Is it time for a new finals system?

[Steven Gerrard]

The difference between 4th and 5th, if you break it down, isn't as great as you think.

Statistically and theoretically, 4th has the hardest assignment of the top 4 finalists, and that's beating the top ranked seed away from home.

Staristically and theoretically, 5th has the easiest assignment of the bottom 4 ranked finalists, and that's beating the bottom ranked seed at home.

4th has the hardest match and 5th has the easiest match.

So if 4th does what everyone expects it to do, and that's lose to 1st, and 5th does what everyone expects it to do, and that's beat 8th, then they're even, to the extent that they now have to travel the same road to the grand final.

4th will have home ground advantage to reward it for finishing higher and to compensate it for having a harder assignment in the first week. But think about it, if 4th played 5th first up in a rejigged format, it will be played at the home of 4th anyway.

The fact that 4th has always made it to the prelim and 5th hasn't, suggests 2 things:

1) Home ground advantage to 4th in week 2 which is how it should be, and

2) 4th is simply better than 5th. Statistically and theoretically, it should be better than 5th, it finished higher than 5th.

 

[Chiz]

The difference between 4th and 5th, if you break it down, isn't as great as you think.

Statistically and theoretically, 4th has the hardest assignment of the top 4 finalists, and that's beating the top ranked seed away from home.

Staristically and theoretically, 5th has the easiest assignment of the bottom 4 ranked finalists, and that's beating the bottom ranked seed at home.

4th has the hardest match and 5th has the easiest match.

So if 4th does what everyone expects it to do, and that's lose to 1st, and 5th does what everyone expects it to do, and that's beat 8th, then they're even, to the extent that they now have to travel the same road to the grand final.

True, but 5 is playing a must win game week 1, whereas 4 can choose not to turn up in week 1 and they still have that advantage over 5 in week 2 (not to mention the fresh legs). However, they are also given a chance to go straight through to the preliminary final - you can't choose to ignore that, even if it is a difficult task.

Statistically, 4th has three times as much chance of winning the flag than does 5th, and that's before you factor in their home ground and other advantages in week 2.

4th will have home ground advantage to reward it for finishing higher and to compensate it for having a harder assignment in the first week. But think about it, if 4th played 5th first up in a rejigged format, it will be played at the home of 4th anyway.

Yep, and that would be the only advantage 4th would have over 5th, as it should be.

The fact that 4th has always made it to the prelim and 5th hasn't, suggests 2 things:

1) Home ground advantage to 4th in week 2 which is how it should be, and

2) 4th is simply better than 5th. Statistically and theoretically, it should be better than 5th, it finished higher than 5th.

But this doesn't explain why 4th has always made it and 5th hasn't. Sure, we expect 4th to make it more often than 5th, but every now and then 5th should beat 4th. The fact that they haven't is either a statistical anomaly, or it suggests that 4th is given too much of an advantage.

 

[Proud SJW]

Ok, I've read one page of this thread.

Does it, as I'm beginning to suspect, boil down to "Essendon are obviously better than a couple of teams above them, particularly Fremantle, and therefore I believe it is unfair Essendon finished fifth and should be given more of a chance in the finals"?

Just asking.

 

[Chiz]

Ok, I've read one page of this thread.

Does it, as I'm beginning to suspect, boil down to "Essendon are obviously better than a couple of teams above them, particularly Fremantle, and therefore I believe it is unfair Essendon finished fifth and should be given more of a chance in the finals"?

Just asking.

No

 

[Proud SJW]

Really. So if you'd finished third this year, you'd still have started this thread.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

True, but 5 is playing a must win game week 1, whereas 4 can choose not to turn up in week 1 and they still have that advantage over 5 in week 2 (not to mention the fresh legs). However, they are also given a chance to go straight through to the preliminary final - you can't choose to ignore that, even if it is a difficult task.

Statistically, 4th has three times as much chance of winning the flag than does 5th, and that's before you factor in their home ground and other advantages in week 2.



Yep, and that would be the only advantage 4th would have over 5th, as it should be.




But this doesn't explain why 4th has always made it and 5th hasn't. Sure, we expect 4th to make it more often than 5th, but every now and then 5th should beat 4th. The fact that they haven't is either a statistical anomaly, or it suggests that 4th is given too much of an advantage.

But on the same token, if 4th choose not to turn up against 1st, they are tinkering with form which isn't recommended in the finals, and moreso, 5th, assuming it won a tough match against 8th, would have momentum and that battle hardened feeling.

