The AFL has retained the week off prior to the finals. What do you think about this? Perhaps they can schedule our Darwin game in Round 23 and finally give us a break.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-19/afl-confirms-prefinals-bye-will-be-back-in-2017

I didn't like it. 

 

But after the way the dogs went this year, anything that evens the top 8 is better imo.

Yeah, I just saw this pop up on my Facebook feed. If we can make the top 8, who knows next year. Anyone can win it from the 8. I just hope when we're vying for the top 4, this rule is eradicated, because it really does rob teams that have earned their place in the top 4, IMO.

Oh well, gives me an extra week to buy finals tickets because we are a top 8 team next year!!

Didn't like the idea at first, but it obviously helped the Doggies.  Gives a more even chance to more sides in the final eight.  Hope it benefits us when we make it.  i'm sold on the concept now.

36 minutes ago, A F said:

Yeah, I just saw this pop up on my Facebook feed. If we can make the top 8, who knows next year. Anyone can win it from the 8. I just hope when we're vying for the top 4, this rule is eradicated, because it really does rob teams that have earned their place in the top 4, IMO.

The top 4 Clubs will adjust to this over time and eventually find positives from it that they'll benefit from. But you're right, at the moment it's a huge benefit for the 8 clubs with very sore players to get them up for a tilt.

16 minutes ago, McQueen said:

The top 4 Clubs will adjust to this over time and eventually find positives from it that they'll benefit from. But you're right, at the moment it's a huge benefit for the 8 clubs with very sore players to get them up for a tilt.

I just hope it doesn't rob us for a chance or two during GWS' dynasty. 

 

44 minutes ago, A F said:

Yeah, I just saw this pop up on my Facebook feed. If we can make the top 8, who knows next year. Anyone can win it from the 8. I just hope when we're vying for the top 4, this rule is eradicated, because it really does rob teams that have earned their place in the top 4, IMO.

I'd like to see them shake up the way the finals series work so each team plays every week after the bye as the break becomes irrelevant.

Perhaps the following:

Week 1: 1st v 4th (1) / 2nd v 3rd (2) / 5th v 8th (3)  / 6th v 7th (4) Non-elimination round

Week 2: Winner (1) v Loser (3) (1*) / Loser (1) v Winner (3) (2*) / Winner (2) v Loser (4)(3*) / Loser (2) v Winner (4) (4)*Loser eliminated

 Week 3: Winner (1*) v Winner (4*) / Winner (2*) v Winner (3*)

GF

Would be interesting.

Both teams with the week off lost this year.

9 minutes ago, A F said:

I just hope it doesn't rob us for a chance or two during GWS' dynasty. 

 

They'd be thinking the same about us.. 

The best thing to come out of the bye is the Thursday night match in the first round

Makes that first week a great four days of football

Move the Brownlow to the first Thursday after round 23 (all players can attend as the next match is not until the following Thursday) and play the Women's grand Final on the Saturday night at Docklands with cheap admission to encourage attendance

not much incentive to finish in the top 4

Good.

25 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

I'd like to see them shake up the way the finals series work so each team plays every week after the bye as the break becomes irrelevant.

Perhaps the following:

Week 1: 1st v 4th (1) / 2nd v 3rd (2) / 5th v 8th (3)  / 6th v 7th (4) Non-elimination round

Week 2: Winner (1) v Loser (3) (1*) / Loser (1) v Winner (3) (2*) / Winner (2) v Loser (4)(3*) / Loser (2) v Winner (4) (4)*Loser eliminated

 Week 3: Winner (1*) v Winner (4*) / Winner (2*) v Winner (3*)

GF

Would be interesting.

Hang on. So wouldn't that make the double-chance even less attractive?

16 minutes ago, A F said:

Hang on. So wouldn't that make the double-chance even less attractive?

I very quickly put that together so would have to give it more thorough thought.

I do think if they want to persist with the bye week they should change the format.

The benefit of finishing in the top 4 would be that you would face a bottom 4 side in the 2nd week, for example if !st beat 4th they are most likely to play 8th in week 2 which would see them go through to the prelim.

