Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

Interesting. 

And what about if everyone had 50/50 home and away games?

 

I'd love for the ladder to be each team's best performance against each other team for the year.

So if Melbourne beats Brisbane by 100-60 then a performance of 100-59 in the return game would mean the Demons percentage would be taken from the 100-59 result and the 100-60 result would be the the Lions' percentage. Extend that to if the Lions beat Melbourne in game 2, then the Lions get the points and percentage from game 2, but Melbourne gets the points and percentage from game 1.

It's probably open to manipulation though, as if you smack a side in the first game there's no incentive to try in the return game.

EDIT: Though it's probably always best to beat your opponent so they can't claim premiership points from either result. It would give the media a boatload to talk about in the return games as well. 

The biggest plus to the above is if you beat a cellar dweller twice, the most you can gain is 4 premiership points, just like a team who only plays them once.

Edited by Chook

There are plenty of inequalities that remain in our game, but the most unequal of them is all is the fixturing. Whilst i'd love a 36 round spectacle, we know its a pipe dream with the current length of games. 

The AFL wouldn't want to make the length of the season any shorter either, so i also think the 'play each other once' is also a pipe dream unless they change the finals format, which the purists would have a conniption over.

So if we were to stick to the 23 round fixture, each team should play each other once in rounds 1-17. The final 6 rounds are then determined by ladder position on the eve of Round 18. This will rule out any team that is in the Top 6, playing a bottom 6 team twice. But given the commercial influence on our game, this is also a pipe dream as we all want two showdowns, two Derbys, two what-ever-its-called in Qld and NSW. We make too many decisions to improve the size of EBA. It has to stop. 

Edited by CYB


We should only play each other once. Anything more is just for the money.  Completely nonsensical to play extra odd games otherwise.

If Tasmania comes in you get 18 rounds. Split three rounds (not rolling byes) and you have a 21 week season for TV purposes as well as giving players a rest.

Home and away changes each year.

You still get your blockbusters (or most of them) and we only have to go to Kardinia Park every second year

51 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If Tasmania comes in you get 18 rounds. Split three rounds (not rolling byes) and you have a 21 week season for TV purposes as well as giving players a rest.

Home and away changes each year.

You still get your blockbusters (or most of them) and we only have to go to Kardinia Park every second year

As long as EVERYONE goes to Kardinia Park every second year DJ. 

 
2 hours ago, CYB said:

There are plenty of inequalities that remain in our game, but the most unequal of them is all is the fixturing. Whilst i'd love a 36 round spectacle, we know its a pipe dream with the current length of games. 

The AFL wouldn't want to make the length of the season any shorter either, so i also think the 'play each other once' is also a pipe dream unless they change the finals format, which the purists would have a conniption over.

So if we were to stick to the 23 round fixture, each team should play each other once in rounds 1-17. The final 6 rounds are then determined by ladder position on the eve of Round 18. This will rule out any team that is in the Top 6, playing a bottom 6 team twice. But given the commercial influence on our game, this is also a pipe dream as we all want two showdowns, two Derbys, two what-ever-its-called in Qld and NSW. We make too many decisions to improve the size of EBA. It has to stop. 

Agree but if the season was shorter for 1 game against each team, then you could throw State of Origin back into the mix

Edited by DeezNuts
Spelling


Can I have more ladders from magical fairy lands please? 

Ooh, one with us on top based on first quarters? 

Or perhaps one with which team has the most smiles during the game?! Oh I hope we are in contention in that one…

season 3 homer GIF

13 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Or perhaps one with which team has the most smiles during the game?! Oh I hope we are in contention in that one…

Not if Spargo has anything to say about it

SmartSelect_20220815-224416_Firefox.jpg.566761dafd1f70dff2188bf91029da7b.jpg

3 hours ago, CYB said:

There are plenty of inequalities that remain in our game, but the most unequal of them is all is the fixturing. Whilst i'd love a 36 round spectacle, we know its a pipe dream with the current length of games. 

The AFL wouldn't want to make the length of the season any shorter either, so i also think the 'play each other once' is also a pipe dream unless they change the finals format, which the purists would have a conniption over.

So if we were to stick to the 23 round fixture, each team should play each other once in rounds 1-17. The final 6 rounds are then determined by ladder position on the eve of Round 18. This will rule out any team that is in the Top 6, playing a bottom 6 team twice. But given the commercial influence on our game, this is also a pipe dream as we all want two showdowns, two Derbys, two what-ever-its-called in Qld and NSW. We make too many decisions to improve the size of EBA. It has to stop. 

It's not just money that makes the 17 and then 6 model impossible.

Too much uncertainty (we know fans don't like it), too much risk of unfairness, potential to tank to get 6th instead of 5th or 13th instead of 12th to improve your run home.

