Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[faible]

Herein lies one of the main issues imo. How long is the gap between the H&A season and finals starting? What would a non-wildcard finalist think of having 2 or 3 weeks off, then the top 4 having yet another week off after their first final should they win? It's not like they have a finals series against each opponent, if they have an off game due to not playing for a bit they're done.

I'm not arguing against what you've been saying, of course fan engagement is the moniker the AFL will sell it under, I'm arguing against the concept for a sport like AFL in the first place as it's hard to justify.

I'd turf the pre-finals bye (I'd get rid of it anyway) if they were going down that path. Do something like 7 - 10 (if they're within a certain number of Premiership Points) playing off for the final 2 spots in that week that was the bye week.

We spent years not having a bye week then the AFL thought it'd be a great idea to avoid teams resting players in dead rubbers in the final round. Opening up opportunities to play finals for an extra couple of teams possibly achieves the same outcome by making less late season games meaningless, without having the bye week.

I'm sure there's many ways they could fiddle with it to make it interesting and meaningful, running both elimination games at the same time would be novel but the TV networks probably wouldn't want that, or playing an abbreviated format (2020 COVID rules for example).

 

[Vindicater]

Once we get to 20 teams make it a 19 round season with alternating season home games.

Then have week 1 of finals be.

13v20
14v19
15v18
16v17

1-12 get the bye.

Then a straight elimination bracket.

1v16
2v15
Etc.

4 rounds of finals plus a wildcard. Teams don't need double chances because they get to play low seeds early to advance.

Done.

 

[jannissary]

Dane Rampe again illustrating how the rules are only for everyone else in the AFL...

his justification for it too was rubbish but they accepted it lol, the tribunal is a joke.

so much for caring about protecting players from concussions and CTE

 

[andleanback]

Once we get to 20 teams make it a 19 round season with alternating season home games.

Then have week 1 of finals be.

13v20
14v19
15v18
16v17

1-12 get the bye.

Then a straight elimination bracket.

1v16
2v15
Etc.

4 rounds of finals plus a wildcard. Teams don't need double chances because they get to play low seeds early to advance.

Done.

Yeh… the players won’t want less money and the broadcasters won’t want less rounds.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Or, once we get to 20 teams:

25 or 26 rounds.
No floating rounds.
8 teams in the finals.
12 teams miss out.
Round 1 matchups will do likewise in R20 and it continues.
One of the rounds can be a split round.

Once the H/A season is done, finals start the following weekend.

 

[ant555]

In this case "fan engagement" is another way of the AFL gaining more dollars out of fans pockets, not to mention what the broadcasters would tip in.

I think it's very much an ill-thought idea. The last thing someone who's earned a top 8 spot needs at that time of year is an extra game getting further fatigued and risking injury when their finals opponent for the first week of actual finals is rested and had a chance to get over niggling injuries. I say that assuming the wildcard teams wouldn't get a rest as the actual finalists certainly wouldn't want 2 weeks off between the H&A season and finals.

Herein lies one of the main issues imo. How long is the gap between the H&A season and finals starting? What would a non-wildcard finalist think of having 2 or 3 weeks off, then the top 4 having yet another week off after their first final should they win? It's not like they have a finals series against each opponent, if they have an off game due to not playing for a bit they're done.

I'm not arguing against what you've been saying, of course fan engagement is the moniker the AFL will sell it under, I'm arguing against the concept for a sport like AFL in the first place as it's hard to justify.

The games will be played in what is now the bye weekend . The top 6 get a week off. There will be no 2 week break.
I can see no issue with it at all. The players will want the chance. Are you saying as a supporter you would not be excited if your side was in the race for 7th to 10th for the back end of the year knowing there was an option to play a wildcard game ?
It is a no brainer for me. The fans from the clubs in the chase will be engaged . The games will draw a crowd. The players will want the chance to progress .

 

[Pweter]

The games will be played in what is now the bye weekend . The top 6 get a week off. There will be no 2 week break.
I can see no issue with it at all. The players will want the chance. Are you saying as a supporter you would not be excited if your side was in the race for 7th to 10th for the back end of the year knowing there was an option to play a wildcard game ?
It is a no brainer for me. The fans from the clubs in the chase will be engaged . The games will draw a crowd. The players will want the chance to progress .

