Carlton ‘robbed’ of home final in first week
By Liam Lenten, 31 Aug 2009 Liam Lenten is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL Commission, bonus points, Carlton Blues

Carlton's Kade Simpson and Adelaide's Bernie Vince in action during the AFL Round 22 match between the Carlton Blues and the Adelaide Crows at the Docklands Stadium. - Slattery Images
Following the completion of the 22-round home-and-away season in the Australian Football League, we are entitled to question whether the final ladder reflects the ‘true’ ranking of the overall performance of the 16 teams over the course of the season.
A study by a La Trobe University sports economist uses complex econometric modelling and regression techniques to estimate an ‘optimal’ bonus points system (determined from data on all AFL matches from the 1997-2008 seasons), the likes of which is used currently in Super 14 Rugby. It is claimed that this system is better at revealing strong teams in the AFL than the current system (which does not award bonus points).
The research – by Dr Liam Lenten from La Trobe’s School of Economics and Finance, and co-author Dr Niven Winchester at the University of Otago in New Zealand – builds on Dr Winchester’s previous analysis on the Super 14 system, published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports.
The findings will soon be presented by Dr Lenten at the 38th Australian Conference of Economists, to be held at the University of Adelaide in the week following the AFL Grand Final.
The authors’ results indicate a preferred allocation of four league points for a win, three points for a draw, two points for winning by 27 or more and two points for losing by 26 or less.
However, they state that the partition could instead be altered to 24 points to make it more interpretable to fans (i.e. four goals), and that a goal bonus (similar to a try bonus in rugby) for scoring (let’s say) 20 goals, could also be included.
In fact, Dr Lenten says that according to his work with Dr Winchester (who is currently based at Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Adelaide would have finished 7th instead of 5th in the 2009 season, handing Carlton a home final this weekend, meaning also that Brisbane would instead be hosting Essendon.
Though of less concern, the system would have also meant Sydney and West Coast would swap places.
When they used their alternative system to backtrack over their 12-year sample, they found that Collingwood would have fared best with the bonus points system, finishing significantly better in five seasons, while finishing significantly worse only once.
For the other teams, it made a significant difference in only two seasons on average.
The inclusion of bonuses may also maintain spectator interest in matches where an obvious winner emerges prior to match completion – in a similar way to the final round Hawthorn-Carlton match a year ago yesterday, which, due to Fevola being stuck on 99 goals, was exciting to the final siren despite the 10-goal plus margin.
It could also prevent dominant teams taking their foot off the pedal after establishing a significant lead.
For these reasons, Dr Lenten claims that the AFL Commission should consider amending the current allocation of league points, especially upon the entry of Gold Coast in 2011, when many aspects of the current competition design may be ‘up for grabs’.
The authors acknowledge that introducing bonuses to AFL standings may cause controversy as a team with less wins could conceivably qualify for the finals at the expense of a team with more wins, creating fan resistance to the idea.
According to Dr Winchester, however, parallels can be drawn to the Duckworth-Lewis revised-target rule used in cricket, ‘…which was initially met with much scepticism but is now widely accepted’.
|
Actual |
With BP |
Team |
Win |
Draw |
MarginBonuses |
% |
Comp |
|
1 |
1 |
St Kilda |
20 |
0 |
18 |
155.7 |
116 |
|
2 |
2 |
Geelong |
18 |
0 |
14 |
127.4 |
100 |
|
3 |
3 |
Western Bulldogs |
15 |
0 |
13 |
122.6 |
86 |
|
4 |
4 |
Collingwood |
15 |
0 |
12 |
122.3 |
84 |
|
6 |
5 |
Brisbane |
13 |
1 |
13 |
117.6 |
81 |
|
7 |
6 |
Carlton |
13 |
0 |
13 |
106.7 |
78 |
|
5 |
7 |
Adelaide |
14 |
0 |
10 |
110.5 |
76 |
|
8 |
8 |
Essendon |
10 |
1 |
10 |
97.8 |
63 |
|
9 |
9 |
Hawthorn |
9 |
0 |
10 |
92.6 |
56 |
|
10 |
10 |
Port Adelaide |
9 |
0 |
10 |
88.7 |
56 |
|
12 |
11 |
Sydney |
8 |
0 |
11 |
93.3 |
54 |
|
11 |
12 |
West Coast |
8 |
0 |
11 |
93.1 |
54 |
|
13 |
13 |
North |
7 |
1 |
8 |
83.4 |
47 |
|
14 |
14 |
Fremantle |
6 |
0 |
10 |
77.3 |
44 |
|
15 |
15 |
Richmond |
5 |
1 |
4 |
74.3 |
31 |
|
16 |
16 |
Melbourne |
4 |
0 |
7 |
74.7 |
30 |
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL Commission, bonus points, Carlton Blues

Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Carlton will be more than happy they avoided Essendon in the first week of the finals.
