the first problem is that there is too much difference between 4th and 5th. if percentage seperates it virtually cuts out your chances to win a flag.

the second problem for me is that the loser of 1v4 ans 2v3 get a home final round 2. how does that work? you already get a double chance, why should you be rewarded with a home final for losing? the team that finished in the bottom four and own should get the home final...

i liked the mcintyre system. 1+2 are gauranteed a double chance. the two highest placed winners got home prelim finals (even if that was 5+6. the two lowest place losers got kicked out. ok so this favours 5+6 and takes away from 3+4 but at least it was more even across the board, a sequential grading of advantage rather than a block of four and a block of four.

what are other peoples thoughts?

melbourne in 1998 is the perfect example of the flaws in the macintyre system...

we smashed adelaide in the first week of the finals, however they weren't knocked out and we didn't get the week off... what did that win accomplish? absolutely nothing, we could've lost and been almost as better off... adelaide go on and win the flag... with the current system every match means something, on the old system you're relying on other results to see if you stay in the finals or not, surely once you make the finals only you can seal your destiny...

you say there is too big a difference between 4th and 5th, but even though 4th gets a double chance they have to play the top team while 5th is sudden death, but gets the bottom finals side... this week is the perfect example where north in 4th position got belted by the league leaders, yeah they get the double chance, but are they that much better off than the hawks who played adelaide? wouldn't have thought so...

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more, deanox. Here's why:

The old finals system had massive flaws. In fact, that system generated one of the most farcical premierships of all time in 1998. Adelaide finished fifth, were dacked by the higher-finishing Melbourne in week 1, but yet the only reward for the Demons for winning that game was a home final in week 2. The Crws still progress to the exact same round but just played away. Essentialy, the 4 v 5 game was a dead rubber for elimination purposes.

the second problem for me is that the loser of 1v4 ans 2v3 get a home final round 2. how does that work? you already get a double chance, why should you be rewarded with a home final for losing? the team that finished in the bottom four and own should get the home final...

The answer to this is clear. There is no way it could be considered fair that a team that finishes third, plays away in the first week and loses, only to have to play away again in the second week. That would mean that the team finishing thid would play two away finals whereas the fifth or sixth team would get two home finals. The new system is vastly fairer. The top 4 teams are guaraneed survival. The top two are guaranteed two home finals. Teams 3-6 each get a home final. Teams 7-8 have easier elimination finals. No dead rubbers.

The AFL was flooded with complaints about the McIntyre system when it was in place, saw the light and changed to a vastly superior model.

melbourne in 1998 is the perfect example of the flaws in the macintyre system...

we smashed adelaide in the first week of the finals, however they weren't knocked out and we didn't get the week off... what did that win accomplish? absolutely nothing, we could've lost and been almost as better off... adelaide go on and win the flag... with the current system every match means something, on the old system you're relying on other results to see if you stay in the finals or not, surely once you make the finals only you can seal your destiny...

you say there is too big a difference between 4th and 5th, but even though 4th gets a double chance they have to play the top team while 5th is sudden death, but gets the bottom finals side... this week is the perfect example where north in 4th position got belted by the league leaders, yeah they get the double chance, but are they that much better off than the hawks who played adelaide? wouldn't have thought so...

i'll raise your hawthorn kangas story, one collingwood west coast story. west coast get done, but have somehoe 'earned' the right to a home final against collingwood who won their first final. i hate collingwood, but this doesnt seem fair to me...

i agree with the adelaide melb 1998 issuesort of, however i dont think it is as bad as it is now...

kangas

WB

sydney

melb

adel

st kilda

wc

essendon

we beat adelaide, kangas beat essendon, sydney beat st kilda and wb beat wc.

kangas and WB get a home prelim final, they finished 1+2 and won, no worries. wc and essendon go straight out, they finished 7+8 and lost.

melb and sydney now get to host games in week two of the finals, as we won our first final, we had earned that right. we beat st kilda, and adelaide were good enough to beat sydney in sydney. they then travelled again to beat WB in melbourne.

im not sure why it isnt fair that adelaide stayed in...3 teams below them lost in the first week of the finals...and then they were good enough to win the next 3 games interstate to claim the cup...

West Coast have earnt their home final this week because they finished ahead of Collingwood, are yet to play their home final this series, while Colingwood have.

Essentialy, the 4 v 5 game was a dead rubber for elimination purposes.

...

