'This is a joke we don't play extra time'

[mess]

That's quite a different description to the best of seven.

No it isn't. In a best of 7 series, the magic number is 4. 4 being the best of 7, 1 being the best of 1.

Easy mistake.

Didn't you say that a 'best of' had to be an odd number...?

Yes.

Okay... you're struggling now so you've had to resort to abuse.

What you've described here isn't something that actually happened.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Then why are they playing it again? Either way, those who took the opportunity to watch it still don't know the winner

They are playing it again, because there was no winner. Pretty self-explanatory really.

 

[mess]

So to clarify, when Australia win a test series against Bangladesh 1-0 but the series involved 2 tests, was that a best of 1 or a best of 2?

Neither, it's a 2 game series. The outcome does not hang on winning the majority of a set of encounters, the number of encounters is pre-arranged and will not alter regardless of the results.

Further, when we count career games, will players like Blair have played in 2 Grand Finals or one?

If he plays next week, 2.

If it's 1, then was yesterday a Grand Final or not?

It's 2, so yesterday was a Grand Final.

Cheers

No sweat.

 

[TheBloods]

No it isn't. In a best of 7 series, the magic number is 4. 4 being the best of 7, 1 being the best of 1.

Easy mistake.



Yes.



What you've described here isn't something that actually happened.

You're clearly confusing/deluding yourself now.

 

[mess]

You're clearly confusing/deluding yourself now.

What you've described here isn't something that actually happened.

 

[Clay Davis]

Well, unsurprisingly, you'd be wrong.

I was at the Chamber of Commerce organized function in Bangkok with 600+ attendees. The general view in the room post game was incredulity that we had such a silly system "a draw? Like cricket?..." about summed things up!

Really? You took a poll?

I have had the same feedback from similar functions in Saigon & KL.

Evidence?

Aussies from AFL states either laughed it off or were a little embarrassed explaining it and everyone else just thought WTF?

Sure.

Imagine some yank randomly watching at home on his couch. Gets to the end of "The Grand Final" only to discover it isn't the Grand Final at all but instead a waste of 3 hours and .... Well, what?

Watching footy by its very nature is a waste of 3 hours.

It doesn't matter how vigorously you defend the replay as a footy lover, to everyone else it just looks silly. Which can't possibly help in promoting the code.

What a load of bullshit. If you were really at this Chamber of Commerce do, what were you doing hammering out long winded responses on the internet minutes after the match ended:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19134339#post19134339

 

[mickctiger]

Wow. How original

Merely responding in kind.

Let me guess, you are a teenager from Melbourne?

wow such a original and intelligent come back

 

[mess]

I hardly think your room of KL Swells qualifies as a viable expansion market demographic, mister 87.

 

[kranky al]

. (Just as an aside: I'm really sick of WA people who whinge about the travel factor - Freo and WCE are travelling teams, end of story - they both enjoy a massive home ground advantage, but they always complain about travelling )

.

no probs - i would bet all the money in the world that if the hawks had to travel to subi next week for the rematch - you would change your tune


there has been a couple of honest and fair vics have said this would be fair - a few have dodged the question by saying your stadium isnt big enough (although the afl could get round this by saying 50% each side only for an interstate rematch what a perfect excuse to do so as we have smaller stadia- then it would be more fans than the gf)and a few honest vics have said get stuffed - we started it - now way sucker - hey at least they are honest and dont hide behind bullshit

all of you - by default have admitted one way or another an imbalance


imagine the g/f was in perth - try and imagine your victorian team travelling to perth two weeks in a row - would you be so in favour of a replay

honestly - if you cant say yes - we would have no problem with that - then the rule needs to be changed


think before you respond

 

[sherb]

Well, unsurprisingly, you'd be wrong.

I was at the Chamber of Commerce organized function in Bangkok with 600+ attendees. The general view in the room post game was incredulity that we had such a silly system "a draw? Like cricket?..." about summed things up!

I have had the same feedback from similar functions in Saigon & KL.

Aussies from AFL states either laughed it off or were a little embarrassed explaining it and everyone else just thought WTF?

Imagine some yank randomly watching at home on his couch. Gets to the end of "The Grand Final" only to discover it isn't the Grand Final at all but instead a waste of 3 hours and .... Well, what?

It doesn't matter how vigorously you defend the replay as a footy lover, to everyone else it just looks silly. Which can't possibly help in promoting the code.

