The double chance - a curse on finals systems since 1902

[longsuffreosupp]

Should be top 6 and top 2 should get automatic prelim final berth with week off, and the other 4 play off in a pair of semis to meet them. Trim a week off finals and add a week to the season.

AFL dislikes this

 

[SimonH]

AFL dislikes this

Finals are a money-spinner because (with a few embarrassing exceptions) people enjoy watching them. The much-debated 'double chance' matches (and let's not forget that there are 9 finals, 7 of which are knockouts) in the first week are likely to be really high quality games, and simply much more interesting than watching 1 vs 8 and 2 vs 7 where 1 and 2 have home ground advantage. (I know that way back in the dark ages of 1994-99 under the old regime, 8 was surprisingly competitive against 1, and 7 actually turned the tables on 2 a couple of times—but if you take the long view, you know what's going to happen much, much more often than not.) Back to the OP, repeat finals contests between the same two clubs are not a bad thing per se. Repeat finals contests are only a bad thing if 2 teams play each other twice in 'minor' finals. Then it gets tedious and repetitive. Luckily the cross-over system prevents it from happening here. But the fact that 2 GF opponents played each other earlier in the finals series (most memorably Syd v WCE in 2005 and 2006) just adds to the spice of a GF.

 

[D-N-R]

No it isn't. 5th to 8th are a total waste of time.

The double chance isn't the problem IMHO - it's the week off. Statistically it's just super unlikely that anyone will win 4 straight finals where at least two teams get a week off and only have to play 3 finals.

Sydney and West Coast in 2005 and 2006 won their GFs after losing the first game, so they both had to play 4 games to win the cup.

A flag can be won from 5th or 6th. It will happen one day.....will be a rarity because if you are that far back you are probably not good enough.

Last year both 5th and 6th made the prelim and bad kicking cost Port (5th) a grand final berth.

I think this is the real reason. The position on the ladder reflects the relative strength or weakness of a team.

A straight knockout system doesn't reward a team that much for finishing higher on the ladder. I can see teams setting themselves in the top eight early on in the season, then managing their players and rotating the squad until finals come and not worrying about ending up in the bottom half or losing a few games here and there. I doubt the Hawks would have minded finishing in 7th or 8th this year if it meant they were all fit and rested for finals and could knock off their strongest competitors first up.

The current system rewards teams for finishing higher on the ladder. The higher you get, the better benefits you get from that position.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Final 5 was always the best

 

[FootyJunkie]

Final 5 was always the best

2 Final 5s if we ever go to a Final 10.

Final 5 A: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th
Final 5 B: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th

Keep the Final 5s separate until GF day when the winners of the two groups play off for the flag. (no crossovers in the lead up).

5 weeks Finals Series, remove the GF Replay.

 

[footyfan1978]

This probably ties with "second week every single time the top 4 team that lost wins the next week" thread as stupid reasons to complain about finals systems I've read.
Thank god Hawks got the double chance and were not eliminated for some stupid notion of wanting a change to a deserved reward for five and a half months of quality team football.

 

[demondavey]

The current system works well as a reward system, and ensures that all clubs have an incentive to finish higher on the ladder to earn a double chance and home final. The higher you finish, the better opportunity you get. It also ensures home and away games are worth watching, with an incentive to win and finish higher on the ladder. It encourages better competition and avoids tanking.

Tanking at the bottom end can be avoided by simply completing a lotto draw for the bottom sides in this order;

Picks 1,3,4,6,7 are allocated to sides 14-18 and literally drawn out in lots, and picks 2,5,8,9,10 are allocated to clubs who fall between 9-13.

This takes out the tanking element as there is no reward for finishing out if the finals, and not even that much in the bottom 5 as picks 2 and 5 are allocated to clubs at 9-13. It encourages a blueprint from what Geelong and Hawthorn built premierships upon, culture, management, leadership, and hard work.

 

[demondavey]

2 Final 5s if we ever go to a Final 10.

Final 5 A: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th
Final 5 B: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th

Keep the Final 5s separate

5 weeks Finals Series, remove the GF Replay.

Give an example...

