#Freekickoppositionteams

[Bulldog Joe]

I like this a lot. I'd also like them to have a free kick category called: "Free kick that was inconsequential because recipients had already taken the mark or played on." We would lead the league in these. Quite often it is a tactic to slow teams like us down (when you know they are off so you commit the professional foul hoping to slow them down). I think we were up to about 4 or 5 of these in the opening 10 minutes of the GF.

Why can't they provide a detailed analysis on the umpiring from each game.

It would clearly identify to everybody, the issue that the umpires deal with and provide a better understanding in why there is a free kick differential.

[soupman]

I've seen people try and argue the minor Premiership is the greater achievement and that our lucky run has exposed that fact. Ridiculous the lengths people are prepared to go.

Playing devils advocate here but is that such a ridiculous assertion? Atm the AFL schedule is wildly unbalanced. Home and away games are practically meaningless compared to the finals. For example a result one way or the other this weekend may seem like it makes a huge difference, but in reality it may mean stuff all.

Really there are 3 tiers you spend the entire season qualifying for: top 4, top 8 and outside the 8. The positions within those tiers are close enough to be considered the same, there is realistically no benefit to finishing 3rd over 4th, or 5th over 6th, and while the home ground advantage is worth something I've seen enough finals now to know that at most it provides a 10% advantage.

The AFL system is the equivalent of F1's having a 22 lap qualifier for a 4 lap race. The winner (or minor premier I our case) of the qualifying tournament is practically irrelevant, despite them being proven to be the best performed team in a comp where draws are theoretically even. Instead we heap all the praise on the team that wins a sudden death style tournament at the end, where some teams are given minor (home ground) or major (double chance) advantages over others.

It just seems rather unbalanced in the end when you think about it.


*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

[bornadog]

It just seems rather unbalanced in the end when you think about it.

*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

What is unbalanced is the actual teams you play every year. This BS of contrived blockbusters is just a big joke. The sooner a proper draw is introduced the better for the fairness of the whole competition.

[Twodogs]

Playing devils advocate here but is that such a ridiculous assertion? Atm the AFL schedule is wildly unbalanced. Home and away games are practically meaningless compared to the finals. For example a result one way or the other this weekend may seem like it makes a huge difference, but in reality it may mean stuff all.

Really there are 3 tiers you spend the entire season qualifying for: top 4, top 8 and outside the 8. The positions within those tiers are close enough to be considered the same, there is realistically no benefit to finishing 3rd over 4th, or 5th over 6th, and while the home ground advantage is worth something I've seen enough finals now to know that at most it provides a 10% advantage.

The AFL system is the equivalent of F1's having a 22 lap qualifier for a 4 lap race. The winner (or minor premier I our case) of the qualifying tournament is practically irrelevant, despite them being proven to be the best performed team in a comp where draws are theoretically even. Instead we heap all the praise on the team that wins a sudden death style tournament at the end, where some teams are given minor (home ground) or major (double chance) advantages over others.

It just seems rather unbalanced in the end when you think about it.


*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

I'm not. I want a fair season where every team plays each other twice. It can be done we just have to have the will power and the will to stand up to the Players' Association.

[Mantis]

What is unbalanced is the actual teams you play every year. This BS of contrived blockbusters is just a big joke. The sooner a proper draw is introduced the better for the fairness of the whole competition.

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

I don't ever see a draw with all teams playing each other twice happening. 34 games plus finals will never be agreed on by the players association. And rightly so. It's an incredibly taxing game and to play an additional 12 weeks of football is a bit much. However i also don't think we should be reducing the fixture. I know it's not popular on here, but i am all for a 17-5 style draw. It also solves the perception of the minor premiership being a more true representation of the best team (which i think is rubbish by the way) as the best teams play each other for an extra 5 weeks. It needs a bit of fine tuning no doubt. I'm not in a mental state to get into that right now. But the fixture in it's current state is not fair. You think of the financial gains you make by making the finals and teams are missing because they have to play better teams twice as opposed to another team who plays lower teams twice. It has to be addressed.