The new system is vastly fairer. The top 4 teams are guaraneed survival. The top two are guaranteed two home finals. Teams 3-6 each get a home final. Teams 7-8 have easier elimination finals. No dead rubbers.

i dont mind you disagree, this is healthy debate here!

the 4th 5th game wasnt dead rubber. if two of 6+7+8 beat 3+2or1 then the loser of 4+5 gets eliminated.

regarding the new system being fairer, how can it be fairer that the top four get a double chance and a home final? its fairer for those who finish in the top four yes, but not for anyone else. you finish 5-8 and win, you should be rewarded. the way it stands now unless you finish top 4 you have virtually no chance of winning the flag because there are too many concessions given to the opposition (exception, a situation like the kangas because they get a final in melb next week by chance)...unless you are so superior you can win all the away games...

West Coast have earnt their home final this week because they finished ahead of Collingwood, are yet to play their home final this series, while Colingwood have.

if sydney beat collingwood, that argument would be invalid.

they finished ahead but they lost. why should they be rewarded? i thought finals were a whole different ball game?

and going on that sydney could argue that they are out, but didnt get to play a home final...

I agree with most of the above, esp. 1998 - a process which lacked natural justice and fairness.

The most galling aspect was that Adelaide was allowed to bypass a team that had thrashed it in what is supposed to be a 'finals' series. It is immaterial that Adelaide beat other opponents on away grounds. Ironically Melbourne have benefited from this twisted system ('87, '88, '94) when they potentially could have stolen premierships over superior rivals. The system as it stands favours the team which can 'ambush' a top finisher where they have less injuries/ run into form at the right time.

I believe the most inequitable feature of the final 8 system is the way it penalises minor premiers. Not that i love Geelong, but why should Geelong have to continually qualify for the Grand Final? They monstered the competition in the home and aways, then have to play for the 'right' to play in a sudden death preliminary final against also rans. Meanwhile staleness and injuries can bring such a team back to the pack and render meaningless their season dominance.

I believe Saints and North had this problem in the late 90's, resulting in dud premierships to Adelaide on both occasions.

Top two teams should only have to play once to qualify for the grand final. The current arrangement is a compromise to foster a murdoch-driven televised 16 team competition with phantom interstate sides from non-football codes.

It is a sad truth that MFC have failed to finish in one of these positions since 1964.

I think this system is better than the old, west coast deserve the home final, they finished higher on the ladder and played a better team in their firsts final, what if geelong had of lost would you think that they should have to travel to interstate to play (hypothetical) if say adelaide won instead of the hawks?

I don't.

My thoughts on this is there should be no bye week wether you won or lost. During the home & away season, if you win one week you don't get the next week off do you? Why should finals be more lenient? It's the finals, ultimately it should be the best of the best playing against each other.

There should be no second chances, i know many will say that this takes away from winning the minor cup but maybe a cash incentive could be put in place, or draft picks or something too keep the teams wanting to finish on top of the Home & Away season.

the 4th 5th game wasnt dead rubber. if two of 6+7+8 beat 3+2or1 then the loser of 4+5 gets eliminated.

regarding the new system being fairer, how can it be fairer that the top four get a double chance and a home final? its fairer for those who finish in the top four yes, but not for anyone else. you finish 5-8 and win, you should be rewarded. the way it stands now unless you finish top 4 you have virtually no chance of winning the flag because there are too many concessions given to the opposition (exception, a situation like the kangas because they get a final in melb next week by chance)...unless you are so superior you can win all the away games...

You're correct in essence that the 4 v 5 game wasn't a dead rubber, but it was comatose! Teams were playing for wriggle room as we never saw both 1 and 2 seeds lose.

The system is very fair:

* Teams 1 and 2 deservingly get two home finals guaranteed and a double chance

* Teams 3 and 4 get a double chance and a home final

* Teams 5 and 6 get a home final and play a weaker team in the first week

* Teams 7 and 8 play a weaker team in week 1 than they used to under the old system. Finishing that low, they don't deserve a home final.

if sydney beat collingwood, that argument would be invalid.

they finished ahead but they lost. why should they be rewarded? i thought finals were a whole different ball game?

and going on that sydney could argue that they are out, but didnt get to play a home final...

Sydney didn't deserve a home final. If they won more games, they would have got one.

Interesting thoughts, deanox. I hate the old system though, for the reasons I've stated, and I think the current one is as fair as we can get without becoming too scientific.

if sydney beat collingwood, that argument would be invalid.

they finished ahead but they lost. why should they be rewarded? i thought finals were a whole different ball game?

and going on that sydney could argue that they are out, but didnt get to play a home final...

It isn't. The match is more intense but it still needs structure. Otherwise what was the point of the home and away season? Why bother playing your best team all season? To make finals? Could have come 8th and that would be it. West Coast played better that the pies this season. Therefore they deserve the home final. Old system they would get a home final week 1. But that system sucked. If you take away home final rights, second chances, there is no incentive to be the best, the home and away season would be boring.

You're correct in essence that the 4 v 5 game wasn't a dead rubber, but it was comatose! Teams were playing for wriggle room as we never saw both 1 and 2 seeds lose.

