Revisiting An Old Subject - "4 Points For A Win"

[LordLucifer]

Before I go into this, let me state upfront, I am a "dyed-in-the-wool" traditionalist who prefers the old simpler days of this game.

However, I have had a think about one aspect of the way the competition is run and are open-minded on the possibility of a realignment.

At present, the winning teams get 4-points and the loser gets 0-points, in the situation of a draw, both teams get 2-points.

We can also have a situation whereby a team can get beaten by a single point and get absolutely nothing which seems rather unfair. Furthermore, there should be some sort of incentive for teams to keep attacking and this is the best I can come up with.

I'd like to throw up an alternative option that has positives & negatives but overall, rewards teams for playing the game out and that is there are 6-points up for grabs every week.

The team that scores the most points for the quarter earns one premiership point :

First Quarter - 1-point
Second Quarter - 1-point
Third Quarter - 1-point
Fourth Quarter - 1-point

If both teams kick the same score in a quarter they both get 0.5 points.


There would also be a change to the current structure for wins and loses :

Winning team - 2-points
Losing team - 0-points
Draw - 1-point each


Based on the weekends games, under this system, the points earnt would have been :

Richmond - 1
Melbourne - 5

Essendon - 3
Collingwood - 3

GWS - 5
Brisbane - 1

Port - 4
St. Kilda - 2

North - 1
Adelaide - 5

Geelong - 5
Carlton - 1

Fremantle - 5
Bulldogs - 1

GC - 5
WCE - 1

Hawthorn - 0
Sydney - 6

It is hard to know if those points may have been different if this system was actually in place because at present, it is too easy for teams to pack up shop and go into damage control instead of tryinbg to score harder.

Anyways, I'm interested to get some thoughts on this proposed idea and any other possible improvements that people want to put up.

 

[RUNVS]

A part of me likes the idea as it punishes teams that can't put in 4 quarter performances and coast off one or two really good quarters but I also know this is not going to be popular with most fans. I would be curious to see what a ladder for the 2024 season so far would be though (but of course knowing if this was actually in place the scores would be different as teams would try and win individual quarters more).

 

[RAPPA]

There should also be an extra point for reaching the target in 40 overs. Oh wait, wrong sport.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I like it, but add an extra point for the overall win if youve had to travel interstate to play.

So Adelaide get 6pts and Sydney 7pts.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Just like the AFL itself everyone says the game is going great, better than ever but still there are always looking to change it.

 

[And_ROOS]

I would rather teams get 1 point if they score over 100 points to encourage attacking play even in defeat.

 

[LordLucifer]

I would rather teams get 1 point if they score over 100 points to encourage attacking play even in defeat.

You are going with the similiar theory as me but have a threshold which may not be reached. Rewarding teams for attacking is definitely the goal here so giving them an incentive every quarter should add to the spectacle.

 

[LordLucifer]

I like it, but add an extra point for the overall win if youve had to travel interstate to play.

So Adelaide get 6pts and Sydney 7pts.

But you have some teams playing interstate more than others every year so there is bound to be calls of bias one way or the other.

 

[RUNVS]

I would rather teams get 1 point if they score over 100 points to encourage attacking play even in defeat.

Doesn't work though because if a team gets a few more wet weather games than average it would really hurt their season.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'm not really a fan of such things. But if you were to have bonus points, make it one point for winning all four quarters. Or have "quarters won" sit between ladder points and percentage in determining positions. But, really, "no" to any of those options.

 

[Obzerva]

I like it, but add an extra point for the overall win if youve had to travel interstate to play.

So Adelaide get 6pts and Sydney 7pts.

Non VIC Bias!

 

[PhatBoy]

Sport is predicated on winning and losing and not by how much.
I respect the point being made because yes games lose their intensity and yes a game where a team smashes someone should theoretically reap a greater reward than one where a team falls over the line.

That’s irrelevant though.

The team that smashes someone almost with 100 per cent certainty faces a team who plays appallingly.