I agree that if 4th does beat 1st, it then is in a much better position than 5th. But finals are all about statistical outcomes so the advantages/disadvantages of where you finish do not take into account upsets in the finals, except the double chance. For instance, statistically 1st should always beat 4th and 5th should always beat 8th. If statistical outcomes didn't matter, they would simply have a knockout format and pull ping pong balls with club names on them out of a box to determine the finals' draw, and if 1st drew 2nd in week 1, then so be it. But statistical outcomes do matter and hence why they structure it so the top ranked finalists have statistically the bigger advantage over the bottom ranked finalists.

I get your point, but like I said, if you break it down, the statistical probability is that 4th isn't so much better off than 5th, for reasons I already explained.

In any event, the draw for any season is always released months in advance of the season. The AFL advertised to the world, way back in late October 2012, that at 2.30pm on 28 September 2013, at the MCG, the siren will sound to commence the 2013 grand final. Similarly, the qualifying finals are advertised well in advance, and clubs are notified that 1st will play 4th in one of those qualifying finals. Every club knows well in advance the repercussions of where they finish. The motto I guess is, if you want the bigger advantage, do better than the opposition in the minor round. It's not like the AFL springs any nasty surprises on clubs on the eve of the finals. Every team is given notice.

 

[Chiz]

Really. So if you'd finished third this year, you'd still have started this thread.

Yep, Essendon's position is entirely irrelevant to my judgement of the finals system. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see I've used statistical evidence and logic to back up my claims (not that they count for much on bigfooty), and there's absolutely nothing you'll be able to find in this thread that suggests it's to do with giving my team an advantage (which would be a ridiculous thing to argue anyway, since the current system is obviously locked in place for this season).

 

[Proud SJW]

Yep, Essendon's position is entirely irrelevant to my judgement of the finals system. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd see I've used statistical evidence and logic to back up my claims (not that they count for much on bigfooty), and there's absolutely nothing you'll be able to find in this thread that suggests it's to do with giving my team an advantage (which would be a ridiculous thing to argue anyway, since the current system is obviously locked in place for this season).

Yes. but then, one can find "statistical evidence" these days for just about any claim you care to make, within reason.
The motive for finding those particular statistics, however, is often the point in question, and does have a tendency to influence which statistics you end up using. Furthermore, if you have two different people with opposing viewpoints, you can use the same set of statistics, ask both to analyse them, and come up with two completely different results.

Personally, I have a bunch of plants in my back yard in dire need of fertilizing.
My opinion is that, if I had you over to talk to them for a while, they'd grow 6 inches in a single night.

 

[Chiz]

Yes. but then, one can find "statistical evidence" these days for just about any claim you care to make, within reason.
The motive for finding those particular statistics, however, is often the point in question, and does have a tendency to influence which statistics you end up using. Furthermore, if you have two different people with opposing viewpoints, you can use the same set of statistics, ask both to analyse them, and come up with two completely different results.

Personally, I have a bunch of plants in my back yard in dire need of fertilizing.
My opinion is that, if I had you over to talk to them for a while, they'd grow 6 inches in a single night.

Thank you for your valuable contribution.

 

[Proud SJW]

My pleasure.

 

[Chiz]

But on the same token, if 4th choose not to turn up against 1st, they are tinkering with form which isn't recommended in the finals, and moreso, 5th, assuming it won a tough match against 8th, would have momentum and that battle hardened feeling.

OK, but the fact remains that 5th have no choice but to play at 100% - if 4th are out of the game at three quarter time they may as well take it easy. 4th have consistently found something extra in the semi finals, which I think probably reflects this.

I agree that if 4th does beat 1st, it then is in a much better position than 5th. But finals are all about statistical outcomes so the advantages/disadvantages of where you finish do not take into account upsets in the finals, except the double chance. For instance, statistically 1st should always beat 4th and 5th should always beat 8th. If statistical outcomes didn't matter, they would simply have a knockout format and pull ping pong balls with club names on them out of a box to determine the finals' draw, and if 1st drew 2nd in week 1, then so be it. But statistical outcomes do matter and hence why they structure it so the top ranked finalists have statistically the bigger advantage over the bottom ranked finalists.

That's not how statistics work. Statistically, 1st should beat 4th more often, and 5th should beat 8th more often. Since 2000, an upset has occurred in these games roughly 30% of the time. Yet in week 2, an upset has only occurred 8% of the time.

I get your point, but like I said, if you break it down, the statistical probability is that 4th isn't so much better off than 5th, for reasons I already explained.

I'm a statistician, so I'll calculate probabilities. Assume that in any final, the home team has a 70% chance of winning - thus, 5th has a 70% chance of beating 8th, and 4th has a 30% chance of beating 1st.

