Week off before finals- still not convinced

[Chaisa]

It's understandable, but I think the AFL need to do better "bye week" entertainment than what they already have. Have the Brownlow this week. Make the EJ Whitten's match not a farce (which I admit is hard). Put an U/18 or AFLW All-Stars game or something. Hell you could even do some old replays of classic finals. Overall the bigger problem is that footy fans are bored rather than the concept sucking.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Chaisa is pretty much spot on, except didn't try an AFLW game of that sort and it proved a bit of a dud?
Under18 games would be an idea, but would they draw a viewership - and how much would they impinge on finals going on in state leagues, etc. And that's the real thing the AFL could do; promote the hell out of the game, and not just one league, for at least that one week.

They definitely need something of more substance than the has-been and never-were game.
It makes sense to move the Brownlow and stuff; its not as though Grand Final week can't dominate the media by itself.

 

[Billy ray]

No week off before finals.
Week one finals should be fri night. Sat day/ twilight. Sunday afternoon. Monday night.

Week two sat night and sunday day/twilight.

Week three sat night and sunday day/twilight

Then week off before grand final.
Brownlow the sat night.

Then grand final saturday.

This way no momentum lost. But two grand final teams get best chance to field best players with no niggles

 

[Cdog71]

Not sure it’s been mentioned
Rohan Connolly wrote an article on his Footyology site.
Pretty good arguement about opening up the field again which is better for the bookies and betting agencies taking more with it being less of an advantage to finish higher at the end of the HA

 

[Kappa]

The players need a bloody rest after a brutal full season.

Brownlow should be on Friday / Sat night this week though

 

[Mile High Tiger]

It does even the playing field a little. Top 4 teams that win first final get a break that no one would have had in a while. Also potentially teams can go into a grand final having played 2 games in the previous 34 days, that doesn’t seem ideal.

It's not convincing. For decades teams benefited from rest in September and finishing top then winning the second semi meant you hit a gf fresh and mainly injury free, having had the first and third weekends off. I think we need a few more seasons of evidence before this becomes an accepted truth.

 

[Mile High Tiger]

What about elimination finals being played this weekend and the qualifiers next? Any downsides?

 

[West World]

Personally I'm not a fan. I would rather jump straight in to finals.

What's the motivation for having the week off, tv rights? The clubs want it? The afl want it for some unknown reason? Are the fans for it or against it in general?

Surely the Brownlow should be this weekend if they are going to persist with it?

(If a thread on this topic already exists which I thought it would , I couldn't find it so please merge if necessary . )

The players wanted two bye's in season, this was the compromise.

With all the media stuff and awards going on I thinks its fine, especially when the AFL pretty much demand the top players attend the All Australian awards. Not especially fair on interstate players having to fly yet another 6,000 km to an awards night a coyple of days before a final.

Its a long season and we get a better finals series with sore players alowed a weekend to freashen up.

 

[Elite Master]

I'm sure if the players had an opinion Dangerfield would have given it without being asked

Danger wants a 18 round season with shorter games and the same pay packet. It just goes to show asking the player's opinions about such matters mean nothing, same with the coaches really..

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

What about elimination finals being played this weekend and the qualifiers next? Any downsides?

Remember, the reason given for the bye week is to stop teams resting players in the final round to be rested for finals. So any game this weekend goes againt that, as there is always the possibility of a team being secure in one spot on the ladder and a finalist playing for nothing in the final week.

It also gives the elimination finalsists a potential advantage over the higher qualifying team. At this time of year (though maybe not mid-season) one week off seems to be the sweet spot for resting players without losing match readiness. (I'm not sure the bnumbers back that, it does seem that way without doing the stats though.)

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

That Adelaide V Geelong game that got cancelled back in 2015 should've been played this weekend.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Personally I'm not a fan. I would rather jump straight in to finals.

What's the motivation for having the week off, tv rights? The clubs want it? The afl want it for some unknown reason? Are the fans for it or against it in general?

Surely the Brownlow should be this weekend if they are going to persist with it?

(If a thread on this topic already exists which I thought it would , I couldn't find it so please merge if necessary . )

Agreed. Also diminishes the benefits of finishing near the top.

Most coaches do not like having two weeks off in a three week block.

 

[dean33]

Definitely diminishes the advantage for the winners of the qualifying finals. Good that teams get back some injured players and freshen up before finals start, however the afl season is a war of attrition and the bye helps the teams finishing outside the top 4.

 

[Mile High Tiger]

Agreed. Also diminishes the benefits of finishing near the top.

Most coaches do not like having two weeks off in a three week block.

I'm not sure it's true - for decades teams strived to achieve exactly that, and most of them went on the win the flag. Think it's too small a sample size to reach that conclusion.

 

[Lex22]

It doesn’t takes away the advantage top 4/qualifying final. 2016 was where this idea came from but that had more to do the dogs having won 15 games and finishing 7th. There wasn’t much between the top 7 that year which the ladder and finals series reflected.

