Undeserved premership players

[skipper kelly]

On the argument of all finals being knockout.

Essendon Grand Final appearances last 21 seasons.

2001 Runners Up. Undefeated FS prior to GF

2000 Premiers. Undefeated Finals series.

1993 Premiers. Defeated in Qual V Carl.

1990 Runners Up. Defeated in 2nd semi V Coll.

1985 Premiers. Undefeated Finals series.

1984 Premiers. Defeated in 2nd semi V Haw.

1983 Runners Up. Undefeated FS prio to GF Loss.

As Stands.

4 premierships
3 runners up.

With only knockout finals.
2 premierships
2 runners up

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by themoose
In the NFL the best 4 teams skip the first week and there are 12 teams in the playoffs. Hardly a realistic comparison. Plus the team with the better record will play at home until the superbowl. Hardly a fair comparison. Of course this would leave you with three weeks of finals if you kept the eight. Or yoiu would have to have a final 10 where the best two have the first week off! Use you brain before you start saying it should be knockout all the way. It can't and won't happen. The curent system (double chance for the top four) is the best and much better than the double chance being available to 6 or 7.

It is a realistic comparison for the NFL. They use a knockout final-6 in each confernece. Identical, to what we use from the second week onwards. Identical.

Each conference concludes with their conference Final (our GF equivalent). That week is preceded by two knokcout games the week before (PF equivalent), and that is preceded by two knockout games the week before which they call wild card games and are our semi-final equivalent. In that week, there are two knockout games and the two highest seeded teams from each conference get a week off (just like the two highest seeded teams get a week off and are straight into the Preliminary Final)

It's exactly the same system as ours back to the second week of the finals. Exactly. Then the AFL system stuffs up with this first week double chance bullcrap. The NFL system, and the AFL system from the second week onwards is the knockout principle by which all competitions which end with a knockout game (as our does, with the Grand Final) should abide by.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DaveW
Dearie me. Are you still wound up about Essendon getting knocked out of the 1999 finals by a team that lost in the first week?

There's no logical reason why all finals must be knock-out games. That's just your stubborn way of thicking.

Carlton's shock entry to the Grand Final was four years ago. Get over it.

What the f**k are you talking about? I'm till wound up over Essendon stupidly being allowed a second chance in '96 when they didn't deserve it. Undeserved and bad for the game.

Who I barrack for is irrelevant. Double chances should not be allowed.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DaveW
There's no logical reason why all finals must be knock-out games. That's just your stubborn way of thicking.

Of course there are logical reasons. The whole reason I talk about is because of friggin logic. For starters the Grand Final is knockout and the Preliminary Final is knockout. Therefore the top team can be eliminated without getting a second chance in either the PF or GF, anyway. So, what is the point of allowing double chances, other than to generate extra cash, with two more games?

It's logical for a final series which concludes with a knockout game (and is preceded with two knockout games the week before, as ours does) to be knockout all the way through.

Imagine, hypothetically, if it was a 14 team comp and we went back to a final 6. The best system to use would be the current final 6 we have from the second week onwards, in which there are no double chances, and the top two teams get one week off and direct entry into the Preliminary Final, whilst we have 3v6 and 4v5 in the first week.

That's essentially the final-6 we have now, and the current "final-4" we have in the third week of the final is knockout, as is the "final-2" in the last week.

I'm sure no one, least of all you, would have any problems with that final-6, because it works under the knockout principle which the AFL use for the Grand Final, which, logically, if you work backwards expands into knockout semi-finals and quarter-finals. We have quarter finals in the second week of the finals, and quarter finals can exist in any knockout series that has between 5 and 8 teams.

 

[Magpira]

Re: Re: Undeserved premership players

Originally posted by Professional
Buckley.

Oh wait................doh!

Ablett

Oh wait...............doh!

Lockett

Oh wait...............doh!

Skilton

Oh wait...............doh!

Polly Farmer

Oh wait...............doh!

Flower

Oh wait...............doh!

Dempsey

Oh wait...............doh!


YAWN!

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Dan26
Of course there are logical reasons. The whole reason I talk about is because of friggin logic. For starters the Grand Final is knockout and the Preliminary Final is knockout. Therefore the top team can be eliminated without getting a second chance in either the PF or GF, anyway. So, what is the point of allowing double chances, other than to generate extra cash, with two more games?

