Top spot deserves more recognition

[Dan26]

This is my letter to the AFL. For those that are interested, here it is :


I would like you to take the time to read this, as I believe it is very important in regards to the football season. If the aim of football is to win, then what point is there if you achieve that aim, only to lose one match and not get recognised for it ? In many ways, I believe this is the one issue where football fails at the moment, because it disrupts the whole notion of success, and competitiveness.


Definition of Premier : “Foremost, leader; having precedence of all others. The best.”

Is the team that win the Grand Final the best ? If not, why are they given the title PREMIERS ?

The McClelland trophy is presented to the team finishing above all others over 22 weeks. This team is the best, i.e the premier team. But they are not recognised for it.

Leigh Matthews had it right when he stated that it is HARDER to be the best over 22 weeks than it is to win a 4 week tournament. I've been saying it for a LONG time, myself. While being the best "on the day" deserves recognition (eg winning the Grand Final), finishing above EVERY other team over a gruelling 22 week schedule ALSO deserves recognition.

I realise that most people will say "Oh, but I don't care about finishing on top. I want to win the Grand Final." That's the problem, unfortunately. People don't care about it because there is no "glory and recognition" given to finishing on top (like in soccer). if there WAS glory and recognition, then we all WOULD care about finishing top. There currently isn't any recognition, so we don't care, but if there was, we would !

In 1999, Essendon was the best performed team, finishing above all others over 22 weeks. North Melbourne won a 4 week tournament. They deserve some recognition for that, yes. But so do the Bombers for being the best over 22 weeks. The Kangaroos won 3 matches against 7th, 3rd and 6th.

If you think people wouldn't support the top spot being a major achievement, like in soccer, have a look at this example. In 1998, The Bulldogs and North Melbourne played a Friday night match in Round 22 to decide top spot. It was a so-called "meaningless" match because both clubs had sealed a top two berth.

Despite the fact it was "meaningless", and it was played between the two clubs with the two SMALLEST supporter bases in Melbourne, it drew 68,000 people. I still think, in relativity terms, this match is the greatest crowd drawing match in league history, taking into account the followings of the teams involved. This match was to decide the McClelland trophy (top spot). This crowd would have exceeded any finals match (bar the Grand Final) these two clubs would have played against each other. If they met in a semi-final, they would be lucky to draw 60,000, and they would be lucky to draw 70,000 in a preliminary. Even then, series tickets would boost the crowd.

People WILL care about finishing on top (as that proves). And so they should. The home and away season comprises 176 games, and the finals comprise 9 games. How can a performance in one game in the finals determine your season ? That’s ridiculous.

The best team of the year has been proved long before the Grand Final even takes place.

If you finish on top of the ladder and PROVE yourself the best, then why should your season even be on the line in the first place in a preliminary final or a Grand Final ? The way it SHOULD be, is that if you win the Grand Final, you are declared premiers OF THE FINALS SERIES. If you finish on top, you are declared premiers of the "home and away" season. Separate them.

It's ridiculous for Carlton to be declared Runners-up of the whole season. Runners up of the 4 week finals series, yes, but of the whole season ? No way. Carlton won 14 of 26 games, and are declared runners up ? Why ? Yes, I know they won "on the day" which deserves credit, and any team which performs "on the day" in the finals should get credit. I'm not talking about abandoning the finals here ! But anyone can perform "on the day", in a one-off match. It doesn't necessarily represent your season, does it ? Even the three best teams of the year (Essendon, Kangaroos, and Brisbane) lost one-off matchs throughout the season to lower placed teams. Anything can happen on the day.

Look at Soccer. There are TWO trophy’s to win. The premiership (won by finishing on top), and the FA CUP (a knockout tournament). Both are separate from each other.

In soccer, the premiership season is considered the "real stuff", and the FA CUP is considered another good thing to win. But it's not the main prize, because it doesn't necessarily go to the best team. The FA Cup is won "on the day". It never goes to a bad team. But it doesn't always go to the best. Like our Grand Final.

To win the FA Cup (and the Grand Final), you have to perform "on the day". And both of them get recognition. As they should. Nothing wrong with that. They both deserve recognition . The FA Cup and the Grand Final are difficult tournaments to win.

