Giving the top teams a reward for a good season makes sense. However given that there are 5 extra games which may not be balanced, there could be a 1-2 game difference in terms of the fixture in favour of one team or other.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The double chance - a curse on finals systems since 1902
- Thread starter Chiz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Brisbane only won one game to get to the prelim, as did Sydney.
How can you tell that an easier route to a PF via an easier QF is more valuable than an easier PF? It's all opinion and conjecture. There's no way to tell what is easier. The simple fact that I can make an argument such as this discredits the current finals system. Basic seeding eliminates this. What about those seasons where there appears to be 3 teams ahead of the pack and the fourth team is perceived to be making up the numbers also? Is the easier route to the prelim final really more advantageous than playing off against that also-ran in the prelim final?
Play. I meant to say play
History will show that teams that lose QF's rarely win the premiership. Its there for all to see. 2003 is the last time off the top of my head, there may be other cases but I'm sure you find the premier has usually won their QF. Hence an easier QF to increase the odds stands to reason.
Edit, just double checked and since 2000 when the finals system changed there have only been three instances of a team losing the GF and then going on to win the GF. 2003 Bris lost to Collingwood then won the GF agaisnt the same team. And 2005 and 2006 where Sydney and West Coast played four finals against each other, all will margins of less than a goal.
I'm pretty sure that 1st will have a better QF winning record than 2nd, too. And easier wins with some bigger margins.
So history says its easier to win the flag by winning the QF and the week off. Logic says its easier to win the fourth team than the third team in the QF. Ipso facto, top spot is the place to be.
Last edited:
I reckon one day some side will win it from outside the top 4 but it needs the right circumstance - usually a bunch of injuries during the season get everyone back before the finals and get on a roll.
The only team in the last 20 years or so to get close to this scenario is Geelong in 1993. They played in the GF in 92 and 94 and missed the finals in 93 on %. But check there run home in 93:
At Rd 16 they were 10th
Rd 17 beat Collingwood (6th on the ladder when the Cats played them) by 8 points
Rd 18 beat NM (4th) by 94 points
Rd 19 beat Haw (5th) by 82 points
Rd 20 bye
Rd 21 beat Ess premiers (2nd) by 32 points
Rd 22 beat West Coast in Perth (6th) by 20 points
They finished 7th and missed the finals only on % by 4%. Now don't tell me anyone would have wanted to play them in the finals on that sort of form!!!!!
The only team in the last 20 years or so to get close to this scenario is Geelong in 1993. They played in the GF in 92 and 94 and missed the finals in 93 on %. But check there run home in 93:
At Rd 16 they were 10th
Rd 17 beat Collingwood (6th on the ladder when the Cats played them) by 8 points
Rd 18 beat NM (4th) by 94 points
Rd 19 beat Haw (5th) by 82 points
Rd 20 bye
Rd 21 beat Ess premiers (2nd) by 32 points
Rd 22 beat West Coast in Perth (6th) by 20 points
They finished 7th and missed the finals only on % by 4%. Now don't tell me anyone would have wanted to play them in the finals on that sort of form!!!!!
Imagine if they had actually played a full 22 games that season. Not sure why it was 20 game season.
The top 5 is pretty strong this year. Port or Freo could give it a shake from 5th.
Four of the top five is pretty strong. Geelong no chance.
(it was a 20 game season because with Adelaide joining there were an odd number of teams hence one team had a bye every week)
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #159
Some interesting discussion.
To further support a change in the system, here is what I believe is an appropriate set of criteria for the AFL finals system:
Once again, here's the system I proposed in the OP:
Of those 7 criteria, I believe my proposed system does better than the current system on 5 points - the other two points are satisfied by both systems.
To further support a change in the system, here is what I believe is an appropriate set of criteria for the AFL finals system:
- approximately half of the teams should be included to maximise the worth of the H&A season
- at any point in the finals, a higher-seeded team should never be disadvantaged relative to a lower-seeded team
- the benefits of finishing higher on the ladder should be incremental for each position, but sufficient to incentivise finishing higher
- minimise the possibility of repeated finals between the same opponents
- maximise the number of finals where teams are as evenly matched as possible to ensure greater uncertainty
- the result of one game (e.g. elimination, double chance) should be independent of other results
- maximise the chance of the best four teams (not necessarily the top four) making the preliminary final, and the best two teams making the grand final
Once again, here's the system I proposed in the OP:
- knockout final 8 where highest seed always plays lowest seed
- 7-10 play wildcard matches to determine the last two spots, while 1-6 have a week off
Of those 7 criteria, I believe my proposed system does better than the current system on 5 points - the other two points are satisfied by both systems.
