- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The AFL fixture as it currently stands needs some tinkering. Here is how I think it should be improved.
Currently, at the end of each season, the AFL splits up the ladder into three sections (tops, middle six, and bottom six).
Where you finish on the ladder determines what teams you will play twice in the next season. The method used to determine is as follows:
For teams finishing in the top six:
• 2-3 return meetings with other teams finishing in the top 6
• 1-2 return meetings with teams finishing from seventh-12th
• Maximum of one return meeting with teams finishing 13th-18th
For teams finishing from seventh to 12th
• 1-2 return meetings with teams finishing in the top 6
• 2-3 return meetings with other teams finishing from seventh-12th
• 1-2 return meetings with teams finishing from 13th-18th
For teams finishing from 13th to 18th
• Maximum of one return meeting with teams finishing in the top 6
• 1-2 return meetings with teams finishing from seventh-12th
• 2-3 return meetings with other teams finishing from 13th-18th
Why is this bad?
It is easy to see why the AFL has implemented this mechanism. In efforts to promote equality and to prevent an EPL-style ladder, the AFL attempts to curb this by making the stronger teams from the previous year play each other more often to give the teams that were less successful the previous year a better chance to make finals.
However, where this method breaks down is that it takes your position after finals. This does not affect teams finishing outside the top eight but it can have a big effect on the ‘middle 6′.
Take, for example, Adelaide in 2015. At the end of the home-and-away season Adelaide finished seventh (which would have put them in the middle six bracket) but because they beat the Western Bulldogs in the elimination final their position after finals ended up being sixth (thus placing them in the top six bracket).
This jump into the top bracket meant that Adelaide ended up having three repeat matches with teams that finished in the top six and two repeat matches with teams that finished from seventh-12th. Looking at the differences between the fixture of the Bulldogs and the Crows, the only differences are Adelaide played Port Adelaide twice (finished ninth in 2015 and 10th in 2016 – however it is expected that, there will be two showdowns per season) instead of the Bulldogs playing Collingwood twice (finishing 12th in 2015 and 12th in 2016).
Arguably the biggest difference is where the Bulldogs played St Kilda twice (finishing 14th in 2015 and ninth in 2016) but Adelaide had to play West Coast twice (finishing second in 2015 and sixth in 2016).
This second meeting against the Eagles cost Adelaide a spot in the top four and the double chance in the finals. Since no team has won a grand final from outside the top four in the current finals format it potentially ruins their flag hopes for this season. I am not ruling them out of contention, but it does make it significantly harder, especially as an interstate team.
If you’re a team that finishes seventh or eighth – especially if you have to travel for the elimination final – your chances of making and going on to win the big dance are incredibly small. Therefore, the incentive to win (and then be given a harder fixture the next year than if you lose) is reduced.
On the other side of the coin, another team that highlights the flaws of this system is Geelong. The Cats had a rather disappointing 2015 campaign and were struck down with injuries and key players struggling for form.
The Cats finished 2015 in 10th place and arguably could have made finals but for the draw with St Kilda and the great show of sportsmanship by splitting the premiership points with Adelaide after the death of Phil Walsh.
This put them in the middle six bracket and ensures them an easier than a finals campaign which could potentially bump them up into the top six.
With a strong trading period in which they secured what they most desperately needed – a genuine ruckman and more help for Joel Selwood in the middle – they were able to go into the 2016 season with a much stronger outfit than 2015.
And in today’s footy world there’s no doubt that Geelong would have been sure of securing the likes of Zac Smith, Lachie Henderson and Pat Dangerfield well before the end of the season.
It’s no surprise that Geelong was able to jump eight places on the ladder from 2015 to 2016 because for a team that would not go deep into September, all the incentive is for them to finish as low on the ladder as possible.
For example, the Bulldogs this season who have been decimated with injuries and are still a very young team. All the incentive for them is to lose their elimination final in Perth so next season when they regain their players from injury and potentially pick up some good recruits in the trading period, they will benefit from a softer fixture next season.
How to fix it?
The AFL should adopt a 17-week season in which each team plays each other once. Not only would this get rid of the incentive to finish lower on the ladder to get a more favourable fixture the next season, it would also make it easier on the players and could arguably help payers play on longer in the twilight of their careers.
I would be as upset as everyone else about less footy, but I think in the long run it would be better for the game by making it easier on the players and getting rid of the loopholes that clubs can potentially exploit for an easier fixture in the future.
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.