The 2019 fixture

[Dr. Gonzo 22,718]

17 hours ago, McQueen said:

We play Anzac eve on a Wednesday night.

I hope we get a Thursday nighter the round before.

The week before is Easter next year I think so could work

[dees189227 11,174]

It would be nice to play west coast at the g next year anda home game against essenscum and only play them once. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by dees189227

[McQueen 17,864]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The week before is Easter next year I think so could work

Just checked and you’re right.

Lets hope that’s a request from the club.

 

[titan_uranus 22,922]

On 7/20/2018 at 11:03 AM, Ouch! said:

I'd still like to see the change to 17 games home and away against the other teams, alternating home and away across two years, then after round 17 splitting the teams into the groups of 6.

We aren't going to get a 34 game season, this seems the fairest, providing that they can work out what happens with:

• Who gets home and away fixtures after round 17 (more a logistics and stadium management issue I suspect)
• How the positions on the ladder at the end of round 23 impacts draft position. It's pretty clear how the top 12 would sit... but you need to incentives winning in the bottom 6, without disadvantaging the basket cases at the bottom of the ladder.  
• Managing any fallout from double headers (QClash, Showdowns etc...) and placating the bigger clubs who insist on having double headers.  I think you can still facilitate Anzac Day, Queens Birthday clashes, and the marquee games easily enough...

If the AFL wants to have a fixture that is equal and unbiased, I can't see anything else out there that is anywhere close to this. I'd hate to see conferences introduced.

The things you've identified are massive logistical barriers.

If West Coast and Fremantle end up in the same group of 6 as, say, Brisbane and GC, you get those sides criss-crossing the country repeatedly over the last 5 weeks in the run to finals.

Or, alternatively, you could get six Victorian clubs in the same group who then get to sit in Victoria for the last 5 weeks of the year.

It throws up different forms of inequality. It simply does not solve the problem.

On 7/20/2018 at 11:14 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

17 game season should be it. Alternate home and away each year. They shouldn't reward through the fixture just give everyone an even shot at the good timeslots.

This 17-5 concept they're going for is a farce and trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Agreed.

The AFL loves copying the NFL but funnily enough won't go near the NFL's "less is more" concept. 

We can't increase to 34, so if we won't reduce to 17 then the only option, IMO, is to have the 5 double-up games allocated so that, over a 2 or 3 or 4 year period you even out as much as is possible (17 isn't a good number for maths, though).

There has to be greater transparency. There has to be a policy whereby every club plays every other club at least once home and away in a defined period (every 2 or 3 years, for example). We can't have Melbourne being away to Essendon literally every year, or Hawthorn not going to Brisbane for 10 years. 

The current model allows for flexibility with double-up games against rivals but the 5 double up games have to be allocated as fairly as possible over time.

[SFebes 4,714]

Apparently Richmond had:

9 of their first 11 games in Victoria, 8 at the MCG.

17 out of 22 games in Victoria

14 of 22 at the MCG.

 

For a reigning premier, how is that even possible? Goes to show you it's more about money to the AFL.

[Deemania since 56 6,287]

On 7/20/2018 at 10:33 AM, Ouch! said:

I'd still like to see the change to 17 games home and away against the other teams, alternating home and away across two years, then after round 17 splitting the teams into the groups of 6.

We aren't going to get a 34 game season, this seems the fairest, providing that they can work out what happens with:

• Who gets home and away fixtures after round 17 (more a logistics and stadium management issue I suspect)
• How the positions on the ladder at the end of round 23 impacts draft position. It's pretty clear how the top 12 would sit... but you need to incentives winning in the bottom 6, without disadvantaging the basket cases at the bottom of the ladder.  
• Managing any fallout from double headers (QClash, Showdowns etc...) and placating the bigger clubs who insist on having double headers.  I think you can still facilitate Anzac Day, Queens Birthday clashes, and the marquee games easily enough...

If the AFL wants to have a fixture that is equal and unbiased, I can't see anything else out there that is anywhere close to this. I'd hate to see conferences introduced.

Good comments, but it must be realised that the AFL has virtually nothing to do with any planning that is '...equal and unbiased...' i'd therefore guess that with this maxim in place, and its consequences, next to nothing will evolve that is anything near where it should be regarding the fixture. 