2016: 1st played in a GF, 4th (with the extra week off) were 7 points off a GF slot. Hawks went out in straight sets (no extra week off) and were what a kick off winning the qualifying final? Geelong shat the bed in the prelim, that’s really the only thing there to support it that year which is sketchy at best as that probably would’ve happened anyway.

2017: 2 qualifying final winners both played in the GF. Other two prelim teams both top 4.

2018: 1 qualifying final winner plays in a GF and plays 3rd in that. None of 6th, 7th or 8th wins or makes a prelim. Only real surprise was Richmond losing a prelim but otherwise a pretty stock standard finals series?

Take the Dogs out which was an anomaly from 7th in any year, bye or not, then I just don’t see where the massive disadvantages are for the top 4 now compared to 4-5 years ago. Wouldn’t you still rather win 1 less game to make a GF?

The supposed leg up of the whole “extra week off allowed them to get players back” is flawed as well.

 

[iluvparis]

They shoukd play all the dead rubber games this week so it ends up like a split bye. That way the finals team get the rest, we get at least a little footy, and the dud teams like gc, carlton, saints etc can get a couple of prime time games like they want without shunting the actually good games to bad slots

This is actually one of the better ideas I've seen on big footy

Knowing the AFL's luck next year every finalist will be playing a non finalist in Round 23

 

[ScarlettFever]

It doesn’t takes away the advantage top 4/qualifying final. 2016 was where this idea came from but that had more to do the dogs having won 15 games and finishing 7th. There wasn’t much between the top 7 that year which the ladder and finals series reflected.

2016: 1st played in a GF, 4th (with the extra week off) were 7 points off a GF slot. Hawks went out in straight sets (no extra week off) and were what a kick off winning the qualifying final? Geelong shat the bed in the prelim, that’s really the only thing there to support it that year which is sketchy at best as that probably would’ve happened anyway.

2017: 2 qualifying final winners both played in the GF. Other two prelim teams both top 4.

2018: 1 qualifying final winner plays in a GF and plays 3rd in that. None of 6th, 7th or 8th wins or makes a prelim. Only real surprise was Richmond losing a prelim but otherwise a pretty stock standard finals series?

Take the Dogs out which was an anomaly from 7th in any year, bye or not, then I just don’t see where the massive disadvantages are for the top 4 now compared to 4-5 years ago. Wouldn’t you still rather win 1 less game to make a GF?

The supposed leg up of the whole “extra week off allowed them to get players back” is flawed as well.

I agree that the argument that an extra week off allows teams to get injured players back and that is somehow a bad thing is flawed. In a perfect world, injuries wouldn’t exist and all teams would have their strongest teams on the field. Having a break that allows teams to get these players back isn’t really a leg up.

However, the sample size is too small to make any broad statements either way in relation to what, if any, effect playing only 1 game in a month has on a team. Even then, there are so many variables in football that we will never be certain as to why a team lost.

But, the opinion exists (one that I subscribe to) that having so much time off will actually negatively effect a team. Having played and watched a lot of football, I personally think that having that much time off is not good preparation for hard fought finals and can negatively effect team momentum.

Does this mean that the team will lose? No, of course not, as I have said, there are way too many variables to be able to determine why a team won or lost. They might still be good enough to win, even though they have been disadvantaged, and they might lose because the other team was just better.

Nevertheless, a knee jerk reaction to resting players has resulted in the top 4 teams who win their first match, playing little football during a period where you want to be match hardened.

This, in my opinion, is a disadvantage to the teams who should, in reality, be granted the greatest advantages.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[iluvparis]

As I keep saying if you are worried about having 2 breaks in 3 weeks or whatever you can always tank your Qualifying Final

#myth

 

[Back One Out]

What about elimination finals being played this weekend and the qualifiers next? Any downsides?

You'd be handing way too much of an advantage to the Elimination Finals winners. Why bother playing hard to finish in the Top 4? Just sneak into the 8 and you're as much of a chance, if not more so. The team who finishes 4th must play the best team in the comp in Week 1. If they lose, they'll meet the winner of 5th vs 8th who'll be coming off a week's rest. That's hardly fair. In that scenario, most teams would rather finish 5th than 4th.

 

[Mile High Tiger]

You'd be handing way too much of an advantage to the Elimination Finals winners. Why bother playing hard to finish in the Top 4? Just sneak into the 8 and you're as much of a chance, if not more so. The team who finishes 4th must play the best team in the comp in Week 1. If they lose, they'll meet the winner of 5th vs 8th who'll be coming off a week's rest. That's hardly fair. In that scenario, most teams would rather finish 5th than 4th.

Yeah, that's a clear flaw

 

[Socrates2]

When they re-fixture the last round, make the teams with no mathematical chance of making the finals play in the bye round. Therefore there would be 2 or 3 games in the bye round and the home and away season lasts an extra week.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

When they re-fixture the last round, make the teams with no mathematical chance of making the finals play in the bye round. Therefore there would be 2 or 3 games in the bye round and the home and away season lasts an extra week.

That would be good

 

[Reality Check!]

It gives the AFL time to rehearse.

 

[Socrates2]

That would be good

What do you mean?

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

What do you mean?