Why 4 points for a win?

[GUMBLETRON]

Why is the ladder determined by scores of 4 and 2 rather than 2 or 1? This has always seemed a little odd to me. Is it a historical relic of something previously being worth just 1 point, or is it just an unexplainable quirk of the system?

 

[old_clint]

I offered the same question three years ago and it went unresolved.

It could well be an historical relic related to Premiers of the Colony being decided by concensus and any points table being regarded as a guide only. Clubs played games outside the Association Fixture during the season, often against greatly inferior opposition, so possibly matches were accordingly graded.
In the early years, the compilation of fixtures was not done by the VFA but was the responsibility of each club secretary (a system that had evolved before the formation of the Association). Therefore, in a typical season, a club would play against other VFA teams (both Senior and Junior), non-VFA Victorian clubs, and even interstate teams.

At the end of each season, the VFA announced the Premier team. This was usually the club with the most wins, but that may not have been the case if the VFA felt that the leading team had had too many wins against junior clubs. Therefore, there are examples of the Premiership being given to the club with the second-highest number of wins.

Try the search function.

Most, it seems, don't see the four points as an anomaly.

 

[Spandex]

It's stupid.

I hate it when they read out the ladder on the radio and tell you how many points each team has. As if we don't know that if a team has 8 wins it will be ahead of a team who has 7 wins.

We only need to know wins and losses and draws.

The points system should be forgotten.

 

[PowerForGood]

Because Victorians will tell you that they are twice as good as the SANFL, which only gives 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.

Same goes for percentage
SANFL is calculated as For/(For + Against) so average = 50% and approximate maximum = 67% (assuming For is double Against)
AFL is calculated as For/Against, so average = 100% (which is better than the SANFL maximum) and approximate maximum = 200% (assuming For is double Against)

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I heard it was because there was originally a top four. And you get 4 points towards making the top 4...

 

[Elder van Berlo]

It's stupid.

I hate it when they read out the ladder on the radio and tell you how many points each team has. As if we don't know that if a team has 8 wins it will be ahead of a team who has 7 wins.

We only need to know wins and losses and draws.

The points system should be forgotten.

This.

 

[Grave Danger]

They'll change it to a 2/1 system when education standards become so appalling that noone can divide by 4 any more.

 

[bomberclifford]

They'll change it to a 2/1 system when education standards become so appalling that noone can divide by 4 any more.

Wasn't that in 2002?

 

[grimface_87]

It's stupid.

I hate it when they read out the ladder on the radio and tell you how many points each team has. As if we don't know that if a team has 8 wins it will be ahead of a team who has 7 wins.

We only need to know wins and losses and draws.

The points system should be forgotten.

What if the team who is on 7 wins has 3 draws?

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

Why is the ladder determined by scores of 4 and 2 rather than 2 or 1? This has always seemed a little odd to me. Is it a historical relic of something previously being worth just 1 point, or is it just an unexplainable quirk of the system?

Probably historical relic like the bounce from the umps

 

[Spluff]

Makes us Tigers seem like we have done better than we really have.

 

[LStrike]

[DELETED PARAGRAPH]

It's really just how the game goes.

Because Victorians will tell you that they are twice as good as the SANFL, which only gives 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.

Same goes for percentage
SANFL is calculated as For/(For + Against) so average = 50% and approximate maximum = 67% (assuming For is double Against)
AFL is calculated as For/Against, so average = 100% (which is better than the SANFL maximum) and approximate maximum = 200% (assuming For is double Against)

I like the AFL's method of calculating the percentage a lot better than the SANFL's.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Probably historical relic like the bounce from the umps

Hey now, I love the bounce.

I guess it just means a win is worth 4x as much as a draw

A draw is worth 2 points.

 

[LightTower4]

Who was it that said after winning a final that they were happy to get the four points?

 

[Sunday Red]

Wasn't that in 2002?

Maybe in South Australia.

 

[Khan]

I guess it just means a win is worth 4x as much as a draw, although I think that is pretty unreasonable when a team can win 4 weeks in a row by a behind and have 16 points, while a team could draw 4 weeks in a row, and end up 12 points behind a team with a percentage deficit of only 4 points...

It's really just how the game goes.



I like the AFL's method of calculating the percentage a lot better than the SANFL's.

Okay last time I checked it was 2 points for a draw

 

[LStrike]

A draw is worth 2 points.

Okay last time I checked it was 2 points for a draw

My apologies, I must have had a blank moment.

 

[relapse]

Yeah it makes little sense to anyone why it is four points for a win. I can understand the soccer system as it makes a win worth 3 draws, but the AFL system doesnt have any logic behind why a win is worth 4 points rather than 2.

 

[timthefish]

always wondered this myself, and thought perhaps the governing body might want to penalise a team for some infraction with a penalty that was less than the points equal to a draw or between those for a draw or a win.

 

[Bouvet_Island]

I had read on here previously that it (is indeed a relic of history) where a win was deemed to be worth 4 points, since the match has 4 quarters.


Of course, it is entirely possible for a team to win just 1 quarter and still win a match...

 

[Spikey]

They'll change it to a 2/1 system when education standards become so appalling that noone can divide by 4 any more.

hgh

 

[Flemy]

It's stupid.

I hate it when they read out the ladder on the radio and tell you how many points each team has. As if we don't know that if a team has 8 wins it will be ahead of a team who has 7 wins.

We only need to know wins and losses and draws.

The points system should be forgotten.

but hyporthetically what if a team ends the year with a very large amount of draws. lets say 5. they would end up with more points than teams with 1 or 2 more wins than them.

 

[davis_756]

Go back through History and see if there has been a 1 or 3 point deduction from a team for some infraction and you will have your answer.

Honestly don't see why it makes any difference its the way our system has always worked and it would be a waste of time changing it for no reason.

 

[Dangerwooodlett]

just the way it is... like in tennis, you get 15 pts for winning a pt, except if you're on 30 pts, in which case, you only get 10 pts. then you get something called advantage.

best not to question and just to accept

 

[ozasismick]

The soccer 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw thing is a relatively recent thing.., early 80s in England, and 94 for International football at the World Cup. The Yanks in their own soccer league, to be different, had a shoot out after 90 mins if the scores were tied, with the winner getting 1 point, the loser nothing. Bit silly, although don't think it's in anymore.

Expansion to the 3 point system was supposedly to promote attacking football, and not for teams to 'park the bus' in front of goal when playing away.

As for the SA percentage thing..., considering the meaning of 'per-cent' means per 100, I think they've got the translation mixed up somehow.