Probability of 4th making GF: 0.3*0.7 + 0.7*0.7*0.3 = 0.357 (35.7%)
Probability of 5th making GF: 0.7*0.3*0.3 = 0.063 (6.3%)

Thus, the chances of 4th making the GF is more than 5 times as good as 5th.

In any event, the draw for any season is always released months in advance of the season. The AFL advertised to the world, way back in late October 2012, that at 2.30pm on 28 September 2013, at the MCG, the siren will sound to commence the 2013 grand final. Similarly, the qualifying finals are advertised well in advance, and clubs are notified that 1st will play 4th in one of those qualifying finals. Every club knows well in advance the repercussions of where they finish. The motto I guess is, if you want the bigger advantage, do better than the opposition in the minor round. It's not like the AFL springs any nasty surprises on clubs on the eve of the finals. Every team is given notice.

Of course, so it's no good complaining. But that's not to say that the system can't be improved for future years.

 

[Bone71]

Yes. but then, one can find "statistical evidence" these days for just about any claim you care to make, within reason.
The motive for finding those particular statistics, however, is often the point in question, and does have a tendency to influence which statistics you end up using. Furthermore, if you have two different people with opposing viewpoints, you can use the same set of statistics, ask both to analyse them, and come up with two completely different results.

Personally, I have a bunch of plants in my back yard in dire need of fertilizing.
My opinion is that, if I had you over to talk to them for a while, they'd grow 6 inches in a single night.

Chiz has been balanced in his discussion with those that have chosen to post and is simply questioning why the current system is so heavily weighted towards the top four. No need to derail the thread just because you don't like its subject matter.

 

[Proud SJW]

Chiz has been balanced in his discussion with those that have chosen to post and is simply questioning why the current system is so heavily weighted towards the top four. No need to derail the thread just because you don't like its subject matter.

Maybe it's so heavily weighted towards the top four because they've actually managed to get there throughout the home and away season. I'm sure someone has already said that somewhere.
Is it really so bloody complicated?

As has been previously noted, I doubt you'll find many of these silly threads started by anyone whose team is currently in the top four.
See if you can figure out why.

 

[Dan26]

Any system that uses a "double chance" is wrong, idiotic, and morally goes against the principle of what finals are truly supposed to be about - performing on the day.

The finals should be complete knockout. There is simply no reasonable excuse for not having a complete knockout finals system.

The top teams face elimination after one loss under the CURRENT system in the Preliminary and Grand Finals, anyway. There is no second chance there (nor should there be).

The system we should use for an 18 team comp, is the 4-week final-10. it has nine matches, just like the current system, and still goes for 4 weeks.

Week One
7v10
8v9

Week 2
3v6
4v5
2 v highest placed week one winner
1 v lowest placed week one winner

Week 3
highest remaining seed vs lowest remaining seed (eg 1v4)
2nd-highest remaining seed vs second-lowest (eg 2v3)

Week 4
Grand Final


Here is the explanation why double chances are not needed:

Under the current final-8, the top-4 don't really get a double chance. They get EITHER a double chance or a week off. One or the other, but not both. The top four teams have a 50% chance of using a double chance, and a 50% chance of having a week off instead of a double chance, depending on whether they win or lose in week one.

Now, if you take the 50% chance of "using your double chance" and add it to the 50% chance of having a week off, you get a 100% chance of having a week off. If you do, this, and you guarantee a 100% chance of getting a week, off, it mathematically replaces the double chance exactly. Yes, exactly.

The NFL works this way. The 2 top seeded teams in each conference get a guaranteed 100% chance of a week off. Guaranteed.

In the AFL, you get a 50% chance of having a week off and a 50% chance of "using" your double chance depending on whether you win or lose in week one. Instead of this, just make it a guaranteed 100% week off, and the double chance is not needed. The final-10 solves this.

Given that the top teams face elimination in the Preliminary Final anyway, it is madness to use a "double chance system" which frustratingly, and wrongly has become part of Australian sport culture.


If the top team/s

- have a guaranteed week off

- always play the lowest remaining seeded team, and

- have home ground advantage


Then this is more than enough of an advantage. Bring on the final-10. It's not too many teams. 1994 proved that when 8 teams out of 15 made it, and the run-in to the finals was incredibly exciting.

The final-8 has become, boring, predictable, and even at times, unfair (why should it be 1st v 3rd and 2nd vs 4th for example in the prelims. That's wrong.)

The time is here for a total knockout system, and with an 18 team league, the final-10 is the way to go.

 

[Chiz]

Any system that uses a "double chance" is wrong, idiotic, and morally goes against the principle of what finals are truly supposed to be about - performing on the day.

