give ecognition, the public will accpet.

Just like they used to do with top spot. That used to be the way it was done. Don't tel me it wasn't, becasue I know for a fact that it was. In fact, the Rugby League in ydney decided the premiership by finishing on top up until the 1930's, when they copied the VFL. (as they have done with a lot of things, such as the finals 5 etc)

 

[Bomber]

Dan,

Im not talking about top spot being premier, but just recognised. If you asked the average footy fan, they dont care who finishes top. I for one dont care that we finished top this or last year, its the flag I want.

Because the AFL gives the premier an extra $100,000 and a trophy presentation, doesnt mean people will care more for it. Maybe if we had an even year it could be worth something, but the way it is now, most years its difficult to say who really was the best team. Last year for example we finished top by a game, but werent clearly the best team. Many people thought North were at least as good, and as there were 8 teams who we both didnt play, anything could have happened in those 8 weeks. If you take the 8 weeks off, West Coast were going extremely well around the midway point. (In ANY season, the league leader after 22 was generally not the leader after round 14 or so - heaps can happen in the further 8 games needed to make a FAIR system).

Our season is seriously flawed, and to base anything of note on that is just as flawed IMO.

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

When you say, "Either have NO double chancs at all (which is what finals are about - performing on the day), or have double chances for the top teams after ANY finals loss." are seriously saying that prelims and grand finals should be replayed if the top teams loses first time? Gee.. how exciting the first match would be!! I can see it now... the PF opponents would turn up and expel all their energy so that if they win they can return the following week and try to do it again. Meanwhile the GF opponents could have an extra extra week break waiting for the minor premier to finally progress to the GF. Dan24 - another rare moment of inpired genious on your behalf.

Anyway Dan 24, as well as the double chance the top team does get guarranteed home state advantage throughout the first three weeks of the finals - isn't that an advantage? Or are you going to dispute the facts and say playing at home has no effect on a team's chances?

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

When you say, "Either have NO double chancs at all (which is what finals are about - performing on the day), or have double chances for the top teams after ANY finals loss." are seriously saying that prelims and grand finals should be replayed if the top teams loses first time? Gee.. how exciting the first match would be!! I can see it now... the PF opponents would turn up and expel all their energy so that if they win they can return the following week and try to do it again. Meanwhile the GF opponents could have an extra extra week break waiting for the minor premier to finally progress to the GF. Dan24 - another rare moment of inpired genious on your behalf.

Anyway Dan 24, as well as the double chance the top team does get guarranteed home state advantage throughout the first three weeks of the finals - isn't that an advantage? Or are you going to dispute the facts and say playing at home has no effect on a team's chances?

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

When you say, "Either have NO double chancs at all (which is what finals are about - performing on the day), or have double chances for the top teams after ANY finals loss." are seriously saying that prelims and grand finals should be replayed if the top teams loses first time? Gee.. how exciting the first match would be!! I can see it now... the PF opponents would turn up and expel all their energy so that if they win they can return the following week and try to do it again. Meanwhile the GF opponents could have an extra extra week break waiting for the minor premier to finally progress to the GF. Dan24 - another rare moment of inpired genious on your behalf.

Anyway Dan 24, as well as the double chance the top team does get guarranteed home state advantage throughout the first three weeks of the finals - isn't that an advantage? Or are you going to dispute the facts and say playing at home has no effect on a team's chances?

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Dan24,

When you say, "Either have NO double chancs at all (which is what finals are about - performing on the day), or have double chances for the top teams after ANY finals loss." are seriously saying that prelims and grand finals should be replayed if the top teams loses first time? Gee.. how exciting the first match would be!! I can see it now... the PF opponents would turn up and expel all their energy so that if they win they can return the following week and try to do it again. Meanwhile the GF opponents could have an extra extra week break waiting for the minor premier to finally progress to the GF. Dan24 - another rare moment of inpired genious on your behalf.

Anyway Dan 24, as well as the double chance the top team does get guarranteed home state advantage throughout the first three weeks of the finals - isn't that an advantage? Or are you going to dispute the facts and say playing at home has no effect on a team's chances?

 

[Dan26]

Bomber.

You said this : "Our season is seriously flawed, and to base anything of note on that is just as flawed IMO."

The finals series is MORE flawed than the H&A. How can the finals determine that North was the premiers team of 1999, when they only played ONE other team in the top 5 during the finals ? They didn't meet Essendon, The Bulldogs, or the Eagles.

