- Nov 10, 2022
- 10,828
- 8,806
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I think there’s a minimum AFL finals at MCG over a few years. You’d think they are well in front on that
-
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Has Competitive Equalisation created a need for wild-card finals?
- Thread starter justlookingaround
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I think there’s a minimum AFL finals at MCG over a few years. You’d think they are well in front on that
Given the way this season has played out and the fact that we're expanding to 19 teams soon (which presumably means an expanded finals series anyway), I'd say it probably is an opportune time to expand the finals series. You've legitimately got teams like Collingwood, Hawthorn and Essendon who could hit 13 wins this season and still miss out on September action. Doesn't seem right.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 10,828
- 8,806
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Would it devalue these last few rounds though?
I think the reigning premier should be given a wild card finals spot if they aren't in the 8 the next season. Just as a trial this year, see how it feels. If they won the flag though you'd probably say let's just leave it at that depending on how they went the next year.
Further to that, i think any team who hasnt made the finals at all, or has gone the longest should get the final spot
Bailing out a big successful club is in the best interest of everyone that has an interest in the club, but trickle down finals is just charity, pull yourselves up by your footy boot straps ya bums!
If we had 16 games in qld a season we could make finals
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,973
- 4,390
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Get rid of the bye
Week 1
a 7 v 10
b 8 v 9
c 3 v 6
d 4 v 5
Week 2
e Highest loser c/d v Lowest winner a/b
f Lowest loser c/d v Highest winner a/b
g 1 v lowest winner c/d
h 2 v highest winner c/d
Week 3
i Highest loser g/h v Lowest winner e/f
j Lowest loser g/h v Highest winner e/f
Week 4
k Highest winner g/h v Lowest winner i/j
l Lowest winner g/h v Highest winner i/j
Week 5
m Winner k v Winner l
To be honest, haven't gone through it to see if it works. Could get the same fixture a few weeks apart in the finals, but the old final 5 gave us that too. Teams down to 6 get the double chance so that probably isn't palatable for most. But 1 & 2 essentially begin their finals a week later and get to travel further with their loss.
Week 1
a 7 v 10
b 8 v 9
c 3 v 6
d 4 v 5
Week 2
e Highest loser c/d v Lowest winner a/b
f Lowest loser c/d v Highest winner a/b
g 1 v lowest winner c/d
h 2 v highest winner c/d
Week 3
i Highest loser g/h v Lowest winner e/f
j Lowest loser g/h v Highest winner e/f
Week 4
k Highest winner g/h v Lowest winner i/j
l Lowest winner g/h v Highest winner i/j
Week 5
m Winner k v Winner l
To be honest, haven't gone through it to see if it works. Could get the same fixture a few weeks apart in the finals, but the old final 5 gave us that too. Teams down to 6 get the double chance so that probably isn't palatable for most. But 1 & 2 essentially begin their finals a week later and get to travel further with their loss.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 10,828
- 8,806
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Prior to Waverley vfl park all four finals were played at the MCG one each Saturday over 4 weeks
Minor premier would have two byes if they won their first semi final. And they usually won the grand final
Minor premier would have two byes if they won their first semi final. And they usually won the grand final
Under no circumstances should double chances ever be used in a finals series. Ever. Finals should be knockout, with a guaranteed week off replacing the double chance (like the NFL)
There is literally no reason to give teams second chances for losing, provided the teams are seeded correctly.
To show you how stupid the double chance is under the current system, you look at it mathematically. The current final 8 does not have a guaranteed week off (ignoring the pre-finals bye) nor does it have a guaranteed double chance. The top-4 teams have:
- a 50% chance of using a double chance
- a 50% chance of having a week off.
They can't have both.
All the knockout system does is take the 50% chance of using a double chance and ADDING it to the 50% chance of having a week off and making it a 100% chance (guaranteed) week off. So instead of 50-50, it's 0-100
The 100% guaranteed week off is a mathematical replacement for the "50% chance of getting a week off and a 50% chance of using a double chance" under the current system.
It just shows you how useless and pointless double chances are. They are not in the spirit of what finals are about.
Last edited:
Not at all. More teams would be in contention, with teams as high as 6 still a realistic chance of missing finals. And teams would still be playing for position - for instance, top 6 would guarantee a bye in week 1.
I agree, but there is a (wrong) view that fans of top sides 'deserve' to see their side play at least two finals (as though playing a final is a reward in itself). I can imagine the uproar if the top side lost to 8th and was eliminated, despite getting the advantage of a week off and the easiest matchup.
The irony of that is that under the current final-8, 1st can only be eliminated from the second week onwards, which is exactly the same as under the knockout final-10. In the knockout final-10, they can also only be eliminated from the second week onwards. From that sense, nothing changes. The week off has replaced the double chance, and after the week off they can then be eliminated, which is no issue as long as teams are seeded correctly.
There would be no "uproar", respectfully. I think that's a myth. It's a bit like saying that there would be "uproar" in 1994, when the final-8 was introduced if the top team was knocked out after one loss in the brand new "two preliminary Final" format.
There is no uproar in the NFL when the top seeded team (after a week off) sometimes is eliminated at home in their first playoff game. That's how finals work - perform on the day, or you go home.
I suspect there would be a status-quo bias type of thing - people would take some time to get used to the idea that top sides are rewarded in other ways to the double chance (particularly if they are eliminated in week 2). A bit like people complained when 2nd-placed Geelong had to play away to 4th-placed Adelaide in 1997 after losing their first final.