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

It's not just money that makes the 17 and then 6 model impossible.

Too much uncertainty (we know fans don't like it), too much risk of unfairness, potential to tank to get 6th instead of 5th or 13th instead of 12th to improve your run home.

It’s better than the system we have now where the top seed plays 17 and 18 twice. But point taken - I’m sure there are ways around it like teams 7-12 can’t jump into the next bracket so the best they can hope for is the finals spot 7 and 8. 

We just have to bold enough to break away from the status quo.


it's regularly posited that one of the reasons the nfl is so successful is because of scarcity

they have 32 teams but only 17 games during an 18-week period with one "bye" week off

i would think there'd be far more value in every team playing each other once, either in a 9/8 then 8/9 split under current circumstances or alternatively an even 9 home / 9 away split if or when tasmania comes in

8 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

it's regularly posited that one of the reasons the nfl is so successful is because of scarcity

they have 32 teams but only 17 games during an 18-week period with one "bye" week off

i would think there'd be far more value in every team playing each other once, either in a 9/8 then 8/9 split under current circumstances or alternatively an even 9 home / 9 away split if or when tasmania comes in

100% - mid season of the AFL is a massive lull period and the season is too long especially for those teams out of contention early.

Tassie as the 19th team allows an 18 game + 1 bye model with a 9/9 H/A split alternating each year. Then you don't get rubbish like us only hosting Essendon every 8 years, Hawks only travelling to Brisbane every blue moon, Geelong hosting us every season etc

10 hours ago, rpfc said:

Can I have more ladders from magical fairy lands please? 

Ooh, one with us on top based on first quarters? 

Or perhaps one with which team has the most smiles during the game?! Oh I hope we are in contention in that one…

season 3 homer GIF

We should get a chart of the Telstra Tracker and marvel at ANB being near the top!

I think they should schedule the first 17 rounds at the start of the season and everyone plays each other once.

Then at around round 14/15 they can run their formulas based on top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 to determine who plays who for the remaining 5 rounds.

So for example, if we were top 6 after round 15 then maybe we get two top 6 teams, two middle 6 and one bottom 6.

If there's a team in the bottom 6 then maybe they get 2 bottom 6, 2 middle 6 and 1 top 6.

It still won't be entirely fair as some team may get two bottom 6 sides, but you could manage it by giving certain difficulty weightings to positions and ensuring the total for each team is within a certain range.

Benefits would be:

- A much fairer draw ensuring a top 6 team doesn't play two bottom 4 sides twice

- Ensures more blockbusters in the lead up to finals

Remember when the 22 round fixture made perfect sense and you played everyone once before playing rematches of the first 7 games again? Why did this change to the random format? 


Hey folks,

I was having a play with this yesterday and decided not to post because if we lose this weekend we most likely finish 6th and this is redundant.

But i think there is some very good insight into how we've performed given our draw.

Here is my adjusted ladder for Rnd 22. When teams play each other twice this ladder takes the average points and percentage of those games, essentially creating a ladder which reflects playing everyone once.

For example we played Fremantle twice this year:
- Round 11 Melb 56, Freo 94
- Round 20 Freo 39, Melb 85

So this ladder would allocate: 
- Melb 2 points; 70.5 points for ((56+85)/2) and 66.5 against ((94+39)/2)
- Freo 2 points; 66.5 points for (94+39)/2) and 70.5 against ((56+85)/2)

A reminder of the double up games this season for each team:

image.thumb.png.555eea708184c7b6d16feef0b0c9c162.png

And here is where we sit at Round 22:

image.thumb.png.f43da5f5eb7a578ea71b4175bebb8ffc.png

So we are actually doing well given how our draw has fallen.

All teams play a double up game this week so if we win i can post a round 23 update :D

I never understood, after finishing top 4 last year, how Geelong got a mid table draw, made easier because they play on a beach towel sized ground surrounded by 30,000 of country Victoria’s least intelligent people.

The inequality with Jeelong’s pathetic fixture for 2022 is just absurd 

Why aern’t Footy Classified jumping up and down about it??

 

 

It's not as unbalanced as it might appear.

Of the five double-up games, both Melbourne and Geelong play Port Adelaide and Bulldogs so that's equal.

Based on ladder positions at the end of the 2021 H & A season, we play sides finishing 4th, 11th and 17th.

Geelong play sides finishing 9th, 10th and 18th.

Our draw is only marginally worse but, as the reigning Premiers, it's meant to be.

Geelong, of course, still get the massive boost of playing at Kardinia Park but that's not a function of the fixture.

 

The bombers are averaging just over 20K for their last couple of home games so there is ZERO reasons why they should not travel down to Kardinia Park next year!

Us on the other hand are premiers and Cats/Dees games are marquee, clearly should be on the big stage


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 25 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 234 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies