2024 McClelland Trophy

[010203]

I'd be happy to see it changed so there's a separate trophy for each of the men and women's comps. While the current setup is meant to recognise a combined club effort across two competitions I do think because half the prize money goes directly to the players that it should actually go to the best performed club in each comp.

Unfortunately for you, Brisbane still wouldn't win it. Even if you included finals. Sydney won 19 games to your 18 (and that was from one less final for the Swans) in the men's. And in the women's as long as North win their PF they'll have a better record than Brisbane too.

My gripe isn't Brisbane missing out, it's the format i dont agree with. If I had my way, Sydney and North Melbourne would get a McClelland trophy each for finishing top of the pops for their respective competitions. I'd only have a combined McClelland trophy if every team played each other at least once in the AFLW regular season.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Pretty simple resolution.

If the intent is to include finals results (which certainly wasn’t the case when the McClelland was awarded to the minor premier by default), attribute a points value to final (post finals reseedings) ladder finishing position, and then default back to the current system as a tiebreak (or even better, club results head to head during the year).

Something like:
25 - 1st
20 - 2nd
17 - 3rd
16 - 4th
14 - 5th
…incrementally down by 1 from here.

Or simply accept that the McClelland is designed only to capture home and away performance and is therefore subject to the whims of the doctored fixtures the AFL delivers in the name of “equalisation”.

 

[cryptor]

Pretty simple resolution.

If the intent is to include finals results (which certainly wasn’t the case when the McClelland was awarded to the minor premier by default), attribute a points value to final (post finals reseedings) ladder finishing position, and then default back to the current system as a tiebreak (or even better, club results head to head during the year).

Something like:
25 - 1st
20 - 2nd
17 - 3rd
16 - 4th
14 - 5th
…incrementally down by 1 from here.

Or simply accept that the McClelland is designed only to capture home and away performance and is therefore subject to the whims of the doctored fixtures the AFL delivers in the name of “equalisation”.

I don't really see the point of including finals into the equation. It would be doubling up. The winner of finals is already awarded the title of premiers. It has its own trophy and prize money.

Perhaps the reason some people (ie. some Brisbane supporters) are getting tied up in knots over this is because Hawthorn have been named "champion club" as a result. Which is a pretty loaded title when you consider the literal definition of "champion" is "one to have surpassed all rivals". Something we didn't actually achieve in either comp in H&A or finals.

The "minor premiers" title was at least clearly tiered behind the more sought after "premiers" title.

So rather than complicate things with weighted values for finals - which is really just a mechanism to ensure the eventual premiers end up winning it, and will just result in this same discussion again in the event that it doesn't - it would be a lot simpler just to have a minor premier in each comp and leave it at that.

 

[bungalow_bill]

At the end of the day this is all that matters.