Now, I'm not defending the un-even nature of the H&A. I'm simply stating that the H&A, despite it's flaws is a BETTER way of finding the years best team that the 4 week tournament which we currently have.

You said this : "Many people thought North were at least as good, and as there were 8 teams who we both didnt play, anything could have happened in those 8 weeks"

Yes, well as I said, North only played 3 of the other 7 finalists, so why you could ignore that fact baffles me. In the H&A you still have to play everyone once. The un-even nature of the finals, and the fact that "one loss and you are out" was the reason North won the premiership. They won, becasue they weren't drawn to play Essendon. Is this a fair way to find the "whole years" best team ? Yes, I know Essenon blew it, and they had only themselves to blame, but that's not the point. That one bad performance is not reflective of who is the years best team, so why should that very finals series, which the preliminary final was part of, define the whole season ?


You said this: "I for one dont care that we finished top this or last year, its the flag I want. Because the AFL gives the premier an extra $100,000 and a trophy presentation, doesnt mean people will care more for it."

I have stated many times, that the reason you don't care is becasue no recognition is given to it. If more recognition ws given to it, then YOU (and me), and everyone would care. I'm not necessarily talking about money here. I'm talking about a trophy presentaion after the home and away match in which top spot is sealed. Secondly a HUGE cash bonue. Thirldy, a symbolically bigger trophy (bigger in size thah the current premiership cup). Fourthly, more marketing from the AFL towarfds recognising top spot.

One of the reasons you don't care Bomber is because the finals are "linked" to the H&A. If we un-link them, then that will immediatley give more recognition to top spot won't it. Why ? Becasue it will make top spot something to strive for IN IT'S OWN RIGHT, rather than the means to an end that it currently is. That is why the "seperate tournament" idea is so crucial to recognising to spot. That is the 5th thing you could do.

The public will accept whatever is given recognition.

 

[Dan26]

Indian in the cupboard,

Why did you waste your time writing that post ?

I have said many times, I don't like double chances. There shouldn't be any. I don't want them. I love the knockout nature of finals. Why spoil that with a double chance?

But if the stupid double chance does exist, it MUST exista ll the way through. Yeah, that may sound stupid. All the more reason to get rid of it all together.

 

[WCE2000]

Dan24,

Because there has to at least be some advantage to the teams finishing higher on the ladder.
Once you get to the Prelims however, it is knockout, so what are you complaining about.
Its like the first 2 weeks of the finals are there to find out who really are the best 4 teams. If Essendon lose their first 2 games in the finals the'll be known as 'chokers' and as a group of fine footballers who just cracked under pressure and should therefore not be considered one of the best 4 teams in the competition.
However, they may have an off-day this weekend against Kangaroos, trying to deal with nerves, etc,. So why should they punished after such a great season, they lose one game and bang its all over.
Then when the sought out who can handle the finals pressure, and which teams are the best 4 teams in the competition, its then knockout.

------------------
for all your footballing needs visit my AFL web-site at www.bigfooty.com/users/afl/eastsydney

 

[Bomber]

Dan

Of course the finals are flawed - they have to be becuase its it rewards higher finishers in the season, so they get an easier run into the Grand Final. (Isnt that obvious? It's designed flawed, that is why its not flawed!)
The finals system is setup so that you have to beat the best to win the cup, and if you dont meet the best, you meet the team that BEAT the best.

North only played 3 of 7 finalists, but they played in a Grand Final against the top team from the other side of the draw (Carlton). Carlton beat us. They deserved to be there, we didnt. End of story.
Your system means that a team could play all low sides twice, and therfore have a dream draw and win the flag. At least the finals makes you play-off against another team who has won their finals up untill the grand final. That is much better than basing a flag on a totally flawed season.

I think your a bit mislead with people clinging to a top spot team if they are given a big trophy. All of a sudden every one is using this 'minor premier' term which they use in the Rugby League - they try to give top spot a fair bit of recognition but nobody cares! Up in Syd they try to make a big thing out of the Minor Premier, but at the end of the day, it means $hit to most people!

Also, if you arnt going to link the season to the finals, then the finals has to incorporate all 16 teams, all teams are randomely selected to play each other - like a tennis tournament - is that how you want this finals thing?

If the season was fair, I would agree with giving heaps of recognition to top spot. But untill it is, I dont see the logic in giving too much credit to finishing top.