The double chance - a curse on finals systems since 1902

[Young Gun #6]

Why should they have to prove themselves by beating the same team more than once...?

You obviously don't watch NBA, NHL, MLB the ashes etc..

Not sure how you can claim most team sports don't do this... most teams have to beat the same team MORE than twice.

 

[caitsith01]

There will come a day - when a team goes through undefeated (wins all 22 games ) then wins its 1st final - thats 23 on the trot - and then under the madness of the current system goes into a knockout Preliminary final ( and could get eliminated )- thats crazily unfair - the No 1 team should get 2 chances to go into the Grand Final.

That's what finals are. That is literally the point of finals - that the No 1 team has to bring it in an elimination game to prove it is the best.

What you want is a simple league system.

 

[caitsith01]

You've already had a minor round, that's what it's for. We don't need another qualifier after that.

That's what I said in my post. Thanks for repeating it.

 

[hcd199]

My point was that this system would not work in today's game. Back in the day players were amateurs, and you could quite easily be worse off for having a week's rest. Today the players are professionals, and given the intensity of finals (not to mention that players are just about physically spent after a long season), having a week's rest is a huge advantage. Hence why the final five system is not appropriate for a professional league.

One of the cited reasons for moving to the Page-McIntyre system in 1931 was the fear that minor premiers had a disincentive to win their semi-final because of the perceived advantage taking a week off provided (and that week off was guaranteed under the Argus "right to challenge" system). So it's not a distinction borne of the relative professionalism of the league by any means. I don't think, then, that a temporal distinction can be drawn that suggests the week off was fine then but problematic now.

Back to the system I proposed - I still think of this being a knockout final 8, it's just that the last two spots are determined by a wildcard game (which I don't think should be referred to as 'finals'). But the wildcard playoffs are absolutely essential to achieve the perfect balance between incrementally distributing benefits across teams and having an entertaining finals system with evenly balanced matches (1v8 and 2v7 are the only one-sided match-ups; if 1 or 2 lose this first up match, they definitely deserve elimination).

Teams playing opponents determined by ladder position, losers eliminated and winners progressing, a direct effect upon the subsequent round of finals... what exactly about these "wildcard" matches makes them not finals? They seem to fit all the relevant criteria: this is a final ten, where the top six get one of these supposedly too advantageous weeks off. I don't like the idea of the knockout final eight regardless - I happen to find the "double chance" a perfectly reasonable way of giving the higher-placing teams an advantage - but this is a final ten giving advantage to the top 6 and significantly disadvantaging 7th-10th.

 

[Fyfetheknife]

Here is my system and I don't think there's any flaws in it. Here's why:
1. Keeps the normal 4 week finals system.
2. Rewards teams 1-4 with home finals
3. Doesn't give teams double chances
4. Higher the position means an easier opponent
5. Allows for bigger chances of upsets and 5-8 making prelims
6. The week 1 winners get a week off going into the prelims, if it's 1st and 2nd it make sense however if 8th or 7th wins it rewards them for beating a tougher opponent.
7. Teams 3-6 get a week off in week 1 but have to play a fresh winner from week 1
8. All teams get a bye

 

[Furn2]

View attachment 74895
Here is my system and I don't think there's any flaws in it. Here's why:
1. Keeps the normal 4 week finals system.
2. Rewards teams 1-4 with home finals
3. Doesn't give teams double chances
4. Higher the position means an easier opponent
5. Allows for bigger chances of upsets and 5-8 making prelims
6. The week 1 winners get a week off going into the prelims, if it's 1st and 2nd it make sense however if 8th or 7th wins it rewards them for beating a tougher opponent.
7. Teams 3-6 get a week off in week 1 but have to play a fresh winner from week 1
8. All teams get a bye

That's just a straight knock out.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

View attachment 74895
Here is my system and I don't think there's any flaws in it. Here's why:
1. Keeps the normal 4 week finals system.
2. Rewards teams 1-4 with home finals
3. Doesn't give teams double chances
4. Higher the position means an easier opponent
5. Allows for bigger chances of upsets and 5-8 making prelims
6. The week 1 winners get a week off going into the prelims, if it's 1st and 2nd it make sense however if 8th or 7th wins it rewards them for beating a tougher opponent.
7. Teams 3-6 get a week off in week 1 but have to play a fresh winner from week 1
8. All teams get a bye

May as well tank into seventh or eight spot, rest up players during the home and away, and make the first week of the finals your "GF"....beating team one or two and buying yourself onto the soft side of the draw with a fortnight off and a game against a higher ranked side who has only had a week off.