 

[Glorious couch life]

2 Final 5s if we ever go to a Final 10.

Final 5 A: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th
Final 5 B: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th

Keep the Final 5s separate until GF day when the winners of the two groups play off for the flag. (no crossovers in the lead up).

5 weeks Finals Series, remove the GF Replay.

We'd need to have 22+ teams in the comp to support a final 10. Unless you want to support mediocrity by having half the teams in it make the finals each year.
The talent pool is spread too thin already, and the draw is hopelessly uneven now - given that each team doesn't play each other twice.
Maybe a conference system might work if you want to avoid a 30+ week season, but I think a 5 week finals series is too much regardless.

 

[Chiz]

This probably ties with "second week every single time the top 4 team that lost wins the next week" thread as stupid reasons to complain about finals systems I've read.
Thank god Hawks got the double chance and were not eliminated for some stupid notion of wanting a change to a deserved reward for five and a half months of quality team football.

Considering your entire argument in this thread has been 'your idea is stupid' and to attack me instead of addressing the arguments, I guess I'm wasting my time repeating them:

- predictable finals
- top seed gets harder preliminary final
- 1 barely has an advantage over 4, but 4 has a huge advantage over 5

But no, these are 'stupid' reasons...

 

[demondavey]

We'd need to have 22+ teams in the comp to support a final 10. Unless you want to support mediocrity by having half the teams in it make the finals each year.
The talent pool is spread too thin already, and the draw is hopelessly uneven now - given that each team doesn't play each other twice.
Maybe a conference system might work if you want to avoid a 30+ week season, but I think a 5 week finals series is too much regardless.

Exactly, 7-10 most years would be making up the numbers to get flogged. I do think a conference system like the NFL would be great, it would make things much more exciting.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Give an example...

--Week 1--
Fri N
Sydney v Richmond - ANZ
Sat
Hawthorn v Bulldogs - MCG
Sat N
North Melbourne v Port Adelaide - ES
Sun
Adelaide v Geelong - AO

--Week 2--
Fri N
Fremantle v Richmond - DS
Sat
West Coast v Hawthorn - DS
Sat N
Sydney v Port Adelaide - ANZ
Sun
Bulldogs v Adelaide - MCG

--Week 3--
Fri N
Fremantle v Sydney - DS
Sat N
Hawthorn v Adelaide - MCG

--Week 4--
Fri N
Richmond v Fremantle - MCG
Sat N
West Coast v Hawthorn - DS

--Week 5--
Sat
Fremantle v Hawthorn - MCG

 

[holy diver]

Almost every VFL/AFL finals system has included a double chance for one or more of the higher ranked teams. After a knockout final-four system in 1901, it was decided in 1902 that the minor premier should have a second chance if they lost the Grand Final (which meant their opponent had to beat them twice!).

From there as the finals systems have evolved and expanded to include more teams, the double chance has remained in some form - it is an accepted part of the system. Interestingly, the vast majority of major sporting leagues outside of Australia do not give any team a double chance - higher placed teams are sufficiently rewarded with home finals, byes, and weaker opponents. Why no double chance? Because the double chance is a curse on the finals.

The main problem with any system that gives teams a double chance is that it allows for two sides to play each other twice in the finals. There are two reasons this is undesirable:

• the build-up and excitement leading up to a match is greatest when uncertainty about the result is high. When two teams have recently played this uncertainty is greatly reduced (especially if the first game was one-sided).
• one team may have to defeat the same opponent twice to win the premiership (why should they have to prove they can beat them a second time?)

The AFL clearly recognise that this is an issue. However, instead of moving to a knockout system, they have instead compromised the integrity of the finals to minimise the chance of the same two teams playing twice. Consider the preliminary finals - to avoid a repeat of the qualifying finals, the opponents are switched. Typically, the highest seed plays the third seed, and the second seed plays the fourth seed.

Why should the second seed get the easier game? We complain about the inequities in the fixture time and again, but this major inequity somehow seems to slip through the cracks.

The problem is the double chance. Finals are about performing on the day - all or nothing, no second chances. It is time for the AFL to move to a knockout system.

