Two Final-9's. Which do you prefer?

[Dan26]

Apparently finals are about what Dan says they're about. Despite what's actually going on in the real world.

This is what happens when you start with a false premise - ie: That a double chance is supposed to exist outside of its context. That's what's behind all this manic raving about Geelong and St Kilda not having a double chance due to winning in the first week.

It's really very simple. The advantage the top four have is that if they win they get a week off, and if they lose they get to play again. As opposed to the rest of the finallists, who are playing for survival. That fact is so simple I can't understand why Dan can't grasp it.

Which brings us to the second false premise: That the double chance is wrong. If something is wrong, then it ought to be demonstrably wrong. That is, you ought to be able to point out where it fails in practice. What I see is a finals system that in ten years:

*Has yet to produce a flag winner from outside the top three teams
*Has only twice produced a grand finallist outside of the top three
*In 5 out of 10 cases - including the past three years in a row - has had 1 vs 2 in the Grand Final.
*Only twice has seen a team outside the top four made the Prelims.

Why would you even think about changing a finals system with that sort of consistency? There's enough variety to suggest a team finishing 3rd has a shot at it, or that a team finishing 4th might make the last day; but it generally produces a winner from the top two. That's as it should be.

Roger, there are plenty of other ways to give the top teams an advantage over the lower teams. The NFL gives 4 teams an advantage over the other 8 in the play-offs. And it doesn't use double chances to do this.

The problem is our system is basically the same as the NFL sysem from our second week onwards. It's basically a knockout system anyway. The GF is knockout, the PF is knockout. Why not just make the whole damn thing knockout as it should be? Like I've been saying 1st and 2nd can be eliminated after one loss anyway CURRENTLY, so the whole system should be knockout.

No other country in the world has a system that concludes with a knockout Grand Final and Preliminary Finals (like ours) but then strangely reverts back to a double chance system earlier in the play-off system.

The old Argus final-4 system was interesting because the top team got a second chance if they lost their semi-final. But they also got a second chance if they lost the Grand Final. The double chance existed all the way through. That, at least, is consistent.

The double chance currently only exists in the first week. Either it must exist all the way through (like the Argus system) OR not at all.

We all seem to like the drama, tension, excitement that knockout brings. It's what finals are about, surely you agree. So I say don't have it at all.

Double chances lack drama. Basically they totally suck, and go against the "perform on the day" principle of what finals are about. They are an abhorrent disgrace and should never have been brought in back in 1931. People have got used to them and accepted them because it's all they know. Humans are creatures of habit after all. And let's face it a lot of people are pretty stupid and can't think for themselves. That's harsh I know, but it's true.

 

[Dan26]

Something else to keep in mind is that Dan doesn't like finals at all. He's on record as saying he'd rather see the flag awarded to the minor premiers, and having an FA Cup style knockout comp post-season.

This thread is further evidence that he wants to screw up the finals system until it becomes unworkable.

I don't think having a knockout finals system (which the current final-8 nearly is anyway) is "screwing up" the finals system Roger.

It's like saying the NFL are screwng up their play-offs and their play-offs will become unworkable because their system is knockout.

Does it appear the NFL play-offs are being screwed up and becoming unworkable? No, I didn't think so. They're going along just fine.

 

[Cohzee]

But in the NFL...

Maybe you should stick to that game.

 

[pinion]

i've always thought that the final 8 allowed too many teams to make the finals. making the finals tends to be the definition of success against failure, yet as essendon showed last year you can make it without even winning half your games.

but i can cope with a final 8 with 18 teams. then you'll probably have to win 13 of 22 games (if the 22 round season is retained) and there is some degree of achievement involved.

 

[RobV]

So, St.Kilda got a double chance did they? So, after losing they got a second chance, did they? I must have missed that.

Last time I checked, because they were so good, they DEFEATED Collingwood, and the team that wasn't good enough to win (that being Collingwood) got the second chance.

St.Kilda was eliminated after one loss. And they almost were in the Prelim too.

You are not understanding, finishing top 4 does not automatically mean that a team will get a double chance, what finishing top 4 means that if you win you get the week off and if you lose you get to play again, and it only counts up to week 2 of the finals, how is that not fair?

You play the season to finish top 4 to get the chance for a week off and/or a double chance, a Team can'not get both, which is what you seem to think geelong and saints should of got last year.

Just because you think the system is wrong doesn't mean it is, the double chance and/or week off is a great system and should stay in place.

 

[doppleganger]

You are not understanding, finishing top 4 does not automatically mean that a team will get a double chance, what finishing top 4 means that if you win you get the week off and if you lose you get to play again, and it only counts up to week 2 of the finals, how is that not fair?

You play the season to finish top 4 to get the chance for a week off and/or a double chance, a Team can'not get both, which is what you seem to think geelong and saints should of got last year.

Just because you think the system is wrong doesn't mean it is, the double chance and/or week off is a great system and should stay in place.

