By Michael DiFabrizio
September 13th 2009 @ 5:15am
View The Roar's top AFL writers.
AFL Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Related coverage
The AFL should drop the final nine talk
The AFL’s top eight system cops a few whacks every now and then. Like this week, for example, in the post-match digestion of Adelaide’s 96-point thumping of Essendon. Or like last year, when poor crowds turned out in Adelaide and Sydney.
No one can shy away from the fact the top eight system has its flaws. [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
were we trying to bully union to death when they were boring people to death ( ok stop now ifs sokka’s so boring why is it so...
Pippinu said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Five weeks of finals is too much, and you’re right with your description of snakes and ladders.
The idea has zero merit.
Also, the current set up of twin preliminary finals has worked a treat for over a decade now.
The ultiamate grand finalists have a similar pathway – it works very well.
tifosi said | September 13th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Unfortunately this will probably get up as the AFL will try to exploit as much money from extra games as they can.
Anyway pip you must be happy. Prelim final. Should be a cracker.
Pippinu said | September 13th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Tifosi
there is very little joy and happiness to be had as a bulldogs supporter.
Marty said | September 13th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Well said Pippinu, I couldn’t said it any better.
Pippinu said | September 13th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Which bit? The bit about the final 9 – or the bit about there being little joy as a bullies’ supporter?
Robbo said | September 13th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
You AFL fans have nothing to complain about! You should see the finals system us NRL fans have to put up with. I wish both sports would just put the kibosh on their systems and revert to a straight knockout tournament. Quarter Finals > Semi Finals > Grand Final. There is something about the term “preliminary final” that I hate!
Michael C said | September 13th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Robbo – remember, the AFL used to have the version of the McIntyre 8 final system that the NRL now employs. ‘We’ removed it and use the current version of a final 8 which isn’t too bad…however, doesn’t give a clear advantage to the top team at the end of the H&A season. That’s an anomoly.
“preliminary final” kinda worked in the days when it was wedged in b/w the semi finals and the GF. Now, the 2 prelim final system effectively is a true semi final round – - which means the week 2 matches that we’ve just had this weekend should perhaps be ‘qualifying finals’ and the 4 week 1 matches perhaps should be ‘quarter finals’ = = = although, 2 are elimination and 2 are qualifying…..
…..so, the naming convention is all over the shop.
A straight knockout tournament doesn’t really work though….if team 1 plays 8 and loser gets knocked out – - the move to that from a traditional ‘double chance’ reward would not be popular – - that killed the AFL final 6 system when 3rd placed StKilda got knocked out by Collingwood….every other year 3rd place earned a double chance in week 1.
Pippinu said | September 13th 2009 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Robbo
I think the NRL and AFL actually swapped finals systems around the same year! (I’m pretty sure that’s right, it would be nice if someone could confirm)
Don’t ask me how or why it happened, but funnily enough, they appear to suit each comp quite well.
Re the knock out format (as happens in cup comps around the world), this might sound bizarre, but I have sometimes wondered if you had, say, a 20 team comp – whether a top 16 with straight out knock out would work.
The idea of the regular season becomes to work out your ranking for the finals, much lke the tennis ranking system, and clearly you get a bigger advantage the higher up you finish the season (as you should).
Very radical – but there’s a nice symmetry to a straight knock out system from 16 teams
.
bever fever said | September 13th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
9 is way to many, 8 i reckon is to many… i actually think a final five is good for 18 teams, but its about money.
BTW Pip dogs need a key forward to go further, that is quite obvious, good luck though.
Richard said | September 13th 2009 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Good article Michael and I agree with your sentiments. I think the current system works well and should be left as it is. After the relatively disappointing turnouts for the semi finals this weekend, the AFL surely can’t expect that they would get much of a turnout to see the 9th team struggle one week longer. By the way, what a ripoff on ticket prices at the Finals. Also notice the AFL record was $10.00 this week! They called it a souvenir edition. For that price I’d want a guaranteed win.
Pippinu said | September 13th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Good point about crowds – we are currently pushing the “exclusivity” of finals as it is – there’s simply no way that we can push it out any more.
Fly on the Wall said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
I favour the original top 8, with 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 etc.
If the revised system (top 4 and bottom 4) goes according to seeding, the winner (team 1 or 2) would have had to beat the other three top four teams inside a month.
That is asking a lot – and given the warmer weather and battle fatigue I’m not sure we always end up with the two best teams in peak condition in the grand final. Witness Adelaide’s capitulation from a top 2 spot several times this decade.
In the original system there was suspense across the opening weekend as to who got knocked out – it could have been 3 or 4 – which I agree is a little unfair – but if 6 beats 3 then the comp is more even than it appeared or 3 could not get themselves up mentally.