The finals should be complete knockout. There is simply no reasonable excuse for not having a complete knockout finals system.

The top teams face elimination after one loss under the CURRENT system in the Preliminary and Grand Finals, anyway. There is no second chance there (nor should there be).

The system we should use for an 18 team comp, is the 4-week final-10. it has nine matches, just like the current system, and still goes for 4 weeks.

Week One
7v10
8v9

Week 2
3v6
4v5
2 v highest placed week one winner
1 v lowest placed week one winner

Week 3
highest remaining seed vs lowest remaining seed (eg 1v4)
2nd-highest remaining seed vs second-lowest (eg 2v3)

Week 4
Grand Final

That's pretty much the system I suggested during the thread. The only difference was I said had 7v10 and 8v9 as wildcard entry games to get into the knockout final 8 (but the effect is the same).

Here is the explanation why double chances are not needed:

Under the current final-8, the top-4 don't really get a double chance. They get EITHER a double chance or a week off. One or the other, but not both. The top four teams have a 50% chance of using a double chance, and a 50% chance of having a week off instead of a double chance, depending on whether they win or lose in week one.

Now, if you take the 50% chance of "using your double chance" and add it to the 50% chance of having a week off, you get a 100% chance of having a week off. If you do, this, and you guarantee a 100% chance of getting a week, off, it mathematically replaces the double chance exactly. Yes, exactly.

The NFL works this way. The 2 top seeded teams in each conference get a guaranteed 100% chance of a week off. Guaranteed.

In the AFL, you get a 50% chance of having a week off and a 50% chance of "using" your double chance depending on whether you win or lose in week one. Instead of this, just make it a guaranteed 100% week off, and the double chance is not needed. The final-10 solves this.

Given that the top teams face elimination in the Preliminary Final anyway, it is madness to use a "double chance system" which frustratingly, and wrongly has become part of Australian sport culture.

While I'm a fan of finals being about performing on the day, I'm not completely opposed to double chances, in and of themselves. But it's the double chances that are the primary cause of all the issues with the current system (and previous systems) - we can still play plenty of finals without double chances, so I'm totally in favour of getting rid of them.

If the top team/s

- have a guaranteed week off

- always play the lowest remaining seeded team, and

- have home ground advantage


Then this is more than enough of an advantage. Bring on the final-10. It's not too many teams. 1994 proved that when 8 teams out of 15 made it, and the run-in to the finals was incredibly exciting.

The PF final results since 2000 have shown that playing after a bye (against a team coming off a must-win final) is a huge advantage. Thus, 1 and 2 are clearly advantaged in this system, which I like.

The final-8 has become, boring, predictable, and even at times, unfair (why should it be 1st v 3rd and 2nd vs 4th for example in the prelims. That's wrong.)

The time is here for a total knockout system, and with an 18 team league, the final-10 is the way to go.

Pretty much my argument in the OP.

 

[Bone71]

Maybe it's so heavily weighted towards the top four because they've actually managed to get there throughout the home and away season. I'm sure someone has already said that somewhere.
Is it really so bloody complicated?

As has been previously noted, I doubt you'll find many of these silly threads started by anyone whose team is currently in the top four.
See if you can figure out why.

So what? People are not allow to discuss the finals system because you like it the way it is? I really don't care if Chiz's motivation was to with his teams position on the ladder, though I doubt it. Although I am wondering if your response has something to do your teams position.

Newsflash, there are people out there that like to devise better systems than what we have now, its a part of what drives progress.

You are entitled to your opinion as to what you prefer and you have many, many friends. However others are allowed to devise and discuss alternatives.

As to the weighting towards the top four.....I believe it is pointless to include sides in the finals if we don't want them to win the flag. The current system has proven impossible for a side 5-8 to make a Preliminary Final let alone a Grand Final. I would like a system where, yes, the higher you finish the better your chances but without limiting it to the top four. Especially considering the H&A fixture is not and never will be even for all teams.

 

[Proud SJW]

So what? People are not allow to discuss the finals system because you like it the way it is? I really don't care if Chiz's motivation was to with his teams position on the ladder, though I doubt it.

I don't. Human nature, sunshine... doubt he would have even bothered looking for those stats if he hadn't been disappointed with the way this season panned out for him. You wouldn't find a Hawks supporter doing it right now.
And you know it. Well, ok, maybe you don't. Maybe it really is only a river in Africa.

Something else. You're quite correct, You are allowed to discuss the finals system.
But then, so am I.

Although I am wondering if your response has something to do your teams position.

