Grand Final decided in 2 games?

[Carringbush2010]

I think this is a product of today's generation - no one knows how to accept failure. Their parents always shielded them as kids, they received participation ribbons, teachers have to sugar coat any criticism in reports and we even have no scoring in underage footy and cricket now days. People always want to blame others if they lose. Maybe instead of finding more convoluted ways to may things 'fairer' people people just need to accept things for the way they are, toughen the truck up and move on....

Great post! This world of inclusion and everyone is the same and equal and kumbaya around the campfire is an unworkable byproduct.

 

[Surely Paul]

Except the standard of football in 2017 was lower than it was in 2007 to 2015.

Which means that the other 17 teams were particularly poor in 2017. Yes. What's your point, apart from supporting mine..?

 

[RUNVS]

Yes, the standard of the other 17 clubs was pretty poor, I agree. Everyone in awe of the Tigers.

Um, could you give examples of everyone?

Also since you clearly believe it to be so, can you point me to any examples of non-Richmond fans saying that 2017 Richmond is one of the best teams of the modern era?

 

[Golumless]

Actually one of the few american ideas we should look at is a best of 3/5 series seeing that'd give a more fair reflection of who is the best team (instead of best + luck) whilst rewarding the overall highest placed team (instead with our current system where 1 and 2 gets equal rewards).

The issue is of course, if two non Melbourne team gets in seeing MCG is still contracted for finals, but unfortunately money is a tad too important to the AFL over what would be a fairer system.

 

[RUNVS]

Actually one of the few american ideas we should look at is a best of 3/5 series seeing that'd give a more fair reflection of who is the best team (instead of best + luck) whilst rewarding the overall highest placed team (instead with our current system where 1 and 2 gets equal rewards).

The issue is of course, if two non Melbourne team gets in seeing MCG is still contracted for finals, but unfortunately money is a tad too important to the AFL over what would be a fairer system.

I think 2 out of 3 would be good enough, with one of the games being at the MCG.

 

[Golumless]

I think 2 out of 3 would be good enough, with one of the games being at the MCG.

Yeah, the work around is the decider at the MCG (instead of rewarding the 1st place side with the decider), but the risk if a team goes 2 for 2. Mind you a double Melbourne team grand final series would mitigate any risk of contract issues.

Mind you if they are decently even (which most grand finalists certainly are), you'd expect home ground advantage to act as a difference.

 

[demondavey]

I’ve got an idea. We could simply do 23 home and away rounds and then a top 8? Top 4 get a second chance and bottom 4 are in an instant elimination final?

 

[RUNVS]

I’ve got an idea. We could simply do 23 home and away rounds and then a top 8? Top 4 get a second chance and bottom 4 are in an instant elimination final?

Same problem though that the Grand Final would still be at the MCG.

 

[Pessimistic]

What happens if 2 x MCG tenants meet? Do they just play the same match twice but alternating the white shorts?

A day game, half hour off then a night game

seriously though this solution could be the first week of the finals, where inequity in the H&A could be nullified - preferable to that 15+7 bullshit (which they appear to have gone quiet on)

But its not a natural part of our game, and might never be

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

This is so dumb.

Aye quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard on this site.

And that's saying something.

 

[Pessimistic]

So if anyone is seriously proposing this, can they cite one instance where the grand final loser has an aggregate points higher than the premier in any given year (across each time they played)?

Id bet it was very rare, and my point is obvious

(looks sheepish as the very last premiers finished thus, then looks up the next previous instance which was 2005- but 2005 was a neutral venue wasnt it?)

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

I forget the exact stats but I think a home ground advantage averaged up to equalling about 3 goals, on average at least, and when it comes to the Grand Final that is not a small amount as it essentially means one team given a disadvantage the moment they set foot on the ground.

I mean there are 3 possibilities as far as I am concerned

1 - Leave it as it is, accepting that Victorian clubs will always have an advantage in the Grand Final.
2 - Have 2 Grand Finals, the first one played at the home teams venue, and then playing at the other teams home venue, continuing the score from the previous week.
3 - Literally have 3 games and the winner is the team that wins 2 out of 3.

****ing spare me. The gall to complain after all the lovely advantages your team has enjoyed?!

There are dozens of inequalities in our league (travel, lifestyles on offer, academies, home grand finals, Salary cap concessions, ambassador payments, the draw, club spending, zones). Moving the iconic grand final from the MCG is not the top priority of the league and nor should it be. Get over it.

 

[Drewie11]

So if anyone is seriously proposing this, can they cite one instance where the grand final loser has an aggregate points higher than the premier in any given year (across each time they played)?

