Simultaneous games the answer to AFL fixturing issue
Roar Guru By Alfred Chan, 14 Sep 2012 Alfred Chan is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL fixture, ANZ stadium, Channel Seven, tanking
Fremantle provided an early AFL Finals shock by beating Geelong (AFL media/Slattery images).
Related coverage
Everyone complains about the fixture. The coaches say it’s too long, the fans say teams get easy rides, and the broadcasters get angry if two heavyweight matches are on at the same time.
Ignore them all. Let’s play games simultaneously.
This year’s preliminary final has drawn attention across the league due to an ANZ Stadium farce. The Sydney Swans must host their preliminary final on the Friday night due to a double booking at the venue.
Because of this, Hawthorn must host their preliminary final on Saturday night and therefore have one less day of recovery, despite finishing atop of the ladder.
The AFL decided Hawthorn would host a twilight game starting at 5.15pm so that the travelling team would have time to return home following the game.
From next year onwards, the AFL must consider making a deal with broadcasters to play a number of games simultaneously.
Firstly, both preliminary finals should always be played at the same time, either on the Friday night or the Saturday night. Both winning teams are then given an equal recovery time for the Grand Final.
The other simultaneous matches should be played on the final round of the home-and-away season. Soccer is famous for doing this in the final group games of tournaments. This way, teams cannot manipulate the game and the scoreboard to give themselves an advantage.
The NFL also do this in the final week of the regular season, when all games are played on Sunday. As such, they scrap Monday and Thursday night football, which usually gets the highest TV ratings.
There are enough venues for the AFL to make it happen.
It would not affect crowd sizes because how many people go to more than one game per week?
Yes, it would be a nightmare for broadcasters. But the AFL should address the issue now, before teams decide to shave points or lose in order to advantage themselves for the first week of finals.
If it can happen, it will. It’s just a matter of when.
This possibility almost eventuated this year when Fremantle played after the Kangaroos in Round 23. Luckily for the integrity of the game, Ross Lyon knew better and was rewarded a week later.
There is no denying that players and teams can manipulate their results to maximise their future winning chances.
It happened in the Olympics with the badminton players, who were later disqualified. Although they were not penalised, the Russian women’s basketball team “strategically lost” too.
This would be a broadcaster’s nightmare. But when it comes to the final round of the year, only three of four games matter enough to be broadcasted.
As for playing both preliminary finals simultaneously, Channel Seven has enough digital channels to make it happen.
This is not one of those issues that require urgent attention. But if it is allowed to get to that stage, it will be too late.
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL fixture, ANZ stadium, Channel Seven, tanking
September 14th 2012 @ 8:56am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 14th 2012 @ 8:56am | Report comment
You can deal with tanking via a “crime and punishment” approach, or you can deal with tanking via preventing people watching the game, because when you say “Yes, it would be a nightmare for broadcasters” thats what you mean.
In the specific example you raise, Fremantle played as hard as they could going into the final, and then beat Geelong in Melbourne. North, on the other hand, looked a lot like they were trying to keep something in the tank against GWS … and then were unable to get out of first gear against West Coast.
Yes, the AFL is an unfair league. It unfairly shares money around, via disequal funding allocations. It unfairly lets some teams, like Geelong, play home games while making others play at a “home” of Ethihad. It unfairly makes some teams travel much more often than others – ok, ok, thats geography as much as the league. It unfairly prevents rich teams from taking advantage of being rich to higher better players off the poor teams.
It does a whole lot of unfair things … and it all comes out in the wash, because the unfairness is concentrated on making sure the league is rich enough that it can ensure no team is too poor to compete.
September 14th 2012 @ 9:28am
Jano said | September 14th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Your ideas are good and would suit a 12 team comp. Two teams in Qld, NSW, SA, WA and 4 teams in Vic. The TV rights would be about $500M for 5 years instead of the $1.12B it is now. State leagues in WA Vic and SA would be stronger.
The expanded VFL that we have now would die and a new AFL could begin.
September 14th 2012 @ 9:39am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 14th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Jano,
So, you’re arguing that if his ideas are followed then Australian Rules shrinks by 70%, and so you think it’s a good idea and it should be done.
That is a level of incompetence in sports administration previously only matched by the NSW Rugby Union.
September 14th 2012 @ 10:03am
The Critics' Choice said | September 14th 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
I think Jano is being sarcastic to get the point across. I do agree – do you want a healthy national competition where the best play the game (because they are paid well), or an incredibly fair draw but less money in the competition and therefore reduced quality.
September 14th 2012 @ 10:08am
Jano said | September 14th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Hi Ian
I am not arguing for a 12 team comp. I am saying that the comp we have now will never have a fair fixture. The history of the comp, them clubs and the fans means that this version of a national Australian rules league will always have inequities and unfair management.
It is also why you can not compare the AFL to the EPL the NFL or almost any other comp on the planet.
September 14th 2012 @ 11:25am
Ian Whitchurch said | September 14th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Jano,
If you’re going to make that argument, be honest about it – “Fair competition” and the NFL dont belong in the same sentence. I barrack for Seattle, and we once made the playoffs at 7 wins and 9 losses … and that was including playing each of hopeless Arizona, the useless Rams and a substandard San Francisco twice.
Likewise, we have very different views on fairness when some clubs can spend more on players salaries than others.
It is because of it’s unfairness that the AFL works. Deal with it and move on.
September 14th 2012 @ 1:01pm
tom said | September 14th 2012 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
If you follow the NFL, you’d be aware that despite the inter-divisional and inter-conference play, the division and conference structure of the competition means that all teams within a 4-team division are competing against each other first and foremost because they share a common schedule. The strength of each team is irrelevant. There are essentially 8 different competitions during the NFL regular season comprising the 8 different divisions and common schedules. That season, Seattle were the best performing team amongst the 4 teams with the same schedule.
Furthermore, teams having the ability to utilise greater resources isn’t a question of fairness. It is a fact of everyday life. Fairness in here is in terms of the regulator, or in a sports league environment the competition administrator, to ensure all participants are treated equally and given the same opportunity to succeed. In this regard, the EPL with their full double round robin season, as well as the NFL’s divisional and wildcard system provides a fairer schedule and performance comparison system to what the AFL does with its arbitrary fixturing of which teams play twice and comparing them all within the single ladder.
September 15th 2012 @ 6:06pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 15th 2012 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
Tom,
Repeat that with a straight face.
One club has $100m to spend on salaries.
Another club has $12m to spend on salaries.
They are “given the same opportunity to succeed”.
Lie to me again, with confidence, like you believe it.
September 15th 2012 @ 5:42pm
bryan said | September 15th 2012 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
In answer to Jano’s earlier comment:
Your last sentence makes the most pertinent point!
The AFL is still just an “expanded VFL”.
There are too many teams in metropolitan Melbourne.
Back in the days when the VFL was, pretty much, Melbourne’s local competition,that was OK.
Hell,the WANFL(old name for the WAFL) in WA could pull in 50,000 people at Subi* for a Grand Final,& the VFL did proportionally better!
The glory days of local competition have gone now,with demographic & social changes,& we are left with a lot of teams which could get by in the old days,but are battling in the AFL environment.
OK,South Melbourne & Fitzroy have migrated to other States,but the writing is in the wall for some others.
Poor on field performances, poor attendance at games & falling memberships make times pretty tough,
It seems to me,that some of the least successful teams in Melbourne need to amalgamate,go to Regional Victoria,or perhaps,Tassie.
* Before someone says Subi can’t seat 50,000 people–Who the hell is talking about seats!
Real football fans stand on the grassed areas,which there were plenty of back in the day!
Subi dropped in capacity when some of the later stands went in.
We used to get 50K to watch the “big V” kick our bums in Interstate games,too!
September 15th 2012 @ 6:00pm
Ian Whitchurch said | September 15th 2012 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
Bryan,
“Too many” by what metric ?
Going to regional Victoria, like North Melbourne want to play games in Ballarat, if someone else pays for the ground ? Go to Tassie, like Hawthorn playing games in Launceston ?
Yes, adding another WA side makes sense, and personally I think Launceston, by delivering crowd after crowd, is making a good argument for a team.
But why bother to kill an existing side to do this ? Isnt it better to develop a home away from home ?
September 16th 2012 @ 12:22am
bryan said | September 16th 2012 @ 12:22am | Report comment
Well,the numbers don’t add up!
Melbourne with just over two & a quarter times Perth’s population,is trying to support five times as many AFL clubs.
There are a finite number of potential fans and/or members for each club,so that,even if the teams all performed equally on the field,they all have a smaller pie to divide in proportion to their numbers.
In the real world,they don’t perform equally,so several high performing clubs get the lion’s share,with the others battling over what’s left.
My mention of moving to Regional Victoria was based on the idea that the city/country population division in Vic was more even,so that there would be more people to carry the clubs which “went bush”.
Upon Googling,I found that the ratio of city/country population in Vic was virtually the same as in WA,(although our country population density is a bit lower),so maybe banishing the dying clubs to Regional centres may not be the answer.
I don’t think we need a third AFL club in WA,the current two are doing well with more of the “pie” to share.
I noticed that my point has come up numerous times in these & other forums,mainly made by other people from traditional Aussie Rules states,such as WA,Tas,& SA.
September 14th 2012 @ 9:38am
btn said | September 14th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I think simultaneous matches are good for the final week in the regular season – you only need to look to last year’s EPL to see how exciting that can make things.
However, when there are only two or four games on a weekend like in the finals, I, somewhat selfishly, disagree. As a footy fan, I want the chance to be able to watch as many finals games live as possible. I don’t want to have to flick between games. The ANZ issue and the scheduling of the rugby Test at Subi last weekend has amplified a problem which is not really that big of a deal.
Realistically (taking out TV broadcasters’ interests), they should have a Friday night and Saturday afternoon matches where there are only two games on a weekend – that gives travel time for teams and less than 24 hours’ difference with recovery time.
September 14th 2012 @ 11:00am
Alfred Chan said | September 14th 2012 @ 11:00am | Report comment
I still don’t understand why the AFL didn’t schedule Saturday’s game at 2.10pm. It would give an added recovery time as you mentioned and considering the winner has to play the next week in the Spring sunlight, I’m pretty sure Hawthorn would have agreed to it.
September 14th 2012 @ 1:37pm
Australian Rules said | September 14th 2012 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Absolutely Hawthorn (and moreover, Adelaide or Freo) would have agreed to 2:10pm.
But Ch7 consider 5:15pm to be closer to Prime Time than 2:10pm, so the AFL said yes.
September 14th 2012 @ 9:40am
Scoot said | September 14th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
The English Premier league play 70 % of their games simultaneously. How good did it make the Man City vs QPR game!
September 14th 2012 @ 9:44am
JIM said | September 14th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Easy answer – shorten the games. Games are too long. If you shortened the games, it would be easier on the players (less injuries) and easier to schedule.
September 14th 2012 @ 10:01am
Martin said | September 14th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I know you could have multiple televisons in your lounge room to watch simultaneous matches; however, I don’t think I could take it all in at the same time. That is I probably would miss some of the action, perhaps it’s not a good idea after all.
September 14th 2012 @ 11:02am
Alfred Chan said | September 14th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Considering how big televisions are these days, digital capabilities would make it possible to have multiple games on one screen. You’d only get the audio for one game but Foxtel do it for EPL with “viewers choice” where Foxtel broadcast all games simultaneously and viewers can watch one game or they can watch the 4-game split screen.
September 14th 2012 @ 10:04am
mds1970 said | September 14th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
I love the way Hawthorn people are jumping up and down about Hawthorn getting a shorter turnaround time for the Grand Final. It’s just assumed Hawthorn will win their Prelim Final.
September 14th 2012 @ 10:11am
langou said | September 14th 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Kind of pointless
The AFL just entered into a billion dollar 5-year t.v deal so they can’t change anything until 2016.
September 14th 2012 @ 11:18am
Alfred Chan said | September 14th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Considering the TV deal agrees to show all finals live anyway, I don’t think it would be that big of an issue. The hardest thing to chance would be the round 23 simultaneous games because Foxtel would need make-shift channel. Since the broadcasters allowed the AFL to implement the current system of the floating final round which isn’t announced until 2/3 into the season, there is leeway in the broadcast deal. The Prelim announced for next week to be held at 5.15pm is unheard of and there is no way there was an astrix in place to allow that game to be played at 5.15pm without the broadcasters crying foul. Things can be changed.
September 14th 2012 @ 12:05pm
Matt F said | September 14th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Uh yes it would be a big issue for the networks…..
Showing two different games at the same time (unavoidable in the H&A season but easily avoidable in finals) does nothing more than split the audience which is the last thing that TV networks want.