Of course it bloody does. Thought I'd made that clear. We're fourth right now with a chance of finishing higher because we earned it, not because we "think we're better" than someone else. Who is in charge of that anyway? Because he thinks his team is better than someone in the top four, he's going to quote all sorts of statistics and make a point about how being in the top four after the end of 23 rounds rounds isn't fair to 5th?
And where does that end? Should we make it fairer for 6th as well? How about 7th? 8th? Should we include 9th as well because finishing 9th isn't fair? FFS, where does it end? A round robin finals playoff so every gets a decent chance no matter where they finished on the ladder? Why even bother having a F&A season if we're going to listen to whiny comments about how it isn't fair if things don't pan out the way you'd hoped?
Try it, and watch what happens. In a year, maybe two, we'll have the exact same thread from some disappointed supporter of some team who finished 6th, quoting numbers about how it isn't fair to finish sixth and someone should do something about it.

I've argued in the past about WA teams having to travel so much in a finals campaign. Made a post about it the other day. Think any one cares? Think any WA team would like it if they had worked so hard all season as to come fourth, maybe even better than that, and then pillock comes in with a jumped up argument about how it isn't fair makes it all meaningless and then we have to get on a plane again.

I'm a Freo supporter, obviously. But there was some other thread recently where I said I've got even more respect for what West Coast and Adelaide did in their glory years, because it was probably harder than anything Vic teams had to do. But that's the way things are. Not only that, but it makes the effort over the entire H&A season just that little bit sweeter.

Newsflash, there are people out there that like to devise better systems than what we have now, its a part of what drives progress.

Yep, there are.
Taking away the advantage of the top four in the comp isn't one of them. Try again.

You are entitled to your opinion as to what you prefer and you have many, many friends. However others are allowed to devise and discuss alternatives.

Yes, they are. I'm entitled to tell you what I think of them.

As to the weighting towards the top four.....I believe it is pointless to include sides in the finals if we don't want them to win the flag. The current system has proven impossible for a side 5-8 to make a Preliminary Final let alone a Grand Final. I would like a system where, yes, the higher you finish the better your chances but without limiting it to the top four. Especially considering the H&A fixture is not and never will be even for all teams.

That's where you're wrong. It isn't "impossible". It's just very difficult.
That's exactly as it should be. If you haven't done the hard yards throughout the season, then pay the consequences. That's what the season is for. To determine who deserves to be on top. the other sides add a bit of wilcard value and excitement. Sometimes, they do unexpected things.

Freo knocked Geelong out of the race last year, when there were more than a few who thought Geelong might go all the way. It was a surprise. It was exciting. For us, anyway. And then we got our comeuppance the next week.

I doubt you'd find too many who'd say we deserved to win the GF last year. And we didn't. But you'd find more than a few who might say we certainly made things interesting for a while. That's footy.

If you want to discuss a better system, by all means, go ahead. Making it easier for teams who finish lower down on the ladder to win finals games is not "better", though. It invalidates the entire process of the H&A season.

 

[Bone71]

I don't. Human nature, sunshine... doubt he would have even bothered looking for those stats if he hadn't been disappointed with the way this season panned out for him. You wouldn't find a Hawks supporter doing it right now.
And you know it. Well, ok, maybe you don't. Maybe it really is only a river in Africa.

So because he may have noticed the consequences of finishing fifth automatically invalidates his opinion.

Something else. You're quite correct, You are allowed to discuss the finals system.
But then, so am I.

No one is stopping you from discussing the finals system but you can do that without attacking the motivation of others. A simple "I like it the way it is and here's why" would have sufficed.

Of course it bloody does. Thought I'd made that clear. We're fourth right now with a chance of finishing higher because we earned it, not because we "think we're better" than someone else. Who is in charge of that anyway? Because he thinks his team is better than someone in the top four, he's going to quote all sorts of statistics and make a point about how being in the top four after the end of 23 rounds rounds isn't fair to 5th?
And where does that end? Should we make it fairer for 6th as well? How about 7th? 8th? Should we include 9th as well because finishing 9th isn't fair? FFS, where does it end? A round robin finals playoff so every gets a decent chance no matter where they finished on the ladder? Why even bother having a F&A season if we're going to listen to whiny comments about how it isn't fair if things don't pan out the way you'd hoped?
Try it, and watch what happens. In a year, maybe two, we'll have the exact same thread from some disappointed supporter of some team who finished 6th, quoting numbers about how it isn't fair to finish sixth and someone should do something about it.

Is it fair to fifth if this is the result of a uneven draw? I'm not saying it is the case this year, I haven't compared Freo's and Essendon's draw but never the less it is a huge advantage for a team marginally better performed throughout the H&A season. BTW you can make the finals system fairer without giving the advantage to lower ranked sides - that is what this thread is about.

