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 |
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL Commission, bonus points, Carlton Blues

August 31st 2009 @ 3:28pm
simonjzw said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Which only goes to prove that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I know we have an issue with an inequitable draw but the end of the day you have to win matches not ratings/bonus points to win a premiership
There are hundreds of different ratings systems out there (check out http://footyforecaster.com for one of the better ones). In some systems Brisbane are rated higher than Carlton and in others lower. So which one is the most accurate? No-one really knows.
I use my own ratings system to bet on AFL matches and mine rates them equal over the season but has Brisbane with a significantly better home field advantage and Carlton with better form over the last 5 weeks. Should be a cracker this weekend and if I can get better than $2.00 for the Blues I’ll be on them
.
August 31st 2009 @ 3:40pm
Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Simon,
Any system that rates Carlton lower has my full stamp of approval.
Redb
August 31st 2009 @ 3:33pm
AndyRoo said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
On the topic of betting, I notice they say who was the last scorer on Fox Sports. So I presume that people bet on that.
The trend of betting companies becoming so important in Aussie sport is a bit of a worry I think. We have had first try scorer in league for quite a while but last point scorer is a bit of a worry because it strikes me as something more able to be manipulated i.e. if your winning by 30 then some sheanigans are possible.
During the Rugby League call on Friday Nights there forever mentioning the change in betting market which is obvious sponsership (but not declared).
August 31st 2009 @ 3:44pm
Michael C said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
a bit like Riche Benaud (a bit of a punter at any rate) rattling off the changing cricket odds too.
Ah well, a sporting game really IS a 2 horse race – so, they have to try to lure people into sub components which have more horses….so to speak.
August 31st 2009 @ 3:57pm
simonjzw said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Andy, its a topic worthy of much discussion and the major codes need to be acutely aware of game integrity issues.
I read an article in one of the weekend paper magazines about the growth of sports betting companies and it predicted the merging of betting technology and digital television isn’t that far away.
25 years ago no-one in Italy would have believed match fixing would happen in the Serie A league.
Everything is moving very quickly – technology, legislation changes etc. I hope we can stay ahead of it.
And this from a regular punter!!!
August 31st 2009 @ 4:13pm
AndyRoo said | August 31st 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
After you have pick the score and pick the winners I think anything after that is in danger of going to far. Not really the paricular sports fault and they can’t control private betting companies but I bet it will become an issue similar to Alcohol Sponsership soon if they don’t tone it down.
August 31st 2009 @ 4:21pm
Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
I think the idea has some merit – but – the fact that the placings on the ladder have hardly moved, tells me that it’s probably a marginal difference, and not worth worrying about.
The idea about having something to play for late in the game is actualy quite appealing (it was a point of interest in yesterday’s Pies v Bullies game).
In fact, a team could start 10 goals down at three quarter time and still have a slim chance of grabbing themselves 2 points.
I think it’s also true that the very first time a team gets into the finals at the expense of another team who has more wins would have fans up in arms (but I guess there’s no harm in a bit of controversy).
August 31st 2009 @ 4:25pm
AndyRoo said | August 31st 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Pip
When futbul brought in the new rule 3 points instead of 2 for a win it was actually the difference between Blackburn winning and Manchester United.
No one complained
So I think the lesson is as long as it’s Collingwood and Carlton that end of worse everyone will be in favor.
August 31st 2009 @ 4:30pm
Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Yeh – good point!