- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The current AFL finals series is pretty good in getting the best two teams into the league to the grand final. But I would like to extend some thought into changing the series’ format.
For arguments sake, I have included schedules both decreasing and increasing the number of teams in the final. More than 50 per cent of teams making the finals makes it a meaningless achievement, but dollars talk.
Reducing the teams
There are two potential options to a reduced system. Either a five-team or a six-team system with varying levels of elimination/progression. For the five-team system, I’ve ripped it straight from the SANFL.
Five-team
Week 1: Qualifying/elimination final
Game 1: second versus third
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Week 2: Major/minor semi-final
Game 3: loser G1 versus winner G2
Game 4: winner G1 versus first
Week 3: Preliminary final
Game 5: winner G3 versus loser G4
Week 4: Grand final
Winner G4 versus winner G5
The pros of this system is rewarding first on the ladder with a guaranteed ticket to Week 3 of the finals, and an easy trip to the grand final. It also rewards second and third with easier passage to the grand final than fourth and fifth.
Six-team
Week 1: Elimination final
Game 1: third versus sixth
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Week 2: Semi-final
Game 3: first versus second
Game 4: winner of G1 versus winner G2
Week 3: Preliminary final
Game 5: loser G3 versus winner G4
Week 4: Grand final
Winner G3 versus winner G5
Another system that rewards positions one and two on the ladder, and pretty much punishes the rest for not making the top two. It would make the finals a lot more cutthroat, as the path is easy if you can win the one versus two match and a lot harder for everyone else.
Pros and cons of both, it may prove an easy ride, or it could cause a team to take the foot off the pedal too much and allow another side to swoop in.
Increasing the teams
Money talks and more teams in the finals series equals more games, which equals more advertising revenue and ticket sales. So against my better judgement that the finals should be small, I have expanded the series to include both nine and ten teams.
It is worth stating, there are a lot more non-elimination matches.
Nine-team
Week 1: Qualifying finals
Game 1: second versus third
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Game 3: sixth versus seventh
Game 4: eighth versus ninth
Week 2_ Quarter-finals
Game 5: first versus winner G1
Game 6: loser G1 versus winner G2
Game 7: loser G2 versus winner G3
Game 8: loser G3 versus winner G4
Week 3: Semi-finals
Game 9: loser G5 versus winner G7
Game 10: loser G6 versus winner G8
Week 4: Preliminary final
Game 11: winner G5 versus winner G10
Game 12: winner G6 versus winner G9
Week 5: Grand final
Winner G11 versus winner G12
What a difference adding a team makes, I squeezed two extra games in. The first week is a placements match to decide whether you get an easier go of it in the second week of the finals. There is still a reward for finishing minor premier and in the top three.
Fourth gets punished a bit more, especially if they drop their first game, as they are on the road until the grand final.
Ten-team
Week 1: Qualifying finals
Game 1: third versus sixth
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Game 3: seventh versus tenth
Game 4: eighth versus ninth
Week 2: Quarter-finals
Game 5: first versus winner G1
Game 6: second versus winner G2
Game 7: loser G1 versus winner G3
Game 8: loser G2 versus winner G4
Week 3: Semi-finals
Game 9: loser G5 versus winner G8
Game 10: loser G6 versus winner G7
Week 4: Preliminary finals
Game 11: winner G5 versus winner G10
Game 12: winner G6 versus winner G9
Week 5: Grand final
Winner G11 versus winner G12
I don’t mind this version of a ten-team final series. It continues my trend of paying no respect to the first week of the finals, but eliminates two teams rather than just one in the nine-team version.
From there, first and second on the ladder get some assistance. Fifth and sixth have the potential to be big winners, and you could still potentially find your way from the bottom of the barrel and climb up. Though you’d still need to beat seventh, sixth, fifth, third at best to make the grand final.
Closing thoughts
Both increasing and decreasing the amount of teams have valid aspects. Realistically, the AFL would never give up the money that comes with the finals, but as a pure footy spectacle only having the top 35 per cent of the league in the finals series would likely breed high-quality games.
That being said, the ten-team version wouldn’t be the complete death kneel of finals footy. If a similar version was adopted, it would protect the top end of the ladder anyway, just prolonging the process by a week essentially. The cricket purists can just use the GABBA and the WACA while AFL uses the MCG one week longer.
And, I can’t escape the elephant in the room, leaving the finals alone.
They really aren’t broken, so why spend the time exploring the alternatives if the system is fine? Quite simply, I recalled reading something in one of the papers that floated the idea of expanding the finals with the introduction of the Giants and it got me thinking.
But what do you think, Roarers? Which version do you like? The current system, or even a return to the McIntyre system?
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.
Did Darcy Wilson milk this free? Luke Hodge certainly thought so!
Eddie McGuire's latest bold idea has dropped - for North Melbourne to take over the outskirts of Melbourne and use it to rejuvenate the…
Cooper Simpson and his mum both welled up as he told her he'd been named to debut against the Western Bulldogs.
"You want your key forward to be a beast."
