Expanding the finals would be a terrible mistake

Columnist

By Michael DiFabrizio, 3 Aug 2010 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: Adelaide Crows, AFL, AFL final nine, AFL final ten, AFL finals, Carlton Blues, Essendon Bombers, Final eight system, Gold Coast Suns, Hawthorn Hawks, Melbourne Demons, North Melbourne Kangaroos, Sydney Swans

Related coverage

Carlton's Shaun Grigg after their defeat during the AFL Round 18 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Carlton Blues at the MCG, Melbourne. Slattery Images

The AFL should take note of the way this year’s top eight is shaping up when discussing any changes to the finals series once Gold Coast and GWS arrive. It’s just another example of why expanding the finals simply cannot be allowed to happen.

Right now, leaving aside the fast-finishing Demons, the sides that are “fighting” for the two spots genuinely still up for grabs aren’t giving much indication that they are all that worthy of September action.

No one’s smelling what Carlton are cooking, Sydney have hit some real turbulence, North Melbourne continue to struggle against top opposition and Adelaide threw away any hope they had by losing to Richmond on Sunday. Only Melbourne are showing something that resembles form, yet they are six points out of the eight with four games remaining – a sign that they, too, have battled with consistency this year.

What should be most alarming to those at AFL House is that a very similar scenario played out last year, with Hawthorn and Essendon both limping into their winner-takes-all Round 22 clash for eighth spot. The Bombers won that battle, but lost the war – by 96 points – against Adelaide in the first week of finals. They were your typical “there to make up the numbers” team.

And funnily enough, if you go back another year to 2008, you mightn’t find a team limping into the eight, but you will find two disgraceful crowd figures in Adelaide and Sydney to watch two teams coming down from a number of years at the top – a sign that even when there are eight worthy teams, the finals series is still being dragged out further than it should be.

These examples alone illustrate how an expanded finals makes zero sense. But, as regular readers of this column would know, the madness of it all doesn’t end there – it continues when you see the alternatives that have been floated by the AFL.

The horribly disjointed final nine proposal gives multiple weeks off to the top team and gives the ninth-placed team a draw that makes them nothing more than a token addition. The final ten option is even more complicated and takes the number of teams competing in finals to more than half the competition, at the same time as doubling the number of non-elimination finals.

And as for the final twelve, well, let’s hope that idea doesn’t get anywhere.

None of the alternatives will add to the spectacle that is finals footy. In fact, they all seem to detract from what we already have by creating games that are virtually meaningless and rewarding mediocrity.

But one look at the situation we’ve got this year should be evidence enough. How the AFL can even contemplate expanding not only the number of teams, but the ratio (beyond a simple 50-50 split), with the lack of competitiveness from the middle tier we’re seeing now, is mindboggling.

The present final eight set-up isn’t perfect, and no one is pretending it is. But with an extra two teams fighting for the same number of spots, a few of the flaws we’re seeing now will come up far less often.

If anything, the current final eight system is made for eighteen teams. Let’s just hope the AFL can realise that.

Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio

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 (11) | Page 1 of Comments

Mathew said | August 3rd 2010 @ 9:28am | Report comment

The top eight system’s biggest flaw is not giving the minor premiers enough of an advantage. Who cares where Collingwood and Geelong finish, as long as they are top two they both get an MCG home game against another Melbourne team (or Freo). Truth is, there is no perfect system.

Reply
- davelee said | August 4th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
  
  first past the post!?!
  
  Reply
Michael Filosi said | August 3rd 2010 @ 2:36pm | Report comment

Good article Michael,

Expanding the finals system beyond eight teams or beyond four weeks would be a purely money-making exercise from the AFL.

I agree with the final line of this piece, an eight team final series for a league of 18 teams seems like a perfect fit to me as well.

Reply
Tom Dimanis said | August 3rd 2010 @ 2:37pm | Report comment

The old top 5 system was the best, but we know that’ll never happen again. No one deserves a crack at the premiership from 7th or 8th.

Reply
Fez's are cool said | August 3rd 2010 @ 4:39pm | Report comment

The simpler the system the better. If you have a comp that finishes with a grand final between 2 sides…

logically you would have a number of teams at a power of 2 competing; 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 (FIFA WC). Since NRL and AFL are <20 clubs, 16 and 32 are no good unless for a cup situation. 8 or 4 is the logical number, 8 being better as you can sell more games to TV.

Or, some variation where the strength of some teams is questionable, so you give the strongest time off. Eg, a top 5 system, or the “super” pool system used in the RL WC, and similar set ups in other lopsided comps.