BUT, the premiership season in soccer is considered the "real stuff", because that is where you prove yourself over the course of a gruelling season. You can't fluke it. If you're the best, you've earnt it, and you are recognised with all the glory.

Why can't the AFL be like this too ? I don't have a problem with the Grand Final. I love the Grand Final. It’s my favorite day of the year.

But lets recognise BOTH from now on. You still have to win the Grand Final on the day. Great ! But let's also recognise the top team. What they’ve achieved, over 22 weeks is the most difficult acheivement. In Soccer, finishing on top is what they all strive for because it’s the hardest thing to do. Therefore, it gets the most "glory and recognition", hence, all the clubs want to win it.

When the VFA started in 1877, the premiers were decided by finishing top. That is the traditional point of a "SEASON". To determine who is the best over a "SEASON" of matches. It is what a "SEASON" is all about.

In the Rugby League, South Sydney won 5 consecutive premierships in the 1920's. There was no Grand Final. The premiership was decided by finishing on top of the ladder. They then copied the VFL, and introduced a Grand Final.

Now I love the Grand Final, but if you win it, it should JUST represent the 4 week final series. Not the whole home and away season.

A top team doesn't do all the hard work for 22 weeks and prove to be the best team, for their season to be on the line, due to the result of ONE match. That's stupid. It means one match determines your season, even if you have won every match.

Think of the traditional concept of a "season" that I mentioned above, and what it’s meant to achieve. A "season" is designed to find the BEST team over the course of 6 months against ALL opposition. A finals series is not designed for this. ONE-OFF matches are what the FA CUP is for, and that is very prestigious to win too. If a team wins the premiership in soccer (for finishing on top), but loses the FA CUP final, they are NOT labelled as “chokers”, and their season has not been "wasted". They are rightfully declared PREMIERS, and are the Runners up of a separate tournament.

If the AFL did it this way, everyone wins. Who wouldn't want that ?

Please bear in mind that the Grand Final would still be the biggest match on the calendar. While the FA CUP is not as prestigious as the "premiership season", it is still the biggest ONE-OFF match of the year. Same with the AFL. Even though the Grand Final is not as hard to win as finishing on top of the table, it is still the biggest match of the year, and always will be.

As the FA Cup is designed to have a dramatic one-off “trophy deciding” match to determine the premiers of that tournament, it becomes a great complement to the "premiership" which is won by finishing on top. You can't decide the "premiership" with a one-off match, as the best team could lose it and not be recognised for their seasons accomplishments. That's what the FA CUP is for.

That’s what I'd like our Grand Final to be like.

Now, in order to treat both the Final series and the "home and away" season separately, would require minor changes:

Firstly, if the finals series was to be a SEPARATE tournament, it would make sense if the 8 competing teams were all treated equally. This means every match being knockout. Eg, quarter finals between 1-8, 2-7, 3-6 and 4-5, with all losers dropping out and winners progressing to the semi-finals, then the Grand Final.

Then, if 1st loses to 8th, they can say,: "Oh well, we're disappointed to drop out after one game, but we still won the "home and away" premeirship by finishing on top". 1st would have been attempting to do the "Double", by winning both the home and away, and the final series in the same year.

Losing to 8th, is a bit like going out in the first round of the FA Cup. I really like this idea, because you still have to contend with the pressure of knockout games, but if the home and away season was recognised, you can still, quite correctly, be perceived as having had a great season, by winning the hardest prize - top spot. Even if you missed out in the knockout finals series, you would be recognised.

Part of the problem at the moment is that the home and away season, and the finals are "linked". The higher finishing teams get a "double chance". Now, a double chance is a TERRIBLE reward for 22 weeks of hard work. That's all you get for finishing above everyone else ? A double chance ? Big deal. This doesn't guarantee anything anyway. It certainly doesn't guarantee a Grand Final berth. A more fitting reward would be to get recognised as premiers of the "Home and away" season.

