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

[falcons2]

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.

I'd say extremely unlikely a 10 goal better team would finish below another. Any example?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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.

Whether you know it or not is irrelevant.

When you draw barrier 24 in the Melbourne Cup, you know about it before the race. You can change your tactics, but ultimately you have a far greater disadvantage than every other horse in the race. The horse that drew barrier 6 has a far, far greater advantage than you before the race even starts.

Nothing you do changes that.


The Melbourne Cup is not about determining who the best horse is. It is a horse race, where part of it is that some horses have a far greater chance of winning than others due to factors such as the barrier draw.

The best horse does not always win the Melbourne Cup. No one is stupid enough to claim that it does, or that that is even the intention of the race.


Same goes for the footy. Due to the fixture, some teams have a significant disadvantage before the season even starts. Some teams have a huge advantage. The finals do not determine the best team.

Same as the Stawell Gift for example. It does not determine the best or fastest runner. It's a handicap. The best and fastest runner could finish 3 metres behind someone that they're significantly better than.

We all know that. To argue otherwise is just plain idiotic.


The AFL are basically running their own little handicap system. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. Unless they literally draw the fixture out of a hat like the Melbourne Cup barrier draw, it can never be 'fair'. Even if they did that - it obviously can't ever be even.

So they handicap it. They try to tweak it so they maximise the profits from big games, whilst trying to make is close to fair on-field. They obviously fail badly, but most handicap systems are flawed anyway.


Naivety of the highest order to think that the AFL fixture determines the best teams. Absolute rubbish.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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.

?

So you're not interested in fairness - but the spectacle?


So am I.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Whether you know it or not is irrelevant.

When you draw barrier 24 in the Melbourne Cup, you know about it before the race. You can change your tactics, but ultimately you have a far greater disadvantage than every other horse in the race. The horse that drew barrier 6 has a far, far greater advantage than you before the race even starts.

Nothing you do changes that.


The Melbourne Cup is not about determining who the best horse is. It is a horse race, where part of it is that some horses have a far greater chance of winning than others due to factors such as the barrier draw.

The best horse does not always win the Melbourne Cup. No one is stupid enough to claim that it does, or that that is even the intention of the race.


Same goes for the footy. Due to the fixture, some teams have a significant disadvantage before the season even starts. Some teams have a huge advantage. The finals do not determine the best team.

Same as the Stawell Gift for example. It does not determine the best or fastest runner. It's a handicap. The best and fastest runner could finish 3 metres behind someone that they're significantly better than.

We all know that. To argue otherwise is just plain idiotic.


The AFL are basically running their own little handicap system. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. Unless they literally draw the fixture out of a hat like the Melbourne Cup barrier draw, it can never be 'fair'. Even if they did that - it obviously can't ever be even.

So they handicap it. They try to tweak it so they maximise the profits from big games, whilst trying to make is close to fair on-field. They obviously fail badly, but most handicap systems are flawed anyway.


Naivety of the highest order to think that the AFL fixture determines the best teams. Absolute rubbish.

There is rubbish being posted in this thread absolutely.

Claiming unfairness is proved by painting a scenario for one round without taking into account the other 21 for example.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'd say extremely unlikely a 10 goal better team would finish below another. Any example?

St Kilda beat Brisbane by 6 goals the only time they met - yet finished below them.

 

[falcons2]

Naivety of the highest order to think that the AFL fixture determines the best teams. Absolute rubbish.

Can you give an example?

 

[falcons2]

St Kilda beat Brisbane by 6 goals the only time they met - yet finished below them.

Did they not have to play 21 other games? Your 10 goal comment reads over a season not in one game.
Brisbane beat Hawthorn by more than 10 goals but over a season Hawthorn won 15 and Brisbane 5. Head to head Brisbane 2-0 but against the other sixteen Brisbane 3-17 Hawthorn 15 - 5.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

There is rubbish being posted in this thread absolutely.

Claiming unfairness is proved by painting a scenario for one round without taking into account the other 21 for example.

Hang on...this isn't a black and white debate.

Is the fixture 'fair'? Meaning, is it randomly drawn out of a hat where before the draw, each team has the same chance as every other team of getting a favourable fixture?

No. Of course not. Richmond will play more home games at the G, we know that. Teams like St Kilda will go to China and Townsville. We know that.

So of course it is not 'fair'. Can't be argued any other way.

Is the fixture 'even'? Meaning, does everyone have the exact same fixture with advantages or disadvantages? Does everyone get one home game, and one away game against every other team? Does every team get the same amount of 6 day breaks and does everyone play every week with the same amount of recovery time as their opposition?

No. Of course not. Nowhere near it. It would impossible to do that under the AFL system.

So of course it is not 'even'.


Does it matter? This is what people are really arguing about. And it all depends on what you like about the footy. If you see it as true sporting comp designed to determine who the best team is - then yes it is a problem. Because due to the above, it doesn't do that.
But if you love the spectacle of big games, big crowds, and the finals concept - then no it's not a problem. Who the best team is doesn't really mean shit, it's who is left standing at the end after the handicaps have been put in place that matters.

