"Drawing A Long Bow On Fairness In Football" - THE AGE

[Topkent]

I'd rather have 5 extra rounds and a slightly less "even" fixture than 5 weeks less of footy a year.

Every 4 years thats an entire season of Footy we lose... to be replaced by what?

Football is entertainment, it doesn't have to be PERFECTLY even as long as all 18 clubs have a reasonable chance to win the premiership... which they do. Stop crying and enjoy the game

I don't really care but it's alot easier to say as a Collingwood supporter who has a state of the art training facility, a wealth of sponsors and members and a dream commercial fixture every season.

If you got no Friday night games you and your club would refuse to play the season

 

[Kappa]

I don't really care but it's alot easier to say as a Collingwood supporter who has a state of the art training facility, a wealth of sponsors and members and a dream commercial fixture every season.

If you got no Friday night games you and your club would refuse to play the season

If we consistently finished at the bottom of the ladder the fans and the club would expect and accept no Friday night games, just like Carlton did.

If you suck you don't want the spotlight of the big stage anyway, your argument is dumb.

Every club has state of the art facilities except maybe Gold Coast, we don't have an advantage there.

 

[HairyO]

The definition of insanity is having a national competition with 10 teams in a pissant, and ultimately minor state. Victoria is neither the biggest or the most dynamic state with potential for growth.

Insanity is spending $200 million selling football where there is zero interest.

GWS and GCS will never have a following. Ever.

Dump then and 2 other teams and have a strong 14 team comp with 26 games. Everyone plays everyone twice.

A fair system.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just get rid of the double ups
Everyone plays everyone else once, alternating home and away each season.
Set it up so each club travels to WA, SA, NSW and QLD once each year.
Eg home game against Sydney and away game against GWS, next year reverse it.

It would mean one year you have 8 home games and the other year you have 9

Chuck a bye in and away we Go.

Probably never happen but I can dream

How is it fair if a team plays Sydney, Brisbane and West Coast away, whilst a fellow finals contender plays them at home?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If your team misses finals by 1 game because you had to play a better team twice, that's on your team. The point of the finals is to find the best team, and you've already admitted to not being the best team.

But how can a team be declared better than another - if they aren't running the same race?

It's like giving two students different exams, one harder than the other, but grading them the same.

 

[Kappa]

Insanity is spending $200 million selling football where there is zero interest.

GWS and GCS will never have a following. Ever.

Dump then and 2 other teams and have a strong 14 team comp with 26 games. Everyone plays everyone twice.

A fair system.

To say there is zero interest in GC and GWS is so ignorant theres almost no point even replying. That's without even mentioning both clubs are set up to be 20-30 year projects

 

[HairyO]

To say there is zero interest in GC and GWS is so ignorant theres almost no point even replying. That's without even mentioning both clubs are set up to be 20-30 year projects

They are massively subsidised with tiny followings and receive extraordinary amounts of assistance.

Ignorant is thinking that will ever change.

35 years on and Swans crowds are fickle. Brisbane won 3 in a row yet a few years on nearly disappeared.

QLD and NSW will never be Aussie Rules states.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Insanity is spending $200 million selling football where there is zero interest.

GWS and GCS will never have a following. Ever.

Dump then and 2 other teams and have a strong 14 team comp with 26 games. Everyone plays everyone twice.

A fair system.

GWS and GC already have a following,.clearly.

 

[Kappa]

They are massively subsidised with tiny followings and receive extraordinary amounts of assistance.

Ignorant is thinking that will ever change.

35 years on and Swans crowds are fickle. Brisbane won 3 in a row yet a few years on nearly disappeared.

QLD and NSW will never be Aussie Rules states.

People have already made this argument 5 years ago, and 5 years ago they were shown how wrong and ignorant they were... Some people didn't get the memo I guess.

 

[maskmcgee]

17 game season is the obvious answer. Spread it over 22/3 weeks if you have to to ensure the same amount of Friday games. Play Thursday games every week. TV stations are kept happy and players get longer breaks between games. Everybody is happy

I'm sure as **** not. Why the **** does everybody wants less football? If you're going to do anything, double the number of games. And Why would TV stations be happy? Losing 45 matches they could broadcast and run ads on? Yea I'm sure they'll be jumping for joy. And why would the players be happy? The value of the TV rights goes down and they all get paid less.