Bulldocker
Club Legend
Not opposed to that either. Just FFS get rid of these "must have" so-called blockbusters so that every club is on the same footing. It is ridiculous to advocate "equalisation" in the league, yet disqualify clubs like Bullies/Saints/Roos from the massive pay days and TV exposure simply because their membership base is smaller and somehow not important enough to outweigh a match like Coll/Ess played twice per year even if those two were at the foot of the ladder???
top 16 knockout
1 v 16, 2 v 15, etc.
first place actually gets an advantage over 2nd (playing 4th team, not 3rd in a knockout prelim, whilst second normally gets the 4th best team in the prelim). The higher you finish the greater disparity between you and an opponent in the first two weeks especially - meaning teams will fight for as high a position as possible. Season alive to all teams til the last week or two. Reduces the inequity of a flawed fixture, which can cost a team finals. Straight ko means every match has sudden death riding on it. and an upset means you're out! Bring it to every game or go home.
1 v 16, 2 v 15, etc.
first place actually gets an advantage over 2nd (playing 4th team, not 3rd in a knockout prelim, whilst second normally gets the 4th best team in the prelim). The higher you finish the greater disparity between you and an opponent in the first two weeks especially - meaning teams will fight for as high a position as possible. Season alive to all teams til the last week or two. Reduces the inequity of a flawed fixture, which can cost a team finals. Straight ko means every match has sudden death riding on it. and an upset means you're out! Bring it to every game or go home.
Do you really believe that though? Whichever of those teams that finish 5th will then have to win an elimination final before travelling to play the other side (or Sydney) which they'd be a shot in for sure, but they win that and it's likely the play a rested up Hawthorn (or Geel). Even if they win that prelim as massive underdogs they then have to back it up again in the grand final.
If a team ever does win a flag from 5th or even 6th I think it will be a Victorian team who are fortunate enough to draw all Victorian finals and then have something funky happen in the other half of the draw.
If the ladder happened to end up like this: 1. Haw, 2. Syd, 3. Geel, 4. Freo, 5. Port, 6. North
Then North could win an elim final, back it up and win a semi against a beat up Geel, then have a big upset against Hawthorn. Whilst in the other half of the draw Freo have an upset win over Sydney in the prelim and then play in the grand final also without a weeks rest and with traveling 2 of the first 3 weeks of finals and then travelling in the grand final. Without that second upset it would mean North would have to beat the top 3 teams in succession where 2 of them have had weeks off in that time period. That's a handicap unlikely to ever be beaten.
The thing is the current system reinforces the difference between top 4 and 5-8. It makes it so important and the battling to be at that higher level seems to become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. So we don't get any upsets in the second week of finals. But even if a 5-8 team won a semi and got in to a prelim they are so up against it.
The best system, which satisfies everyone of those criteria is the system you have mentioned. That is my system too. A knockout final-10 over 4 weeks.
Double chances are abhorrent. They go against the very concept of what finals are about, which is performing on the day.
The best way to explain why double chances are not needed is this:
In our current system, the top-4 are not guaranteed a double chance. They are guaranteed EITHER a double chance OR a week off. One or the other, but not both. All of the top-4 have a 50% chance of using a double chance, or a 50% chance of having a week off.
If you take the 50% chance of using a double chance and add it to the 50% chance of having a week off, you make it a 100% guaranteed chance of having a week off. That way, you don't need a double chance.
A 100% guaranteed week off (but in a knockout situation) is mathematically identical, to the current system of a 50% chance of using a double chance and a 50% chance of having a week off.
The NFL use this system, where the best four teams in the 12-team play-offs receive a 100% guaranteed week off. By doing this, it totally absolves the need for a second chance.
Semantics Dan. if you win your QF you dont need a second chance. All teams in the top four a guaranteed a second chance if they lose in the first final.
Theres nothing abhorrent about that. Its no different to a best of seven baseball World Series. Teams get four chances there.
Theres nothing abhorrent about that. Its no different to a best of seven baseball World Series. Teams get four chances there.
It's not the same thing. The baseball playoffs operate under a knockout final-8 system. Each play-off series is knockout.
If you are given a week off at the start of the finals series (i.e a 100% guaranteed week off) you don't need a double chance. The double chance is basically a "50% chance of getting a second chance, and a 50% chance of, instead, having a week off"
The guaranteed 100% week off totally absolves the need for a second chance.
But it's the principle of the thing more than anything. I hate the concept of losing and getting another chance. Perform on the day. That's your job. We all love knockout finals because of what's at stake.
But is that due to the system or that a team that finishes on top is in all likelihood a better team?
Both first and second have won a total of 10 qualifying finals each. As you have used past results to make an argument so will I. "So history says it's easier to win the flag by winning the QF and the week off" - Both first and second place have done this an equal amount of times since 2000. As you say, logic says it's easier to win against the fourth team than the third team. Therefore, a mixture of your logic and historical results suggests that finishing 2nd is better than finishing 1st if a team wants to make the grand final, as second will have an easier opponent than first and both 1st and 2nd are winning their QF's at the same rate.