The system is very fair:

* Teams 1 and 2 deservingly get two home finals guaranteed and a double chance

* Teams 3 and 4 get a double chance and a home final

* Teams 5 and 6 get a home final and play a weaker team in the first week

* Teams 7 and 8 play a weaker team in week 1 than they used to under the old system. Finishing that low, they don't deserve a home final.

Sydney didn't deserve a home final. If they won more games, they would have got one.

Interesting thoughts, deanox. I hate the old system though, for the reasons I've stated, and I think the current one is as fair as we can get without becoming too scientific.

Completely agree with Pants on this one.

My thoughts on this is there should be no bye week wether you won or lost. During the home & away season, if you win one week you don't get the next week off do you? Why should finals be more lenient? It's the finals, ultimately it should be the best of the best playing against each other.

There should be no second chances, i know many will say that this takes away from winning the minor cup but maybe a cash incentive could be put in place, or draft picks or something too keep the teams wanting to finish on top of the Home & Away season.

Teams who finished higher in the 8 should reap the benefits of a potentially easier finals run. This system rewards the best against the best. Otherwise it incentives a team to finish 8th as against 1 and to win only 12 games as opposed to 17 or more games.

A cash incentive only makes the rich and successful clubs richer relative to poor. A cash entitlement in lieu of a flag undermines the integrity of the pursuit of a flag.

Furthermore giving successful clubs draft picks further undermines core competitiveness of the system and provides a potentially enduring leg up for that team beyond the year in which they were successful. That would be grossly unfair and in equitable. Talk about leniency!

The system works well...why complicate it and undermine the competitiveness and the rewards.

The reality is the top 4 teams are the only ones really going to have a fair dinkum crack at the premiership and therefore the current systems seems pretty good. The only reason there is a top 8 is so the league can make more revenue from the finals. There will always be sitiuations where a team misses a double chance by %. The previous final 8 system was a bit of a joke re: the Adelaide/Melbourne scenario of 1998.

i'll raise your hawthorn kangas story, one collingwood west coast story. west coast get done, but have somehoe 'earned' the right to a home final against collingwood who won their first final. i hate collingwood, but this doesnt seem fair to me...

i agree with the adelaide melb 1998 issuesort of, however i dont think it is as bad as it is now...

kangas

WB

sydney

melb

adel

st kilda

wc

essendon

we beat adelaide, kangas beat essendon, sydney beat st kilda and wb beat wc.

kangas and WB get a home prelim final, they finished 1+2 and won, no worries. wc and essendon go straight out, they finished 7+8 and lost.

melb and sydney now get to host games in week two of the finals, as we won our first final, we had earned that right. we beat st kilda, and adelaide were good enough to beat sydney in sydney. they then travelled again to beat WB in melbourne.

im not sure why it isnt fair that adelaide stayed in...3 teams below them lost in the first week of the finals...and then they were good enough to win the next 3 games interstate to claim the cup...

They earn the home final because they have finished higher than the team they are about to play and have just come off playing an away final against a higher ranked team where 5th/6th if they win have just come off a home final against a lower ranked team. Why should collingwood get 2 home finals and get to play against weaker opposition than a team that finished 3rd?

You're argument couldn't be more wrong. It's laughable!!!

A cash incentive only makes the rich and successful clubs richer relative to poor. A cash entitlement in lieu of a flag undermines the integrity of the pursuit of a flag.

Get that anyway for winning the McLelland? Trophy as minor premier.

I think AKA's proposal was 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5 with only the winners going through and the highest two ranked teams get home preliminary finals. I don't mind it although it does eliminate the double chance, which has been going at least as long as I've been alive. The other problem is that it removes a week and 2 games of finals which the AFL would never do.

EDIT: I agree with your post regarding draft picks though, goes against the whole principle of equalisation of the competition.

Get that anyway for winning the McLelland? Trophy as minor premier.

Do you know how much?

Do you know how much?

Just double checked. There was talk about it being introduced at the rate of about $250 000 but it doesn't appear to have been yet.

My mistake.

The biggest flaw in the old system is that the teams that finish 3-6 have to rely on results of other matches to see whether they get the week off or get eliminated. THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A FINALS MATCH. Also, the system is too complicated for the average footy fan to work out who plays who in the second week. Atleast in this system you know that the winner of 5th/8th plays the loser of 1st/4th so it's simple.

Also Deanox, your reasoning behind the loser of the 1st/4th has no logic to it whatsoever. In a finals series like this you want to give the biggest advantage possible to the team that finishes higher. What you are saying is that if 4th loses to 1st (which is expected to happen) then they should play an away game against the 5th team who has just won a home game against the worst side in the finals system. Therefore you are giving a huge advantage to the 5th placed team and a huge disadvantage to the 4th placed team. What you fail to understand is that the 3rd & 4th placed teams lost the first week because they were playing a harder team, and the 5th & 6th teams won because they were playing an easier team. Of course the 3rd & 4th team should get a home final over 5th & 6th because they finished higher on the ladder.