AFL will never get rid of the double chance.
Its part of the fabric of the game, like having to bounce when you run, being ok to be on someone’s shoulder should you take a mark, and wearing white shorts away.
A top ten will be two parallel top 5’s or, this revenue (wildcard) round idea.
Its part of the fabric of the game, like having to bounce when you run, being ok to be on someone’s shoulder should you take a mark, and wearing white shorts away.
A top ten will be two parallel top 5’s or, this revenue (wildcard) round idea.
It has literally nothing to do with "the game".
Both top ten options you note would be terrible, with 7-10 virtually zero chance. The knockout final 10 in contrast is as close to a perfect system as you will get.
I dont disagree with you.
But like me waiting for a sensible uniform policy, you will be waiting a long time or forever for such a change.
Oh fabric of the game, give me a break, LOL. Are you even aware that we have had a knockout Grand Final for 100 years, and that the top team has been able to be eliminated after one loss in the Prelim for the last 30 years.
It's not part of the fabric of the game at all. In fact it goes against the nature and intent of finals, which is to perform on the day, which is what 7 of the 9 finals are - knockout. Because you know, we LIKE knockout. That's why we like the Grand Final.
If you want "double chances" go and support some best-of-3 or best-of-7 rubbish.
Who knows - I'm somewhat optimistic we'll get there with a 19 or 20-team competition. The knockout final 10 would solve a lot of issues - e.g. the pre-finals bye was introduced to stop teams resting players in the last round (caused by the finals system which provides only marginal advantages to finishing 1st over 4th), but has created new issues with the QF winners having a second bye. Giving the bye to the top 6 in a knockout system fixes both issues.
The brilliant thing about the knockout final-10 is that it allows the pre finals bye to be moved to the week before the Grand Final
This means the path to the premiership for the top teams would be :
BYE-match-match-BYE-match
Under the current final-8 the path to the premiership is currently:
BYE-match-BYE-match-match
The path to the flag under the knockout final-10 is far superior as you can see. The current final-8 system has the winner of the qualifying final playing one game in 27 days, due to there being two byes in three weeks.
The knockout final 10 avoids anyone having two byes in three weeks.
For a bit of fun (fun for me...) I decided to try and quantify the advantages provided under different final 10 systems.
Assumptions:
So, for example, if 100 finals series were played between 10 evenly matched teams, the top side would win the premiership roughly 21-22 times under the current system with wildcard games.
The issues I have with the current system plus wildcard:
The knockout system distributes the advantages across ladder position in a much fairer way - each ladder position (or at least pair of ladder positions) has a clear advantage over the position immediately below, but there are no cliffs like there are with the other systems (the largest difference is between finishing 6th and 7th). You also avoid all of the other issues associated with double chance systems, such as repeated match-ups and higher seeded sides getting the harder finals.
Assumptions:
- All ten teams are of equal ability
- Having a home final is associated with a 57% win probability (across the last 10 home and away seasons the home team wins roughly 57% of the time)
- Having a home final after a bye where the opponent has not had a recent bye is associated with a 65% win probability (this one is harder to work out, but I note that the QF winners won something like 28/32 PFs before the pre-finals bye was introduced, so you could argue this probability should be higher).
| Ladder position | Current system with 7v10, 8v9 wildcard | 2x McIntyre final 5 | Knockout final 10 |
| 1 | 21.5% | 22.8% | 18.5% |
| 2 | 21.5% | 22.8% | 18.5% |
| 3 | 19.2% | 12.5% | 14.6% |
| 4 | 19.2% | 12.5% | 13.5% |
| 5 | 6.0% | 10.7% | 10.2% |
| 6 | 6.0% | 10.7% | 9.6% |
| 7 | 1.8% | 2.3% | 4.3% |
| 8 | 1.8% | 2.3% | 4.3% |
| 9 | 1.4% | 1.7% | 3.2% |
| 10 | 1.4% | 1.7% | 3.2% |
So, for example, if 100 finals series were played between 10 evenly matched teams, the top side would win the premiership roughly 21-22 times under the current system with wildcard games.
The issues I have with the current system plus wildcard:
- Little advantage to finishing 1st over 4th
- Huge advantage to finishing 4th over 5th (noting this could be decided by percentage)
- Extremely low chance of winning from 7-10
The knockout system distributes the advantages across ladder position in a much fairer way - each ladder position (or at least pair of ladder positions) has a clear advantage over the position immediately below, but there are no cliffs like there are with the other systems (the largest difference is between finishing 6th and 7th). You also avoid all of the other issues associated with double chance systems, such as repeated match-ups and higher seeded sides getting the harder finals.
Not sure how I'd feel about a pre-GF bye - I guess the benefit would be allowing teams to get injured players back (higher quality game), but the downside might be that the finals system loses some momentum after the PFs. In any case, it doesn't provide either GF team with an advantage over the other.
I certainly have an issue with BYE-match-BYE - if anything, the evidence suggests the second bye is almost a disadvantage against a team that has gone BYE-match-match.
They have had a 2-week break before the superbowl many times. It allows the build up to be bigger.
It also means that should a player enter concussion protocols after the prelim, they would be able to play in the Grand Final.
I personally love the idea.
- May 23, 2016
- 7,992
- 6,890
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I can't believe they're even entertaining the idea. Top 4 already get the advantage of two chances etc, so 6-8 have to play another final on top? What bullsh*t, just leave it alone and stop changing it to make for money.