The fact that we can have an argument like this suggests that the finals system is flawed. There's complete transparency and fairness in seeding teams and playing off in that way.
Anyway, Dan explains this much better than I can.
I think a team from Adelaide / Sydney / Victoria are probably more favoured from 5th than a Perth or Brisbane team given that a team from Perth would need to travel 3 times in a 3 week period to win with 8 hours in the air + plus airports etc. Saying that though - teams from Perth have become much better at travelling over time, and the recovery the teams go through is that much advanced on 10 years ago.
Yes so theres an advantage in finishing first and second. The week off is far more invaluable than the double chance, only three teams that have used the doubel chance have rebounded to win the flag.
First is marginally better than second spot on the ladder but theres not much in it. Ports choking in the early 2000s for example has distorted the stats somewhat.
hazzathehack
Rookie
- Mar 8, 2013
- 21
- 9
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
i was going to post the same thing. it is a major flaw.
Yes there is, but only if you lose the QF. If you win, you go straight through to the PF but you do not get a second chance should you lose that game.
Not sure why people are bothering with semantics by expalining the finals system in their own words. I think we all understand that theres only a double chance for teams who lose their QF's. Its not as if the expression "double chance" is actually written in the rule books.
Last edited:
The thing people pushing for this strasight knowck out wildcard idea are forgeting is that the Qualifying finals have been some of the best games weve seen in finals, and while the loser stays in, recent history has shown its very hard to come back and make the GF never mind win it if you lose. So they do mean something.
Do we really want to not see the Swans v Freo and Hawks v Cats in week one and replace that with a 7th v 10th and 8th v 9th blockbuster wildcard weekend ? Doesnt do it for me at all.
The current system allows for 5 of the 9 finals to potential be between top 4 teams, rather than 3 in a wildcard knockout.
Do we really want to not see the Swans v Freo and Hawks v Cats in week one and replace that with a 7th v 10th and 8th v 9th blockbuster wildcard weekend ? Doesnt do it for me at all.
The current system allows for 5 of the 9 finals to potential be between top 4 teams, rather than 3 in a wildcard knockout.
If you lose game 1 of the "Grand Final" in World Series Baseball you get a second chance. In fact you can lose the first three games and still not be declared the loser. Its no different in concept to the QF's in AFL. You get another chance despite losing a match.
Yes, there is an advantage to finishing 1st or 2nd over 3rd or 4th.
You conveniently forgot to quote the rest of my post saying that if 1st and 2nd have the same winning rate in the QF's (which they do) then technically 2nd has an easier game in PF week and therefore is a better place to finish than 1st. Now you're just selectively quoting history. "Port choked so that's why my argument isn't right". Kind of sounds like the premise of another, extremely popular, thread where reality is out of place, not the arguments that this poster is making. You either acknowledge history or you don't. You can't say that 1st is better than 2nd but the reason that results doesn't reflect this is because Port choked.
Again, there shouldn't be such an ability to debate the merits of a finals system such as what we're doing now.
I didn't forget that and mentioned in another post that one of the reasons a double-chance exists is for TV stations to broadcast 2 extra games between top 4 teams.
You're not wrong in the sense that, on average, you would expect games between top 4 teams to be "better" than a wildcard weekend. However, I, and others too apparently, would still prefer the transparency and fairness of a knockout system to what we have now. Not to mention the hilarity when a wildcard team comes in and knocks off 1st or 2nd in week 2 of the finals.
It's a completely different concept. The concept of a knockout best of 1 finals match is about performing on the day as Dan pointed out. The concept of a best of 7 series takes into account that one team might be better than another but that doesn't necessarily mean that the better team will always win every time they match-up. The theory is that after up to seven matches between the teams that the better team will have won the majority of matches while allowing for the probability that the worse team is still capable enough of winning up to 3 matches. So, in this case, teams aren't getting a second chance in the same vein as the AFL. It's not as if a team loses a best of 7 series and then is still alive in the playoffs, which would be an NBA/MLB equivalent to the AFL's double chance system.
Also, there's a reason the World Series is referred to as the "World Series" and not the "grand final". The word series implies a series of matches, i.e. more than one match where the word final implies one match a la grand final. The NBA finals (again - plural) refers to the final best of 7 series to determine the champions where the Superbowl (again - singular) refers to the final match of the NFL season to determine the champion.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,755
- 29,518
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Based on the fact that you have likely won 4-6 more games than them during the regular season, absolutely.
The double chance is reward for those teams good enough during a long, arduous season. The last thing that I want to see is some 8th placed side fluke their way through because the top team has one "off" day. If you win it from 5th-8th then you should have to do it the hard way.
Similar threads