Or revert back to Dan's beloved NFL, may help him understand.

The first week of the AFL finals is designed to move from 8 teams into 6 and to start the NFL style knock-out from week 2 onwards.

It works really well.

Having a final 6 would make more sense, but that doesn't enable enough finals games.....and too many teams miss out.

 

[Defacto]

I love the idea of wildcard entries dunno how practical it is though. Also been facinated to know how a state competition or international side would go against an afl side

 

[Falchoon]

No other country in the world has a system that concludes with a knockout Grand Final and Preliminary Finals (like ours) but then strangely reverts back to a double chance system earlier in the play-off system.

Top of my head

Rowing runs the repechage system.
College baseball had the double elimination format.
English league cup plays single games up until the semi finals where they then play home and away, the final reverts back to single elimination.
All Ireland Hurling and Gaelic football give second chances to the provincial losers through the back door

 

[Mr Ripper]

Daniel's finals system hobby horse: still rockin' after ten years.

 

[Fadge]

I've got no idea what the AFL would go for. I don't work for the AFL. But I know that 8 finals is hardly any different to 9 finals.

And thank god for that...

The old Argus final-4 system was interesting because the top team got a second chance if they lost their semi-final. But they also got a second chance if they lost the Grand Final. The double chance existed all the way through. That, at least, is consistent.

I wasn't aware of that - how did that scenario work?

 

[Fadge]

You are not understanding, finishing top 4 does not automatically mean that a team will get a double chance, what finishing top 4 means that if you win you get the week off and if you lose you get to play again, and it only counts up to week 2 of the finals, how is that not fair?

And a guaranteed home preliminary final (unless you're Brisbane in 2004 )

Reason enough not to tank your first finals game in my books...

 

[pjcrows]

When it's 18 teams I would put money on it that there will be a final 10.

 

[Smokin]

I think it will be a final 10 as well.

The higher the number that makes it, the less dead rubber games and use of the word "tanking". The AFL obviously doesnt want to do anything at the bottom end of the ladder to get rid of this.

Anyway, my final 10:

Week 1:
Top 6 week off. All these teams have family/supporter days on the saturday with some open training like Eddie has proposed with all teams having this week off. The buzz before finals is big, and is a good way to get kids and fans to join in, when many may not be able to get to their teams finals game.

7 v 10 and 8 v 9 elimination finals in night games.
A form of "wild card weekend".

Week 2
Highest finishing team gets 7th spot, other winner 8th spot in tennis like Quarter final scenario.

1 v 8, 2 v 7 with 1st and 2nd on opposite sides of draw etc. Qualifying finals.

Week 3:
Winner meet - Preliminary Finals.

Week 4.
GF.

Top 10, 9 games, no double chance. Top 6 have a week off.

 

[estibador]

^I like that format.

I assume 4v5 will be in the 1st seed's half of the draw to give them an easier prelim game. Either that or seed it all the way through so if 6th manages to beat 3rd 1st gets to play them as the lower seed instead.

 

[clobba]

Top 8 is fine, I dont see the need to drag more teams that wont have an impact into the finals.

 

[Riggy1]

I didnt look into it in detail because I beleive that the top 8 is too many (should enver have 50% of teams going into finals)

I would leave it as a top 8 once it becomes a 17 then 18 team league

BUT IF I had to have one, I would have it as

Week 1
1st bye
1. 2nd vs 3rd
2. 4th vs 9th
3. 5th vs 8th
4. 6th vs 7th

week 2
5. 1st vs winner of match 1
6. loser of match 1 vs lowest ranked winner of matches 2, 3, 4
7. other 2 winners of matches 2, 3, 4

week 3
8. winner of match 5 vs lowest ranked winner of match 6, 7
9. loser of match 5 vs highest ranked winner of match 6, 7

week 4
10. winner of match 8 vs winner of match 9

so as an example using 09 as an example (if top ranked team wins each week)

Week 1
St Kilda has the bye
Geelong vs Western Bulldogs
Collingwood vs Hawthorn
Adelaide vs Essendon
Brisbane vs Carlton

Week 2
St Kilda vs Geelong
Western Bulldogs vs Brisbane
Collingwood vs Adelaide

Week 3
St Kilda vs Collingwood
Geelong vs Western Bulldogs

Week 4
St Kilda vs Geelong

and if they're all upsets

Week 1
St Kilda has the bye
Geelong vs Western Bulldogs
Collingwood vs Hawthorn
Adelaide vs Essendon
Brisbane vs Carlton

Week 2
St Kilda vs Western Bulldogs
Geelong vs Hawthorn
Carlton vs Essendon

Week 3
Western Bulldogs vs Hawthorn
St Kilda vs Essendon

Week 4
Essendon vs Hawthorn

the top 3 has a double chance
1st can lose week 2 and still be in
2nd and 3rd can lose either of week 1 or 2 and still be in

 

[Fire]

There are some good ideas in here. The one above me goes alright.