Yeap. That will work. A system that does not encourage you to finish top of the ladder. Essendon only has to beat teams placed 2nd and fourth to make the GF

 

[Furn2]

The biggest flaw with a straight knock out is that there's 10 teams in vic that all use the same ground for finals.

Let's say hawks are on top and 2-4 are interstate teams. Essensdon are 5th won't they want to fall to 8th to play at the G ? It's too open to manipulation.

If everyone had a unique home ground like the NFL then maybe.

 

[swiftdog]

Its fine as it is. Top four deserve an advantage. They spend 22 weeks earning it. Teams can still win from 5th-8th, the only reason they dont is because they are not the best team. What they can do is cause havoc with the top four though by knocking them off in the Semis, so even if they dont win flags they can still influence who does.

Arguably its a huge gulf between 4th and 5th that can sometimes come down to the narrowest of wins or marginal percentage, but shit happens. Thats no difference to the huge gulf between 8th and 9th.

Every spot on the ladder is better than the one immediately below it (except GF is a lock at MCG, thats a whole other boring topic) and thats why I like this system

1. home final against the weakest side in the four and doudle chance
2. home finals against the second weakest side in the four and double chance
3. away final against second side and double chance, home final if they lose
4 away final against top team and double chance, home final if they lose
5 home final against 8th side, then away if they win
6 home final against 7th side, then away if they win
7 away final against 6th and away all the way through Sep
8 away against 5th and away all the way through Sep

Is it really though? You've only spoken about week 1 of the finals. If everything goes to plan as expected then week 3 looks like:

1st versus 3rd
2nd versus 4th

How is finishing 1st better than finishing 2nd in this scenario? 1st has a cut-throat elimination final against a better team than 2nd on the ladder. Sure 1st has the easier game than 2nd in week 1 but that doesn't matter because if they lose it doesn't really matter.

So in summary:
If you finish 1st you get to play an easier opponent in week 1 but if you lose you're still in, but then if you win your first elimination match is against a harder opponent than the team that finished below you. You better not lose though, because your chance at a double chance is gone because the team that you're coming up against already cashed-in on the double chance.

I don't know how people can bitch and moan about the fixture being unfair and then turn a blind-eye to the very obvious flaws in the finals system. Also, home-ground advantage is bullshit when 10 of the 18 teams all come from the same state, and even more so when only 4 clubs are MCG tenants (I think) and yet every Melbourne-based final is scheduled at the MCG when possible. Home-ground advantage can't be guaranteed and in some cases the lower-ranked team will technically have home ground advantage. For example, if Collingwood somehow manages to get into 8th this year and North Melbourne manage to the fight their way to 5th, who has home ground advantage when the game is played at the MCG? North because they finished 5th or Collingwood because they play most of their games there?

Why should they have to prove themselves by beating the same team more than once...?

You obviously don't watch NBA, NHL, MLB the ashes etc..

Not sure how you can claim most team sports don't do this... most teams have to beat the same team MORE than twice.

You're just arguing semantics here. An NBA/NHL/MLB equivalent would be if a team loses their best of seven series and then is still alive in the playoffs. The theory behind a 7 game series and a 'knockout' style system is completely different. I'm not sure why it's a 7 game series rather than 3, 5, or 9 etc but my guess is that by playing multiple games within a playoff series it allows the best team to progress in the finals/playoffs. Just because one team is better than another doesn't necessarily mean that the worse team is incapable of beating the better team on any given day and playing multiple matches allows for this eventuality to occur. Of course, the theory behind a knockout finals series is about performing on the day when the pressure's on. Whether you prefer one style of finals over the other is purely personal opinion I think.

The AFL's 'knockout' finals system is compromised by awarding a double-chance, in theory, to the teams 3rd and 4th on the ladder (of course, 3rd and 4th have been known to beat 1st and 2nd in week 1). It's not a double-chance if you win in week 1 and lose in week 3.

 

[swiftdog]

The biggest flaw with a straight knock out is that there's 10 teams in vic that all use the same ground for finals.

Let's say hawks are on top and 2-4 are interstate teams. Essensdon are 5th won't they want to fall to 8th to play at the G ? It's too open to manipulation.

If everyone had a unique home ground like the NFL then maybe.