As I said, the game itself is what will sell it overseas. If you think the AFL's policy on drawn Grand Finals detracts from that, you are entitled to that view. I just don't share it.

I'd need more than the views of a roomful of people or two in South-East Asia to be convinced. Especially, given the veracity of your stance on the subject, you probably spent all your time following the final siren airing your negativity about the outcome to those in your company. No wonder they held the view they did.

If people can't see the skills and the spectacle of the game because of this outcome, we've got no hope of promoting the game anyway. They must have all collectively had their eyes shut when Goddard took his screamer for instance.

I guess time will tell. I am sure the promotion of the game overseas will be just fine following this outcome. As long as people such as yourself don't take up promotional roles of course.

 

[sherb]

Watching footy by its very nature is a waste of 3 hours.

Even more so when you have to invent some random, hypothetical American to try to make the point.

 

[kranky al]

Dude, I'm not whinging because Hawthorn lost that game.

I'm referring to when people talk about Grand Final Replays and say how unfair it is on the players.

I think extra time is unfair on the players who bust their gut for 120 minutes and leave NOTHING in reserve for the "final" siren, only to be told, "Sorry mate, you must get up and play extra time"

It gives an unfair advantage to the team or players who don't give 100% in regulation time.

When commentators ask, "What about the players?" they seem to forget there is two sides of the coin to any debate.

wow - you are so correct - ive just realised - saints only gave 80 percent coming back from 24 points down whilst collingwood gave 100 percent

or.. hang on - was it collingwood ahead by 24 points and having given 50% in 50% of the game only put in a further 30% despite watching their lead dwindle?

omg - now im lost - they need match day calculators - perhaps team health bars like in streetfighter

 

[Suspense]

Watching footy by its very nature is a waste of 3 hours.

hahah. some itt clearly don't understand what the word "pastime" actually means...

 

[mickctiger]

Really? You took a poll?



Evidence?



Sure.



Watching footy by its very nature is a waste of 3 hours.



What a load of bullshit. If you were really at this Chamber of Commerce do, what were you doing hammering out long winded responses on the internet minutes after the match ended:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19134339#post19134339

"eagles 87" displays the typical arrogance and impatient self absorbtion thats evident amognst many of the corperate type these days. Especially the younger ones. Of course he cant handle draws, to do so would require nuance. Remeber when we are talking about a "chamber of comerce" gathering we are talking about the sort of genious that created the GFC

 

[sherb]

no probs - i would bet all the money in the world that if the hawks had to travel to subi next week for the rematch - you would change your tune

there has been a couple of honest and fair vics have said this would be fair - a few have dodged the question by saying your stadium isnt big enough (although the afl could get round this by saying 50% each side only for an interstate rematch what a perfect excuse to do so as we have smaller stadia- then it would be more fans than the gf)and a few honest vics have said get stuffed - we started it - now way sucker - hey at least they are honest and dont hide behind bullshit

all of you - by default have admitted one way or another an imbalance

imagine the g/f was in perth - try and imagine your victorian team travelling to perth two weeks in a row - would you be so in favour of a replay

honestly - if you cant say yes - we would have no problem with that - then the rule needs to be changed

think before you respond

In that particular instance, why couldn't the rules be changed to accommodate a replay of a drawn GF if interstate teams were involved? For instance, if a non-Victorian side was involved why couldn't the side just stay in Melbourne for the extra week - possibly at the AFL's expense?

Half the problem is that the AFL doesn't anticipate possible (and obvious) outcomes and have rules/contingencies in place for them. Remember, this is the same organization that didn't consider the possibility of a night game being blacked out until it actually happened.

 

[mess]

wow - you are so correct - ive just realised - saints only gave 80 percent coming back from 24 points down whilst collingwood gave 100 percent

or.. hang on - was it collingwood ahead by 24 points and having given 50% in 50% of the game only put in a further 30% despite watching their lead dwindle?

omg - now im lost - they need match day calculators - perhaps team health bars like in streetfighter

Your sarcasm has shown me the light. They both tried exactly as hard as each other, down to the kilojoule. There is no such thing as "extra" effort, and everyone's are always exactly as tired as each other at the end of any given time period of general proximity to one and other.

It's well known scientifics, it is. Like menstrual synchronisation.

 

[DeanoT]

That is their prerogative, is it not?

It is, and it is not the AFL's concern, but clearly the AFL rules on GFs affected the fixturing of this game. But I will manage. Others will be affected logistically and financially far greater than me.