Damn shame would have got 95K to the G.
Redb
Art Sapphire said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Congratulations Liam on exposing the folly of utterly pointless academic research by illimunating us with nonsense.
You would think academics had better things to do. This is another pointer to the imminent decine of our civilisation
Greg Russell said | August 31st 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
I am an academic and I agree completely with this comment. Sport (including writing on sport) is my hobby; I do not consider the work outlined above to be genuine academic research.
What is particularly odd here is that in analyzing bonus points in Super Rugby, the Otago researcher has inclined towards the opposite conclusion about bonus points (or at least this is the slant that media has put on it; if I was being a true researcher, I would go to the source itself, but as I said, this is only my hobby).
I wrote an article for The Roar earlier this year explaining how bonus points distort standings in Super Rugby. They have no place in AFL.
Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Greg
one thing about the idea put forward here (and I had to read it a couple of times to get it), is that it varies from the super rugby system in that there remains a finite number of points available, i.e. there are six points at all times, they’re either split 3 points each for a draw, or the team wins by more than 27 points and you earn the full six points, or it’s shared 4-2.
The rugby concept is that games may result in a range of points being won from game to game – and I’m not sure why, but that appears to have more of a distorting effect than the fixed points being available (I’ll be honest, it’s just a gut feel on my part, I haven’t looked at it mathematically, or anything like that).
Brian said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Interesting but sorry its nonsense on a quite a few levels
Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
err… that’s why we have percentage.
Michael C said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
The bonus points notion is certainly interesting – - I’m not sure that it’s really necessary though. The difference b/w weather conditions/roofed stadia etc is too great re scoring 26 pts more or less compared to a relatively neat percentage system.
However, perhaps, the % on the day should be worked into an aggregated points system. i.e. if you win with a 30% greater margin, or 60% or 100% etc, then get bonus points based on that. But again, would it be used to separate only if wins are equal?
Otherwise, you encourage teams to demolish the opposition on the day and risk the best players by pushing them harder for longer.
Kick2Kick said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Please give us a break!
You trying to get sympathy? Carlton are lucky they got this far by cheating the system through tanking. Carlton are just not good enough and do not deserve a higher position on the ladder, they where flogged by Adelaide remember..
Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
How good was Burton’s speccie? MOTY for sure.
Redb
Bruce Walkley said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
What a load of old cobblers! It’s always dodgy when you let academics loose on sport. The first edition of the Oxford Companion to Australian Sport a few years ago was riddled with errors of fact and misspellings of people’s names – and most of them were still wrong in the second edition!
Brian said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Dont know why I’ve given this more thought but any bonus point system would even further distort the unfair draw and give extra points to those teams who get to play, and thrash the bottom team twice. So unless it goes hand in hand with fixing the fixture it can be seriously considered.
Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
If the AFL runs with a 17 games play each other once schedule in 2012 then looks to draw up conferences or pools for the remaining 5-6 games some other form of bonus points may help decide the nature of those conferences/pools?
Redb
AndyRoo said | August 31st 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
I think anything other than doing the draw before the season starts is asking for trouble so it will all be based on old data anyway. Ther is a top 8 so the best 4 teams will make it anyway.