30 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

You are preaching (again and again and again) to the converted. 

Yep, I know … sorry about that.  I will try and cease and desist

10 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I can understand teams will rise and fall, and the ladder positions will not be the same as they finished in 2021. I can understand the premiers getting a harder draw.

But I can't understand teams like Geelong getting an easier one.

It’s weird, I don’t hate Geelong per se, but I hate their coach, so ultimately hate Geelong…! (Same theory goes for Bulldogs)

Collingwood on the other hand, well, that’s just purely engrained, that, and Cox’s glasses… 🤣

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by DeezNuts

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I've been posting about this all week, probably ad nauseum.

It's not unfair. Unless we do a 34-game season where everyone plays everyone else home and away, every single model that is proposed is unfair. Even a 17-game season is unfair - some will get, say, Fremantle in Perth, others will get them at their home ground.

The 17-5 idea that gets bandied around creates different problems. Do we really want the last five weeks to be full of meaningless low-quality games involving the bottom 6 playing each other? Then there's tanking - why finish 6th after 17 games when you'll cop the five sides above you again when you could finish 7th and cop the five sides below you instead?

It's a bad idea for varying reasons.

The AFL tries to get it right by making good sides from one year play each other more often than not the next year. The obviously problem is that they don't have a crystal ball and so don't know what will happen the following year. For us, we were given Collingwood and Fremantle and they got much better. 

It's wrong to complain about Geelong getting North and West Coast twice. But it's right to point out that their fixture has ended up being easier than ours. So too Sydney and Richmond. Particularly in the second half of the season. So when you hear someone in the media say "Melbourne have only just been going in the second half of the year", or you see one of those "from Round 15" ladders, remember that as the fixture turned out, we had a much tougher second half of the season than everyone else.

I agree with most of your post, but if this year is any example, home or away should flatten out over time you’d think. But I agree with the complexity for making more successful teams battle it out without the crystal ball.

8 hours ago, Demonstone said:

You've cited nothing to support your memory of what happened.  The footy club don't own the stadium.

As far as funding goes, check the link I posted.  The City of Geelong has also tipped in.  You're correct when you say other parties haven't contributed as much as the Government, but the money hasn't just come from one source.

The Stadium is owned by the State Government and administered by a trust I believe. GFC are tenants. Not sure how much rent they pay

8 hours ago, Wodjathefirst said:

This year when we come up against bigger Melbourne sides in the other finals there is a fair chance we will be outnumbered and ‘out noised’.

We are 7-0 on the road this year. Playing in hostile territory has not bothered us so I don't believe being outnumbered during finals will make a difference

That said, every Dees fan should get along to the G to support the team

15 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Big difference is, we had no home advantage against the Pies, we played North and Eagles both away from home (they got one of each), and we travelled interstate 3 times from round 18 onwards versus Geelong twice, including the last round of the season.

They are different issues to what I was responding to ie the concern that Geelong had double up games vs North and Eagles thus putting us at a disadvantage. 

Our draw featured double up games with similar 2021 ladder placings:  Coll and Freo.  The 2022 draw for the teams played looked quite even when it was done in late 2021.

Like us Geelong had double up games vs Port and Bulldogs.  Our 5th double up game was Lions and Geelong's was St Kilda. 

So from the teams selected to play this year it looked quite similar.

Having said that, yes I agree there are so many anomalies which give various teams advantages and others disadvantages.   

Edited August 22, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

Tough draws make you stronger in the long term. Short term can be a disadvantage if you cop injuries or energy levels get sapped.

we looked full of run on Friday night. Our tough draw hasn’t  disadvantaged us at all, the opposite in fact. We’re battle hardened now. Good luck opposition. 

I’d like to see the home and away draw be mostly a draw rather than a fixture with 22 playing rounds, 18 teams, marquee games and final 8.

First 17 rounds:

each side plays each other once

Each 2 yrs each club must request 2 to be fixed date marquee games with consent of other club. Home/away one each, will be assigned. Every attempt made to honour blockbuster dates, subject to master calendar. Club must choose 2 different marquee oppo clubs. You get either 8 or 9 home games.

second block of 5:

Every 3 yrs teams are distributed to a A, B, C group based on weighted finish order for last 3 yrs. Eg. If you finish 1,3,8 your weight is 12 and you’ll be pool A if this was lowest, otherwise B if 2nd lowest etc.

In 2nd block you play each of the other sides in the same A, B, C group as your club once. You get 2 or 3 home games but your season total home is 11.

I think this feature is fair, transparent and has minimal but essential change. The draw shouldn’t be used for equalisation, we have drafts and caps for that….

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I've been posting about this all week, probably ad nauseum.

It's not unfair. Unless we do a 34-game season where everyone plays everyone else home and away, every single model that is proposed is unfair. Even a 17-game season is unfair - some will get, say, Fremantle in Perth, others will get them at their home ground.