A simple solution could be to give all teams bar 8 and 9 a bye, while those two slug it out for their place in the finals system we have now.

Adds an extra game which the AFL will love, and it also allows the real teams a week off to ready themselves. A week off before the finals has been suggested before, having one game on the weekend ensures that theres something to talk about.

EDIT:

Or similarily, you can have a real qualifying final weekend with a top ten. Teams 7v10 and 8v9 can play each other to qualify for the arse end of the final 8.

Would ensure that there would be less dead rubbers, fans of more teams have something to cheer their team towards until the end, whilst still maintaining the integrity of only the best making it. Theres a balance that needs to be met.

 

[witsend]

Something else to keep in mind is that Dan doesn't like finals at all. He's on record as saying he'd rather see the flag awarded to the minor premiers, and having an FA Cup style knockout comp post-season.

This thread is further evidence that he wants to screw up the finals system until it becomes unworkable.

I thought that was where he was headed!
having experienced the unbearable pain of GF losses and the unbridled joy of GF wins, I wouldn't swap our system for anything.
Let's not forget that the FA Cup is played amongst the season proper as is the Champions League. Totally different dynamic.

 

[witsend]

So, St.Kilda got a double chance did they? So, after losing they got a second chance, did they? I must have missed that.

Yes they did in week 1 had they lost. That was their reward for finishing on top. Plus a week's rest for winning, plus no chance of playing interstate.
Staggered you can't see that.

 

[818295]

FINAL 10 ( I thought the old final 5 system was the best)

2 divisions of old final 5 system and the divisions cross over in week 3
A 1,4,6,8,10
B 2,3,5,7,9

The top finishing team deserves to avoid the next two ranked teams.

Use Division A as example ( with top ranking teams winning)

Week 1 8 v10 Elim 4 v6 Q
Week 2 1 v 4 SF1 6 v 8 SF 2
Week 3 This is when the draw crosses over highest ranked finalist from A plays the lowest ranked Prelim finalist from B so 4 v 5
Week 4 team 1 plays plays 3 in Prelim final ( 2 plays 4 in other prelim)
Week 5 team 1 plays team 2 in grand final

 

[DIDAIC0S]

Dan I look forward to your argument on why the sky should be a color other than blue, and your thoughts on the death penalty. I wouldn't go so far as to call you a nob, but i might anyway ...

 

[witsend]

I think we need to get Dan and Hodgepodge in an argument.
They could stubborn each other to death....

 

[Dan26]

Yes they did in week 1 had they lost.

But they DIDN'T lose.

They won.

The double chance went to 4th. St.Kilda (1st) were eliminated from the finals series after one loss.

That's the problem. The double chance must exist either:
A.) All the way through the finals over all 4 weeks (like the old Argus system), or,
B.) Not at all.

One or the other.

The reward of home finals and a week off if they win can be given to them WITHOUT the need to give them a second chance for losing.

New Orleans for example were rewarded with a week off in the first week of the play-offs and a home final, without the need to give them a stupid double chance. You can do the same thing in the AFL if you play around with the finals system. There are plenty of different ways to do it depending on the number of teams you want in the finals.

I think we'll end up with a knockout final-10 when we move to an 18-team league, with the top 6 having the week off. The second week of the finals would be 3v6, 4v5 while 1st and 2nd host the winners of the matches between 7,8,9,10. 1st hosting the lowest winner (potentially 10th).

And the highest seed always plays the lowest seed. So, when you get to the preliminary Finals and the 4 teams left are 1,2,5,6, 1st would play 6th, and 2nd would play 5th.

10 teams is arguably too many but I think this is what the AFL will do, and I can see their point. It's the same reason why they went to a final 8 in a 15 team league back in '94. Eight out of fifteen is 53.3%, while 10 out of 18 is 55.6%. It's basically the same proportion as 1994, and the 8th team that year won 12 games. 9th went 12-10 in that 15 team league that season too.

This myth that the only way you can be rewarded for finishing top is to have a second chance for losing is total horseshit. There are plenty of other ways to reward the higher teams and still have the finals knockout.

Everyone loves knockout anyway. Give the people what they want. People love the "on the day", "season on the line" drama of knockout finals football.

 

[doppleganger]

That's the problem. The double chance must exist either:
A.) All the way through the finals over all 4 weeks (like the old Argus system), or,
B.) Not at all.

One or the other.

Why?

Plenty of people are very happy with the system atm and it works well.

There is no problem.

In saying that I still like your first final 9 system, and would be happy if that came in.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Both systems produce 8 games... the current Final 8 produces 9 games.

Hence, the AFL would never go for it.

A Final 9, with no dead rubbers, that goes 4 weeks, no consecutive weeks off for any team, and that guarantees 9 games does not exist. If it did, Vlad would pounce on it.

Final 8 will remain in an 18 team competition.