Personally, I like the McIntire system the NRL currently uses (and AFL used to use). It is argued that it doesn’t reward the Minor Premier enough, but if you win the cash, a home final against weak oposition with the chance to progress to a home Prelim final, and a second chance, I think its fine.

The system the AFL uses (and NRL used to use) places too much emphasis on rewarding the top club. I’d like to see more commendation placed on winning the Minor Premiership in itself in the AFL and NRL, rather than trying to reward that club in a finals structure. Winning the MP should be as revered as a GF win.

Reply
Footy Legend said | August 3rd 2010 @ 7:07pm | Report comment

I’d rather it went back to a top 5 or top 6 than go up to a top 9 or 10

Reply
Brian said | August 3rd 2010 @ 11:35pm | Report comment

Lets just hope they stay with 8. The current system is quite good, it lets 5-8 compete, makes it hard for them to win but not impossible for them to dream e.g Hawks in 2001 or Pies in 2007

Reply
Bayman said | August 4th 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment

The problem we have these days is that there are at least three distinct “interested parties” involved in AFL. The AFL administration, together with its corporate supporters, the clubs and the fans. The priorities, roughly, are aligned in much the same order.

There is no doubt the “final 8″ was a money grabbing concept from the AFL and television. A further expansion can only be justified in these terms. The clubs and fans know that unless the team has finished “top four” it has virtually no chance of winning the grand final and only a slightly better chance of making the preliminary final(s).

If memory serves – and it’s getting more unreliable by the day – only one team, Adelaide, has ever won the premiership from outside the top four. In 1998 the Crows finished fifth and were belted by Melbourne in the first week. The system as it was then allowed them to survive – today they’d be gone – and they then beat the Swans (SCG), the Bulldogs (MCG) and the Roos (MCG) to claim the title.

Given that the teams finishing 7th and 8th are essentially, without exception, surplus to requirements then what chance the team finishing 9th, or 10th. There will always be the odd upset, there is now, but realistically it’s top four or nothing.

Having said all that we have certainly underestimated the need for the AFL and television to grab more money. I’d love Andrew D to look me straight in the eye and tell me, straight faced, that teams 7, 8 and 9 are a realistic chance for the flag. No, Andrew, I don’t believe it, either!

Even now, I find it hard to get too enthused because my team just might grab the 8th spot. The won’t this year but even if they could it doesn’t matter. Still, as AD will no doubt tell us, we have to pay all those salaries somehow.

In this day of litigation and political correctness, how long before the team finishing 18th sues the AFL because they have not got “equal opportunity”. Really looking forward to that “final 18″ play-off series. Not!

Reply
fatboi said | August 4th 2010 @ 3:05pm | Report comment

keep the final 8 even with 18 teams.
here is what the season format should be post 2012

23-Round Regular Season + Top 8 (current finals system)

Rounds 1-17
Every team plays each other once, 9 or 8 home/away games each.

Rounds 18-23 (6 games)

Bottom 4 teams at R17 drop off to play its last 6 games against each other in a round robin
format, 3 home 3 away each. all 4 teams ineligible for Finals.

The fixture for Rounds 18-23 for teams 1-14 are determined by:
Teams 1-4: randomly select 2 teams into Group A and B.
Teams 5-8: randomly select 2 teams into Group A and B.
Teams 9-14: randomly select 3 teams into Group A and B.

so in Group A we have 7 teams from 1-14
and in Group B we have 7 teams from 1-14. This ensures each group is fairly spread with Best, Good and Average teams.
Each team in Group A and B play 3 home, 3 away with other teams in its group.
After 23 Rounds, top 8 teams irrespective of which group they are in go ahead and contest the Finals Series.

The benefit of this system is that it removes poor performing teams from the Finals race, thus
protecting the integrity of the competition. eg Poor performing teams are most likely to play young kids,
put senior injured players up for early surgery. They get to to this in their last 6 games of the season.

The competition will never be fair unless we have a 17 or 34 round competition. The AFL wants 22-25 game regular season.
This format is the Next Best Thing as it keeps the competition fair in the last 6 games as all teams get to play Best, Good and Average teams and takes away “easy run to finals” where a team may get lucky and play all struggling teams who are more focused on rebuilding than winning.

It adds extra excitement to the mid-season rounds between 15-17 as teams battle it out to try to avoid finishing bottom 4.

Reply
ac said | August 4th 2010 @ 4:05pm | Report comment

The final 8 is too much really. A team comes 8th and then for some reason plays a couple of more games and wins the comp is really not very legit is it? It could happen. They play a few team(s) which have a OFF day.

Reply
Redb said | August 4th 2010 @ 4:07pm | Report comment

Keep it at 8.

9 or 10 is ridiculous!

Reply