The AFL could say they're going to increase the top 8 to a top 10 and restructure the finals but that's probably not sound as exciting as wildcard teams and play in games. Of course money will win out for the AFL and like I said, they rarely go public with something for it not to happen.

The sides finishing 7/8 will be pissed they have to play an additional round with no rest before they play the better sides, it's reducing their chances of going deeper into finals. It's the flip side of the argument for teams finishing 9th and 10th.

I can't recall much about the talk when we went from a top 6 to a top 8 to know what the thoughts were about that, I was young and we'd just won a flag and it wouldn't matter as we'd be good forever, but there was likely opposition arguing like me but over time we get used to it. I'm just not a fan of the idea overall, over half the teams making finals is rewarding mediocrity. I'm not going to lose sleep or die in a ditch over it.

To show I've thought about it more than just going "yuck, no", I can see how it will add to late season ladder jostling. Teams will not want to finish 7th or 8th so 5th and 6th all of a sudden become valuable ladder positions. Also is it positioning the league for a 20th side post the Tasmanian entry?

 

[yodellinhank]

Surely a top ten should be split them in two and run an extra week after final fives?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Not many comps have more than 50% of teams making the playoffs. The reason for the bye was to stop teams resting too many players. But having 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 introduces that possibility again.

Having said that i don't understand the Scott brothers' argument against it. Yes the draw is unfair at times but isn't that more reason to have this? For example a big factor in our making the finals in '21 was our easier draw than say the couple of teams that finished below that year.

 

[faible]

Not many comps have more than 50% of teams making the playoffs. The reason for the bye was to stop teams resting too many players. But having 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 introduces that possibility again.

Having said that i don't understand the Scott brothers' argument against it. Yes the draw is unfair at times but isn't that more reason to have this? For example a big factor in our making the finals in '21 was our easier draw than say the couple of teams that finished below that year.

Quite often I'd say the draw factors in to a side missing the 8 on a single win or down to percentage.

If you get a double up against North or West Coast that's a big difference than having your double against Hawthorn or Fremantle for your chances of percentage or a win.

What if we'd have a double up against a side that wasn't Geelong, would our W:L be the same but ~ 5% more given the pummelling we've taken at their hands?

 

[andleanback]

Not many comps have more than 50% of teams making the playoffs. The reason for the bye was to stop teams resting too many players. But having 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 introduces that possibility again.

Having said that i don't understand the Scott brothers' argument against it. Yes the draw is unfair at times but isn't that more reason to have this? For example a big factor in our making the finals in '21 was our easier draw than say the couple of teams that finished below that year.

I doubt it’ll bring back teams resting players. Most of the time. 7-10 usually comes down to a game or 2 difference and percentage. Dropping a game could mean you miss out on a home wild card game.

 

[Mercurial89]

I think the wild card has merit I'm not against it but I'm not demanding it either.

I think there has to be a bit of agreement as to why it is there.
Is it to improve some inequalities in the draw?
Is it to make more money for players/broadcasters?
Is it to make things more exciting?

None of those are mutually exclusive, but I think one of the biggest things in sport is agency. There has to be stakes, events and accomplishments have to matter.
If there are too many games, the games themselves lose meaning.
If there are too many positions/chances available to make finals, then making finals becomes less of an accomplishment.
We already have an issue in this sport where unless you win the flag, you are a loser. You accomplished nothing.
That is culturally what we think, that is how our media present and write the story of this league.
Some may like that, I myself don't.

The other part of this is if you make it harder for lower teams to progress, you make it really a top 6 - as that will be where the success comes from.
If you are devaluing the finals, handicapping the lower teams and you won't celebrate the accomplishment of anyone other than the premier I question the need for the change?

The debate is confounded by who is having it. Is it a media person making the argument well ok the broadcaster wants it. The coach? Well they are concerned about success.
Fans? They want their team involved.
Players? More money.

Everyone has a vested interest in it, but what does the competition actually need, as a thing.
Look at this year, realistically, three teams can win it. Then there is a massive logjam to fill up space to accomplish...... Nothing. They won't be remembered for making it and they aren't winning it, if anything it's just accomplishing the noose, ready for when they don't meet expectations the following season.

In other sports there is quite often conferences or divisions where an accomplishment that is recognised is winning your division, or winning your conference even if you don't actually obtain the ultimate league prize.
A tier approach with the accomplishments recognised for what they are along the way.