So no, everybody would be ****ing pissed, not happy.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

To many teams and not enough grounds in Melbourne.
Cull the competition to 12 teams or introduce 2 more teams to make 20 and split into to divisions with promotion/relegation between the two division.
BUT, there needs to be at least two new grounds in Melbourne.
The AFL is amateur.

 

[Kappa]

To many teams and not enough grounds in Melbourne.
Cull the competition to 12 teams or introduce 2 more teams to make 20 and split into to divisions with promotion/relegation between the two division.
BUT, there needs to be at least two new grounds in Melbourne.
The AFL is amateur.

Alright, well your club is instantly gone... That was fun, wasn't it? I'm sure that'd be TERRIFIC for the AFL...

 

[Tandy]

I'm for a fair league. But at the moment the best/most deserving teams always play in the GF. Fixture still needs to change though

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Alright, well your club is instantly gone... That was fun, wasn't it? I'm sure that'd be TERRIFIC for the AFL...

I would rather see the AFL grow some balls and expand the competition, two division 10 teams each play each other twice.
More scope for expansion with that model.
The competition is manifestly unfair and skewed to making $ over been a fairly run competition.
Its a "national" competition run to favour Melbourne based teams, time the AFL grew up.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I would rather see the AFL grow some balls and expand the competition, two division 10 teams each play each other twice.
More scope for expansion with that model.
The competition is manifestly unfair and skewed to making $ over been a fairly run competition.
Its a "national" competition run to favour Melbourne based teams, time the AFL grew up.

Perhaps it's relevant to note Aussue rules actually has no real tradition of a fair competition. In the very early days there was no fixture and teams organized games at random to suit themselves. Journalists awarded the premiership to the team that impressed them the most.

I'm not sure there will ever be a perfect competition but I dont think conferences are the answer. It would just introduce bias depending on which conference was stronger. I'd never want to see the day when I await the fixture knowing half the AFL clubs wont be coming to Spotless anyway.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

But how can a team be declared better than another - if they aren't running the same race?

They're playing the same game aren't they? The only difference is some people like to bitch about how their team has to play teams better than them twice.

Stay with me here - if you're upset about having to play better teams, surely you're the one declaring one team better than another. The fixture doesn't even have to do it, you're already admitting your team isn't good enough.

It's like giving two students different exams, one harder than the other, but grading them the same.

Or like giving 18 students 17 exams, which one student aces and another fails the lot. Then they have to resit 5 of them, and the dunce complains that he got the harder 5 resits.

 

[JackFlash]

Yet last year we were told how easy our draw was because we had a run of MCG games at the start of the year, which apparently got us into the winning groove. It's unreal how, no matter what happens, people will make up an argument for the sake of it.

It's not made up, it's fact! If Geelong received 7 home games in a row the internet would meltdown...Tigers have been ranked 13th hardest draw in 2019...It's all about TV and prime time, be thankful the Tigers have returned to being one of the big four again...

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

They're playing the same game aren't they? The only difference is some people like to bitch about how their team has to play teams better than them twice.

Stay with me here - if you're upset about having to play better teams, surely you're the one declaring one team better than another. The fixture doesn't even have to do it, you're already admitting your team isn't good enough.

This. Bloke who's a Geelong supporter was whinging Geelong might only win 1 of their first 7 games and what a joke their fixture was. Eagles have a tough early run too, including playing Geelong at KP but I'm not too worried about our draw because I believe WC can beat anyone on the day. He is basically admitting he thinks the Cats are shithouse, he just doesn't know it.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They're playing the same game aren't they? The only difference is some people like to bitch about how their team has to play teams better than them twice.

Stay with me here - if you're upset about having to play better teams, surely you're the one declaring one team better than another. The fixture doesn't even have to do it, you're already admitting your team isn't good enough.


Or like giving 18 students 17 exams, which one student aces and another fails the lot. Then they have to resit 5 of them, and the dunce complains that he got the harder 5 resits.

So two teams are sitting on 12 wins and 8th spot is between them as the final round of the season approaches....

Team A is fixtured to play Richmond at the MCG for the second time, whilst Team B is playing Gold Coast for the 2nd time.