Do you like the Cox Plate at WFA with a random barrier draw? Or do you like the Melbourne Cup with handicaps? Once determines the best horse on the day as fairly as possible - whilst the other handicaps everyone differently to make the event interesting.


People need to work out what it is that they're arguing about.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Did they not have to play 21 other games?

Yes, but they didn't play the same teams under the same circumstance - so it is impossible to determine who is the better team. That is the point.

They are sitting different 'exams' and one is harder than the other.


Brisbane finished above St Kilda - but how can they be declared the better team given they were beaten by them by 6 goals the only time they played?

It simply cannot be logically argued any other way.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Can you give an example?

Ummm, because the draw is not even.

If you sit one exam, and I sit another that is easier - because I get a better score than you does it make me smarter?

I got the better score, that doesn't change. IT can't be argued and I get bragging rights - but it does not determining who is smarter because we st different exams.



My god. I can't believe this is even being debated.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

?

So you're not interested in fairness - but the spectacle?


So am I.

It's a balance. It'd be a tad more fair for every team to play each-other once then award the premiership to the team on top of the ladder, but then that just takes so much away from the game. I don't think anyone here would support removing the finals.

It's not like good teams are getting locked out of the finals. By finishing 9th a team just misses finals, but looking the other way they also just miss being a below average team

 

[NoobPie]

I'd say extremely unlikely a 10 goal better team would finish below another. Any example?

You are actually being very polite saying "extremely unlikely"

The current "handicapping" approach at most puts teams at a 2 game disadvantage against the teams with the best fixture (i.e. 3-1-1 versus 1-1-3)

 

[falcons2]

People need to work out what it is that they're arguing about.

Now we are getting somewhere.
I think you are confusing difference with fairness.
Game A is played in QLD, its 28 and 94% humidity
Game B in Adelaide with 70km/ph winds
Game C in Tassie and its 8 degrees and sleet is falling
Game D indoor in Melbourne.
All arenas with ranging dimensions and grass types.
Difference

Games A-D are made up of 44 professional footballers with coaches and all the bells and whistles.
Same rules. To use your exam analogy, I'd say same exam just different preparation.
Fairness

Ladder position is a fairness perception. A reality of result.
Example - Hawthorn finish 12th in 2017. Draw Double ups against 4 teams higher on the '17 ladder Essendon, Geelong, Sydney and St.Kilda. 3 were finalists.
Unfair draw perception. Hawthorn go 7-1 and finish above them all in 2018. Reality result.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Hang on...this isn't a black and white debate.

Is the fixture 'fair'? Meaning, is it randomly drawn out of a hat where before the draw, each team has the same chance as every other team of getting a favourable fixture?

No. Of course not. Richmond will play more home games at the G, we know that. Teams like St Kilda will go to China and Townsville. We know that.

So of course it is not 'fair'. Can't be argued any other way.

Is the fixture 'even'? Meaning, does everyone have the exact same fixture with advantages or disadvantages? Does everyone get one home game, and one away game against every other team? Does every team get the same amount of 6 day breaks and does everyone play every week with the same amount of recovery time as their opposition?

No. Of course not. Nowhere near it. It would impossible to do that under the AFL system.

So of course it is not 'even'.


Does it matter? This is what people are really arguing about. And it all depends on what you like about the footy. If you see it as true sporting comp designed to determine who the best team is - then yes it is a problem. Because due to the above, it doesn't do that.
But if you love the spectacle of big games, big crowds, and the finals concept - then no it's not a problem. Who the best team is doesn't really mean shit, it's who is left standing at the end after the handicaps have been put in place that matters.

Do you like the Cox Plate at WFA with a random barrier draw? Or do you like the Melbourne Cup with handicaps? Once determines the best horse on the day as fairly as possible - whilst the other handicaps everyone differently to make the event interesting.


People need to work out what it is that they're arguing about.

The problem is you start from a position where a perfectly fair competition is the minimum standard, and anything else is nonsense.

Is it fair that the MCG tenants get to play a lot of H/A games at the MCG? If course it's not. If the cost if fixing it us to give no-one H/A access to the MCG worth the cost? I'd say not. So what you do is compromise and guarrantee every club gets some games there to minimise the unfairness. Big games between big Melbourne clubs require a big venue, building another one very similar seems a waste.

Is it fair the interstate clubs travel more often? Of course it isn't. Except in the very unlikely event of some if those clubs volunteering to fall on their sword it just has to be. Arguably a greater "unfairness" would be seeing to it that some Melbourne clubs get it in the neck.

I could go on, but my real point is it sounds impressive superficially get on your high horse about idealistic and "pure" notions if fairness. The problem is I dont beleive the competition would exist with a minimum standard that cant be reached.

Pragmatism and compromise are a necessary part of any endeavour. That doesn't mean things cant improve, but setting unrealistic goals just doesn't help.

 

[falcons2]

(i.e. 3-1-1 versus 1-1-3)

Who has 1-1-3?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The problem is you start from a position where a perfectly fair competition is the minimum standard, and anything else is nonsense.

