Where do we want to finish?

[DaveW]

I see Rucci wrote an article a couple of days ago saying the optimal position for the Crows to finish is fifth.

He really is stupid if he thinks we should aim for an elimination final instead of a double chance. In fact he doesn't even so much as discuss the downside of finishing outside the top four. Oh, fifth spot gives you a home final therefore it must be better. I'm starting to realise why so many people have no respect for this guy.

Apparently we're shaking in our boots about meeting the Power in the finals. Give me a break.

 

[kirky]

Originally posted by DaveW
I see Rucci wrote an article a couple of days ago saying the optimal position for the Crows to finish is fifth.

He really is stupid if he thinks we should aim for an elimination final instead of a double chance. In fact he doesn't even so much as discuss the downside of finishing outside the top four. Oh, fifth spot gives you a home final therefore it must be better. I'm starting to realise why so many people have no respect for this guy.

Apparently we're shaking in our boots about meeting the Power in the finals. Give me a break.

Can't agree more, Dave. Article was absolute crap. You want to finish as high as you can.

Let's remember what happened last year. Last round we play Fremantle at home, Brisbane at the Gabba, Melbourne at the "G" and then the Woods at the "G". We were spent at the "G" at half time in the Prelim and yet with two of our best out (Edwards and McLeod) we still got within the 2 goals of the Woods in the last quarter. The effort was fantastic. Now at least this year, we have a home game in the last round (notwithstanding its against the Power) and won't have to travel in the last round.

Rucci, you are an idiot. Don't try and manipulate the system otherwise it will come back in your face at a hundred miles an hour.

 

[napsyd]

To the 7th-placed team goes the spoils
1:10:33 PM Tue 24 June, 2003
Barry Levinson
afl.com.au

If all six non-Victorian teams finish ahead of their Victorian opposition on the ladder at the end of the season – a distinct possibility this year – the team that finishes sixth will not be awarded the first-week home final it will have earned and instead have to play the seventh-placed team at the MCG.

The AFL on Tuesday released its new finals scheduling policy, in the wake of reaching an ‘impasse’ during negotiations with the Melbourne Cricket Club to relax its conditions regarding the number of finals that must be played at the MCG each year.

Under the policy, a minimum of one final must be played at the MCG in each of the four weeks of the finals series.

The AFL’s finals policy states that the teams that finish first, second, fifth and sixth are entitled to a home state final in the first week of the series.

With the MCG clause now formulated, the first, second and fifth-ranked teams will be guaranteed home finals, but the sixth-ranked team can only play its final at home if a Victorian team finishes in any of the three other positions.

Theoretically, a Victorian team could be better served by finishing seventh at the end of the season, than even third or fourth.

Working with the current top eight teams, but switching the Kangaroos down to seventh and Adelaide in their place at sixth, the Kangaroos could well have a path through to the grand final that does not involve playing outside of Melbourne, despite having six non-Victorian teams above them on the ladder.

Under this scenario, the first week of the finals would see Port Adelaide (1) play Sydney (4) at AAMI Stadium, West Coast (2) host the Brisbane Lions (3) at Subiaco Oval, Fremantle (5) play Collingwood (8) also at Subi and the lower-ranked Kangaroos (7) would host the Crows (6) at the MCG.

Assuming that the higher-ranked teams win in the first week (with the exception of the Kangaroos), the Roos would then host the Brisbane Lions at the MCG in the second week, despite the Lions finishing four places higher on the ladder.

And the MCC’s refusal to budge on their agreement with the AFL that stipulates at least one preliminary final must be played at the MCG would see the second-ranked West Coast Eagles playing in Melbourne in the third week of the finals, possibly against cross-town rival Fremantle.

The AFL was at pains to admit the lack of fairness in their finals policy, but said they were left with no alternative, after efforts to renegotiate with the MCC, that included offers to compensate for any lost revenue incurred by a change in the contract were ignored.

The league and the MCC commenced a 40-year contract in 1990 that stipulated that at least one final each week would be played at the MCG for the period of the agreement.

At the time of the deal – which was struck to allow the construction of the Great Southern Stand – the AFL was a 14-team competition that only had three non-Victorian sides and did not yet include Adelaide, Fremantle or Port Adelaide.

A change to the contract was brought about 18 months ago, when the MCC was eager to pursue a share of the broadcasting rights.

The altered agreement allowed the AFL to schedule an average of one final per week at the MCG - during the first two weeks of the series - in any three-year period, meaning in theory that if two semi-finals were played at the MCG in one year, the league would not be obligated to play any semi-finals at the venue the following year.

But with the non-Victorian clubs dominating the competition at present, the AFL has conceded it does not have the flexibility to ‘bank’ finals this year.

For example, the AFL could decide to play all four matches in the first week of finals outside of Victoria, should the ladder finish like the above example.

But by not playing any finals at the MCG in the first week this year, the league would need to schedule at least two at the ground at the same time next year. Should the dominance of the non-Victorian teams continue beyond this year, an even bigger quandary would be created.

Complicating the matter further, the AFL is also contracted to play a final at Telstra Dome on the first weekend of the finals if there Victoria has earned the right to host two finals.

In essence, the banking system only provides flexibility if Victorian clubs occupy the positions on the ladder in which qualify clubs to host a final in their home state.

While the MCC has regularly stated its reluctance to alter the signed agreement, the AFL believes it has been more than favourable to their partner over the initial quarter of deal.

Between 1992 and 2002, the league scheduled 526 matches at the MCG, when the contract only required 451, while 61 finals have been played at the ‘G over the same period, when only 44 were compulsory.