Current finals system

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 389]

I think there was an article in the Age recently about the lack of reward in the current finals system for teams that win the minor premiership and/or finish second. Following on from St Kilda's upset over Geelong last night I was thinking that Geelong would hate to be facing Hawthorn next week if they beat the Dockers and that they have gained no real advantage by finishing 2nd. I think one possible solution could be to not have a set pathway through the final systems, rather that the highest ranking team will get to choose their finals opponents. This could work in a number of different ways, e.g. the minor premier can choose to play either 3rd or 4th in the qualifying final, while second placed faces the other side. Then in the semi final, the highest ranking loser of the qualifying final (in the case of 2010, Geelong) would then get to choose their opponent for the semi-final after all elimination finals are completed. This could also apply to the preliminary final where the highest ranked team (let's assume Collingwood for this year) would get to choose their opponent. You would imagine Collingwood would not be choosing to play Geelong, which is the most likely situation this year. I guess the only issue would be that teams could end up playing each other twice, so perhaps its rule that would only apply to the semi-final round.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Ascobar

[Geddy Lee 582]

I think there was an article in the Age recently about the lack of reward in the current finals system for teams that win the minor premiership and/or finish second. Following on from St Kilda's upset over Geelong last night I was thinking that Geelong would hate to be facing Hawthorn next week if they beat the Dockers and that they have gained no real advantage by finishing 2nd. I think one possible solution could be to not have a set pathway through the final systems, rather that the highest ranking team will get to choose their finals opponents. This could work in a number of different ways, e.g. the minor premier can choose to play either 3rd or 4th in the qualifying final, while second placed faces the other side. Then in the semi final, the highest ranking loser of the qualifying final (in the case of 2010, Geelong) would then get to choose their opponent for the semi-final after all elimination finals are completed. This could also apply to the preliminary final where the highest ranked team (let's assume Collingwood for this year) would get to choose their opponent. You would imagine Collingwood would not be choosing to play Geelong, which is the most likely situation this year. I guess the only issue would be that teams could end up playing each other twice, so perhaps its rule that would only apply to the semi-final round.

They get a second chance. That is reward enough.

As for Geelong as an example, it's not the AFL's fault that Geelong [censored] themselves everytime they play the Hawks.

[Yokozuna 1,004]

How about a final 7 or 9 and the minor premier gets the week off.

Not sure how it would all work, as I have not thought about it much, but I guess thats what they do at the AFL, so the change could be made in a flash if they would like!!!1

[Red Sox 2]

I think there was an article in the Age recently about the lack of reward in the current finals system for teams that win the minor premiership and/or finish second. Following on from St Kilda's upset over Geelong last night I was thinking that Geelong would hate to be facing Hawthorn next week if they beat the Dockers and that they have gained no real advantage by finishing 2nd. I think one possible solution could be to not have a set pathway through the final systems, rather that the highest ranking team will get to choose their finals opponents. This could work in a number of different ways, e.g. the minor premier can choose to play either 3rd or 4th in the qualifying final, while second placed faces the other side. Then in the semi final, the highest ranking loser of the qualifying final (in the case of 2010, Geelong) would then get to choose their opponent for the semi-final after all elimination finals are completed. This could also apply to the preliminary final where the highest ranked team (let's assume Collingwood for this year) would get to choose their opponent. You would imagine Collingwood would not be choosing to play Geelong, which is the most likely situation this year. I guess the only issue would be that teams could end up playing each other twice, so perhaps its rule that would only apply to the semi-final round.

It's never going to be the advantage of when it was a final 5. Finishing top at least in the final 5 system was a great advantage.

You got a weeks rest to watch 2nd & 3rd go at it, then playing a Semi against the winner to go straight to a GF. If you lost the Semi, you still go to the Prelim & get another game to go to the GF.

Not sure you can have teams choosing who they play, it would be nice to see more of an advantage but for the most part the best team invariably wins.

They get a second chance. That is reward enough.

As for Geelong as an example, it's not the AFL's fault that Geelong [censored] themselves everytime they play the Hawks.

Besides the 08 GF, the Hawks cannot manage to get over the line against Geelong.

Hopefully will see this next weekend, preferable than a Geel V Freo final

[Mono 455]

I like the NRL system (about the only thing they do well)>

1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 etc.

2 highest winning teams get a week off; 2 lowest losing teams are eliminated. Not sure how it goes from there, but you get the gist.

Top side should only get a week off if each side plays the others twice; ie equal for all. At the moment with 22 games, its a bit of a lottery.

[45HG 1,539]

I like the NRL system (about the only thing they do well)>

1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 etc.

2 highest winning teams get a week off; 2 lowest losing teams are eliminated. Not sure how it goes from there, but you get the gist.

Top side should only get a week off if each side plays the others twice; ie equal for all. At the moment with 22 games, its a bit of a lottery.

That's the Mcyntire system.

It was the AFL's system for years and was canned because of almost universal dissapproval.

I can't see a valid argument against the current system, I really can't.

[titan_uranus 24,963]

That's the Mcyntire system.

It was the AFL's system for years and was canned because of almost universal dissapproval.

I can't see a valid argument against the current system, I really can't.

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with the current system.

The McIntyre system doesn't reward good home and away form in that the teams who finish 3rd and 4th can theoretically be eliminated in the first week of the finals. In our system you get that second chance as a reward for putting in the effort in the home and away season.