Edited October 19, 20169 yr by Is Dom Is Good

i'm not convinced that it makes it easier for 5-8 or harder for top 4.

the first 7 teams this year were fairly even on the ladder only separated by 2 wins over the whole season

 

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

i'm not convinced that it makes it easier for 5-8 or harder for top 4.

the first 7 teams this year were fairly even on the ladder only separated by 2 wins over the whole season

Which is why it may as well stay so we can get a bigger sample size. The week off was huge for the Dogs, in terms of rest. The finals series definitely felt different, Geelong looked completely out of match fitness in the PF.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Both teams with the week off lost this year.

Both teams with the week off didn't make the 8 last year. Irrespective of how strong they showed to be at certain points this year, they're both still developing clubs. GWS are on a two game losing streak at their home venue now, and Geelong only a month earlier were down by 36 at 3/4 v Richmond. Hardly unbeatable home top 4 prospects.

Edited October 19, 20169 yr by DominatrixTyson

17 minutes ago, Je Roos Salem said:

 

Which is why it may as well stay so we can get a bigger sample size. The week off was huge for the Dogs, in terms of rest. The finals series definitely felt different, Geelong looked completely out of match fitness in the PF.

agree the dogs seemingly got a benefit. but that was just due to the fact they had so many key injured players rather than their position on the ladder.

56 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'm not convinced that it makes it easier for 5-8 or harder for top 4.

the first 7 teams this year were fairly even on the ladder only separated by 2 wins over the whole season

Upon reflection, I agree.

I definitely think the bye week helped the Dogs in terms of being fit for the Perth final but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Adelaide, West Coast and the Dogs were three of the best sides in recent memory to miss the top 4.

There needs to be an incentive/reward for finishing higher on the ladder but I think the double chance (not necessarily the week off, but the chance to lose that first final and keep going) plays that role.

The bye and the chance for a rest and refresh for the players offers the prospect of a finals season, distinct from the H & A season and a finals series. The eight clubs are divided into 2 groups 1,3,5,7 and 2,4,6,8 and play a round robin series to determine ladder positions. The top two play off in the grand final.

Finishing 1 and 2 or top 4 loses its appeal for the teams. The argument the WB benefited from the bye is correct - but don't we want the best teams to win, not just the team with least injuries at the start of the finals. Injuries can occur in the finals that will test team lists but at least they could all start even.

The trade off is enhanced interest in round 23 and four matches a week for the three weeks of the finals where just winning is not enough, it's the margin of victory and its affect on percentage that counts as well. Every score could have a bearing. I would also have all four matches in the third week played at the same time so that teams can't game the system. The broadcasters would have the challenge to cover all four matches simultaneously using "round the grounds" images and reports. What a dynamic and exciting day of footy. The grand final would then be the ultimate match of the season.

Brownlow, rising star, MVP, coaches and all other awards to be held in "awards week", an event in itself with daily functions with the Brownlow as the climax. What a celebration of footy. And then the finals season.

Why not?

 

 

A good chance for the boys to freshen up & for us to calm ourselves before our return to finals footy......

What about this line in the op article: "However, the League's general manager of clubs and operations Travis Auld is set to examine other potential fixture formats, including the 17-5 model and potential to introduce finals wildcards". 

Each team plays once then the ladder splits into groups of 6 to play off for positions on the ladder.  The top 6 definitely play finals, the next 6 play for the last 2 spots in the 8 and the last 6 play for/tank for...the #1 draft pick.  The intention is to make the fixture more even.  In practice I think it means a round of finals for the first 6 before the actual finals.

I think the finals before the finals will disadvantage the younger, less experienced teams in the top 6 as they will potentially have 5 tough games to end the season before they play (the same group of teams) in a tough finals series.  I can also see all sorts of opportunities for teams to manipulate the outcomes in each group of 6 depending on their win/loss ratio after round 17.  It also means the last 5 games will be pretty boring for the fans of the bottom 6 just playing other poor/mediocre teams. 

As for 'wildcards', hope that is not another way for the AFL to 'use their discretion' and control over the game!!

I don't know if, on balance 17/5 will be good or bad but personally I prefer they leave it alone.  And, no wildcards!

Edited October 20, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

I'm all for trying the 17-5 system.

I don't like it but I would also say you can't base a decision off one year, this year was also probably the tightest top 8 from 1st-7th. At some point in the year each one of those teams (hell I'll even throw the Roos in at 8th) looked like they could be a premiership contender. That the dogs did it from 7th is an amazing achievement alone. Whether or not the bye favours the the bottom 4 we still don't know for sure.

Let's see how next year goes and if it does appear that it disadvantages the top 4 it must be removed.