Almost all of the finals systems used in Australian rules football past and present have afforded teams that finish high enough double chances in the early weeks.

Just as teams can afford to lose a handful of home & away matches, so too can teams often afford to lose an early final. As the finals progress further, it gets more cut-throat.

The top team can get eliminated in the PF or GF without using a double chance, but generally they've had some other advantage like an easier ride into the match or home ground advantage or both.

It's logical for a final series which concludes with a knockout game (and is preceded with two knockout games the week before, as ours does) to be knockout all the way through.

You say this a lot, but why?

Imagine, hypothetically, if it was a 14 team comp and we went back to a final 6. The best system to use would be the current final 6 we have from the second week onwards, in which there are no double chances, and the top two teams get one week off and direct entry into the Preliminary Final, whilst we have 3v6 and 4v5 in the first week.

That's essentially the final-6 we have now, and the current "final-4" we have in the third week of the final is knockout, as is the "final-2" in the last week.

I'm sure no one, least of all you, would have any problems with that final-6, because it works under the knockout principle which the AFL use for the Grand Final, which, logically, if you work backwards expands into knockout semi-finals and quarter-finals. We have quarter finals in the second week of the finals, and quarter finals can exist in any knockout series that has between 5 and 8 teams.

That system is perfectly fair and logical. But how does that invalidate the fairness of logic of the two final eight systems?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DaveW
Almost all of the finals systems used in Australian rules football past and present have afforded teams that finish high enough double chances in the early weeks.

All of those systems (well, since 1931, anyway) have concluded with a knockout game to win the flag.

The McIntyre final four concluded with the standard worldwide knockout format of semi-final (which we call Preliminary Final) followed by the final (Grad Final.) The difference was the first week, which used the stupid double chance for 1st v 2nd, spoiling the otherwise "perfection" of the knockout system. 1st shouldn't even be playing 2nd until the end of the final series. What's the point playing them against each other, knowing that by doing so, one of them has to lose? It's stupid. It's justified by giving the loser a second chance, but the easier solution would be to have 1st versus 4th and 2nd vs 3rd, instead of the ridiculous Grand Final match-up two weeks early. By having 1st play 4th you don't need to use a second chance, because the top teams aren't playing each other. You only use a double chance, Dave when the top teams play each other, a la the McIntyre final-4 format. If you use a seeding format double chances aren't necessary.

Originally posted by DaveW
Just as teams can afford to lose a handful of home & away matches, so too can teams often afford to lose an early final. As the finals progress further, it gets more cut-throat.

Home and away games are different. Finals have always existed under the notion of "performing on the day." Even with the double chance, "performing on the day" has always been what we associate with finals. And it's how it should be too. It's more exciting. I presume you love (as I do) the cut-throat nature of Grand Final day. It should be that glorious way all through the finals. Like the NFL. Like the FA Cup. Like the Rugby union Super 12's.

Originally posted by DaveW
The top team can get eliminated in the PF or GF without using a double chance, but generally they've had some other advantage like an easier ride into the match or home ground advantage or both.

That's true, but they can still be eliminated after one loss. In a knockout final-8, 1st would have the advantage of playing 8th (1st was 6-0 against 8th from 1994 to 1999.) Seeding (i.e highest vs lowest) is the correct way to structure a knockout tournament.

If we have, say a final-6, 1st and 2nd would get a week off, and we'd have two quarter finals between 3,4,5,and 6 to see who plays them. Identical to how the finals are now from the second week onwards! Indentical!!!

A final 7 would see first automatically in the Preliminary Finals. The three quarter finals would be 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, with 1st playing the winner ov 4v5.

How would a final-2 work, you ask? Simple - the same way the Grand Final works. One match between two teams. How would a knockout final-4 work, you ask? Simple - the same way the Preliminary Finals work. How would a final-6 work, you ask? Simple - the same way the finals currently are from the second week onwards.

See the pattern, mate? See it? The next step is to ask how a final-8 should work. Following those principles we all know how it should work, don't we? Instead we have this double chance bullcrap.

Originally posted by DaveW
That system is perfectly fair and logical. But how does that invalidate the fairness of logic of the two final eight systems?