You see, at the moment, teams are striving to get top spot to get a double chance. They are NOT striving to get top spot to be recognised as "premiers" (as they should be). BUT, if all 8 teams were treated EQUALLY in a knockout tournament, then there would NOT be a double chance. These teams, instead, would be striving to get top spot, to be declared premiers. They wouldn't be striving to get a double chance because there wouldn't be one ! The finals series would be a separate tournament, very prestigious in its own right, just featuring the elite 8 teams of the competition. This would serve to un-link the finals series from the home and away series.

The finals series should always be knockout. If the top team can have their season on the line in the Grand Final (and be eliminated), and also have their season on the line in the preliminary final (and be eliminated), then why isn't their season on the line in the first week too ?? They can be eliminated after one loss anyway (like Essendon in 1999), so what difference does it make if that one loss is in the 1st week or the 3rd week ? (or even the final week - The Grand Final). See my point ? Realistically, why even have a double chance if the top team can be eliminated after one match anyway ? Even if that one loss is in the Grand Final.

The second thing is to present the trophy for top spot ON THE GROUND after the home and away match in which top spot is sealed. In 1999, for example that would have been after Essendon's Round 21 match against Richmond. The trophy should be presented PUBLICLY, on a dais after the match. The coach and the captain of the PREMIER club can then hold the trophy up, in a public ceremony for the competitions best team. Every player who participated in at least one home and away match throughout the season, can get a medallion, for being a member of the premiership (i.e best) team.

Thirdly, a significant cash bonus should go to the top team. It has to be more than what is given to the Grand Final winning team, because it is harder to finish on top than win a 4 week finals series. The cash prize MUST warrant the achievement, and a large amount would leave the clubs saying, : "This is something we want to win."

Also, I know the draw is a bit uneven but that is not an issue. There are 22 matches. If you finish above 15 other teams over 22 gruelling weeks, you deserve it. You can’t fluke it.

The law of averages will tell you that after this large number of games, the good teams will have sorted themselves out from the also-rans.

Remember, you still play EVERY other team at least once over the course of 22 weeks, as well as seven teams twice.

In contrast, look how UNEVEN the finals series is ! In 1999 the Kangaroos played only THREE of the other 7 finalists. The three teams they played were 7th, 3rd and 6th. And for some reason, that gets more recognition than Essendon heading the table after 22 weeks ? Why ?

If more recognition was given to the top team, then it will ensure that great performances like Essendon in 1999, North Melbourne in 1998 etc, will not be forgotten again. It is one of the sad facts of football that inferior teams are often more remembered because they were lucky enough to win a "one-off" match, while their BETTER opponents were forgotten. Carlton were not remembered for winning 20 games in 1995. They were remembered for winning the Grand Final agaisnt Geelong. They should be remembered for BOTH.



------------------
Top spot is the hardest thing to acheive and should be recognised accordingly

 

[Bluey]

Why do they hype up the GF over the home and away series? Money.

Advertising, ticket sales, TV rights all add up to a hefty amount.

 

[madlion]

I agree There should be reward for 'rounds' winner For a start get rid of term 'minor' premier. Why don't they have like a triple crown type thing - Preseason premier, Rounds premier, and GF Premier

would create some interest?

 

[Pessimistic]

The Premiership is slowly being crushed by it's own compromises:

Home and Away
You mention that the uneven draw averages out. I'm not sure about the mathematics (can someone help) but playing less than half the other teams twice must be stacked against this. Essendon won 18 games in 1999. It is possible that another team could have won 19, become premiers but failed to beat the other three teams in the top four. As it was Essendon's record was good in that it had a good record against Horth, Brisbane and Bulldogs. Essendon was favoured by some 16 games at the MCG and another 4 in victoria, only going interstate twice. In one trip to Perth they looked more like the wooden spooners, with one of their worst defeats ever

My team, Hawthorn, had to play 6 games interstate, but had a very easy draw otherwise in that it played six of the bottom seven twice, and only one of the top eight twice.

The last true draw (play each team twice)was sometime in the Eighties so perhaps all premiers since then should be discredited

Sixteen teams would need thirty rounds to complete. The current game is quite unlike english soccer (60 games per year) and the wisdom is that this is impossible given the nature of the game.