I've argued in the past about WA teams having to travel so much in a finals campaign. Made a post about it the other day. Think any one cares? Think any WA team would like it if they had worked so hard all season as to come fourth, maybe even better than that, and then pillock comes in with a jumped up argument about how it isn't fair makes it all meaningless and then we have to get on a plane again.

He's not arguing that 5th should have a better advantage than 4th.


Yep, there are.
Taking away the advantage of the top four in the comp isn't one of them. Try again.

Why should third and fourth have the same advantage as first & second?


Yes, they are. I'm entitled to tell you what I think of them.

No one is saying you can't, just critique the suggestion not the poster.


That's where you're wrong. It isn't "impossible". It's just very difficult.
That's exactly as it should be. If you haven't done the hard yards throughout the season, then pay the consequences. That's what the season is for. To determine who deserves to be on top. the other sides add a bit of wilcard value and excitement. Sometimes, they do unexpected things.

Freo knocked Geelong out of the race last year, when there were more than a few who thought Geelong might go all the way. It was a surprise. It was exciting. For us, anyway. And then we got our comeuppance the next week.

I doubt you'd find too many who'd say we deserved to win the GF last year. And we didn't. But you'd find more than a few who might say we certainly made things interesting for a while. That's footy.

If you want to discuss a better system, by all means, go ahead. Making it easier for teams who finish lower down on the ladder to win finals games is not "better", though. It invalidates the entire process of the H&A season.

The history of the current final 8 suggests its a lot more than just very difficult and if you had bothered to read Chiz's posts you would see that.

You can bang on about the H&A season justifying a huge weighting to the top four all you like but when the fixture is not even the weightings should be much closer than they are.

 

[Proud SJW]

The history of the current final 8 suggests its a lot more than just very difficult and if you had bothered to read Chiz's posts you would see that.

Ok, so you give me a word I should use which sits nicely between very difficult and impossible. The point stands.
It should be bloody hard. It's not impossible.

You can bang on about the H&A season justifying a huge weighting to the top four all you like but when the fixture is not even the weightings should be much closer than they are.

I disagree. The fixture is only one of a myriad of factors contributing to a top-four finish, and you can't makes rules to cover all of those factors without disadvantaging someone, somwhere.
There. Nice enough for you?

 

[Bone71]

Ok, so you give me a word I should use which sits nicely between very difficult and impossible. The point stands.
It should be bloody hard. It's not impossible.

I agree, some day it might happen so not impossible but the other systems suggested also make it bloody hard for the teams in the bottom half of the finals without having huge leaps of advantage for teams separated by one position.

I disagree. There. Nice enough for you?

lol, good for you and nice enough for me.

 

[JuddsABlue]

13 years in my opinion isnt a big enough sample size to use statistics to back up your point, as damning as they are, especially with interstate teams dominating recently increasing home teams advantage in semis etc. This is a problem with the league, not the finals sytem

I also dont think the watering down the second chance gives is worse than a roulette type system where worse teams can go deeper in finals, making really bad prelim finals

We've been spoilt with prelim quality over the years, consider how good teams play all the time and win comfortably.

We all know upsets are possible in our game, they just havent happened in the finals as much. I'm sure if you looked through statitics you could find some damning stat that said upsets considerably less in rounds 12-14 or some bs, but we're really just painting the bullseye around the bullet holes there

In the end we have a finals sytem where the best teams in the league are winning grand finals with the occasional upset, and really cracking prelim and semi finals to boot

The more flags that come from the lower end of the ladder the worse the finals sytem is

 

[JoondalupJ]

True, there have been some close ones, but the home team prevails far too often for it just to be a coincidence. Statistically, even if the home team has an 80% chance of winning (which, let's face it, is much higher than it should be), the odds of 22 games in a row going the way of the home team (weeks 2 and 3 since prelim 2007) is less than 1%.

Add to that the fact that the away team has never won by more than 3 points - it seems the best they can muster is a close game, but even then, such games are too hard to win - both semi finals last year are great examples (Freo and West Coast were probably in better form than Adelaide and Collingwood, but didn't have the legs to run out the games). I'd like to see the results comparable to week 1, where there is an 'upset' (away team winning) around 30% of the time.



What's the point of playing extra rounds if 12+ teams are out of contention?




Firstly, there was a brilliant six team system outlined in this thread. However, there's more to consider than just how likely it is for 8th to win the flag. For instance, up-and-coming teams gain a lot just by playing finals footy - teams (and supporters) would much rather finish 8th and lose their elimination final, than finish 8th and not play a final, if only for the experience.