Is it fair that the MCG tenants get to play a lot of H/A games at the MCG? If course it's not. If the cost if fixing it us to give no-one H/A access to the MCG worth the cost? I'd say not. So what you do is compromise and guarrantee every club gets some games there to minimise the unfairness. Big games between big Melbourne clubs require a big venue, building another one very similar seems a waste.

Is it fair the interstate clubs travel more often? Or the Melbourne ckubs? Of course it isn't. Except in the very unlikely event if some if those clubs volunteering to fall on their sword it has to be. Arguably a greater "unfairness" would be seeing to it that some Melbourne clubs get it in the neck.

I could go on, but my real point is it sounds impressive superficially get on your high horse about idealistic and "pure" notions if fairness. The problem is I dont beleive the competition would exist with a minimum standard that cant be reached.

Pragmatism and compromise are a necessary part of any endeavour. That doesn't mean things cant improve, but setting unrealistic goals just doesn't help.

You've pretty much copied exactly what I said.



I'm not on a high horse about fairness. I've clearly stated that I'm happy with the approach being taken currently.


What I'm arguing, is that it clearly and blatantly is not fair. That just can't be argued.

The only thing that is open for debate is whether or not that is a good thing, or a bad thing.

 

[tigertigertiger]

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.

No divisions , amateur is copying America ect in changing the way our league is run, I love it the way it is!

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

You've pretty much copied exactly what I said.



I'm not on a high horse about fairness. I've clearly stated that I'm happy with the approach being taken currently.


What I'm arguing, is that it clearly and blatantly is not fair. That just can't be argued.

The only thing that is open for debate is whether or not that is a good thing, or a bad thing.

You're almost being reasonable but not quite.

Your ego shows in statements like I've copied your argument. I know that I didn't and you couldn't possibly know.

To say a 10 goal better side could miss finals with the weaker team making it is a gross exaggeration as well.

 

[falcons2]

What I'm arguing, is that it clearly and blatantly is not fair. That just can't be argued.

The only thing that is open for debate is whether or not that is a good thing, or a bad thing.

Now here's something we can all agree on.
At this stage the level of unfairness I believe is minuscule and backed up by results.
I think a better solution of 18 teams playing 22 games could be found. Some in this thread.
I, like it seems everyone here, would like a more transparent if not perfect fixture.

The AFL has other items it prioritizes over the fixture fairness. Not everyone will agrees with them.
I think the fight keeps them somewhat honest but only a change in priority from AFL house will see these changes.

 

[swiftdog]

I wonder if you take that thinking to all levels and sections of society?

Logical thinking? Absolutely.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to complain about the fairness of the competition, calling having 10 teams in Victoria ‘insanity’ isn’t one of them. This is because the only reason there are 10 teams in the national competition is because non-Victorian teams joined the Victorian competition which, almost by default, then became the AFL/national competition.

Too many people love to throw out the ‘just kill off 1-2 teams’ line because “fairness” but I’m willing to bet none of them are willing to sacrifice their own clubs to do it. All 18 clubs have claims to remain in the competition.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You're almost being reasonable but not quite.

Your ego shows in statements like I've copied your argument. I know that I didn't and you couldn't possibly know.

To say a 10 goal better side could miss finals with the weaker team making it is a gross exaggeration as well.

Are you saying that a 10 goal better team could not possibly finish below a weaker under the current system?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Now here's something we can all agree on.
At this stage the level of unfairness I believe is minuscule and backed up by results.
I think a better solution of 18 teams playing 22 games could be found. Some in this thread.
I, like it seems everyone here, would like a more transparent if not perfect fixture.

Don't quite agree.

The AFL has other items it prioritizes over the fixture fairness. Not everyone will agrees with them.
I think the fight keeps them somewhat honest but only a change in priority from AFL house will see these changes.

Totally agree.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Are you saying that a 10 goal better team could not possibly finish below a weaker under the current system?

Comfortably

10 goals is a huge gap. Team performance does vary from week to week. It is conceivable you could beat a team by 10 goals and finish below them. We did in 16 against the Hawks. We weren't a 10 goal better side over the season though, it just gelled perfectly on the day.

 

[The Warlord]

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.

Except of course Victoria is the fastest growing state, has the most dynamic economy, the most population growth and Melbourne will very soon overtake Sydney in population.

The sooner people get over the fact that footy was invented in Victoria at a time when Victoria and Melbourne were among the richest and most dynamic parts of the entire world, hence the 10 teams in Vic, the better.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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 ******* pissed, not happy.

TV rights would not go down. You wouldn't be losing any FTA games and Foxtel would only lose Sunday twilight/saturday 150pm games which not many watch or cross over with other games so dilutes the audience.

Less games is better because it makes it a fairer comp. The season is too long and too many games don't count for much. You can go on a 4 game losing streak and still have a decent season. Do that in a 17 game season and you'll likely have blown your finals chances.

They will never have a true home and away fixture (which is unnecessary any way) so have a single home/away round plus finals is the logical solution. Unless the AFL moves towards a conference/divisional system which Australians seem to hate.

Another way to make it fair would be rotating the double up games or making them based off prior years ladder with no room for manipulation (eg 1st plays 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th & 16th) however this is really just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.