Rugby League has kept the 1 v 8 and you get more ‘upsets’ because of the overwhelmingly brutal / physical nature of the game in which the first 10 minutes can set the tone.
Witness Brisbane (6) and Parramatta (8) winning this weekend away from home.
In the AFL, could you imagine Brisbane (6) knocking over the Bulldogs (3) in Melbourne, and Essendon (8) knocking over St Kilda (1) in the first week of the finals? No. In a round match yes, but not in September and not on the season’s form over 22 weeks.
Okay, AFL teams 5-8 are unlikely to win the flag but they get a much easier first week than the top 4. Is that the intention?
When the new teams come in, keep it at eight.
Or have the top 4 of the bottom 9/10 play a repechage finals for an extra draft pick – that would stop tanking at least.
Michael C said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
nah…Adelaide were just chokers…..
Fly on the Wall said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
fair comment. I would have liked to see them win one of those cos for 22 rounds they were great.
Same story Sat night.
I’m still hurting over Carlton’s blowout v Brisbane.
Timmuh said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
The bug problem with the original final eight, as used by the NRL, is one of scheduling. 4th v 5th might be a final that means absolutely nothing, and therefore has to be played early in the weekend regardless of when teams played in the last home and away round. If other game go to form, 1st defeat 8th and 2nd defeat 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th are not playing for survival or the double chance. The other games decide whether the winner of those two games gets any benefits or the losers suffer the penalties. Its especially true of 4th v 5th, as this match requires two upsets (by ladder position) in the other three games to be a meaningful game. Having finals which are dead rubbers is not a good thing, and it was for this reason that the AFL abandoned the original top eight system. As things stand the top four might get harder games in the first week, but they play for a shortcut to week three and are guaranteed survival until at least week two. That’s fair advantage over playing a notionally easier game first up. Therefore, 4th v 5th almost has to be played on Friday night regardless of when teams played in round 22 (or however many rounds we move to). That’s no good either.
That rant over; personally, I feel the top five is still enough. Finals should be for the elite teams, not mid-table ones.
As for tanking, and I don’t believe its real (resting players for next season, yes; playing to lose, no); the finals are not the place to fix that. There may be other methods, eliminating the draft is the best of these.
Fly on the Wall said | September 14th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
dead rubbers?
What about 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 in the first week of the AFL? Four teams have the comfort of knowing they can’t miss out – against two in the NRL. That’s two dead rubbers to start with.
This weekend’s NRL games were equally as exciting as the AFL’s first weekend, probably more so – yet offered far more suspense in terms of who goes to the preliminary final and who is finished for the season.
Manly players would have been very tense watching Parra yesterday.
4 v 5 must be on Friday, yes – and Manly spent the whole weekend sweating, only to get shafted. That’s the beauty of the simple McIntyre eight.
Which backs up my earlier argument about the strengths and weaknesses of the two comps.
No argument there, surely?
Pippinu said | September 14th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
I agree – they both have strengths and weaknesses – neither is perfect – and I’ve said a few times that for one reason or another, both have served their respective comps well since they switched over.
Personally, I like the certainty of knowing what the result of your game means immediately.
The 4th vs 5th game is an odd scenario – it might mean absolutely nothing (in most seasons) – or like this year – it mean something completely different!
In the AFL, I think we value all top 4 teams getting the double chance. I think it’s incorrect to describe them as dead rubbers – the winner gets the week off and goes directly to the prelim – and history shows that the majority of premiers take this root.
Fly on the Wall said | September 14th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Pip – they are dead rubbers. All 4 teams know they are safe and their results do not affect 5-8. Whereas in the league the result of my team’s match may drastically affect your team. That is great theatre. How about the Storm. Big win Friday, and on Sunday they find out they are thru to the prelim. Great stuff indeed. What is prob a bigger issue is who hosts the second week of finals.
Should No.1 (St G) forfeit their home ground advantage by losing in week 1, or do they deserve to keep it as a reward for 26 weeks of hard work?
It seems a bit strange that 6 will host 1 in the second week of NRL finals.
I know AFL has certain deals with the MCG that prevent that – or they catch up the next year.
Yes, the 2 best teams often end up in the grand final – but there have been so many big winning margins in the decider in the last 10 years (except WC-Syd) that you wonder if we end up with the 2 best teams at their best after all the finals have been played.
Michael C said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
FotW,
the capacity to earn a weeks rest and get to go directly to the Prelim final……that’s a reward that’s hardly a ‘dead rubber’ reward,
and the loser risks going out in straight sets, and has to win 3 in 3 weeks to win the flag.
However, I’ll admit, I didn’t overly mind the old format that the NRL are running with, esp when in ‘97 North at 7th rolled Geel at 2nd. The Cats then dropped a game in Adelaide to fall out, and the Roos got over the Eagles but were no match for StKilda come the Prelim.