Tennis is an interesting comparison. All sets, if tied at the end, go to a tiebreaker. That is, except the fifth set, which can continue on forever until broken. Sometimes matches can drag on forever, as seen in the Isner vs Mahut match at Wimbledon this year. It went for three days.

Few called for a rule change. In fact, many former greats said that such an occurrence made them proud of the game.

Not sure the tennis comparisons are entirely relevant, but yeah the Isner/Mahut match was a classic.

Interesting to note that Isner could barely move in the next match and lost 6-0,6-3,6-2 to a much lower ranked player.

And if you didn't already know, the US Open plays tie-breakers in the fifth set, unlike the other three slams.

 

[kranky al]

In that particular instance, why couldn't the rules be changed to accommodate a replay of a drawn GF if interstate teams were involved? For instance, if a non-Victorian side was involved why couldn't the side just stay in Melbourne for the extra week - possibly at the AFL's expense?

Half the problem is that the AFL doesn't anticipate possible (and obvious) outcomes and have rules/contingencies in place for them. Remember, this is the same organization that didn't consider the possibility of a night game being blacked out until it actually happened.

`


so the victorian team gets to stay at home - in their house - with family and a semblance of a normal house - while an interstate team stays in a hotel in another city.

as i said - step outside the box - would you be happy after the gf was played in perth - to have the replay played in perth while your team sat in a hotel.

years ago we tried to get over the travel thing by going over to victoria days early - it failed - sitting around in a hotel was counterproductive - you need a semblance of normality to your life - in the soccer world cup qualifiers they have recognised this by making away goals worth more than home goals.

thus a team that wins 4-3 at home will lose overall if they lose the return match 1-2 at the oppositions home.

 

[Clay Davis]

Not sure the tennis comparisons are entirely relevant, but yeah the Isner/Mahut match was a classic.

Interesting to note that Isner could barely move in the next match and lost 6-0,6-3,6-2 to a much lower ranked player.

And if you didn't already know, the US Open plays tie-breakers in the fifth set, unlike the other three slams.

The tennis comparison is interesting simply because it went over multiple days (as this decider is going to do) and went for 11 hours (which this won't get anywhere near). It also threw out the schedule for other players and affected the competition afterwards (as you said, the winner lost to a lower ranked player). Yet no one is recorded as having complained about it.

The US Open is the only one that plays tie breakers, and to me, that's a bit disappointing. People seem to want these 'black swan' events in sport to be regulated out. I don't get it. These kinds of freakish one offs are the kind of shit you tell your grand kids you saw.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

And if you didn't already know, the US Open plays tie-breakers in the fifth set, unlike the other three slams.

Because the other three slams value the tradition of the advantage set.

Only at the US Open can you lose a match and never lose serve. Very fair.....

 

[mickctiger]

The tennis comparison is interesting simply because it went over multiple days (as this decider is going to do) and went for 11 hours (which this won't get anywhere near). It also threw out the schedule for other players and affected the competition afterwards (as you said, the winner lost to a lower ranked player). Yet no one is recorded as having complained about it.

The US Open is the only one that plays tie breakers, and to me, that's a bit disappointing. People seem to want these 'black swan' events in sport to be regulated out. I don't get it. These kinds of freakish one offs are the kind of shit you tell your grand kids you saw.

^^^I totally agree. Its these types of "freak" results that add to the folklore of the sport and only adds to the appeal

 

[DeanoT]

Yet no one is recorded as having complained about it.

Maybe its just me, but a first round Wimbledon match between a qualifier and a player with no chance of winning a slam doesn't compare to the one day in September. The Isner/Mahut match is an interesting piece of trivia, but not that important in the scale of the overall tournament.

The US Open is the only one that plays tie breakers, and to me, that's a bit disappointing.

Yeah, the US Open tie breaker issue does make a 4 hour tennis match a bit of a crap shoot. But the issue is less to do with the rules of the game, and the complete domination the serve has in mens tennis. The fact that someone as inept at ground play as Isner is, yet he can be seeded in Grand Slams, is a blight on the game. And that is coming from someone who has played and watched a lot of tennis over the years.

People seem to want these 'black swan' events in sport to be regulated out. I don't get it. These kinds of freakish one offs are the kind of shit you tell your grand kids you saw.

I would classify an extra-time GF as a black swan event, especially since it has never happened.