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.

Why is there a need to change the game again?
Double chance isn't a curse on the game. There has to be a reward for finishing at the top otherwise whats the point?

 

[Chiz]

Why is there a need to change the game again?
Double chance isn't a curse on the game. There has to be a reward for finishing at the top otherwise whats the point?

People need to stop confusing 'the game' with 'the competition' - changing the finals system is not changing the game.

I absolutely agree there needs to be reward for finishing on top, but it doesn't have to be a double chance - there are other ways teams can be rewarded, such as a week off, home ground advantage, easier opponents.

Under the current system there is little incentive to finish top over fourth, or finishing fifth over eighth (the only spot that matters is fourth over fifth) - this is one of the reasons we're seeing teams resting players in the last round (which, after North Melbourne's success, I can only assume will be even more common next season).

 

[Procrastinator35]

Current system is fine....Adheres to our tradition of rewarding a hard-won top ladder position, in granting the double chance, home ground advantage & week-off, which has been earnt.

If a team is good enough, they can win the flag from 8th....There's no doubting that.

 

[The GOAT]

North are showing the current system is fine. Even the team in 8th has a chance if they are good enough

 

[Father Jack]

or lucky enough to find themselves in a position where they can rest players in the last round and then find themselves up against a shell of a team. But good on them for taking their chances, more than a lot of teams do.

 

[footyfan1978]

The cap most certainly fits.

 

[kranky al]

No it isn't. 5th to 8th are a total waste of time.

The double chance isn't the problem IMHO - it's the week off. Statistically it's just super unlikely that anyone will win 4 straight finals where at least two teams get a week off and only have to play 3 finals.

Mmmhmmm

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Mmmhmmm

Is that from before the finals last year or this year? Because the latter makes him look incredibly silly.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

North are showing the current system is fine. Even the team in 8th has a chance if they are good enough

North deserve to be where they are, but they've also had a bit of luck fall their way with the Swans losing so many key players in the 2-3 weeks leading up to last nights final. Normally not an easy feat.

 

[caitsith01]

Mmmhmmm

Talk to me Sunday in two weeks.

 

[caitsith01]

North are showing the current system is fine. Even the team in 8th has a chance if they are good enough

Do you actually think that they have a non theoretical chance though?

 

[kranky al]

Talk to me Sunday in two weeks.

They may not be there but they surexas hell werent a waste of time

 

[Damon_3388]

I really think with 18 teams in the league, we should narrow it down to a final 6, with a three week finals series, with the top two teams getting a bye in week one (their "reward" for finishing in the top two ladder positions), and every final an eliminator.

I'm also in favour of narrowing the home & away season down to 17 games (every team plays each other once, on a bi-annual home & away rotation). Would just make every game mean so much more.

Example schedule (if it were to be taken up in 2016):

Holiday Period (two weeks) - December 21, 2015- January 3, 2015
AFL Pre-Season (12 weeks) - January 4, 2016 - March 27, 2016
Sheffield Shield Final (end of cricket season) - March 24, 2016 - March 27, 2016
Preparation Week (no games) - March 28, 2016 - April 3, 2016
Pre-Season Weeks 1-3 - April 4, 2016 - April 24, 2016
Build-Up Week (no games) - April 25, 2016 - May 1, 2016
H&A Season Rounds 1-17 - May 2, 2016 - August 28, 2016
Awards Week (no games) - August 29, 2016 - September 4, 2016
Semi Finals - September 10, 2016
Preliminary Finals - September 17, 2016
AFL Grand Final - September 24, 2016
Holiday Period (two weeks) - September 26, 2016 - October 9, 2016
Trade/Free Agency/Delisting Period - October 10, 2016 - November 4, 2016
AFL National Draft Camp - October 12, 2016 - October 14, 2016
AFL National Draft (Pre-Season and Rookie Drafts abolished) - November 3, 2016
Official List Lodgement (44 players per club) - November 5, 2016
AFL Training Camp (6 weeks) - November 7, 2016 - December 18, 2016
Holiday Period (two weeks) - December 19, 2016 - January 1, 2017