Geelong had exercised their ‘double chance’, alas, their ‘home ground advantage’ was non-existent, hosting North at night at the MCG.
Pippinu said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Fly
sorry – but if two teams are actually playing for something (direct entry to the prelim) – thay can’t be considered dead rubbers. What you are saying there is illogical.
When 4th plays 5th under the McIntryre 9 seasons out of 10, the game means nothing at all.
I’m not going to call that a dead rubber – but it’s pretty damn close.
Fly on the Wall said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
With 4 v 5 they ARE playing for a possible entry to the prelim – as the NRL showed when Melbourne beat Manly and there were two upsets.
And if there are four upsets then 5 and 6 go straight to prelim. Totally logical.
I would say the more athletic / endurance aspect of AFL compared to NRL means the fitter, better team wins more often in the first two weeks of finals, but the brutality of NRL leads to more upsets. That’s two years in a row 8 has beaten 1 away from home in the first week.
The best way to eliminate dead rubbers is to cut the finals back to 6 teams.
My argument is that having four teams guaranteed to progress from week 1 is a bit soft. After all, we are talking about the word ‘final’.
The old final five was the best way, but with 16-18 teams you would have too many dead rubbers in the round robin phase.
I’ll take the 1 v 8 system any day, regardless of which footy code. Far more suspese and intrigue.
For all those arguing against me – yet who favour the double chance for the top 4 – should first week losers from the top four forfeit the right to home ground? 22 weeks of hard yakka undone by one finals loss?
megatron said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
Cool pic with this article. Where was the photographer shooting from? The ground?
Ben Somerford said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Nice work Michael. On WA’s ABC720 radio on Sat morning, Ken Judge commented that you could bet your house on the AFL keeping the top 8 system when the 17th and 18th teams come in. Not sure where he gets his info, but that’s a confident bet!
AndyRoo said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
I thought in both codes that the top winners fromt he First Week i.e. Sanints and Geelong in the AFL and Melbourne and the Bulldogs in the NRL should be rewarded with a home semi final (at the biggest stadium in their own state).
I don’t really think 1 week of is always a big advantage. It is for some teams but it also strikes me as unfair that say Westcoast could finish first then beat 4th place in the first week by 100 goals but come the Semi final they might end up playing a Melbourne team in Melbourne.
Would make for some great stories, for instance in the NRL that would mena Melbourne gets ahome semifinal which would be good for the game.
Pippinu said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
AndyRoo
under the present system – that wouldn’t happen to West Coast (in the manner you have described).
But in years gone by, West Coast has ended up playing an away prelim (when they deserved home ground advantage) on at least one occasion – all due to the contractual obligation with the MCG – which I think has now been rectified.
AndyRoo said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Oh sorry
Then I think the AFL have the right system in place then.
I would love the NRL to adapt it because the possibility of a home semi final for Auckland, Canberra, Townsvillle and Brisbane would be fantastic for the game.
AndyRoo said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Turns out I have no idea and everything is allright in the world
Storm will host Semifinal on AFL Grand Final day.
Pippinu said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
AndyRoo
the two that go directly through to the prelims (Storm and Bulldogs) get home ground advantage.
The two losers of week one do not, which means that St George has lost the right to a home final despite finishing first.
In the AFL system, the losers from the top 4 play offs retain home ground advantage as a reward for having finished in the top 4.
Mind you, the AFL system has at least one negative – neither top 8 system is perfect – that’s for sure.
Fly on the Wall said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
tks for clearing that up re home ground in AFL. Was unsure, thought the MCG deal may have still been in place.
Pippinu said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Fly
if there three or four years of interestate teams in the top 4 – I think that would test the MCG deal to the max – some flexibility is now built in – but they definitely need to get games at the MCG over the longer term (I think there’s more of an averaging deal happening).
For instance, this year, something like 7 of 9 finals would have been played at the MCG – so that helps out in future years when there might need to be less finals at the MCG because of the interstate teams doing better.
Fly on the Wall said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
A few years ago 6 of the top 8 in AFL were interstate – and I think WCE and Freo were playing in prelims the same weekend. It could have meant both games at Subiaco!
That would have shook Jolimont!
Given the huge number of games at MCG and Docklands each year now, surely the MCG does not have to host anything until the GF if non-Vics earn the right to host finals in weeks 1, 2 and 3.
Ben Somerford said | September 15th 2009 @ 12:12am | Report comment
Fly, is it ironic there’s a suburb next door to Subi in Perth called Jolimont? Prob not, but two finals at Subi Oval would’ve been great, or even a derby final! One senses nowadays that possibility may not happen again for a long time.