Recently the merger activists wanted to get to 12 teams do we could complete in a 22 round season but (thankfully) traditional clubs have a breather. Removing four teams would have removes a few of the recent finalists so that stuffs up the argument somewhat.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the AFL and Channel 7, in an effort to maximise attendances at colonial, roll the ansett cup (now 3-5 rounds) into the regular season and make it 26 weeks.

This would mean each team would play 11 of the others twice, and only four once. I think the maths would show this to 'average out" better. Lose two teams to a 14 team league and theres a perfect draw (thee NRL have acheived this, and they started with 20 teams)

If you wanted to be radical, remove the ansett cup (5 rounds), the finals (4 rounds) and add them into the H&A and you get 30 rounds easily (with one week left over for a rest mid season) Declare the winner the premiers.

The Finals Series

One advantage is that positions 2-8 are still important enough to play for. Every team is still with a chance 15 rounds in. English soccer gives the other teams incentives (avoid relegation, European qualification) so no need for a finals series there.

One thing missing from the current finals system is where 1 plays 2. This was invariably the best game of the finals and where a team 'set up' it's premiership. A final for the fans who may not neccessarily be able to score a GF ticket anyway. The revengo on the 'corporate' set at the GF was that the game is usually a fizzer. As you mentioned in 1998 there was a 'pseudo' final which had a huge crowd (it was also very cheap) and one of the best games in recent times. Unfortunately this game probably weakened both theams for they had a very poor finals series.

Too often luck plays a part. A finalist would be quite comfortable playing 3-4 ot the other finalists but want ing to avoid the others like the plague. Luck could mean you avoid your 'bogey' team but they meet theirs and get eliminated.

 

[Power Mad]

The draw for a 16 team competition *should* even itself out over about 5 years, but for commercial reasons they always program 2 matches per year between sides like Carlton-Collingwood, Essendon-Collingwood, etc plus the two Showdowns and Western Derbies. Add to that adjustments to avoid the lower placed teams facing too many top eight teams and the result is definitely going to be lop-sided.

As for the topic of this post - these days probably only a large cash prize would get the clubs seriously interested in the minor premiership. It's really just party of Aussie Rules culture that the Grand Final is the be all and end all.

12 teams woould be the ideal number and you could still have the Ansett Cup. Alternatively, 14 teams with no Ansett Cup could also see each team play the others twice.

 

[Arch.]

dan dan- you've got a new audience here buddy !!!!!
hope you have better luck with this crew.

 

[2001]

The top team at the end of the Home-And-Away season should get significant prizemoney, and a trophy as reward for consistent effort, as Dan24 suggested.

In both the AFL and NRL last season, the respective minor premiers (Essendon and Cronulla) dominated the respective home-and-away seasons, yet missed the Grand Final because they were beaten by the sixth-placed team (respectively Carlton and St George-Illawarra). We all know what happened in that Carlton-Essendon game. Likewise, after being the outstanding team in the rugby league in 99, Cronulla were outplayed for just 40 minutes (second half against St George) and were eliminated. And, hence, like Essendon, they finished up with nothing to show for their season-long dominance of the competition. This is a most unfair situation.

Giving the top team a trophy and prizemoney at least goes part of the way to rewarding them for their season of achievement.

 

[Dan26]

PESSIMISTIC....... while I agree with what you are saying in part, you must remember, that while the home and away season is not entirely even, it is still a hell of a lot more even than the finals series, where you only need to play 3 of the other 7 finalists ! Is that even ?

If you have a "so-called" easier draw, it doesn't take away from finishing above every one else over 22 weeks, after having played EVERYONE at least once. You cant fluke it. Theoreticaly, a 30 match draw would be ideal, but for obvious reason, that is impossible.

Also, Essendon (my team incidently)played 5 games interstate this year, not 2, as you said. They beat Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, and lost to West Coast and Port Adelaide. 16 games at the MCG is also nice, but you must remember that there is no advantage at the MCG (especially when you play another Victorian team). I thought Essendon's effort this year was superb (all bias aside)

POWER MAD......you said it is part of the culture that the GF is the be all and end all. As I said in my letter, the only reason this is the case, is becasue it gets all the glory, and recognition. If top spot got more glory than it currently does, then YOU, and everyone else would want to win it much more than what you currently do. And we would all still want to win the Grand Final. Nothing would change there.