[Deemania since 56 6,287]

34 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

Apparently Richmond had:

9 of their first 11 games in Victoria, 8 at the MCG.

17 out of 22 games in Victoria

14 of 22 at the MCG.

 

For a reigning premier, how is that even possible? Goes to show you it's more about money to the AFL.

Clear evidence, Febes.

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

49 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

Apparently Richmond had:

9 of their first 11 games in Victoria, 8 at the MCG.

17 out of 22 games in Victoria

14 of 22 at the MCG.

 

For a reigning premier, how is that even possible? Goes to show you it's more about money to the AFL.

you can't blame Richmond .. everyone wants to play them at the MCG.... funny that's what Collingwood always used to say ?

[SFebes 4,714]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

you can't blame Richmond .. everyone wants to play them at the MCG.... funny that's what Collingwood always used to say ?

I don't blame Richmond at all, good on them, I blame the AFL!

[monoccular 16,513]

On 7/21/2018 at 4:58 PM, titan_uranus said:

The things you've identified are massive logistical barriers.

If West Coast and Fremantle end up in the same group of 6 as, say, Brisbane and GC, you get those sides criss-crossing the country repeatedly over the last 5 weeks in the run to finals.

Or, alternatively, you could get six Victorian clubs in the same group who then get to sit in Victoria for the last 5 weeks of the year.

It throws up different forms of inequality. It simply does not solve the problem.

Agreed.

The AFL loves copying the NFL but funnily enough won't go near the NFL's "less is more" concept. 

We can't increase to 34, so if we won't reduce to 17 then the only option, IMO, is to have the 5 double-up games allocated so that, over a 2 or 3 or 4 year period you even out as much as is possible (17 isn't a good number for maths, though).

There has to be greater transparency. There has to be a policy whereby every club plays every other club at least once home and away in a defined period (every 2 or 3 years, for example). We can't have Melbourne being away to Essendon literally every year, or Hawthorn not going to Brisbane for 10 years. 

The current model allows for flexibility with double-up games against rivals but the 5 double up games have to be allocated as fairly as possible over time.

Agree with the highlighted bits in particular, but that would be reasonably fair and equitable, so it WILL NOT happen.

[titan_uranus 22,922]

6 hours ago, MSFebey said:

Apparently Richmond had:

9 of their first 11 games in Victoria, 8 at the MCG.

17 out of 22 games in Victoria

14 of 22 at the MCG.

For a reigning premier, how is that even possible? Goes to show you it's more about money to the AFL.

We had 9 of our first 11 games in Victoria.

We would have 17 out of 22 games in Victoria if we didn't sell two home games to the NT.

Our MCG count is lower (11), but we might get one back if we didn't sell two home games to the NT, plus Richmond get 4 away games at the G because clubs want to play them there.

One of the many reasons it's important for us to finish strong and make the finals is to keep a positive aura around us and get more clubs wanting to play us in their home games at the G. 

[SFebes 4,714]

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

We had 9 of our first 11 games in Victoria.

We would have 17 out of 22 games in Victoria if we didn't sell two home games to the NT.

Our MCG count is lower (11), but we might get one back if we didn't sell two home games to the NT, plus Richmond get 4 away games at the G because clubs want to play them there.

One of the many reasons it's important for us to finish strong and make the finals is to keep a positive aura around us and get more clubs wanting to play us in their home games at the G. 

But we aren’t the reigning premiers.

[MT64 1,128]

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

We had 9 of our first 11 games in Victoria.

We would have 17 out of 22 games in Victoria if we didn't sell two home games to the NT.

Our MCG count is lower (11), but we might get one back if we didn't sell two home games to the NT, plus Richmond get 4 away games at the G because clubs want to play them there.

One of the many reasons it's important for us to finish strong and make the finals is to keep a positive aura around us and get more clubs wanting to play us in their home games at the G. 