Team B only played Richmond once earlier in the season, whilst Team A only played Gold Coast once.


Who would you rather be?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There is no need what so ever for the AFL to have locked in fixtures like Anzac Day, season openers, queens birthday, Dreamtime, etc etc, also no need to have two showdowns, two Derby’s etc etc.
It is because of this path the fixture is as bad as it is.
There is simply way to many locked fixtures every year to possibly end up with any type of reasonable fixture.

If I was running the AFL I would do the following.
1) Run a rolling fixture that never ends with no locked in fixtures at all. You simply play a team at home and next time you play them away. Fixture just keeps rolling.
Anzac Day - biggest Victorian match up of that round. Same with all their other locked in big themed Vic games.

2) Tell the TV networks that we set the fixture and it is up to them how much money they want to shell out to broadcast our league, they get no say in games, game times. They can choose which games they want to put on FTA and fox but that’s about it.

There is no evidence at all that running the league like this would result in less money, the fans would be more happy and the league would be seen to have the best interests of the game at heart.
The current set up is nothing more than comical.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They're playing the same game aren't they?

No, they're not.

That's the whole point.


'The game' each team is playing, is a 22 round football season. And each team is playing a different game. No two are the same.

Some are harder than others. Fact.

Yet they get graded exactly the same.


You could play Richmond once, West Coast once in Melbourne and get Carlton and Gold Coast twice. Whilst the next team gets Richmond twice at the MCG, West Coast twice and only Carlton and Gold Coast once.

It's very, very possible that a team could be 10 goals better than another team, but finish below them on the ladder simply because they've had a harder fixture.

In the above example...

Fixture:
Team A vs Richmond (A) - Loss
Team A vs Richmond (H) - Loss
Team A vs West Coast (H) - Loss
Team A vs West Coast (A) - Loss
Team A vs Carlton (A) - Win
Team A vs Gold Coast (A) - Win
Team A vs Team B (A) - Win

Team B vs Richmond (H) - Loss
Team B vs West Coast (H) - Loss
Team B vs Gold Coast (H) - Win
Team B vs Gold Coast (A) - Win
Team B vs Carlton (A) - Win
Team B vs Carlton (H) - Win
Team B vs Team A (H) - Loss


Ladder:
Team B: 4 wins 3 losses
Team A: 3 wins 4 losses

 

[Beer n Skittles]

So two teams are sitting on 12 wins and 8th spot is between them as the final round of the season approaches....

Team A is fixtured to play Richmond at the MCG for the second time, whilst Team B is playing Gold Coast for the 2nd time.

Team B only played Richmond once earlier in the season, whilst Team A only played Gold Coast once.


Who would you rather be?

I'd rather be a better team that already locked a spot in the finals, without having to worry about a miniscule quirk of the draw to land a token finals spot & get smashed in the first final by one of those better teams you luckily avoided playing twice during the H&A season.

The finals don't exist to award the best 8 teams of the year with an extra game or two. They exist to find the best team. If you miss finals because you played Richmond twice instead of Gold Coast you are not the best team.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

So two teams are sitting on 12 wins and 8th spot is between them as the final round of the season approaches....

Team A is fixtured to play Richmond at the MCG for the second time, whilst Team B is playing Gold Coast for the 2nd time.

Team B only played Richmond once earlier in the season, whilst Team A only played Gold Coast once.


Who would you rather be?

Playing the Tigers at the G promises to be a great game, so I'm going with that.

The logical flaw in your argument is teams know the schedule before the season starts. If they're backs to the wall at the pointy end it's because they haven't performed well enough through the season.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'd rather be a better team that already locked a spot in the finals, without having to worry about a miniscule quirk of the draw to land a token finals spot & get smashed in the first round by one of those better teams you luckily avoided playing twice during the H&A season.

The finals don't exist to award the best 8 teams of the year with an extra game or two. They exist to find the best team. If you miss finals because you played Richmond twice instead of Gold Coast you are not the best team.

So you think the AFL should adopt the Premier League model of just giving the title to the top team?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

So you think the AFL should adopt the Premier League model of just giving the title to the top team?

Arguably fairer to acknowledge the best performed team across the entire season, but no that would take so much spectacle out of the game. Finals are by far the best part of the AFL.