The double chance - a curse on finals systems since 1902

[pjcrows]

Top six would be a curse on home and away system after the end of June

Not if we have 3 tiers... but that's another thread!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not if we have 3 tiers... but that's another thread!

Which would be a curse on the entire comp!

 

[Clark G]

Wrong 1st and 2nd had double chances under that system.

Wrong they did not. They only had the double chance in the event that they lost in week one. If they win, there is no double chance. Using last year's season as a guide, Hawthorn would have been knocked out after one loss had Geelong beaten them in the PF.

 

[gigantor77]

No double chances.
Let 1st pick the team it wants to play (anyone from 2 to 8), then let 2nd choose it's team, and so on.

 

[Damon_3388]

Top six would be a curse on home and away system after the end of June. All the interesting "eight point games" we are watching between teams placed 6th through to 12th would be just a bunch of dead rubbers. And bottom teams would start tanking in mid May

Play less games then.

There's no real need IMO for teams to play each other any more than once in the H&A season. I think we can get a good enough picture of who's good and who isn't after 17 games played. There's no need for a further five to pad out schedules and wallets.

 

[LANGFORDandSON]

The current finals system is perfect. Leave it alone.

I have a sneaking suspicion he doesn't hold the balance of power to decide the future of the AFL but I have been wrong before.

 

[Bulldocker]

Play less games then.

There's no real need IMO for teams to play each other any more than once in the H&A season. I think we can get a good enough picture of who's good and who isn't after 17 games played. There's no need for a further five to pad out schedules and wallets.

Oh just great, there goes another 5 chances we might have for Sydney to ever play a H&A game against us at Subi!

 

[Damon_3388]

Oh just great, there goes another 5 chances we might have for Sydney to ever play a H&A game against us at Subi!

They can do it every second year without fail with a simple 17 game schedule.

The number of teams we have and number of games needing to be played creates much more inequality in the schedule than any imagined or perceived AFL bias or favouritism does.

 

[Matthew2708]

Oh just great, there goes another 5 chances we might have for Sydney to ever play a H&A game against us at Subi!

This century between Sydney and Fremantle, there has been 13 home and away games scheduled at the SCG but only the 4 at Subiaco Oval/Patersons Stadium. Strange!!!

 

[The Swans Blog]

My proposal:

Top 6: automatically qualify for finals, receive a week off
7-10: play two wildcard matches to determine final two spots

Then proceed to a seeded knockout final 8 system over three weeks.

something similar to this was suggested, but would never go ahead.
american sports have divisions and conferences, europeans have tiered leagues with return legs and aussies have single/double chance games.

 

[The Swans Blog]

This century between Sydney and Fremantle, there has been 13 home and away games scheduled at the SCG but only the 4 at Subiaco Oval/Patersons Stadium. Strange!!!

And we always play Eagles @ Pattersons. I know it doesn't balance out, but it would be nice to have the venue change every 2nd year.

 

[PapaJ]

I actually like the OP's idea or something like it - it's basically the NFL type system which I reckon is OK. Gives the lower ranked teams the chance to pull off a Cinderella story, but provides some advantage to the top teams. In the current system, with all its quirks and the fitness levels requied etc. the advantage to the top 4 is too great.

One tweak I'd like, in a proposed or current system, I'd like to see the minor-premiers rewarded more. Currently there's nothing to be gained finishing 1st over 2nd which I find really strange.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

it's still BS everyone recognises those that finish top 4 have put in the hard yards all season.

you can argue teams make finals off of easy draws (the crows this year are a great example) but not top 4.

rather then give a team finishing 8th the same chance as the team finishing first, just make finals top 4.

there is currently a 6 game gap between 1st and 8th that's massive top 4 though? it's just 1 game.

you can point to 1 or 2 games as easy or vice versa NOT 6!

nobody can seriously say richmond or collingwood (both are also 6 games behind the leaders) have done enough to warrant an equal chance as say geelong or Sydney.

Don't like the double chance you must reduce numbers in the finalist 6 at most, preferably 4. If you want an equal chance you have one task, finish higher on the ladder.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Play less games then.

There's no real need IMO for teams to play each other any more than once in the H&A season. I think we can get a good enough picture of who's good and who isn't after 17 games played. There's no need for a further five to pad out schedules and wallets.

Aint gunna happen so no point speculating.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

you can argue teams make finals off of easy draws (the crows this year are a great example) but not top 4.

Crows 2012.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Crows 2012.

they lost 5 games all year only the gold coast can be counted as a gimmie as derbies are always a close match.

 

[Father Jack]

All anyone in favour of a straight knock-out finals series has to do is not watch the two qualifying finals. Simple.

 

[cammo78]

Crows 2012.

I'd have also said Port in 2013 (considering they received the Bulldogs' "bottom four" draw despite having finished fifth bottom in 2012), but they have more than franked their form this season so it's arguable they'd have made the finals regardless.

 

[Furn2]

wild cards win the superbowl all the time. giants in 07' and packers in 10'.

8th seed has beaten top seed a few times in nba. spurs lost to memphis few years back and philadelphia beat chicago. (but it's march harder in nba because when you play a best of 7 series, more often than not the better team comes out on top)

team finishing 3rd nearly won champs league last year.

these are underdog stories we just don't see in AFL.

Different games though, like rugby league, possession in those games is essentially shared, meaning the games are inherently closer. In AFL you must win possession and use it well so the better sides are more likely to win. In soccer scores are so low that you can dominate and lose to one error or great play.