We don't have that here, so inflating the number of chances feels hollow when there is no real benefit to the competition, it's just games for games sake.

I picture it as a tv series that has a core number of central characters that always survive their adventures (the teams with a chance). The writers then bring in 6 new characters and kill them off during a season and point to it and say "look, there is stakes" (the other teams making up numbers).
It's an illusion.

 

[Maddogm]

Look at this year, realistically, three teams can win it. Then there is a massive logjam to fill up space to accomplish...... Nothing. They won't be remembered for making it and they aren't winning it, if anything it's just accomplishing the noose, ready for when they don't meet expectations the following season.

I'd disagree with this bit on a couple of levels. Firstly one of those 3 teams that I think could win it, is currently in that logjam. Secondly, and this might just be my Ice Hockey background, but finals experience counts for a lot.

 

[Mercurial89]

I'd disagree with this bit on a couple of levels. Firstly one of those 3 teams that I think could win it, is currently in that logjam. Secondly, and this might just be my Ice Hockey background, but finals experience counts for a lot.

When I say "they get nothing for it" I mean in the sense of no one externally treats it as an accomplishment. We just culturally don't really celebrate it.
A team like Brisbane can make top 4 every year for 5 years and never win it and people would consider that period a failure in the scheme of things.

I agree, from a development and experience perspective, making finals, playing in big games. Is a good thing for the players/team development.

 

[ant555]

The AFL could say they're going to increase the top 8 to a top 10 and restructure the finals but that's probably not sound as exciting as wildcard teams and play in games. Of course money will win out for the AFL and like I said, they rarely go public with something for it not to happen.

The sides finishing 7/8 will be pissed they have to play an additional round with no rest before they play the better sides, it's reducing their chances of going deeper into finals. It's the flip side of the argument for teams finishing 9th and 10th.

I can't recall much about the talk when we went from a top 6 to a top 8 to know what the thoughts were about that, I was young and we'd just won a flag and it wouldn't matter as we'd be good forever, but there was likely opposition arguing like me but over time we get used to it. I'm just not a fan of the idea overall, over half the teams making finals is rewarding mediocrity. I'm not going to lose sleep or die in a ditch over it.

To show I've thought about it more than just going "yuck, no", I can see how it will add to late season ladder jostling. Teams will not want to finish 7th or 8th so 5th and 6th all of a sudden become valuable ladder positions. Also is it positioning the league for a 20th side post the Tasmanian entry?

It is long term positioning for the 19th - 20th - 21st - 22nd team .
I have never made much of the rewarding mediocracy argument. It is not like history has rewarded the sides that finish 7th or 8th all that often and before that 4th and 5th in the 5 team finals series generally made up the numbers most seasons. If we really wanted to go down the path of not rewarding mediocracy then we would play a top 4 knock out to reach the GF.

 

[MiguelM]

If West Coast produced a miracle today it would go a long way to erase last night!

 

[fanuch]

Every week Howie calling Newcombe the boy from Poowong does my head in. Poo jokes went out in grade 5

 

[Schnitzengruben]

Oscar Allen

12

Oscar Allen

Age

25

Ht

196cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.8

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.1

4star

No current season stats available

D

8.6

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

2.8

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.0

4star

G

1.2

4star

remembering he's signed on til 2025.

 

[MiguelM]

Blues handing West Coast an absolute thrashing. 70 in front and it is not even half time.

The calls to sack the coach will be getting louder.

How TF did they get so bad with all the resources over there?

 

[DapperDon]

Fred Fanning record looks in trouble

 

[MiguelM]

Hawks giving it to the Tigers too!

 

[BrunoV]

I'm not sure how Simpson can have any credibility left.

West Coast have been shocking for 3 years now.

 

[doug85]

Denver Granger-Barrass duck eggs 10 minutes into the third quarter and subbed off.

 

[andleanback]

Sam walsh

18

Sam Walsh

Age

24

Ht

184cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.1

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

5.1

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

3.4

5star

No current season stats available

D

26.2

5star

K

15.4

5star

HB

10.8

5star

M

6.0

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

4.8

5star

hammy costly for Carlton.

 

[Lore]

Oscar Allen remembering he's signed on til 2025.

Might get traded yet.