6 Day break v 7+ day break?

[LET ME TALK]

Is it fair ... discuss.

Given 7 day breaks is what is required to be fully fit, should teams on a 6 day break have to play teams with a 7 + break?

Is 6 days enough and its just coincidence that 6 day break teams lose more??

If it is a problem, why cant they fixture the games so 6 day break teams play 6 day break teams?

Hawks are a good example of this. They played collingwood and looked really underdone. This was after a 6 day break while collingwood had a nice 8 day break... fair?? You cannot tell me the Hawks are THAT bad. Thats one example there are plenty around.

 

[kosifantutti]

I have studied this as part of a school project and found there is no relationship between the length of break and the result of a game when teams with different length breaks play each other.

 

[LET ME TALK]

I have studied this as part of a school project and found there is no relationship between the length of break and the result of a game when teams with different length breaks play each other.

Really? thats cool could you put some stats up for is if on hand? cheers

 

[kosifantutti]

Between 1990 and 2009 there were 1125 results in games where one team had an extra day's break.

556 were won by the team with the longer break and 569 were won by the team with the shorter break.

There were 275 games with a difference of two days in the break. 143 were won by the team with the longer break and 132 by the team with the shorter break.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If a player can't come up after 6 days, he should be doing something else for a living.

 

[LET ME TALK]

This is true and thats all well and good but since what 2006/2007 the game is vastly faster and recovery times are more important than ever... by any chance is there stats for just say from 2007 to this round??

 

[LET ME TALK]

If a player can't come up after 6 days, he should be doing something else for a living.

I agree it is professional they have the best facilities etc etc. Just others here were making a thing of it and after following teams this year there seems to be a trend....

 

[Pessimistic]

Thing is th hawks have had 3 in a row, where the opposition has had a longer break, all against 'supposed' top 4 teams.

Theres obvioulsly bene a disinct LACK of winging by us or more poeple would know that.

As for the stats, it would only make a difference where the teams were roughtly even. thats probably only a small portion of those numbers

 

[paulige]

I have a feeling you are a reverse-troll.

But I'll answer anyway. Brisbane beat carlton after coming off a 5 day break, when Carlton had 7.

If a team is good enough it will rise to the challege.

Stop whinging.

 

[Axcellence]

Read this somewhere... so numbers may not be 100%, but I think it went along these lines for season 2010

St Kilda 9 x 6 day breaks

Adelaide 9 x 6 day breaks

Collingwood 7 x 6 day breaks

Carlton 7 x 6 day breaks

Brisbane 2 x 6 day breaks + 2 x 5 day breaks

 

[cynical]

Brisbane were poor against carlton and should have lost that game.

The bulldogs were flat against brisbane after halftime

Hawthorn sucked vs the pies.

I think it becomes difficult when you have to travel and play physical sides.

Back to back 6 day breaks for a non travelling side would also be tough.

 

[Ando727]

It all evens out in the end. In order to have shorter breaks at certain stages throughout the season, you must logically be getting longer breaks somewhere too. Why make and issue out of everything? That performance by the Hawks can't be explained by fatigue - it was their overuse and indirectness with the ball - that gamestyle would take more energy than being direct.

 

[LET ME TALK]

It all evens out in the end. In order to have shorter breaks at certain stages throughout the season, you must logically be getting longer breaks somewhere too. Why make and issue out of everything? That performance by the Hawks can't be explained by fatigue - it was their overuse and indirectness with the ball - that gamestyle would take more energy than being direct.

I agree with not making issues HOWEVER this could be easily fixed and I think if they want a fast game they better accomodate. 6 day breaks v 7 and above just arent fair.

 

[Gone Critical]

I agree with not making issues HOWEVER this could be easily fixed and I think if they want a fast game they better accomodate. 6 day breaks v 7 and above just arent fair.

I dont think you understand how the draw works. Once you have matches across Fri/Sat/Sun plus occ Mon/Thurs it becomes impossible to do what you are asking.

There have to be teams coming off 6 d breaks playing teams coming off 7 d breaks every week. Its impossible to do otherwise

I think you need to worry about something else. This is not something that can be arranged.

 

[blitzer]

It's only really the bad teams that struggle with the 6 day breaks. The better teams take it in their stride. It's a lot like winning interstate, the weaker teams struggle at it while the better ones do fine.

 

[mattys123]

Simply put, the AFL must be worries about 5-6 day breaks, other wise why is round 22 a "floating round" now?

 

[cobbly]

I agree with not making issues HOWEVER this could be easily fixed and I think if they want a fast game they better accomodate. 6 day breaks v 7 and above just arent fair.

how could it be easily fixed?

They aren't going to play 8 games every Saturday arvo.

and when you have teams playing on public holidays you are inevitably going to have short breaks and long breaks. Deal with it.

 

[LET ME TALK]

simply put, the afl must be worries about 5-6 day breaks, other wise why is round 22 a "floating round" now?

exactly!

 

[cosmicr]

this is a stupid thread. in the old days some players used to play a game on saturday, then another on sunday.

its fair, all teams get roughly the same amount of 6 day vs 7 day team games, and its really a non-issue.

 

[Gone Critical]

exactly!

Do you understand what you are asking for is not possible to achieve

 

[Ironmonger]

Between 1990 and 2009 there were 1125 results in games where one team had an extra day's break.

556 were won by the team with the longer break and 569 were won by the team with the shorter break.

There were 275 games with a difference of two days in the break. 143 were won by the team with the longer break and 132 by the team with the shorter break.

Interesting stats, but I wonder if you've considered that the AFL might schedule more teams to have a longer break when travelling interstate.

That might colour the results, I think.

 

[Duskfire]

I dont think there is a much of a difference with one six day break. but I can see there definetly being a problems if you have multiples over a month period. Then again, what do I know

 

[Damon_3388]

Simply put, the AFL must be worries about 5-6 day breaks, other wise why is round 22 a "floating round" now?

I thought that was more to do with drawing crowds and television ratings for possible marquee match-ups in the final round, eg. the Collingwood vs. Western Bulldogs clash that was stuck in a Sunday twilight slot last year, which really deserved to be on a Friday night, considering the quality of the teams and the finals-shaping nature of the clash. It turned out to be one of the weirdest and most difficult to watch games of the season, but on paper going into the round, that game being slotted in on a Sunday evening wasn't ideal for the AFL.