The networks want 1 million people (or whatever figure it is) watching a game on Friday and then watching another game on Saturday, and more importantly watching 2 games worth of ads, as opposed to 500k people watching one game and 500k watching the simultaneous game with each therefore only watching the equivalent of 1 game’s worth of ads. They’ve given the AFL $1.25b to do so as well.
Besides, I’m sure that the fans of the 14 teams not competing in the prelims would rather watch 2 full prelim finals over the weekend than have to flick between 2 games at the same time.
Ideally they’d play the Saturday prelim in the afternoon but again, TV pays money for night games. The AFL probably would had a hard enough time trying to get the game played at 5:15 instead of 7:50 let alone playing moving it to 2:10 or making them simultaneous.
September 14th 2012 @ 12:20pm
langou said | September 14th 2012 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
The change to a floating round was irrelevant for television stations. At the time Seven had Friday night and Sunday arvo games and Ten had Saturday and Saturday night games. That remained the same with or without the floating round. Currently Channel Seven has a deal to play four games spread over at least three days. Clearly it wouldn’t work therefore to play all nine games at the same time.
Same with the final series, Seven have a deal that will mean all the games get shown live on the main channel. Even if they could show it on their digital channel (which they can’t under the agreement and possibly also under the anti-siphoning laws) there is no way they would want to do that. Imagine a Venn diagram. On one side is the people who are going to watch the first prelim final and on the other the people who are going to watch the second prelim final and in the middle is a whole heap of people who are going to watch both. Making those people chose which game to watch would result in a huge loss of ratings and an inability to cash in on the flow on effects of broadcasting over two days.
It just can’t happen.
September 14th 2012 @ 10:13am
Alan Smithee said | September 14th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
There will always be something that some club or fan won’t be happy with. The Sydney fiasco is a biggie I agree, but the alternative would have been for the players to all take a big pay cut for these games, or possibly play one at 6.30pm and the other at 8.30pm. It is what it is. Personally, I think they should fix up the Grand Final tickets fiasco first.
Changing subject slightly, has anyone noticed that Freo has only beaten two quality teams this year: West Coast, when they still had injuries, and Geelong x2. The rest of their wins were against pretty weak opposition. Wouldn’t be surprised if they get beat by 5-10 goals tonight on that basis.
September 14th 2012 @ 11:08am
Alfred Chan said | September 14th 2012 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Back-to-back games is a good idea for the Prelim finals!
As for Fremantle, their list management has come a long way. Last year, the finished the season with only 24 fit players on their list. This year, they have not missed a beat and Ross Lyon is selecting his 22 from a full healthy list. Adelaide on the other hand have been dealt a huge blow with Daniel Talia breaking his arm. Talia held Pavlich to 2 goals when he was in blistering form and many believe that was the performance which secured him the Rising Star, Brenton Sanderson included.
Their win against Geelong was phenomenal (I’m a Geelong fan) and the biggest question will be how much did that win take out of thier tank. Fremantle had a very comfortable draw in the second half of the season so they should be quite fresh, then again, Adelaide did too. I’m still backing Fremantle because Pavlich is too quick for Rutten and I think he will kick another big bag. McPharlin is the only player missing from the Dockers 22 but Dawson did a pretty good job on Hawkins last week.
September 14th 2012 @ 3:23pm
Alan Smithee said | September 14th 2012 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
We shall see tonight.
If Adelaide win, then I think it is reasonable to say that (a) Geelong had the wrong mindset going into the game and (b) Freo were nothing above an average/number 8 side until the very end.
If Freo win, then maybe as some suggest they really are coming good at the right time.
I’m leaning toward the former, but am generally about 99% wrong with my AFL tipping !!!
September 14th 2012 @ 12:24pm
brendan said | September 14th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
You cannot create a fair competition when you have 18 teams in a 22 round season.I take your point about playing preliminary finals at the same time but someone will find a way to suggest bias even if you did that.IMO the ladder should include the last two times each side played each other obviously at each others home ground, so the season would include 34 games.To ahcieve this scenario games from the previous year would be included if the fixturing only allowed for a side to play another team once during the year.This would also mean that each team played at every other sides home ground once every two years.Also tanking would be pointless as losing games for draft picks could mean those games are included in the next years ladder.