Id bet it was very rare, and my point is obvious

(looks sheepish as the very last premiers finished thus)

If you are talking about during the regular season than look no further than last year.

Adelaide v Richmond at Adelaide oval.... Adelaide won by 76 points

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

I thought the defcon level 5 sook about the tiges premiership would have started to die down by now...nup

You guys are new to this.. Its not going anywhere for a few months yet mate. I miss it.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I'm all for this.

But the bigger problem isn't if two Vic tenants make it - is if two non-Vic tenants make the GF. With MCG guaranteed a GF until 2037, you'd require 1 there and then one elsewhere. Would probably have to go to another neutral.

Would be great revenue for everyone. Would allow more people to go to the final. Would move the game to a more truly national league and less Vic centric.

...or even rotate the 2nd game though the best available stadium. I'd love to see a GF at Adelaide or the new Perth stadium.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Best of 3 GF's. 1st at the home state of the highest finisher, 2nd at the MCG and 3rd if required at the lower finisher's home state, unless the lower finisher was a Victorian side then it would revert back to the higher finisher's home state.

E.G 2017 Game 1 Adelaide v Richmond at Adelaide Oval, Game 2 Richmond v Adelaide MCG and game 3 if required Adelaide v Richmond at Adelaide Oval.

If GWS had beaten Richmond in last year's Prelim then it would have been Adelaide v GWS in Adelaide, Game 2 GWS v Adelaide at MCG and 3rd game if required GWS v Adelaide in Sydney.
This way there would always be a guaranteed GF for the MCG thus satisfying contractual obligations to the MCC.
If it was 2 Victorian teams then it would just be a best of 3 series at the 'G.

 

[Pessimistic]

If you are talking about during the regular season than look no further than last year.

Adelaide v Richmond at Adelaide oval.... Adelaide won by 76 points

it is rare though, like 1 in 10. of course if you go back to 1993 the teams may well have played off in regular finals meaning the winner earns an easier grand final thus voiding my point

 

[Toump Ass]

Do you have a better idea genius?

Yeah i do actually: play one grand final and whoever wins is premier.

 

[99cents]

As long as we can stage a Granny at GMHBA Stadium I'm happy

 

[Macpotata]

sounds like a good idea. Away goals should count as double, like in the champions league soccer knockout stages.

 

[99cents]

I reckon this has merit until you take into account what a previous posted said. What if it's sunny in Adelaide and the crows win by 30 points only for the return match at the MCG to be pissing rain meaning even scoring 5 goals is a challenge. It's just not fair in an outdoor sport.

Discussion over.

percentage rather than points scored

Discussion back on.

 

[Pessimistic]

Always remembering the said highest and lowest finisher might be on half a win or percentage difference from what is a very dodgy draw anyway

 

[RedVest4]

Wow, some people are really struggling to accept the fact that Richmond are the best team in the AFL right now.

Stop whinging and let’s give credit where credit is due to the team who best handles the pressure of the biggest stage of them all.

They have all year to prepare for the sport’s own colosseum that is the MCG.

Adelaide were the best team of 2017.

Richmond had the unfair advantage of finishing 3rd, yet getting all 3 finals at their home ground against 3 non Melbourne teams who are not at all suited to play at that ground - ridiculous.

A solution to fix this mess must be put in place.

 

[Pessimistic]

sounds like a good idea. Away goals should count as double, like in the champions league soccer knockout stages.

technically, they dont count double, they just have a higher weighting. if the result is 0-2 then 2-4 to the away team each time, the winner is the one with the most away goals, its not pronounced 6-8 result

 

[Lsta062]

Except the standard of football in 2017 was lower than it was in 2007 to 2015.

Says who? 2016 and 2017 are the years that GWS and Gold Coast finally settled into the competition (evident by the rise of GWS in 2016) + the effects of their concessions on other teams pretty much wore off.

Secondly, the standard of a game from year to year is quite a subjective matter. What if in 2016 or 2017 you couldn't get away with clean passes like you did in 2007 because the lower ranked sides were better comparatively? What if a side like Bulldogs or Richmond would be able to dominate in a year like 2007 too because they are used to playing under much higher pressure due to the way this game has changed since then? In fact, a year could feature a dominant side (like in 2007) because the standard was poor rather than a team being so dominant.

Or, it could not and a team like Geelong of 2007 could be dominant because they were ahead in a good year. This is why it is easier to just comment on the achievements of a Premier relative to other Premiers rather than the standards of one year compared to another.