I believe we are only contracted for 9 home games at the "G" plus two sold home games in the NT. We then play two 'tennant" clubs to make our total 11.  If we stopped the NT games there is no guarantee we get those home games at the "G". I would love to know how many "home" games Richmond and Collingwood have at the "G" considering the MCG is our home ground and all the rest are "tennants". I know the bums on seats theory but as we improve we must have more home games against the higher drawing Vic clubs. Carlscum can just waddle to to Shiitiad stadium in the west and stagnate there. Clearly the AFL arranged more games at the "G" for Carlscum to go after their supporters (bums on seats again).

[Big Carl 333]

On 7/19/2018 at 9:11 PM, MSFebey said:

I agree Jim, the draw needs serious attention. Gone are the days of the fair draw where every team played each other at home and away, that’s when it was fair. The AFL has grown too quickly . I’m not sure how they’d ever fix it now with 18 teams. Maybe a two tier comp then top 4 of each play finals. It’s never happen though. I hate the fixture, it favours Collingwood and has for years and now Richmond, how could their draw be so easy after a flag? Makes ya wonder this whacky administration sometimes. Bring back Demetriou

* Collingwood and Richmond will play far too many games at the MCG.

.* Collingwood, Essendon and Hawthorn will again NOT get scheduled to play at Geelong..

* MFC will continue to sell home games to the NT proving that $ are more important than 4 points. Don’t complain then if we miss the finals by 4 points. We won both games this year but the recovery was poor.

* MFC will be scheduled to play too many games at Etihad/Marvel (whatever it is called).

* AFL will continue to schedule games at the ridiculous time of 3.20pm on Sundays in Melbourne in July.

* More Thursday night games needed.

 

[titan_uranus 22,922]

On 7/27/2018 at 7:12 AM, MSFebey said:

But we aren’t the reigning premiers.

The points you raised were:

1. starting the season with 9 out of 11 games in Victoria;
2. only having 5 interstate games;
3. getting 14 games at the MCG.

Why should winning the premiership affect any of those? In fact, shouldn't winning the flag mean a better fixture given what should, rightly, be the reward for strong performance?

The MCG is their home ground, so they get 10 games there at a minimum (given the AFL shafts the MCG tenants with Etihad home games). The other 4 are because other sides want home games against them.

Indeed, I'm sure you'd agree that we would want to play Richmond in a home game next year.

On 7/27/2018 at 8:08 AM, MT64 said:

I believe we are only contracted for 9 home games at the "G" plus two sold home games in the NT. We then play two 'tennant" clubs to make our total 11.  If we stopped the NT games there is no guarantee we get those home games at the "G". I would love to know how many "home" games Richmond and Collingwood have at the "G" considering the MCG is our home ground and all the rest are "tennants". I know the bums on seats theory but as we improve we must have more home games against the higher drawing Vic clubs. Carlscum can just waddle to to Shiitiad stadium in the west and stagnate there. Clearly the AFL arranged more games at the "G" for Carlscum to go after their supporters (bums on seats again).

Richmond has 10 (one at Etihad), Collingwood 9 (two at Etihad), we have 9 (two games sold to NT, none at Etihad) Hawthorn has 6 (one at Etihad, four games sold to Tasmania). Then Etihad tenants - Carlton has 5 and Essendon has 4 (with both playing the rest at Eithad).

It appears that if we reduced our NT arrangement down to one per year, that 10th Victorian home game would be played at Etihad. If we brought both back, though, it's not clear whether we'd get the 11th game at the G (Richmond does, but Collingwood doesn't, so I'm not sure how it would work).

One of the big problems is that Essendon and, in particular, Carlton (given Carlton get home games against Port and WC at the G, whereas Essendon's are against the bigger Melbourne clubs and exceed Etihad's capacity) get permission to play games at the G when they made the decision to go to Etihad. They're both Etihad clubs. By granting them home games at the G, it forces the actual MCG clubs (us, Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn) to play home games where we don't want them at Etihad to meet the AFL's contractual minimum.

On 7/27/2018 at 9:43 AM, Big Carl said:

* Collingwood and Richmond will play far too many games at the MCG.

.* Collingwood, Essendon and Hawthorn will again NOT get scheduled to play at Geelong..

* MFC will continue to sell home games to the NT proving that $ are more important than 4 points. Don’t complain then if we miss the finals by 4 points. We won both games this year but the recovery was poor.