The system I mentioned (which was the knockout final-6) can be applied to any number of teams. The principle can be applied to 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11 teams etc. It is the perfectly fair and logical way to conduct a finals series which concludes with a knockout game.

Our finals series concludes with a knockout game, so its easy to see why the whole finals series should follow suit. That's what finals are about - you know it as well as I do.

 

[windyhill]

Originally posted by MarkT
Surely you are not serious???
This is Kevin Sheedy we are talking about. Wallis was the obligatory Sheedy required hitman. Couldn't play that well but could snipe or play tough when required. Essential ingredient in Sheed's formulae. Not sure he is happy with the current side though as I can't see a modern day Barnard, Wallis, Merritt, Somerville, Duckworth, Andrews, etc.

Apologies to Merritt who could play a lot and Duckworth who could play a little as well for a time.

Sheed's will be working on the list and dredging through the discards for the modern equivalent. Not sure Fletcher quite fits the bill these days and Solomon I like. How much would Sheedy give for J.Brown?

Which is exactly what collingwood lack.
An animal, probably would have got them over the line in `02

 

[Lensen]

The Fitzroy 1916 flag team.

Finished last in a four team comp (due to the War), yet made the "finals" due to the final four still being in place.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by windyhill
Which is exactly what collingwood lack.
An animal, probably would have got them over the line in `02

That was supposed to be Molloy to an extent. I disagree about '02. An animal against Brisbane would make bugger all difference at the best of times but in '02 it was the ruck wich was the difference. Everything else was marginal at best.

PS I have no problem with Sheedy's MO.

 

[itsintheblood]

Originally posted by L-Nizzy
The Fitzroy 1916 flag team.

Finished last in a four team comp (due to the War), yet made the "finals" due to the final four still being in place.

Wan't it this era when collingwood won most of it's flags?

Only one flag in the modern era, I believe it is!!!!

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by gold cup 1996
What is your excuse for your Round 21 1998 loss at Football Park?

Why do I need one ?

North played a little better than the Crows on that night and deservedly won the game.

In round 5 of that same year, North didn't play any better than the Crows, but they won the game anyway.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dan26
I am not going to get into a stupid argument about who deserved to win one particular H&A match. You know as well as I do, that luck evens out over a period of time. You know as well as I do that North would have and did receive their share of bad calls in that match. Using one bad decision (out of hundreds of decisions over the season) as a means of justifying that the Crows didn't deserve to be eliminated in the finals is crazy.

It is no more crazy than insisting that North SHOULD HAVE and DESERVED TO win the flag in 98 because they had a better record that the team that beat them in the GF by 6 goals.

Well done captian obvious. Of course the two sides who were eliminated were lower placed. Duh! That is not in dispute. What is being stated is that the Crows, who finished 5th, deserved to be eliminated after losing to 4th. The fact that 8th and 7th lost and deserved to be eliminated does not magically mean that the Crows didn't deserve to be.

Actually, yes it does. If you have 8 teams in a finals series, and you have to have 6 of them eliminated after 3 weeks but less of them eliminated after just the first week & the second week, and you also have to always have an even number of teams left, then your only real viable option is to eliminate two teams in each of the first three weeks. If you play four games in week one, then two of the losing teams will not be eliminated.

The fact 8th and 7th were eliminated has no relevance to what the Crows deserved fate was. None. If you finish 5th and lose to 4th, you deserve to be eliminated. If 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th all lose, they all deserve to be eliminated, and the top 4 teams deserve to progress to play each other in semi-finals (or what we strangely call, Preliminary Finals.)

Can't happen like that Dan. Mathematically impossible. Sorry.

<snipped blather>

How about trying to live in the real world for a change ?

 

[Hit And Rum]

Why not have an all elimination final 7! Sounds weird but read on:

Team placed 1 gets a week off as reward for finishing first in the league.

Then 2 v7
3 v 6
4 v 5
All elimination. Winner goes through.

Then 1 plays lowest ranked winner, lets say 4 and 2nd highest winner plays 3rd highest winner lets say 2 v 3.

Thus week 2 would be 1 v 4
2 v 3

Then two highest placed winners go through to the grand final.

Grand Final 1 v 2


Thus no second chances. All elimination.

Further it rewards the top placed team with a break to get players right but does not reward anyone for losing a final.