To me, the argument is mostly about practical, logistical issues. Some paid $1,500 plus to see their team have a chance of winning a premiership. They saw a great game, and they can tell their grand kids all about it one day, but unless they get a ticket again this week, they might just miss their team winning. Let alone the arguments about what would happen if one of the teams were interstaters.

Eddie McGuire made an interesting point about draws, in that we have three different rules in place on how to manage them. In H&A we give two points, no extra time, no replay. In finals, there is no replay, but extra time. For grand finals, no extra time, but a replay. It is schizophrenic, like cricket not being able to make up its mind on how to decide the best team: T20, ODI or Test?

 

[sherb]

`


so the victorian team gets to stay at home - in their house - with family and a semblance of a normal house - while an interstate team stays in a hotel in another city.

as i said - step outside the box - would you be happy after the gf was played in perth - to have the replay played in perth while your team sat in a hotel.

years ago we tried to get over the travel thing by going over to victoria days early - it failed - sitting around in a hotel was counterproductive - you need a semblance of normality to your life - in the soccer world cup qualifiers they have recognised this by making away goals worth more than home goals.

thus a team that wins 4-3 at home will lose overall if they lose the return match 1-2 at the oppositions home.

It was only a suggestion. I didn't say it was ideal.

Despite my preference for a replay, this isn't the point I am making. That point is if the AFL wants a Grand Final replay, they should have guidelines in place to try to make things as fair as possible for the competing clubs.

The travel issue for interstate clubs in the event of replay is something which didn't exist back in the VFL days when the last draw occurred and yet I doubt if the AFL has even looked at the rules for a replay since that time.

They simply lack that foresight, which is what I gave an example of. They were lost the night the lights went out.

 

[DeanoT]

Because the other three slams value the tradition of the advantage set.

Only at the US Open can you lose a match and never lose serve. Very fair.....

You *******.

Stefan Edberg lost the 1991 Wimbledon SF to Michael Stich without losing his serve once (6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-7)- Stich went on to win the title. Way to destroy your own argument.

Horrible error given your name!!

 

[Clay Davis]

Maybe its just me, but a first round Wimbledon match between a qualifier and a player with no chance of winning a slam doesn't compare to the one day in September. The Isner/Mahut match is an interesting piece of trivia, but not that important in the scale of the overall tournament.

It could perfectly happen in the Wimbledon final. Nothing is preventing that from happening. In the scheme of sporting events, the Wimbledon final is far more prestigious world wide than the AFL grand final. Why is such a rule in the AFL unprofessional, quaint and backward, yet it isn't for Wimbledon?

Yeah, the US Open tie breaker issue does make a 4 hour tennis match a bit of a crap shoot. But the issue is less to do with the rules of the game, and the complete domination the serve has in mens tennis. The fact that someone as inept and ground play as Isner is, yet he can be seeded in Grand Slams, is a blight on the game. And that is coming from someone who has played and watched a lot of tennis over the years.

You're getting into what Suspense calls shoulds and oughts. In my opinion, Geelong play the best footy going around. By rights, they should have won the past four flags. However, effective strategies on the day have seen them defeated when it counts. Does that mean the competition is a joke?

I would classify an extra-time GF as a black swan event, especially since it has never happened.

Specious. It's never happened because it isn't ruled for. If it was, the extra-time GF wouldn't be remembered with the same gravitas as a replay.

To me, the argument is mostly about practical logistical issues. Some paide $1,500 plus to see their team have a chance of winning a premiership. They saw a great game, and they can tell their grand kids all about it one day, but unless they get a ticket again this week, they might just miss their team winning. Let alone the arguments about what would happen if one of the teams were interstaters.

If Fremantle ever had it happen to them, I'd suck it up. Sport's never fair to the fan.

Eddie McGuire made an interesting point about draws, in that we have three different rules in place on how to manage them. In H&A we give two points, no extra time, no replay. In finals, there is no replay, but extra time. For grand finals, no extra time, but a replay. It is schizophrenic, like cricket not being able to make up its mind on how to decide the best team: T20, ODI or Test?

That is interesting. Cricket has three forms of the game. The way games are decided is often odd. In ODIs you can win according to a complex mathematical formula when it rains. In Tests you can have no result - the draw. You can have the rare tie. In ODIs there are always results, never draws. Somehow, in spite of this (and the multitude of betting scandals), cricket thrives. I'm not much of a fan of cricket, so I won't judge and how it should or shouldn't be run.