[Brayshaw Self 847]

Leave it as is. Second chances and home finals work well. No need for any changes

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I can't see a valid argument against the current system, I really can't.

Agreed, the old system was rubbish, think back to 1998 when Melbourne thrashed the Crows who then went to win the flag.

[big tuna 0]

Keep the current system.

On a related matter... why did Geelong play in white shorts against Saints last night? Geelong finished higher on the ladder and even though the game was played at the MCG it was still their home game. Shouldn't they have worn their navy shorts and Saints wear their alternative strip?

Edited September 4, 2010 by big tuna

[titan_uranus 24,963]

Keep the current system.

On a related matter... why did Geelong play in white shorts against Saints last night? Geelong finished higher on the ladder and even though the game was played at the MCG it was still their home game. Shouldn't they have worn their navy shorts and Saints wear their alternative strip?

Because it worked the way they did it. I don't think Geelong, or their supporters, care much about the colour of their shorts. Certainly not like some MFC supporters...

[Face Your Demons 175]

The only change that needs to be made is to ban The Filth from all finals, lets face it they will only choke when the big games start.

[Face Your Demons 175]

Because it worked the way they did it. I don't think Geelong, or their supporters, care much about the colour of their shorts. Certainly not like some MFC supporters...

Don't they toss for Shorts , rooms. etc in finals

[old55 23,309]

none

[H_T 3,043]

I think there was an article in the Age recently about the lack of reward in the current finals system for teams that win the minor premiership and/or finish second. Following on from St Kilda's upset over Geelong last night I was thinking that Geelong would hate to be facing Hawthorn next week if they beat the Dockers and that they have gained no real advantage by finishing 2nd.

...

...

Yet if Geelong beat St.Kilda they would absolutely hate the prospect of a week off and finding themselves go straight through to the Preliminary Final. Some advantage.

[Supermercado 2,797]

I'm happy to stay with this system - no need to expand the finals when the new teams come in, it should be the elite and not some rubbish like the NBL tried where you play a whole regular season just to eliminate a couple of terrible sides and keep all the mediocre ones in.

The ratings might prove me wrong, but to me the fact that they couldn't even get a crowd to a QF on Friday night should tell them that there's not as much excitement about the finals as the league thinks there is and stuffing a couple more terrible sides in there to get more games is going to achieve nothing.

[Rogue 585]

The finals system should stay the same.

It certainly doesn't need to be expanded!

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 389]

I think I should have made the thread topic: Current finals system: Does it need changing

I see where people are coming from and I definately think the current model is better than the awful McIntyre system - never forgot us flogging eventual premiers Adelaide...

Was just meant to be a speculative discussion topic and not necessarily an attack on the current system which for the most part works pretty well I think.

I would also think that a final 9 could be okay once there are 18 teams (minor premiers getting a week off) but have no idea how it would function. 5 weeks? and only one team eliminated in teh first road? Sounds cimplicated to me...

Edited September 8, 2010 by Ascobar

[old dee 23,682]

The finals system should stay the same.

It certainly doesn't need to be expanded!

I agree "Rogue" with one small variation.

The Dees to appear in 2011

[Rogue 585]

I agree "Rogue" with one small variation.

The Dees to appear in 2011

I second your modification

[old55 23,309]

I do agree that unless your team is playing the 2nd week is a bit of a dud - if any of the participating teams have genuine flag credentials then they will pound the living crap out of their opposition e.g Geelong v Freo. Close matches are usually between finals also-rans. The biggest motivator is often a negative with teams trying to avoid a straight sets exit but with little hope of progressing e.g. Dogs.

However:

The first week has great interest with prelims at stake in the qualifiers and often up and coming teams trying to win a first final in the eliminations e.g. Freo. The prelim week is possibly even better than GF week with partisan crowds at take-no prisoners high stakes games that the general footy public has a good chance of getting to.

[daisycutter 29,596]

They get a second chance. That is reward enough.

As for Geelong as an example, it's not the AFL's fault that Geelong [censored] themselves everytime they play the Hawks.

They also may get home ground preferences depending

• A real home advantage eg MFC vs Essendon at MCG (where MFC finish higher)
  
• A pseudo home advantage eg Geelong vs Adelaide at MCG (where Geelong finish higher)
  
• No home advantage eg if MFC played Geelong at MCG (where Geelong finished higher)
  

[hoopla 418]

The finals system should stay the same.

It certainly doesn't need to be expanded!

Agree

[daisycutter 29,596]

Agree

+1

[Deetective Sgt. Taggert 389]

I do agree that unless your team is playing the 2nd week is a bit of a dud - if any of the participating teams have genuine flag credentials then they will pound the living crap out of their opposition e.g Geelong v Freo. Close matches are usually between finals also-rans. The biggest motivator is often a negative with teams trying to avoid a straight sets exit but with little hope of progressing e.g. Dogs.

However:

The first week has great interest with prelims at stake in the qualifiers and often up and coming teams trying to win a first final in the eliminations e.g. Freo. The prelim week is possibly even better than GF week with partisan crowds at take-no prisoners high stakes games that the general footy public has a good chance of getting to.

Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing myself this week. I have little interest in the outcomes of these games unless by some suprise sydney or Fremantle get close to winning. Last year wa a biot more interesting with Adelaide giving collingwood a real run for their money but yeah who cares reall what happens its all about the prelims. I guess there are benefits for the teams tha win the elimination finals in that the get some more finals experience that woukld be some preparation for future top four berths.