The team who wins 100-99 could play a team who’s put in a ripping performance. Why should they lose out because they met a willing, gallant opponent? They already DO by virtue of their percentage?

And since when has playing one great quarter been a reason to penalise a team if their other three are just good enough to hold on? If it amounts to a good enough total score it doesn’t matter.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

But you have some teams playing interstate more than others every year so there is bound to be calls of bias one way or the other.

The Collingwoods of the league you mean?
Well yes, a tax on staying home if you like.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Non VIC Bias!

Shh..

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Bonus points like in union could work

Extra BP if you win by X amount of points
Extra BP if lose by Y amount of points or fewer

X could be 42 points
Y could be 11 points

 

[Altum Volantes]

Why not…2 points for a win, 1 point each for a draw and no points for losing?

Gets rid of 2 unnecessary points immediately.

Saves….money?

Probably not.

 

[terrybull]

Why not…2 points for a win, 1 point each for a draw and no points for losing?

Gets rid of 2 unnecessary points immediately.

Saves….money?

Probably not.

SANFL copyright infringement

 

[BigPond101]

A more interesting topic is the idea of a goal being worth 6 times that of a point and the enormous effect this has in shaping the tactics of the game. How different would it be if a goal were worth 3 times a point for example. It would mean a much more attacking game style as kicking a point is now x3 as valuable.

More risk taking tactics, more shots from the boundary, Ross Lyon would be extinct.

Rushing a behind would be 3 times as bad so teams would seldom do it and we would see more risks taken on the last line of defence, more excitement

A point worth 1/6 of a goal with the benefit of getting the ball back in the hands of your best user who can run 25 metres is a huge disadvantage. Hawthorn in 08 basically won a GF by exploiting the worthlessness of a point

In hindsight goals being worth 6 points instead of 3 is one of the worst things to ever happen to football

 

[Billy ray]

Why 6 for a goal and 1 for a behind?
Should be 10 for a goal.
1 for behind.
-1 for out on full within fwd 50m

 

[_Mike_]

it's a noble idea however IMO the current point system is fine.

 

[kickazz]

Sport is predicated on winning and losing and not by how much.

Basically this.

We have percentage as well in this sport which makes winning quarters and margins matter.

Also, piling on the goals is actually enjoyable in this sport - cricket a thrashing is less enjoyable so they need to add those things.


If we did go for 1 point per quarter and 1 for the win - you might get some really weird games too. Especially if near the end of the year a side legit only needs to secure one or two points out of a game - it's possible their best strategy would be to go all out in the first half, use up all their rotations, get the two points, only to have the game become a complete embarrassment in the second half. Are we all ready for that?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The most popular sports thrive on simplicity and always have.

There’s a scoreboard and you need to get a higher score than the other mob to win. That’s it.

With every complication you put up a wall (small or large) to kids or new people understanding it and getting into it.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

With the OP's specific proposal, a team could knock up 11 goals top 1 in the first, lose every quarter afterwards narrowly, win the game, and get the same amount of points (3) as the team they beat. yes, that's an extreme but possible.
I guess the points could be tweaked, keep 4 for a win, so the worst a winning side could get was 5 points to 3.

I get the point. North matches, and other games effectively over before they start, lose their sting quickly. So do finals late in the game, most of the time.
And a bonus point system is easier to calculate on the fly than percentage, so in that way might be simpler - but percentage would still be needed when the points are level which negates that part to a significant degree.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

If every game was exciting it would get boring pretty quickly

On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sentinel]

Overly complicated and will never happen. A game of football is decided by what happens after an entire 80 minutes of play, you don't need to break it down.

Teams swap ends for a reason too - there will often be an advantage at one end of a ground (e.g. due to wind, sun) which will more likely lead to a 4-2 split of points than for teams who play at venues which don't have such one-ended advantages, such as Marvel under the roof, which will more likely lead to 6-0 points splits.