The other reason it is meritoriousis that it at least goes to address some of the problems with half the comp being in the AFL finals. At least this way it is somewhat marginally below half.

The AFL would probably no be keen on this as it reduces the number of final and hence money but it is still a fair way to run a finals system.

Thioughts?

 

[Lensen]

Originally posted by itsintheblood
Wan't it this era when collingwood won most of it's flags?

Only one flag in the modern era, I believe it is!!!!

"Quick, I'm on BigFooty, I better troll Collingwood in a thread that has nothing to do with them!"

Baaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ok.crows




Actually, yes it does. If you have 8 teams in a finals series, and you have to have 6 of them eliminated after 3 weeks but less of them eliminated after just the first week & the second week, and you also have to always have an even number of teams left, then your only real viable option is to eliminate two teams in each of the first three weeks. If you play four games in week one, then two of the losing teams will not be eliminated.

We are talking about what the crows deserved fate was - not how the finals system works. Who says that the 6th placed team DERSERVES to get a second chance if they lose, just because 7th and 8th lose? Clearly, based on perfomance they don't deserve it - they only get a second chance because the rules said they do.

Double chances, traditionally have only been used, when the top sides play each other. For example under the old final-4, the top two teams played each other, so it would be moronic for the loser to be eliminated whilst the winner of 3v4 advanced. But under the 1998 system, the top teams didn't play each other. In fact the top 4 played the bottom four, meaning double chances were totally unnecessary. If the team that finished 5th or 6th lost to their higher ranked opponent, they clearly and obviously deserved to be eliminated. It;s not as if the Crows finished, say, 4th and had to play 1st menaing one of them had to lose, and a double chance would eb deserved. No, it wasn't like that. The top 4 teams all had the opportunity to win, and if 5th or 6th lose they deserve to be eliminated.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dan26
We are talking about what the crows deserved fate was - not how the finals system works. Who says that the 6th placed team DERSERVES to get a second chance if they lose, just because 7th and 8th lose? Clearly, based on perfomance they don't deserve it - they only get a second chance because the rules said they do.

Double chances, traditionally have only been used, when the top sides play each other. For example under the old final-4, the top two teams played each other, so it would be moronic for the loser to be eliminated whilst the winner of 3v4 advanced. But under the 1998 system, the top teams didn't play each other. In fact the top 4 played the bottom four, meaning double chances were totally unnecessary. If the team that finished 5th or 6th lost to their higher ranked opponent, they clearly and obviously deserved to be eliminated. It;s not as if the Crows finished, say, 4th and had to play 1st menaing one of them had to lose, and a double chance would eb deserved. No, it wasn't like that. The top 4 teams all had the opportunity to win, and if 5th or 6th lose they deserve to be eliminated.

Disagree.

A final 8 MEANS that some losing teams will not be eliminated.

AFL aren't going to give up the final 8.

Less games, and less fans left with an interest in finals, would mean a severly contracted set of finals crowds & TV ratings than what the AFL currently enjoy.

Hence the final 8 stays, hence there will be two finals games every year where the losing team is not eliminated.

Period, end of story, that is the way it always will be as long as the AFL is a 16 team national competition, and that is the way it was in '98.

And so Dan, that means that Adelaide did not deserve to be eliminated in the first round of finals in '98, and there is not a damn solitary thing you can do about it.

Period. End of story.

No Dan, going all blue in the face won't help either.

 

[Hit And Rum]

By no means am I Crows supporter or do I believe the Crows are the best premiership team in the modern era.

The fact is they won the premiership. Even if the finals system was flawed by allowing losing teams placed lowly in the eight to go through and play again this is relevant.

You can only play and win within the system of the day. That they did that and fortunately/unfortunately they won the silverware.

The fact the AFL realised that the system was flawed and at least attempted, albeit to a limited extent, to rectify this incapacity is testament to that version of the final 8's problems.

Fact: Crows won the Grand final. Played within the rules set from the start of the season deserved premiers

Fact: AFL realised a few years later that the system had issues and attempted reform.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
By no means am I Crows supporter or do I believe the Crows are the best premiership team in the modern era.

The fact is they won the premiership. Even if the finals system was flawed by allowing losing teams placed lowly in the eight to go through and play again this is relevant.

You can only play and win within the system of the day. That they did that and fortunately/unfortunately they won the silverware.

