Please AFL, leave the finals at eight teams
By Luke D'Anello, 16 Mar 2010 Luke D'Anello is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Greater Western Sydney

Kade Simpson and Justin Sherman chase the ball during the AFL 2nd Elimination Final between the Brisbane Lions and the Carlton Blues at the Gabba.
Less can often mean more but, in the case of the AFL, more is always best if it boosts the bottom line. As reported on The Roar on Saturday, the league is likely to move to a nine or 10-team finals series once the new clubs, Gold Coast (2011) and Greater Western Sydney (2012), enter the competition.
There is room for constant change in the AFL. The rule changes tell us that. But, surely, a final eight is sufficient? And if the league continues to expand, where does it stop?
League boss Andrew Demetriou offered the following last Friday: “What do the finals look like? Do we still have a final eight? That’s being done at the moment,” he said.
“We have a top eight with 16 teams, which is 50 per cent of the competition. When you go to 18 teams someone could run the argument ‘why haven’t we got a top nine?
“There’s no reason why we can’t have a top nine. Someone sent me a proposal the other day suggesting a top 10.
“We’ll look at all those things and we’d be remiss in our duties if we weren’t looking at and canvassing all the options.”
People might want to run the argument, but it is a poor argument.
Adding an extra few matches to the finals series may boost revenue, but it will eat into the quality of football we see. During finals, fans can expect to see the best of the best do battle over four weeks for the ultimate prize.
If the league moved to, say, a top-10 format, I’m not sure fans could reasonably expect to see what they have become accustomed to. Some matches, in the first week especially, would have a regular-season feel to them. I’m not sure anyone wants that.
Just because the competition is expanded does not mean the finals have to follow suit.
The addition of two teams should be applauded if the AFL’s aims of entering new markets and increasing the quality of the competition are achieved. But increasing the number of teams in the finals will, without doubt, lessen the achievement of qualifying for final.
And the addition of two teams should not be an excuse for such a radical move.
It might make the bottom line look a little more attractive, but I have a feeling the fans won’t warm to it. Last year, for example, in a top-10 system, Hawthorn and Port Adelaide would have made the finals with a 9-13 win-loss record.
Teams with a winning percentage of just over 40 per cent during home-and-away matches do not deserve a finals spot.
You may argue that, in an expanded competition, the records of teams just outside the top-eight are likely to look more attractive.
But, do we then draw a line through teams with a winning percentage of 50 per cent or more? Do we simply allow all teams to qualify, and play 1 versus 18 and so on?
The top-eight system has been proven a success. If we keep topping up, the quality of the September action will be on the downhill slide.
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.
The Crowd Says (14) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Greater Western Sydney

Savvas Tzionis said | March 16th 2010 @ 6:34am | Report comment
“The top-eight system has been proven a success”
This is the problem with people here.
They love their sport and their nation so much, they refuse to cast a truly critical unbiased eye on what is going on.
The Final Eight is an abomination. Even the Final Six was better!
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt said | March 16th 2010 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Not sure this has anything to do with bias and / or nationalism Savvas. In my experience, most AFL fans quite liked the final 5, weren’t sure about the final 6 and strongly disliked the first version of the final 8. The reason most (and I stress ‘most’, not ‘all’) AFL fans quite like the current system is because of its relative simplicity, the fact that the top teams are advantaged but not overwhelmingly so, and because every game is meaningful – no potentially meaningless ‘ round-robin’ style games as per the earlier final 8.
And yes I do quite like both my sport and my nation, but I’m not sure how this relates to my thoughts on the AFL finals system.
Tom said | March 16th 2010 @ 8:09am | Report comment
I would suggest a big part of the reason the AFL wants to expand the finals series now is to increase the chances of the new sides making it.
Finals series tend to be the best way to drum up support for new franchises. Look at the Wellington Phoenix in the A-league.
BigAl said | March 16th 2010 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
The bottom line to this is . . . the bottom line ! – i.e. more finals = more $$$$ for the AFL.
Redb said | March 16th 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
What exactly is the problem with that? Do you think Demetriou and Co are dipping in their hand in the till?
More dollars means more dollars for the game of Australian football.
BigAl said | March 16th 2010 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
No problem at all with that
Redb said | March 16th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
err Ok
bever fever said | March 16th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I actually like the final 5, but that ain’t gunna happen.
Please no final 9.
Sven man said | March 16th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
As someone who enjoys watching footy even when my team isnt involved theres no doudt I would rather see it kept to a final 8. Shortening the odds of making the finals would bring a real sense of achievement to making the final 8, knowing there were 10 teams that missed out. However i’m not sure the AFL would see it the same way and with the new expansion teams coming into the comp, a final 10 may been as another avenue to increase support for these fledgling clubs.
Dogz R Barkn said | March 16th 2010 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
No one appears to have reacted to my proposal that there be a top 16, all knock out, played over 4 weeks.
Brett McKay said | March 16th 2010 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Is it wrong, or even cynical, of me to have immediately thought of forward-thinking Richmond supporters when I read “Someone sent me a proposal the other day suggesting a top 10.”
Timmuh said | March 16th 2010 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
They would just find a way to finish 11th
Millster said | March 17th 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
I’m with DogZ for once and here is my logic.
Reality is, winning a GF has no greater purpose as you just start all over again a few months later in the next season against the same clubs. No promotion or relegation, no continental or world championships, even the ‘all Australian” team is only a paper one as there is no representative dimension. Thats the ‘joy’ of a single-tier totally isolated sport.
This gives you total flexibility for the finals as a code. Be selfish. Make it work for you. It doesn’t matter so have fun with it.
So get as many clubs involved as possible, make it a huge AFL post-season circus (and in the process also make more $$ to secure your code).
Yep a 16 team cup is a good idea. Maybe even throw in the WAFL, SANFL and VFL champs plus a 4th state chosen by a playoff between the rest of the state leagues (ACT, NSW, QLD, NT and TAS) so that you end up with a 20 team setup with that added ‘David Vs Goliath’ wild-card dimension.
Peter Natt said | July 18th 2010 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
Just maybe as soon as the competition reaches 20 teams, more finals spots are warranted (just so long as the fans want it), until then leave it the way it is! Why should a team with a losing record make the finals? The regular season must mean something. If more teams are allowed into the finals then the regular season games will be of less importance, and therefore less exciting. The NBA and NHL allows more than half of the teams in each of their two conferences (8 out of 15) into the finals, and as a result, their regular season lacks importance. On the other hand, the NFL only allows 6 out the 16 teams in each of the two conferences into the finals and as a result the regular season is of more importance and more exciting. Leave the current finals system as it is but change it so that in every week of the finals, the highest seeded team will always play the lowest seeded team, just like how it is in the NFL. This is a fairer system and ensures that a now likely farce match-up of 1st vs 2nd occurring before the Grand Final is not as likely to happen.