 

[Bulldocker]

The real tainting of the system is the artificial supposed "blockbusters" every year. The big 4 vic clubs have to play each other twice, two derbies, two showdowns, two nsw and two qld derbies........ what a load of crap! Then every year we get this strange twist because of that where a bottom four club can still get a nightmare draw the following season. What hope do they have?

If the top six from this year played each other twice next season and all other clubs once, then the middle six each twice plus once for the rest, and the same scenario for the bottom six (still a 22 game season) - suddenly we would provide a real chance for the cellar-dwellers to lift themselves up, more games would be likely to be cliffhangers and there would be "real" blockbusters. And the cream would still rise to the top by finals time.

And why should the non power clubs in Victoria be so disadvantaged by the current system? I remember a few years back when Saints and Bullies were about the most powerful onfield teams going around, yet the Tigers, Pies, Blues and Bombers still had to have their twice yearly meetings. What the hell for? Gate receipts are not everything surely?

Not in favour of cutting back the final 8 though. The top four always end up fighting it out. But it still always adds extra interest to see a club on the rise (like Port last year) getting a taste of finals glory. Leave that bit alone I reckon.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The real tainting of the system is the artificial supposed "blockbusters" every year. The big 4 vic clubs have to play each other twice, two derbies, two showdowns, two nsw and two qld derbies........ what a load of crap! Then every year we get this strange twist because of that where a bottom four club can still get a nightmare draw the following season. What hope do they have?

If the top six from this year played each other twice next season and all other clubs once, then the middle six each twice plus once for the rest, and the same scenario for the bottom six (still a 22 game season) - suddenly we would provide a real chance for the cellar-dwellers to lift themselves up, more games would be likely to be cliffhangers and there would be "real" blockbusters. And the cream would still rise to the top by finals time.

And why should the non power clubs in Victoria be so disadvantaged by the current system? I remember a few years back when Saints and Bullies were about the most powerful onfield teams going around, yet the Tigers, Pies, Blues and Bombers still had to have their twice yearly meetings. What the hell for? Gate receipts are not everything surely?

Not in favour of cutting back the final 8 though. The top four always end up fighting it out. But it still always adds extra interest to see a club on the rise (like Port last year) getting a taste of finals glory. Leave that bit alone I reckon.

Or a rolling draw. Your suggestion manufactures a closer competition than is neccessary by giving bottom teams easy games while the top teams have to smash it out against each other. Just play the same approximate number of games against every side over a 3-4 year period. The five teams you played twice last year are differnet to the five this year and the five next year. And then it starts again. In any given year one team may luck out with a good draw but it will average out over time.

 

[Slawk]

What's with people complaining about a system BECAUSE it rewards the teams that play better all year?!?

I love this system.
Every spot in the 8 improves with ladder position with the varying factors of opponent position, home finals and double chances.

Doesn't that just make the other 22 games more important? Isn't that a good thing?

Also - it's not just the system making it hard for teams finished 5-8. The teams that finished 1-4 are generally better teams - maybe that's why they win the semis 9 times out of 10!

 

[Slawk]

Also to OP saying sports outside Australia don't have second chances - often 1st plays 8th in a best of 5 or 7 game series. Seems like second chances to me.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wrong they did not. They only had the double chance in the event that they lost in week one. If they win, there is no double chance. Using last year's season as a guide, Hawthorn would have been knocked out after one loss had Geelong beaten them in the PF.

Theres a double chance in week one. Derp.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yes!!!!

Right now we have a system where teams 5-8 are just making up the numbers and elimination finals and the entire second week of finals are diminished in value. Even prelim finals of late even been cracking games have still become way more predictable.

The downside of above is that 7-10 would be making up the numbers and that 9 and 10 get to play finals, which in some years will be pretty awful teams. But the upsides are worth it. It also means if 9 and 10 are awful they are gone after a week. If 7 and 8 scrape in out of form and a team like Richmond now finish 9th they can wipe them out and we can have 8 decent enough teams in the final 3 weeks. I love the positives:

- Top 6 legitimate shots at winning the flag all needing 3 wins in a row, all getting 1 week off at the same time
- 3 weeks and 7 games worth of high quality finals
- A distinct advantage for the top 2 still yet 3, 4, 5, 6 only have to beat one of each other and then go upset 2nd or 1st which is exactly what they need to do now.

One of the biggest problems I have now is that the qualifying finals at the start of September are more relevant to winning the flag than the prelim final which sees a team have a week off resting up to take on a side that's at a great disadvantage.

I've suggested this system before but it.only really works in my mind if the H&A fixture is reduced to 17 games, play each team once.

I still prefer the current system though, each team has an advantage over the team below them 1st & 2nd get home finals and double chance/week off, 3rd & 4th get double chance/week off, 5th & 6th get home final, 7th & 8th get to play finals and nothing else. Creating a purely knockout system removes the incentive to perform in H&A all you have to do is qualify for finals and gear yourself for September.

What the OP failed to mention was that in most other overseas comps they operate under a divisional/conference system which is different to our one comp ladder. In the NFL for instance all teams in playoffs (excluding wildcard teams) are technically equal with each other as they are all divisional champs therefore a knockout system makes more sense. Other comps which have a similar H&A structure to ours like the EPL don't even have finals however they have a true H&A system to determine a champion and the final is a part of our sport so will never revert to pure round robin comp.