Why 4 points for a win?

[old_clint]

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

This is an entirely different kettle of fish. We know how the system of scoring in lawn tennis evolved.

 

[polly63]

Dunno the history but (I'd surmise) big numbers are psychologically more appealing. As for the SA % calcs - that's just totally weird.

 

[gerling182]

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.

Not sure I agree, I think SA's system more accurately reflects a percantage. The method they use indicate the percentage of points you score out of every 100 points scored in a game. If you have scored 1000 points and you've only conceded 500, you'd have a percentage of 66.67 - which in essence says that for every 100 points scored in matches you are playing in you are scoring 66.67% of them.

The AFL's version isn't really a percentage, moreso a comparison, for every 100 points the opposition scores you generally score whatever your 'percentage' is - but it's not mathematically correct to say for every 100 points your opposition score you score 200%, which would be the percentage of the example above.

Both methods are valid, one is just closer to the true meaning of percentage.

 

[polly63]

Not sure I agree, I think SA's system more accurately reflects a percantage. The method they use indicate the percentage of points you score out of every 100 points scored in a game. If you have scored 1000 points and you've only conceded 500, you'd have a percentage of 66.67 - which in essence says that for every 100 points scored in matches you are playing in you are scoring 66.67% of them.

The AFL's version isn't really a percentage, moreso a comparison, for every 100 points the opposition scores you generally score whatever your 'percentage' is - but it's not mathematically correct to say for every 100 points your opposition score you score 200%, which would be the percentage of the example above.

Both methods are valid, one is just closer to the true meaning of percentage.

The AFL's approach is clearly arithmetically correct ie FOR and AGAINST expressed as a pecentage. Simple, clear, accurate.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

We know how the system of scoring in lawn tennis evolved.

I'm glad you do.

I seem to have a vague recollection of this discussion in the past, where the origin of the four points was to allow the league to penalise teams a point for various indiscretions...

The league threatening teams with loss of premiership points? Glad that sort of thing wouldn't happen these days!

 

[steve-o]

I've asked this same question several times, and the best answer I get (from teammates, the internet, etc) is "it's just the way it is, the way it's always been." I have Robert Pascoe's "The Winter Game" in front of me (a bit of a find here in California for a dumb yankee boy who didn't grow up with footy), so I'll do a little digging but if I had found it in a previous reading I would have surely answered with that reason by now.

And BTW,

best not to question and just to accept

What a horrible philosophy. Even our decrepit school system in California has taught us better than that...

Maybe we can make up a history - I like the 1 or 3 point deductions idea.

 

[And_ROOS]

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

Aha my dream would be to say that to the cameras, with a straight face after a Grand Final.

Wicky Owwawenshaw would come up to me, with a typically stupid question, and id reply, stone faced:
"Good to get the 4 points, taking it a game at a time and we will start preparing now for next week."

 

[old_clint]

Maybe we can make up a history - I like the 1 or 3 point deductions idea.

I prefer the concept of 1,2,3 and 4 point games. Imagine that Essendon won consecutively against Inglewood, Castlemaine, Victorian Railways and Beechworth. Hotham (Nth Melb) over the same period had wins against Melbourne, StKilda, SA and Carlton. How else do you reflect the relative merit of those wins?

 

[cat in sydney]

I think we should make it 10,000 points for a win and 5,000 points for a draw.

Everyone plays harder when 10,000 points is up for grabs.

4 points... pfft.
I want 10,000!!!!!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

Its not odd, its even.

 

[jimmy35]

It came originally from awarding 1 point for every quarter you won in the game . The original concept was lost and the 4 points per game remains today .

 

[Masten2McKinley]

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.

Just leave who gives a **** lol it doesnt hurt anyone and it is histroical abouth the only thing left in the AFL

 

[bomberclifford]

I think we should make it 10,000 points for a win and 5,000 points for a draw.

Everyone plays harder when 10,000 points is up for grabs.

4 points... pfft.
I want 10,000!!!!!

That's the Pinball methodology.

 

[red+black]

It came originally from awarding 1 point for every quarter you won in the game . The original concept was lost and the 4 points per game remains today .

This seems plausible.

I think we should make it 10,000 points for a win and 5,000 points for a draw.

Everyone plays harder when 10,000 points is up for grabs.

This is very lol

 

[Spluff]

It came originally from awarding 1 point for every quarter you won in the game . The original concept was lost and the 4 points per game remains today .

Somebody tell Terry Wallace we don't play that way any more, for the love of god.

 

[JiMaRaS]

4,2 2,1 Who cares what system it is, wont change positions. Cant believe its gotten this much attention.

 

[old_clint]

It came originally from awarding 1 point for every quarter you won in the game . The original concept was lost and the 4 points per game remains today .

Your solution is patently facile. Are you aware that behinds were not counted until the VFL was formed in 1897. I suspect not. Given that games were generally low-scoring, drawn quarters would have been numerous and your suggested solution a monstrous encumbrance.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

As for the percentage debate, I think they're both perfectly logical and don't see any reason for the dismissal of one or the other. The AFL one is your points for as a percentage of points against, the SANFL is your points for as a percentage of total points in the games you have played. Just a different way of measuring.

What really annoys me is when people take an SANFL percentage (say 55%) and double it and say it would be 110% in the AFL - clearly wrong.

 

[Spandex]

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.

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

Ok, in the event of a team having 3 draws, or 5 draws (because that will happen often. ) you simply use your brain and recognise that 3 draws is the same as 1 and a half wins, and 5 draws is the same as 2 and a half wins, and you simply add those to the total number of wins for each team.

Problem solved.

 

[steve-o]

I've suggested that ice hockey and soccer might be best served by playing a full period of sudden-death overtime (1/3rd the length of the regular game, which neither sport does except in playoff situations), and then getting rid of points and counting ties/draws as TIEBREAKERS, coming after wins. Obviously these games are far more drawish and would change more drastically from this idea.

This means that if you are tied for wins, the team that has more draws is placed higher. Two draws now are NOT equal to 1 win, and three draws are LESS than 1 win.

Footy could probably adopt it with no issues - that Brisbane 2-draw season a couple years back was a little weird, but it's pretty easy to say they didn't deserve to be ranked higher than a team that was even with them on points but had more wins. It just requires a relatively minor rule change that emphasizes winning the game even more.

 

[Peacock]

Because the VFL used the 4 points system.

and because the AFL is simply the VFL with three extra teams, that is why it is used.

/close thread

 

[estibador]

Ok, in the event of a team having 3 draws, or 5 draws (because that will happen often. ) you simply use your brain and recognise that 3 draws is the same as 1 and a half wins, and 5 draws is the same as 2 and a half wins, and you simply add those to the total number of wins for each team.

Problem solved.

Or we could just use points like every other sporting league in the entire world.

 

[Spandex]

Or we could just use points like every other sporting league in the entire world.

Yeah, every league except for the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball.

Only leagues where draws are common, such as soccer and hockey, use points.

Draws are rare in the AFL.

The points system is useless.

 

[BluesMan]

what the f*** does it matter... Get over it, it doesnt matter because its the same for all.. Unbeleiveable this is actually a topic...

 

[estibador]

Yeah, every league except for the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball.

I don't count America as part of the world.

Fair enough, but every league that allows draws uses points. And for as long as we allow draws (forever hopefully) the points system isn't useless.