The 17-5 idea that gets bandied around creates different problems. Do we really want the last five weeks to be full of meaningless low-quality games involving the bottom 6 playing each other? Then there's tanking - why finish 6th after 17 games when you'll cop the five sides above you again when you could finish 7th and cop the five sides below you instead?

It's a bad idea for varying reasons.

The AFL tries to get it right by making good sides from one year play each other more often than not the next year. The obviously problem is that they don't have a crystal ball and so don't know what will happen the following year. For us, we were given Collingwood and Fremantle and they got much better. 

It's wrong to complain about Geelong getting North and West Coast twice. But it's right to point out that their fixture has ended up being easier than ours. So too Sydney and Richmond. Particularly in the second half of the season. So when you hear someone in the media say "Melbourne have only just been going in the second half of the year", or you see one of those "from Round 15" ladders, remember that as the fixture turned out, we had a much tougher second half of the season than everyone else.

I think you're trying to say it is unfair but nothing can be done about it?

I don't see any easy fix for the fixture, but I just wish it was acknowledged and taken into account by the footy world when looking back in hindsight and assessing how good a teams season was.  

Carlton's season is getting viewed by many as a failure but if they didn't have to play any finalists twice like Richmond, perhaps they easily make the 8.  Ditto for St Kilda.

Because of the inherent flaws in the fixture, I hope the industry continues to make very little fanfare about the minor premiership.  The way the cookie crumbled this year, Geelong winning it means very little, despite how much their coach wants it to be acknowledged.

Playing everyone once would be nice but there is just too much money at stake. The same can be said for the finals system, all about the almighty dollar. 

13 hours ago, layzie said:

There's no other major competition with a fixture as fundamentally flawed as this one. What do you expect?

I'm curious. How does the NRL manage their fixture and playing arrangements? Does every team play every other team twice?

NB: I know they have one difference that could potentially affect the ultimate ladder position and that is the three State of Origin games which interferes with team selections for those who play in those games.  

19 hours ago, Deenooos_ said:

Wow:

From the article:

" HOW MANY FINALISTS YOUR TEAM HAD TO PLAY TWICE"

5: GWS

4: Essendon, Melbourne, St Kilda

3: Carlton, Port Adelaide, West Coast, Western Bulldogs

2: Gold Coast, Hawthorn, North Melbourne

1: Adelaide, Brisbane, Collingwood, Fremantle, Geelong, Sydney

0: Richmond

I'd like you to redo that analysis based on last year's data, when the draw was put in place. Because that's what we want changed, boot foresight of the possible ladder.

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm curious. How does the NRL manage their fixture and playing arrangements? Does every team play every other team twice?

NB: I know they have one difference that could potentially affect the ultimate ladder position and that is the three State of Origin games which interferes with team selections for those who play in those games.  

It's a good question, always assumed they played each other twice as their season starts a bit before AFL's but that's probably wrong. 

48 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

I think you're trying to say it is unfair but nothing can be done about it?

I don't see any easy fix for the fixture, but I just wish it was acknowledged and taken into account by the footy world when looking back in hindsight and assessing how good a teams season was.  

Carlton's season is getting viewed by many as a failure but if they didn't have to play any finalists twice like Richmond, perhaps they easily make the 8.  Ditto for St Kilda.

Because of the inherent flaws in the fixture, I hope the industry continues to make very little fanfare about the minor premiership.  The way the cookie crumbled this year, Geelong winning it means very little, despite how much their coach wants it to be acknowledged.

Yes that's right - other than a 34-game season, anything proposed will present inequality somewhere. 

I couldn't help but laugh at Chris Scott saying how we need to celebrate the minor premiership more. Wouldn't be surprised if he was saying the opposite after losing to us in Round 23 last year.

Nobody cares nor remembers who finishes on top of the ladder at the end of the H & A season.

Everybody remembers who won the premiership.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

It's a good question, always assumed they played each other twice as their season starts a bit before AFL's but that's probably wrong. 

NRL currently has 16 teams and 24 games in a season. So the issue is less pronounced just on numbers. You play half the comp twice.

 

That changes next year with the addition of Red cliff Dolphins making it a 17 team competition and I'm not sure how many games they will play next year, especially considering one team will have to sit out all year.

 

NRL will likely move to 18 teams before 2030 but no decision has been made about the next team. At that stage they will have this same problem.

13 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Would have thought the MCG is very much "taxpayer funded".

Yes. With seating for everyone!!

Wasn’t sure where to put this or if it has been shared. An interesting stat I thought, but obvious when I think about it. 

1 hour ago, BigFez said:

Wasn’t sure where to put this or if it has been shared. An interesting stat I thought, but obvious when I think about it. 

It has been shared but I'm more than happy to see it again.