You can't honestly believe that teams are going to lose on purpose heading into a finals series?

Not to mention hypothetically that North Melbourne are in 6th and Richmond are in 7th. So Essendon will have to leap frog those two clubs down the ladder all so they can come up against the top-ranked team and don't have to travel. But what happens if North and Richmond don't want to travel either so they want to fall to 8th to play against the best team, that being Hawthorn? Do Essendon honestly think they can out-tank North and Richmond? No team in their right mind are going to purposely tank games to avoid playing interstate. Especially when they're probably just going to have to play interstate in the prelims if positions 2-4 are occupied by interstate teams anyway. It's blatant stupidity.

 

[Furn2]

You can't honestly believe that teams are going to lose on purpose heading into a finals series?

Not to mention hypothetically that North Melbourne are in 6th and Richmond are in 7th. So Essendon will have to leap frog those two clubs down the ladder all so they can come up against the top-ranked team and don't have to travel. But what happens if North and Richmond don't want to travel either so they want to fall to 8th to play against the best team, that being Hawthorn? Do Essendon honestly think they can out-tank North and Richmond? No team in their right mind are going to purposely tank games to avoid playing interstate. Especially when they're probably just going to have to play interstate in the prelims if positions 2-4 are occupied by interstate teams anyway. It's blatant stupidity.

No team in their right mind wouldn't.

Teams will do what ever gives them the best chance.

If your options are:

1.Rest your whole side in last rd, play a home final fully rested, then play interstate if you win.

2.Play your full strength side risking injury, play interstate with no break, then play interstate again if you win.

I know which one id be doing. Even if other teams out tank you, you still get a weeks rest.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Is it really though? You've only spoken about week 1 of the finals. If everything goes to plan as expected then week 3 looks like:

1st versus 3rd
2nd versus 4th

How is finishing 1st better than finishing 2nd in this scenario? 1st has a cut-throat elimination final against a better team than 2nd on the ladder. Sure 1st has the easier game than 2nd in week 1 but that doesn't matter because if they lose it doesn't really matter..

To make a GF from 1st and 2nd you have to beat both 3rd and fourth (if all goes to ladder position and you want a week off). Then beat each other to win the flag. 1st get the slightly easier PF game in week 1 hence the significantly better chance of getting that valuabkle week off and home game all the way through to the GF. Cant be fairer than that. In an 18 team competition second is almost as equally deserving of a goob bunk-up as first. Ask any senior coch what they'd prefer if their team was top, playing fourth in a double chance game then third in the prelim (if they win), or vice versa. Most would prefer the status quo.

 

[mcgarnacle]

playing for top 4 and a double chance/Wk 2 bye is more important now than ever. one of the major advantages of a higher seed that should exist but doesn't for the Vic clubs is the variable of the match up and home ground advantage. You could have two VIC clubs finish 1st and 8th and have a play off at the MCG with the top seed receiving little reward for their regular season.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

playing for top 4 and a double chance/Wk 2 bye is more important now than ever. one of the major advantages of a higher seed that should exist but doesn't for the Vic clubs is the variable of the match up and home ground advantage. You could have two VIC clubs finish 1st and 8th and have a play off at the MCG with the top seed receiving little reward for their regular season.

Theres no such thing as home ground advantage. Its home state advantage. Even then its grossly exaggerated as evidenced by the number of GF's won by non Vic sides at the MCG in the past 20 years.

 

[Young Gun #6]

You're just arguing semantics here. An NBA/NHL/MLB equivalent would be if a team loses their best of seven series and then is still alive in the playoffs. The theory behind a 7 game series and a 'knockout' style system is completely different. I'm not sure why it's a 7 game series rather than 3, 5, or 9 etc but my guess is that by playing multiple games within a playoff series it allows the best team to progress in the finals/playoffs. Just because one team is better than another doesn't necessarily mean that the worse team is incapable of beating the better team on any given day and playing multiple matches allows for this eventuality to occur. Of course, the theory behind a knockout finals series is about performing on the day when the pressure's on. Whether you prefer one style of finals over the other is purely personal opinion I think.

The AFL's 'knockout' finals system is compromised by awarding a double-chance, in theory, to the teams 3rd and 4th on the ladder (of course, 3rd and 4th have been known to beat 1st and 2nd in week 1). It's not a double-chance if you win in week 1 and lose in week 3.

Stopped reading after this... How can you say a 7 game series is the same as a a 1 game series. BOTH cases there are double chances, in a 7 game series you have 4 chances... Not sure how you can say the majority of team sports don't have double chances. If you really think that an nba 7 series is the equivalent to a 1 game final then you are saying that if an nba, nhl, mlb team could met the same team (possibly resulting in 14 matches) THEN ONLY THAT is the equivalent of the afl's double chance.

 

[hench]

I'd rather a 34 week season where you play each side home and away and team with most points win the comp.

 

[swiftdog]

No team in their right mind wouldn't.

Teams will do what ever gives them the best chance.

If your options are:

1.Rest your whole side in last rd, play a home final fully rested, then play interstate if you win.

2.Play your full strength side risking injury, play interstate with no break, then play interstate again if you win.

I know which one id be doing. Even if other teams out tank you, you still get a weeks rest.

OK, my impression was that you were suggesting that teams will tank the last 3 or so rounds of the season to move down from 5th to 8th or whatever. I can definitely see a team "resting" players for the last round but it happens already IMO. The Fremantle case against St.Kilda last year is infamous and I'm pretty sure Collingwood rested players heading into the 2011 series when getting demolished by Geelong in round 23. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what the supporters were saying as an excuse for the 100-odd point loss. If a team rests playesrs for the finals series it's pretty easy to flip an argument either way. Either:

1) We rested players so that we lost and got a final at 'home'. I.E. We don't have to travel
2) We rested players because we have an interstate knockout final the next week and we wanted players to be fresh for that.

"Resting" players in the final round doesn't necessarily depend on the possibility of a 'home' (or non-away) final the next week.

To make a GF from 1st and 2nd you have to beat both 3rd and fourth (if all goes to ladder position and you want a week off). Then beat each other to win the flag. 1st get the slightly easier PF game in week 1 hence the significantly better chance of getting that valuabkle week off and home game all the way through to the GF. Cant be fairer than that. In an 18 team competition second is almost as equally deserving of a goob bunk-up as first. Ask any senior coch what they'd prefer if their team was top, playing fourth in a double chance game then third in the prelim (if they win), or vice versa. Most would prefer the status quo.

Yes it can. How about if you finish 1st and you beat 8th and 4th you make the grand final?

One that comes to mind is the 2003 finals series. Collingwood had to beat 3rd (Brisbane) and then 1st (Port) to make it to the grand final. Brisbane had to beat 6th (Adelaide) and then 4th (Sydney) to make it to the grand final. You can spin whatever you like but clearly Collingwood had to beat (not just play, but actually beat) the tougher teams to make it to the grand final despite finishing higher than Brisbane on the ladder.

At the very least you need to realise that the current system is contentious at best. Pure knockout systems rectify this with basic seeding or brackets. Paths to the grand final are as follows for every team under the OP's system versus the current system (in a likely results format with a best-case scenario regarding a specific team's matches):

1st - beat 4th then 3rd (current), beat 8th then 4th (OP)
2nd - beat 3rd then 4th (current), beat 7th then 3rd (OP)
3rd - beat 2nd then 4th (current), beat 6th then 2nd (OP)
4th - beat 1st then 3rd (current), beat 5th then 1st (OP)
5th - beat 8th, 4th then 2nd (current), beat 4th then 1st (OP)
6th - beat 7th, 3rd then 1st (current), beat 3rd then 2nd/1st depending on bracket or seeding (OP)
7th - beat 6th, 3rd then 1st (current), beat 10th, 1st/2nd then 1st/2nd depending on bracket or seeding (OP)
8th - beat 5th, 4th then 2nd (current), beat 9th, 1st/2nd then 1st/2nd depending on bracket or seeding (OP)
9th - beat 8th, 1st/2nd then 1st/2nd depending on bracket or seeding (OP)
10th - beat 7th, 1st/2nd then 1st/2nd depending on bracket or seeding (OP)

The knockout style can be adjusted to either a bracket (NBA or Grand Slam tennis style) that can be followed like a flow chart or a seeding style where the highest rank seed always plays against the remaining lowest ranked seed (old NHL style). The knockout style shifts the focus to making the top 2 rather than the top 4 which is fine by me. Basically your teams 7th-10th have to first win a 'wildcard' match against relatively easy opposition to make the finals and then likely knock off the two top teams in order to win the flag. The only difference between 3rd - 6th is home ground advantage which is contentious at best. Better to be contentious between 3rd - 6th though than from 1st - 4th like the current finals system. Teams 1st and 2nd have a clear advantage as they have a week off over their first finals opponent and their opponent has just played an elimination wildcard/finals match the week before. Not to mention that it's likely that 1st and 2nd are much better teams than 7th and 8th anyway, if they can't beat lowly teams like that with a week off then they don't deserve to be in the finals anyway.