As I said, the first step is to separate the finals from the home and away, becasue currently, the home and away is only seen as a means to an end. Teams are striving for a double chance (which is a crap reward for 22 weeks of hard work), instead of fighting for the right ot be called "home and away" premier.

Treating all 8 teams equally in a knockout tournament, would go a long way toward solving this proble (as staed in letter : see above), and it would also leave those teams that can't finish on top, to fight for a spot in the 8, to compete in the elite knockout finals series tournament.

It also occured to me, that the home and away season averages about 32,000 people a game, even though it is perceived as being "meaningless". Imagine the crowds that would attend if the home and away series actually meant something, and was given the recognition it deserves !

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Of course you all realise that the 'minor premiers' would have played in the Grand Final (and quite possibly won) if the MCG-MCC rule didn't exist!
If West Coast had played Carlton at Subi (rather than the 'G), we either would have beat them, then lost to Essendon, or lost to Carlton, who would have been so 'worn out' by the travel (BS!) that Essendon would have pummelled them! It's my (unbiased?) opinion that this a problem that needs to be addressed soon.

BTW- While I agree that finishing top of the ladder is a huge acheivement, peaking in September while playing competitivly all year is an absolute artform.

 

[Dan26]

Eagle Fan........you're right about the MCG/MCC rule. It is ridiculous. Essendon Benefited from it in 1996, and Carlton benefited in 1999. Don't worry. All Victorians share your sentiments. We all know it's a stupid rule. My team (Essendon) benefited in 1996, but the fact we won by 78 points probably showed we would have won even if it was at Subi. I mean, the MCG was an advantage, but it certianly wasn't worth 78 points !

The crazy thing is, there doesn't need to be an agreement to play finals at the MCG in the first place. We all know, that there will be 5 or 6 matches there a year anyway no matter what ! With 10 teams from Victoria, the majority of matches from year to year are going to feature a Victorain team as the home team anyway (eg 6 of this years 9 finals featured the Victorian teams as the higer placed team), so why have an agreement like this in the first place !

As for peaking at finals team, that can be a bit overrated. You are only playing a one-off match agaisnt one particular opponent. You are not being teted over the long haul agaisnt everyone. Yes, you deserve recognition for performing "on the day:, I'll give you that, but you deserve recognition for finishing on top too. Why can't they recognise BOTH ???

 

[sbagman]

Hmmm... this is a new one....

 

[aggro]

dan
You are another one who isn't doing your club any favours by bringing this up all the time. We all strive for one thing & that is the Premiership, Grand Final, anything else is irrelevant. Minor Premiers is OK, but it isn't the Grand Final, give it up. You will never win on this subject, because winning the Grand Final is what every team strives for & the only thing that counts in the history books.

 

[jod23]

Dan you could bore for your country!

Havent we spoken about this issue before??

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

THWAK!!!!!

"Take that, horse!"

Err, Dan, I think it's dead ...

"Aah, what the hell - I'll flog it again!"

THWAK!!!!!

 

[Seth]

Sounds like someone who is sooking because their club has finished top for the last two years. Gee wouldn't be Essendon would it. I bet you've only been campainging about this since 1999 Dan.

 

[Mags]

sbagman why did u bring this one back up!

I read none of dans post coz it seemed to ****ing boring and i bet the afl threw it into the bin too.

Mags

 

[amazonstud]

The top 2 teams get a weeks break and the finals are organised to give them an even better chance of premiership success if they're good enough.

I don't think there's any need for any other recognition. If you're going to start handing out rewards why don't we give a reward to the team that is on top each week? We could start handing them out in the Ansett cup and continue throughout the season. In that way every team would have a chance of being recognised as the best team at that time for all the effort they put in to get to that point.

 

[magpie_joffa]

Off to the shithouse with this one'wow' it will be a great wipe!!!!

------------------
There is nothing in life greater,than to be a supporter or our beloved collingwood football club,we must remain united,we must stand tall,we must be prepared to fight for our glorious black and white,for we are THE ENVY OF ALL NATIONS.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Amazonstud has got it right...not that Dan24 is wrong or anything.