[S Coast Simon]

Questioning the integrity if the umpiring department would be a very very dangerous thing to do I would have thought. the way Brad Scott carries on is embarrassing. The AFL must shudder when he is aired on TV.

[LostDoggy]

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

The only way is to reduce the number of teams, remove the preseaon, turn the finals into a 3 round qtr-semi-final schedule and play every team H&A twice. Higher quality teams and a better spectacle. (I would hate to lose or merge the dogs of course)

Just fold GCS and GWS or North.

I'm not a fan of the conference system or the 17/5 but 17/5 would be the distant next preference.

[Ozza]

I have absolutely no problem with the current 22 game fixture. "Fairness" that I have been after in the past is in relation to all clubs being able to have access to Friday night and to a lesser extent, Saturday night games. But in terms of the 'who plays who' - this season is a good example of how teams that were seen to have a 'favourable draw' at the start of the season, might not actually have a favourable draw as it turns out.

As just one example, before the season started, I'm not sure teams would have necessarily been putting their hands up to play Hawthorn twice, but they probably would have considered Essendon, Port or Richmond as easier options. As it turns out, all three of these teams will finish higher than the hawks.

The AFL season is the most even it has ever been - the team sitting 17th on the ladder on a given week has won on 5 occasions this year I believe. As for the finals system, I disagree with the assertion that positions on the ladder don't really matter. The history of the final 8 would suggest that the positioning of teams after the H&A is crucial to your chances of success. Last year, our side broke all sorts of records and history - I wouldn't expect that the premier to come from outside the top 4 too often.

[bornadog]

How do you propose a 'proper' draw is implemented?

Pick the teams out of a hat, it is very simple. First 17 rounds everyone plays each other, then last five draw out of a hat - pure luck who you draw. You could go further and work out the last 5 games over the next 4 or so years so make sure you play teams twice over that period.

Currently teams like Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond play each other twice, and I think the same with WestCoast& Freo, Sydney & gws and maybe Brisbane and GC (not sure on the interstate ones). Then the rest are worked out. Bloody Joke.

[soupman]

The AFL season is the most even it has ever been - the team sitting 17th on the ladder on a given week has won on 5 occasions this year I believe. As for the finals system, I disagree with the assertion that positions on the ladder don't really matter. The history of the final 8 would suggest that the positioning of teams after the H&A is crucial to your chances of success. Last year, our side broke all sorts of records and history - I wouldn't expect that the premier to come from outside the top 4 too often.

I don't disagree, top 4 offers a clear advantage over 5-8th. We were truly an anomaly. However I think positions 1-4 are almost equal, and 5-8 also. So we play 22 games each to determine if you fit in one of two groups of 4.

I just find it peculiar that we give barely any credit to the best performed side over a large sample size of 22 games, and heap all the praise on a team that probably has a lesser season but is in better form in the finals. Again, I'm fine with it and I enjoy the aspect that they are the best performing team when it matters against the best sides, but it does kind of render most of what happens in the season somewhat irrelevant.

For those asking how we make the draw more even, the fairest and most realistic proposal I can think of is a 25 game season into finals. It's drawn over a period of 2 seasons, and the objective is you play every side 3 times over two seasons. So you'll play 17 sides first time around, and then 8 teams a second time that year. The next season you will play 17 sides once, and a different 8 teams a second time. Unfortunately it is flawed in that you will miss out on playing one team 3 times, but that could be determined randomly. Home games always alternate, and the rest is as per normal. It would probably involve two bye rounds, possible shortening of the pre-season comp by at least a week but it could be accommodated and it is probably the fairest option available.

[Twodogs]

I don't disagree, top 4 offers a clear advantage over 5-8th. We were truly an anomaly. However I think positions 1-4 are almost equal, and 5-8 also. So we play 22 games each to determine if you fit in one of two groups of 4.

