Winners & Losers of the 17 Round Draw

[Demonland 70,251]

No surprises. 

 ? Richmond ?
? Melbourne ?

What the 17-round fixture means for your club.

AFL’s 17-game fixture puts Richmond in pole position to claim back-to-back premierships

[hardtack 10,400]

I can’t read the article (paywall), so I don’t know how they come to their conclusions, but I would have thought that early rounds being played to empty stadiums could have a big bearing on results, particularly in SA and WA where the crowds have typically had a big impact on umpiring decisions.

Another consideration is the fact that there will be no VFL competition (is that right?), meaning that the clubs who can keep their best 22 on the field deepest into the competition may have an edge, due to replacement players, despite training, possibly not being at full match fitness.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,631]

15 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I can’t read the article (paywall), so I don’t know how they come to their conclusions,

I can't read either, but it's fairly easy logic Tigers would have had a hard draw because they finished on top and would have had more of the top teams from last year as their double ups and the inverse for the MFC.  Having an easy draw was certainly one factor which helped Brisbane in 2019 and to some extent the Tigers in 2017.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

As much as it sucks, there’s an argument that we should only want the same draw as every other club - not easier or harder - just the same.

I’m ultimately cool with this. I just hope we manage to play at least 17 games this year.

 

[Pates 9,625]

I will preface this by saying this is not something I would want but only a suggestion should we get a completely bastardised version of a season. 

Instead of a proper season we have conferences based off ladder positions from last year so you get 9 teams playing playing a round robin of sorts (perhaps shortened game time and shorter time between matches) then you have conference finals with a grand final between the winners of the conferences (though I would prefer they call it something other than Grand Final). 

For clarity conference A would be: Geelong, Melbourne, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Freo, Bulldogs, Adelaide, Hawthorn

Conference B would be: Brisbane, GC, Collingwood, Carlton, GWS, St Kilda, Essendon, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide

As a laugh, get Corona beer to sponsor it and call the final the "Corona Bowl" particularly if it's at Marvel Stadium!

Just a random idea, and I will say this that conference A would look a hell of a lot harder than conference B!

[58er 5,924]

Perhaps the lower nine teams from 2019 could get the 9 home games and top sides only 8?

That  would in a small way be an evener upper for the 17 game draw.

 

[Deemania since 56 6,550]

7 hours ago, hardtack said:

I can’t read the article (paywall), so I don’t know how they come to their conclusions, but I would have thought that early rounds being played to empty stadiums could have a big bearing on results, particularly in SA and WA where the crowds have typically had a big impact on umpiring decisions.

Another consideration is the fact that there will be no VFL competition (is that right?), meaning that the clubs who can keep their best 22 on the field deepest into the competition may have an edge, due to replacement players, despite training, possibly not being at full match fitness.

I cannot read the article either, so one must assume that Fate is playing her hand, once again for the MFC.

[Salems Lot 2,470]

11 hours ago, hardtack said:

I can’t read the article (paywall), so I don’t know how they come to their conclusions, but I would have thought that early rounds being played to empty stadiums could have a big bearing on results, particularly in SA and WA where the crowds have typically had a big impact on umpiring decisions.

Another consideration is the fact that there will be no VFL competition (is that right?), meaning that the clubs who can keep their best 22 on the field deepest into the competition may have an edge, due to replacement players, despite training, possibly not being at full match fitness.

HT, I would imagine it is based on the fact that finishing 17th had gifted us more games against lower teams from last year whereas Richmond don't have to play theirs against the top teams from last year.

[dl4e 5,843]

19 minutes ago, Salems Lot said:

HT, I would imagine it is based on the fact that finishing 17th had gifted us more games against lower teams from last year whereas Richmond don't have to play theirs against the top teams from last year.

Correct. Hence Richmond are winners and we are the losers ( along with GC )

[Demon3 2,541]

Wont matter much, its all such a different environment, soft draws hard draws are the least of clubs concerns id imagine. To me it almost feels like an even playing field, tall teams affected by this, all players, all competition. 

It may not even matter at all as there may be next to no footy played. 

[hardtack 10,400]

1 hour ago, Salems Lot said:

HT, I would imagine it is based on the fact that finishing 17th had gifted us more games against lower teams from last year whereas Richmond don't have to play theirs against the top teams from last year.

Yes, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that we are the AFL’s “whipping boy”; we get what we get courtesy of poor performances. However, I do think that the other considerations I mentioned will come into play, making it a very unpredictable season (much more so than usual).

[george_on_the_outer 7,427]

There is no-one better off using the H-S methodology.  

Would playing Brisbane last year be seen as easier, because they finished near the bottom the previous year?  Tell that to the teams that lost to them.

Same this year.  In the Marsh series, GC, St.Kilda, Melbourne and Fremantle filled 4 of the top 5 positions. Yes I know it is only 3 games, but all of those teams are not going to be bunnies in 2020.

The real analysis should be WHERE you play the other sides in the overall picture.  You only play each other once.  Would you prefer to play Port in Adelaide or the MCG?  WCE in Perth or in Victoria?  Geelong in sleepy hollow or the MCG?

 

[spirit of norm smith 15,106]

11 hours ago, Pates said:

I will preface this by saying this is not something I would want but only a suggestion should we get a completely bastardised version of a season. 

Instead of a proper season we have conferences based off ladder positions from last year so you get 9 teams playing playing a round robin of sorts (perhaps shortened game time and shorter time between matches) then you have conference finals with a grand final between the winners of the conferences (though I would prefer they call it something other than Grand Final). 

For clarity conference A would be: Geelong, Melbourne, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Freo, Bulldogs, Adelaide, Hawthorn

Conference B would be: Brisbane, GC, Collingwood, Carlton, GWS, St Kilda, Essendon, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide

As a laugh, get Corona beer to sponsor it and call the final the "Corona Bowl" particularly if it's at Marvel Stadium!

Just a random idea, and I will say this that conference A would look a hell of a lot harder than conference B!

Too soon !!

[hardtack 10,400]

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The real analysis should be WHERE you play the other sides in the overall picture.  You only play each other once.  Would you prefer to play Port in Adelaide or the MCG?  WCE in Perth or in Victoria?  Geelong in sleepy hollow or the MCG?

With no crowds, I think a lot of the “where you play” aspect is taken out of the equation. They are inside a stadium that could be anywhere, but without the crowd influencing umpiring decisions.

[Pennant St Dee 12,654]

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

With no crowds, I think a lot of the “where you play” aspect is taken out of the equation. They are inside a stadium that could be anywhere, but without the crowd influencing umpiring decisions.

Agree except for the narrow Cattery and the compact SCG