Yet, people are so afraid of seeing the top teams being eliminated first...

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

OK, my impression was that you were suggesting that teams will tank the last 3 or so rounds of the season to move down from 5th to 8th or whatever. I can definitely see a team "resting" players for the last round but it happens already IMO. The Fremantle case against St.Kilda last year is infamous and I'm pretty sure Collingwood rested players heading into the 2011 series when getting demolished by Geelong in round 23. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what the supporters were saying as an excuse for the 100-odd point loss. If a team rests playesrs for the finals series it's pretty easy to flip an argument either way. Either:

1) We rested players so that we lost and got a final at 'home'. I.E. We don't have to travel
2) We rested players because we have an interstate knockout final the next week and we wanted players to be fresh for that.

"Resting" players in the final round doesn't necessarily depend on the possibility of a 'home' (or non-away) final the next week.




Yes it can. How about if you finish 1st and you beat 8th and 4th you make the grand final?..

You can make it easier that the current system but not fairer, To be the best you have to beat the best.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

One that comes to mind is the 2003 finals series. Collingwood had to beat 3rd (Brisbane) and then 1st (Port) to make it to the grand final. Brisbane had to beat 6th (Adelaide) and then 4th (Sydney) to make it to the grand final. ...

Collingwood got the benefit of a week off for beating Brisbane. We both played two top four teams in the lead up to the GF ..they had to play an extra game though while we earned a week off.

 

[swiftdog]

You can make it easier that the current system but not fairer, To be the best you have to beat the best.

How is easier not fairer? If you finish higher on the ladder you deserve an easier run to the grand final than any team that finishes below you. That's the entire point of finishing higher up the ladder.

Collingwood got the benefit of a week off for beating Brisbane. We both played two top four teams in the lead up to the GF ..they had to play an extra game though while we earned a week off.

Both teams still needed two wins to make it to the grand final. How come Brisbane were allowed to lose in the finals series but Sydney wasn't? Brisbane needed 3 chances to get their required two wins (as a top 4 team in the current system) to make the grand final, Sydney only had only 2 opportunities to get their required two wins.

The double chance in the finals series only serves as an opportunity for TV to broadcast an extra 2 kinda-finals matches between top 4 teams. We all know money-making is at the top of the AFL's agenda, not integrity or fairness.

 

[Matt Stevic]

It happened in the NRL a few years ago.

And what a glorious day that was

 

[walhawk]

When 8th beats 1st the race for 8th the next season will suddenly be a hell of a lot more interesting.

At the moment 7th and 8th are basically a battle to see who can be ritually slaughtered in rounds 1 or 2 of the finals.

Wouldn't 8th have a much greater chance of being slaughtered by 1st rather than 5th?
Lots of crazy talk on this thread.

 

[Clark G]

It did do. Happened in 2009 to mean that the 8th team went to the final. They changed crap round to the 1 vs 4 5th vs 8th 2 vs 7th 3 vs 6th AFL system style after that and also New Zealand making it from 6th and knocking the Storm out who were top after being beaten in the first final.

You are referring to the old McIntrye Final 8 system that the AFL and NRL used to use where the 6th placed team could get a second chance yet the 1st placed team could be knocked out after one loss. The current final 8 system both comps use is better as that can't happen. But you can still finish 4th and get a second chance yet the 1st placed team can be knocked out after one loss. Bottom line = double chance finals systems are flawed and must be disposed of.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

How is easier not fairer? If you finish higher on the ladder you deserve an easier run to the grand final than any team that finishes below you. That's the entire point of finishing higher up the ladder..

First gets an easier run in the current set-up. Yours makes it too easy. May as well abolish finals and award the premiership to the team on top of the ladder.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Both teams still needed two wins to make it to the grand final. How come Brisbane were allowed to lose in the finals series but Sydney wasn't?.

Sydney was allowed to lose and they would have missed out on the week off if they did. But they won. They beat Port. The top side. Having beaten the top team they took their side of the finals draw.