* MFC will be scheduled to play too many games at Etihad/Marvel (whatever it is called).

* AFL will continue to schedule games at the ridiculous time of 3.20pm on Sundays in Melbourne in July.

* More Thursday night games needed.

Both are required to play home games at Etihad, indeed Collingwood has two. As to their away games at the G, everyone wants to play home games against them, including us. I'm sure you, like MSFebey, want to see home games against big Victorian clubs on our 2019 fixture.

We won both NT games and both of the games the following week. Are you sure there's an impact?

We only have to play three games at Etihad this year. That's the lowest we've ever had, I think.

But I agree re: Kardinia Park (equality demands that everyone should have to play there), 3.20pm games (but that won't stop any time soon given Channel 7 demand having the game lead into the news) and Thursday nights (does anyone actually like them?).

[SFebes 4,714]

5 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The points you raised were:

1. starting the season with 9 out of 11 games in Victoria;
2. only having 5 interstate games;
3. getting 14 games at the MCG.

Why should winning the premiership affect any of those? In fact, shouldn't winning the flag mean a better fixture given what should, rightly, be the reward for strong performance?

The MCG is their home ground, so they get 10 games there at a minimum (given the AFL shafts the MCG tenants with Etihad home games). The other 4 are because other sides want home games against them.

Indeed, I'm sure you'd agree that we would want to play Richmond in a home game next year.

Richmond has 10 (one at Etihad), Collingwood 9 (two at Etihad), we have 9 (two games sold to NT, none at Etihad) Hawthorn has 6 (one at Etihad, four games sold to Tasmania). Then Etihad tenants - Carlton has 5 and Essendon has 4 (with both playing the rest at Eithad).

It appears that if we reduced our NT arrangement down to one per year, that 10th Victorian home game would be played at Etihad. If we brought both back, though, it's not clear whether we'd get the 11th game at the G (Richmond does, but Collingwood doesn't, so I'm not sure how it would work).

One of the big problems is that Essendon and, in particular, Carlton (given Carlton get home games against Port and WC at the G, whereas Essendon's are against the bigger Melbourne clubs and exceed Etihad's capacity) get permission to play games at the G when they made the decision to go to Etihad. They're both Etihad clubs. By granting them home games at the G, it forces the actual MCG clubs (us, Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn) to play home games where we don't want them at Etihad to meet the AFL's contractual minimum.

Both are required to play home games at Etihad, indeed Collingwood has two. As to their away games at the G, everyone wants to play home games against them, including us. I'm sure you, like MSFebey, want to see home games against big Victorian clubs on our 2019 fixture.

We won both NT games and both of the games the following week. Are you sure there's an impact?

We only have to play three games at Etihad this year. That's the lowest we've ever had, I think.

But I agree re: Kardinia Park (equality demands that everyone should have to play there), 3.20pm games (but that won't stop any time soon given Channel 7 demand having the game lead into the news) and Thursday nights (does anyone actually like them?).

I haven’t got time to write the reply I want, beautiful arvo here but it’s quite normal for the AFL to adjust a draw or fixture based on the recent success of the previous year, that was my point, they’ve had an easy draw.

[D4Life 2,307]

I would like to see all 18 teams play against one another in the first 17 rounds. Then we would see the positions after an almost even drawer.

Then you play your other 5 games in the run home to the finals!

[loges 6,284]

31 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

I haven’t got time to write the reply I want, beautiful arvo here but it’s quite normal for the AFL to adjust a draw or fixture based on the recent success of the previous year, that was my point, they’ve had an easy draw.

I thought the reward for a successful season was more prime time TV, not an easier draw.

[SFebes 4,714]

13 minutes ago, loges said:

I thought the reward for a successful season was more prime time TV, not an easier draw.

You can still play Friday night games at Kardinia Park, Optus, AO etc. off to make the most of the sunshine, enjoy your day go dees

[loges 6,284]

3 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

You can still play Friday night games at Kardinia Park, Optus, AO etc. off to make the most of the sunshine, enjoy your day go dees

Yes, go Dee's, fingers crossed.

[Rocknroll 945]

2 x 90K crowds at the g on a friday night, with mostly dee fans, maybe itis time we are due for a few more prime time friday fixtures....just saying