On the other hand, if 8th ever did win a flag (or anyone from 5-8th), I think it would be great for the competition. You can't deny that any team who wins four consecutive finals, three of which will be against teams from the top 4, well and truly deserves the premiership, even if they did have an average H&A season.




People contradict themselves when arguing about the current system - on the one hand, saying that the system is good because the top 4 always get through to the prelims (by top 4, they mean ladder position, not the best four teams), but you can almost guarantee that if a 5-8 side got through to the prelims they'd get most of the support from neutral supports - because people like seeing upsets. If upsets happen too often, then they cease to be upsets, but at the moment they don't happen often enough in week 2 and 3.

As for a knockout system, I'm not opposed to the idea - I think a lot of the current problems are caused by the double chance; this works when there are only four teams in the finals, but for more teams it's pointless to have a double chance.

But there needs to be more incentive to finish top than just home games and the easier opponent. One option is to play two wildcard entry games for 7th and 8th spot (e.g. 7v10, 8v9) - this makes it much harder to win from below 6th, but also provides an extra advantage to 1 and 2, as they play a tired team whilst coming off a bye themselves (also, there's your two extra games). Thus, this season you'd have Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney (and Freo?) fighting it out for top 2, Freo, Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond all trying to get to 4th (home final), while making sure they don't drop below 6th (even Port could creep up to 6th). Then you'd have Carlton, North, WC, Brisbane and even Adelaide still in with a chance to be a wildcard entry.

Winning from 5th to 8th would be a magnificent effort true. But what a terrible battle to do it. In this age with speed and athleticism and the higher up sides with rest periods , it is almost impossible, but yes its true that the experience of a final in the first or maybe second week is something worth having for building experience. I'd call an 8th place premier a miracle and a fluke and certain disasters occuring for more than one club in the top 4 positions, would have to take place , like huge injury list or tribunal problems.
For example, this year, for the likes of Hawthorn or Sydney or Geelong to more than one of them to suffer some terrible misfortune, I think that would have to happen this year for even fourth placed Freo to win the flag, but they are at least in the four , that's how hard it is.
So as I said, for a premiership its a rehearsal for the bottom four in the eight . But its a good experience and something to fight for over the H&A season.

 

[Matt_TY]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the way the current finals system rewards teams that have played well in the regular season. The idea is to find out which team is the best, the team that most deserves to lift the cup, and I think our finals system does this quite well by weighting the challenges each team has to face.
It provides ample reward for the top four, but gives 4th a likely first loss and the pressure of a straight sets exit against a team that's likely just belted 8th.

I say keep it as it is, but at least this year's version of the topic has had some actual reasoned discussion and better arguments for a change than:

-"No one likes the double chance"
-"I do" "So do I" "Yeah, me too"
-"No you don't because no one likes the double chance"
etc.

 

[Chiz]

doubt he would have even bothered looking for those stats if he hadn't been disappointed with the way this season panned out for him.

I've been well aware of these stats for the past few years, though each year there are no upsets in weeks 2 and 3 (five years in a row so far), the figures look worse and worse.

If you want to discuss a better system, by all means, go ahead. Making it easier for teams who finish lower down on the ladder to win finals games is not "better", though. It invalidates the entire process of the H&A season.

It's never been about making it 'easier' for lower teams to win finals, it's about distributing the benefits across finals teams so that it becomes a bit more difficult for each position down the ladder (currently it's probably easier to win the GF from 2nd than 1st, which is ridiculous) - e.g. it should be a lot harder to win from 5th than from 1st, but it shouldn't be so much harder to win from 5th than from 4th.

13 years in my opinion isnt a big enough sample size to use statistics to back up your point, as damning as they are, especially with interstate teams dominating recently increasing home teams advantage in semis etc. This is a problem with the league, not the finals sytem

Certainly a sample of 13 would be too small, but 52 games have been played in weeks 2 and 3, which is definitely a large enough sample to draw some conclusions about the likelihood of upsets. Incidentally, there has also been 52 games played in week 1 (in which there are also home ground advantages). I think it's fair to say that most of the difference between the likelihood of an upset in week 1 compared to weeks 2 and 3 can be attributed to the additional benefits the home team gets in these games. Upsets have occurred in about 30% of week 1 games, but in only 10% of weeks 2 and 3 games.

To put it a different way, over six rounds of footy tipping, what are the odds that you would only get five tips wrong? It would be pretty unlikely, in my opinion, as upsets tend to occur regularly (for instance, in my best six consecutive six rounds this season I still got 10 wrong, and Melbourne and GWS played in 12 of those games!). We might expect upsets to occur even more regularly in finals, since the teams are more evenly balanced on the whole. But in weeks 2 and 3, they don't...

