Why has 4th on the ladder not won a grand final this century?

[Fadge]

You are having a different conversation, I’m not saying who should or should not win, my point was a higher winner vs. lower loser system makes more sense, my guess is they don’t do it for fixturing reasons. There are very realistic scenarios where the higher placed team ends up with a stronger opponent in week 2 than the team that finishes 2nd or 3rd and loses in week 1

But if all results go according to the seedings, which is the most likely scenario, the higher placed team will play the 'weaker' opponent in week 2.

The finals system in the mid to late 90's had fluidity around who would play who in week 2, and it didn't work well at all (hence why it only lasted a handful of seasons).

 

[Ralll]

I'd guess it's both the probability of the GF winner becoming less likely the lower down the ladder you go, and factor in a small sample size and you get the current anomaly where 4th has not won the GF this century.
I'm sure it will happen sooner or later as the sample size grows. It just needs a top team to end up in 4th. eg. Injuries during the season.

 

[Happy_Neale]

But if all results go according to the seedings, which is the most likely scenario, the higher placed team will play the 'weaker' opponent in week 2.

The finals system in the mid to late 90's had fluidity around who would play who in week 2, and it didn't work well at all (hence why it only lasted a handful of seasons).

That is not the system the AFL had, it was 1v8, 2v7 etc which is not what I am saying at all. The problem with that system is that if 1st loses week 1 it essentially is on the road for the rest of the finals where 7th/8th will get a home final second week

 

[Fadge]

That is not the system the AFL had, it was 1v8, 2v7 etc which is not what I am saying at all. The problem with that system is that if 1st loses week 1 it essentially is on the road for the rest of the finals where 7th/8th will get a home final second week

And I never said 'it was the system the AFL had'.

My comment was 'there was fluidity around the matchups for week 2'.

 

[Happy_Neale]

And I never said 'it was the system the AFL had'.

My comment was 'there was fluidity around the matchups for week 2'.

Right. Well you're either being disingenous or you don't understand because that is a much different system to what I was talking about

 

[nineteen eighty]

Are you sure you're not a Collingwood supporter, given that level of statistical analysis?

I have one toof on one side of my mouth and another one toof on the other. How many toof do I have?

Well that's the level of conversation I would overhear at Vic Park back in the day.

 

[Fadge]

I have one toof on one side of my mouth and another one toof on the other. How many toof do I have?

Well that's the level of conversation I would overhear at Vic Park back in the day.

We've evolved considerably since then...

 

[Freomaniac]

How often has 4th been eliminated in straight sets?

good question...

Dockers were 4th in 2014 and was out in straght sets.

Swans were 4th in 2015 and went out in straight sets too.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

That is not the system the AFL had, it was 1v8, 2v7 etc which is not what I am saying at all. The problem with that system is that if 1st loses week 1 it essentially is on the road for the rest of the finals where 7th/8th will get a home final second week

Didn't the top six, or at least version of it (maybe the original version of the eight, which had other issues), have the highest/lowest winner for week two rather than winner/loser of specific matches?

 

[boncer34]

good question...

Dockers were 4th in 2014 and was out in straght sets.

Swans were 4th in 2015 and went out in straight sets too.

Good question that was answered 5 posts later.

You got 5 posts into the thread and couldn't be bothered reading another 5?

 

[Percel]

No one believes in Go Fourth and Conquer anymore