The only issue that I have with the current system is that I would rather finish 4th than 3rd. Given that both teams have to play 1st & 2nd in the finals, I would rather play 1st in a double chance match & then 2nd in a do-or-die PF than the other way around.

i appreciate everyones thoughts in this thread, its generated some good debate hasnt it?

i think we might have to agree to disagree regarding the home final for the losing top four sides. i understand your pov, and i can see what you are saying, but my argument is that the current system skews it way to far in favour of the top 4. the old system rewarded winners, with a week off and a home final.

i am considering the argument regardining 5th being a better proposition than 4th if 5th got the home final round 2. it would look like

4th, loses away, gets double chance, plays away again against lower placed winner.

5th, wins home, play home again against high placed loser.

for me, the reward for finishing top 4 is the double chance...the reward for winning is the home final...

what happens this year if north beat hawthorn and port adelaide and then win the GF against a team other than geelong? it would be the same as us smashing adelaide and then getting knocked out before they do...will everyone complain because they got smashed by 106 points in the first round of the finals?

The biggest flaw in the old system is that the teams that finish 3-6 have to rely on results of other matches to see whether they get the week off or get eliminated. THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN A FINALS MATCH. Also, the system is too complicated for the average footy fan to work out who plays who in the second week. Atleast in this system you know that the winner of 5th/8th plays the loser of 1st/4th so it's simple.

That is the reason why i like the AFL System of playing finals. You summed it up well Oxxx.

Also the problem with the Mcyntre system is that team 8 never usually beats team 1, so what is the point of just scaping into the finals if you are going to play team 1.

Also the problem with the Mcyntre system is that team 8 never usually beats team 1, so what is the point of just scaping into the finals if you are going to play team 1.

but it has been argued that 8th should play 5th away and if they happen to win they get dragged to an away game against an even better placed opponent? whats the difference? at least in the old system if 8th beat 1st they were rewarded the following week with the chance to host a final and continue their campaign...

This is like trying to teach japanese to a monkey.

OF COURSE YOU SHOULD REWARD THE HIGHER PLACED TEAMS. THEY FINISHED HIGHER.

Honestly, which team do you reckon would be harder to beat? The 1st best team on their turf or 8th best team on your turf. By your point of view 4th should get 2 consecutive away games & 5th should get 2 consecutive home games. THAT IS NOT AN EVEN COMPETITION.

What you are believing is that the hard work that teams have put over 22 rounds gets thrown out the door and the team who wins 1 game should be given an advantage solely because of that. Let's look at it this way: Team A wins 18 games in a season & finishes 1st; Team B wins 10 games & finishes 8th. Team B somehow manages to fluke a win in the first week of the finals, so then the ladder is re-structured and now the 8th ranked team has an easier way of winning the premiership than the team who worked so hard to get to 1st. That is 100% unfair to the team that finished higher on the ladder, and most people who have played any kind of competitive sport before should agree.

This is like trying to teach japanese to a monkey.

OF COURSE YOU SHOULD REWARD THE HIGHER PLACED TEAMS. THEY FINISHED HIGHER.

Honestly, which team do you reckon would be harder to beat? The 1st best team on their turf or 8th best team on your turf. By your point of view 4th should get 2 consecutive away games & 5th should get 2 consecutive home games. THAT IS NOT AN EVEN COMPETITION.

What you are believing is that the hard work that teams have put over 22 rounds gets thrown out the door and the team who wins 1 game should be given an advantage solely because of that. Let's look at it this way: Team A wins 18 games in a season & finishes 1st; Team B wins 10 games & finishes 8th. Team B somehow manages to fluke a win in the first week of the finals, so then the ladder is re-structured and now the 8th ranked team has an easier way of winning the premiership than the team who worked so hard to get to 1st. That is 100% unfair to the team that finished higher on the ladder, and most people who have played any kind of competitive sport before should agree.

i dont know why you have to stoop to having pot shots at me.

i think my argument is pretty clear. you dont have to agree with it, as i dont have to agree with you. but my argument is as logical and rationale as yours just based on a different principal.

you want to reward teams that finish higher on the ladder. i want to reward teams that win finals games.

yes i believe that after 22 weeks everything is thrown out the door come finals. in fact i reckon if you asked any of the coaches how much the previous 22 weeks meant they would say they counted for nothing now.

the current system continually promotes top four finishes above the bottom four. it doesnt reward finals performance.

i agree to disagree, but i wont put up with you taking shots when my argument is put forward in this manner.