The fact the AFL realised that the system was flawed and at least attempted, albeit to a limited extent, to rectify this incapacity is testament to that version of the final 8's problems.

Fact: Crows won the Grand final. Played within the rules set from the start of the season deserved premiers

Fact: AFL realised a few years later that the system had issues and attempted reform.

Only 1 thing I'd change here - the last bit I would change to "AFL realised a few years later that a number of fans had issues with the system and attempted to quell that unhappiness."

The 'reform' system promised 'home finals' as part of the reward for finishing higher at the expense of having to play a more difficult game in round 1 of finals, but the system was effectively made even less fair than before through being compromised by the MCC deal. The 'reform' ended up making some of the dissenters happier, and it also ended up giving an undeserved advantage to Victorian teams and fans. The system remains in place because it is Victorian teams/fans that get the benefit & wear none of the pain.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Only 1 thing I'd change here - the last bit I would change to "AFL realised a few years later that a number of fans had issues with the system and attempted to quell that unhappiness."

The 'reform' system promised 'home finals' as part of the reward for finishing higher at the expense of having to play a more difficult game in round 1 of finals, but the system was effectively made even less fair than before through being compromised by the MCC deal. The 'reform' ended up making some of the dissenters happier, and it also ended up giving an undeserved advantage to Victorian teams and fans. The system reamins in place because it is Victorian teams/fans that get the benefit & wear none of the pain.

Aaron Keating and Ben Marsh - I cry when I think these two won a premiership!

k
xx

 

[Hit And Rum]

You are right ok.crows the reformed 8 did promise increased home games but my point was the original 8 was created to get more games and revenue. Subsequent reforms to increase home games would have worked if not for the MCG contract.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
You are right ok.crows the reformed 8 did promise increased home games but my point was the original 8 was created to get more games and revenue. Subsequent reforms to increase home games would have worked if not for the MCG contract.

Agreed.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Disagree.

A final 8 MEANS that some losing teams will not be eliminated.

No it doesn't. It depends how the final-8 is structured. Any finals series that concludes with a knockout game, which is preceded by two more knockout games should be knockout all the way through. Our final-8 concludes with a knockout game, and therefore should be knockout all the way through. And even if it's not knockout all the way through, the double chance certainly doesn't deserve be falling to teams as low as 5th and 6th. We are not arguing what the rules are; we are arguing whether the fate of the team in question after the first week was deserved.

Originally posted by ok.crows
Less games, and less fans left with an interest in finals, would mean a severly contracted set of finals crowds & TV ratings than what the AFL currently enjoy.

Of course. You've hot the nail on the head. Money, and the prospect of nine finals instead of seven is the reason why the double chances continues to exist. Double chances are garbage and have no place, in what is essentially a knockout finals system. Money and contractual arrangements will see to it, that the farcical double chance continues to exist. I was very angry that Essendon was stupidly awarded a double chance they didn't deserve in '96. It's just plain wrong.

Originally posted by ok.crows
And so Dan, that means that Adelaide did not deserve to be eliminated in the first round of finals in '98.

They absolutely deserved to be eliminated. They finished 5th in a 9 game finals series in which 7 of the games are knockout. If the top teams played each other (like the current system), you can argue a double chance was justified, because one of the top teams had to lose, and it would be unfair if they were eliminated while the winner of two lower teams progressed. For example, it would be stupid if the loser of 1v4 was eliminated, whilst the winner of 5v8 progressed.

But that wasn't the case. The top 4 played the bottom four, meaning 4th was drawn to play 5th, and as such, the 5th and 6th placed teams were granted undeserved double chances. Seven of the nine finals are knockout, and the two teams lucky enough to receive a second chance should certainly not be 5th and 6th of all teams. Particularly, when 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th were all eliminated after one loss.

Originally posted by ok.crows
there is not a damn solitary thing you can do about it.

No sh*t sherlock. I don't care about that. In fact, I was rapt when the Crows beat North in that Grand Final, because I have no love for the Kangaroos. But that doesn't chane the fact that the 5th and 6th placed teams, should they lose (which they did) deserve to be eliminated - particularly when the finals were structured in a "1v8, 2v7 etc" format, meaning the top teams don't play each other (i.e 1v4 under the current system)