I just find it peculiar that we give barely any credit to the best performed side over a large sample size of 22 games, and heap all the praise on a team that probably has a lesser season but is in better form in the finals. Again, I'm fine with it and I enjoy the aspect that they are the best performing team when it matters against the best sides, but it does kind of render most of what happens in the season somewhat irrelevant.

For those asking how we make the draw more even, the fairest and most realistic proposal I can think of is a 25 game season into finals. It's drawn over a period of 2 seasons, and the objective is you play every side 3 times over two seasons. So you'll play 17 sides first time around, and then 8 teams a second time that year. The next season you will play 17 sides once, and a different 8 teams a second time. Unfortunately it is flawed in that you will miss out on playing one team 3 times, but that could be determined randomly. Home games always alternate, and the rest is as per normal. It would probably involve two bye rounds, possible shortening of the pre-season comp by at least a week but it could be accommodated and it is probably the fairest option available.

They get the McClennand trophy, what more do you want?


Actually I agree, up until 20 years ago the top team always enjoyed an advantage over the other finalists be it the Right of Challenge or a week's rest in the final five system. These days they get no more advantage than the team that finishes second.

What can you give them that rewards them finishing top? Apart from the McClelland trophy, obviously.

[bornadog]

They get the McClennand trophy, what more do you want?


Actually I agree, up until 20 years ago the top team always enjoyed an advantage over the other finalists be it the Right of Challenge or a week's rest in the final five system. These days they get no more advantage than the team that finishes second.

What can you give them that rewards them finishing top? Apart from the McClelland trophy, obviously.

For those that don't know about this trophy:

The McClelland Trophy is an Australian rules football trophy, which has been awarded each year since 1991 by the Australian Football League (AFL) to the team finishing first on the ladder after the completion of the home-and-away season, before the finals are played. Between 1950 and 1990 it was awarded to the club that performed the best across the three levels of competition; seniors, reserves and under 19s.

We have never won it - a hurdle I would like to see achieved.

[SonofScray]

Playing devils advocate here but is that such a ridiculous assertion?


*A disclaimer that I am very happy with the current system and have no desire to see it changed. This is just something I've been thinking about the last few years.

Without trashing some well made points, yes.
First past the post has merit if everyone played each other twice, home and away. There are too many variables in the fixture as it stands for 1st place to assume the space of the definitive measure of that season's champions. Pretty much agree with your points though.


Beyond that, the argument people are making goes against decades of conventional fan thinking. They are prepared to chuck out the status quo and devalue years of their own history to try discredit our achievement. That is the most ludicrous part. A bit of can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Ozza]

I don't disagree, top 4 offers a clear advantage over 5-8th. We were truly an anomaly. However I think positions 1-4 are almost equal, and 5-8 also. So we play 22 games each to determine if you fit in one of two groups of 4.

I don't agree that 1-4 are almost equal. Looking at this years likely top 4 - getting a top 2 spot and not having to travel is crucial. If GWS and Adelaide get 1st and 2nd - then the grand final spots are theirs to lose. If, for instance, Geelong got their noses in front of Adelaide - then Adelaide would likely travel to Skilled Stadium (or at least the MCG) week one of the finals. Say they lose that and play Port Adelaide week 2 at Adelaide oval....pretty crucial that they finish 3rd rather than 2nd in that sort of a scenario.

Last year, things didn't pan out the same way due to two Sydney sides playing each other week one, and two Melbourne sides (Cats/Hawks) playing off in the 2 v 3 qualifying final.

In terms of the bottom 4 of the 8 though - we were significantly disadvantaged by finishing 7th rather than 6th. North Melbourne finishing 8th, as you would expect, ended up travelling to Adelaide and getting bounced out.

In a national competition, there is a clear advantage, in finishing higher on the ladder.