I also dont think the watering down the second chance gives is worse than a roulette type system where worse teams can go deeper in finals, making really bad prelim finals

Well, I don't think anyone has proposed a roulette system. If we want the best prelim finals, the important thing is that the better teams win the semi-finals, not the higher placed teams (on average, the higher placed teams are the better teams, but not always).

We've been spoilt with prelim quality over the years, consider how good teams play all the time and win comfortably.

We all know upsets are possible in our game, they just havent happened in the finals as much. I'm sure if you looked through statitics you could find some damning stat that said upsets considerably less in rounds 12-14 or some bs, but we're really just painting the bullseye around the bullet holes there

In the end we have a finals sytem where the best teams in the league are winning grand finals with the occasional upset, and really cracking prelim and semi finals to boot

Despite having had some good prelims and semis, I don't think you can deny that if the advantage to the home side was reduced, we'd have even more good semis and prelims.

The more flags that come from the lower end of the ladder the worse the finals sytem is

It's about balance. Conversely, if every grand final was won by the top team, we would see that as a negative on the system. Over a long period of time, say 100 years, we'd want maybe 5-10 grand finals to have been won by teams 5-8 (i.e. it needs to be an unlikely, but not unrealistic outcome).

Winning from 5th to 8th would be a magnificent effort true. But what a terrible battle to do it. In this age with speed and athleticism and the higher up sides with rest periods , it is almost impossible, but yes its true that the experience of a final in the first or maybe second week is something worth having for building experience. I'd call an 8th place premier a miracle and a fluke and certain disasters occuring for more than one club in the top 4 positions, would have to take place , like huge injury list or tribunal problems.

I think a lot has to go right for any team to win the premiership, but to win from 5th to 8th, you'd probably still have to be one of the best two teams (i.e. if you are the 5th best team and you finish 5th, you are not going to win, but if you're the best team and you finish 5th, you have a chance, albeit small). So if/when it finally happens, I don't think we'll be calling it a fluke (miracle is fair enough), it'll just be a case of a team finishing below where they belong, and doing it the hard way in the finals.

For example, this year, for the likes of Hawthorn or Sydney or Geelong to more than one of them to suffer some terrible misfortune, I think that would have to happen this year for even fourth placed Freo to win the flag, but they are at least in the four , that's how hard it is.

You're probably right, a lot will have to go right for Freo to win, but given they are in the top four they are in with a chance - if they were 5th, it'd be almost impossible.

So as I said, for a premiership its a rehearsal for the bottom four in the eight . But its a good experience and something to fight for over the H&A season.

Which is probably the main reason I'm opposed to the idea of reducing the number of teams in the finals, even though the flag is only ever won from the top 4.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the way the current finals system rewards teams that have played well in the regular season. The idea is to find out which team is the best, the team that most deserves to lift the cup, and I think our finals system does this quite well by weighting the challenges each team has to face.
It provides ample reward for the top four, but gives 4th a likely first loss and the pressure of a straight sets exit against a team that's likely just belted 8th.

I've responded to a similar point already. While 4th has a hard game first up, if they do manage to win, they suddenly have the easiest path to the grand final (easier than the winner of 2v3, since they will probably have to beat 1st in the prelim). As for the 'difficult' semi final against 5th if they lose, the fans continue to fall for this every year - 4th has never lost to 5th in a semi final, even though 5th is often billed as the favourite (in which case, head to the bookies).

I say keep it as it is, but at least this year's version of the topic has had some actual reasoned discussion and better arguments for a change than:

-"No one likes the double chance"
-"I do" "So do I" "Yeah, me too"
-"No you don't because no one likes the double chance"
etc.

True, that is a positive, and I'm quite happy to have a reasoned debate with anyone who gives a reasoned argument. Of course, there are always a few who don't...

 

[Proud SJW]

True, that is a positive, and I'm quite happy to have a reasoned debate with anyone who gives a reasoned argument. Of course, there are always a few who don't...

Sounds all sparkly and happy-making in theory, but the fact is if you want to change something you have do the convincing. Those you're trying to convince have absolutely no obligation to respond "reasonably" if you haven't made enough of an impact to change their minds.

When the Mormons come to my front door, I don't bother giving reasoned arguments as to why they should depart the premises forthwith.
They, on the other hand, would probably very disappointed that so few are willing to give them the time of day, as they had all manner of reasonable arguments to present.

Now, if you can come up with a reasoned solution to the more pressing problem of interstate travel, I might be more amenable.