When it comes to the Finals, the AFL has it all over league

MC, Great idea. Sheeds is not from this planet is he? :-) Redb

One of the main things, in the old days, the Preliminary final was contested by 2 teams, with 1 already in the GF waiting after a week off - - that was variously a huge advantage re resting players and recovery or a disadvantage via loss of 'momentum'. The final 8 provides us with 2 preliminary finals and 4 teams still competing the week before the GF. HOwever we get to this point is one thing, but - - I'm pretty happy that come the GF - both teams have had a match the week before. I'm also happy because the Preliminary final - especially in the AFL (with the carve up of GF ticket allocations) is the last REAL supporters match - - the Prelim final often dishes up the best match and the best atmosphere - - if I were to take a non AFL person to a show case game, I'd choose Prelim final ahead of the GF, and perhaps even Anzac day ahead of the GF. (btw - Redb - have you seen that Sheeds has suggested a PNG vs NZ curtain raiser for the Anzac Day clash - - help remind AFL folk of the NZ in Anzac, and the PNG tie in would be nice too).

I know the whole idea of a final 8 in a 16 team comp is to generate & maintain interest in those teams competing for the final 2-3 positions. However, once that's sorted out, realistically, teams 7 & 8, & even 5 & 6, will rarely trouble the top 4. I have another suggestion - make it a final 6, but with another variation. Give every finalist two bites at the cherry. Firstly, divide the final 6 into 2 pools. Pool A - 1st, 4th, 5th. Pool B - 2nd, 3rd, 6th. Each team plays the other two in it's pool. So everyone gets to play 2 finals minimum. 6 matches all-up. Now semi-finals. Highest placed qualifier from pool A plays runner-up from Pool B, & vice-versa (1v3 & 2v4 perhaps). Two semi-finalists meet in grand final. Overall total of 9 finals matches. Downside is that if 1st (after regulation season) drops a game in the first round of finals, they might find themselves up against 2nd team in one semi-final. Which of course, means one of these teams won't make the grand final, if you follow!

No finals series is perfect and you will always get people who will complain.However the McIntyre system is rubbish and give teams who finish 7th and 8th even less chance to go any further. That said NRL pride would be hurt if they admit they are wrong so therefor this system will stay in place just so they dont admit that the evil AFL got something right!. Anyway finals series are only as good as the teams there.

Yeah.

The final five worked best, but with 16 teams its just not workable and not as financially profitable as the 8. 4 finals in the first week sometimes in different states is the ultimate for a code. The problem with McIntrye as mentioned is you could get 1 v 8, 2 v 7 beltings , they literally do become dud games. At least with 5 v 8 and 6 v 7, there is a genuine chance of a finals performer doing better than another team up the ladder , ergo Collingwood. Collingwood finished 8th, beat the Crows 5th, now face off against St kilda 4th and realisitivcailly could win and be in the preilm agaisnt hawthron 2nd. As with any finals though it depends on the relative strength of the teams, this will vary each year and throw up a great finals match off regardless if its McIntrye or the AFL system. Redb

Greg Russell, You're right in what you say. At the end of the day, it's simply not possible to cater for every contingency. Suffice to say, generally, the best team usually wins through. Re the variation final 6 system. After the first week (3v6 & 4v5), it becomes exactly like the olf final 4 system. That is, the lower placed teams play the minor semi, while 1 plays 2 (major semi). The winne rof the minor semi then plays the loser of the major semi semi in the preliminary final. The winner goes into the grand final against the winner from the major semi. The problem here is that the minor premiers (leaders after regulation season) might have to endure two byes in week 1 & week 3. Generally, teams prefer to play every week rather than have a bye, for reasons of continuity. Again, no perfect world. Re 4th having to play 1st & 5th playing 8th. Again, it's not a perfect world, but at least 4th gets a second chance, whereas 5th is faced with sudden death. But a good point made nevertheless.

Sheek, a major problem with the US system is that the geographical basis means that sometimes weak teams are included at the expense of strong teams. For example, there is drama in MLB this year over the fact that the Yankees will not make the playoffs for the first time in 14 years, even though they have a reasonably strong record: this is because the AL East is stacked with strong teams this year. On the other hand, in the NL West either the LA Dodgers of the Arizona Diamondbacks will win and make the playoffs, even though both had losing records until recently: this division is stacked with weak teams. Note that one cannot defend this situation by saying that teams within a division play each other a lot: that would only result in a 50-50 average across a division. The fact that 4 of 5 teams in the AL East have such strong records reflects that these teams are winning the majority of their games against teams from other divisions, i.e., they are stronger teams. That at most 2 can make the playoffs is purely so that there is a geographical spread of teams in the playoffs. It is roughly equivalent to the NRL demanding that its playoffs contain at least 1 team from Qld and at least 3 from Sydney. The reality is that there is no perfect playoff system but any playoffs are better than none. When I lived in Germany, a friend said to me: "Winning the Bundesliga is more about winning in Wattenscheid [at the time a weak team in the competition] on cold, wet Wednesday evenings than about beating other top teams." One sees this quite often in the EPL, for example Man Utd won last year because they scored lots of goals against weak teams, not because they beat Chelsea. I'm not saying MU weren't the better side (I don't know), but what is clear is that the title would have been better decided by having a playoff system in which MU and Chelsea went head to head.

M.C Exactly, international games are hard to fit into a 30 week year, unless you are willing to flog every last effort out of the players, this is the strength of rugby union internationally, they dont have a long season like league or aussie rules so they have plenty of time to play those other games. We here in oz wont let our local games suffer for international games, good point and its a real problem that even with this years world cup is nearly being played in the summer months. We are going to roast some players, mainly the poms.

Sheek, thats right, the fairytale finish, one year it might happen, and as for the top six it can work either way, you dont get 2 extra teams into the finals so this means the fans have already stopped cheering, either way is alright, top eight just gives those teams who have been striving hard that slight ray of hope. I would love to see the warriors knock off melbourne, wont happen but then again who knows for sure, as for the a.f.l i think a top ten would be better for all the states to at least have a team still going into the finals, why cut short so many hopefuls, young players get experience from those games.

I agree with Steve's view. The only major problem with the AFL's system is that there is an unwarranted difference in fate between coming 4th and 5th (i.e., 4th gets a much easier path than 5th, even though their difference on the table can be trivial). But this is a small problem compared to those of the McIntyre system. I have always thought that the NRL refuses to change to the better and more logical AFL system simply out of pride: it does not want to be seen to be admitting that it is "wrong" and the AFL is "right". I'm not sure whether Sheek knows it, but his top-6 system is close to that used in the European (UK) Super League (e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_(Europe)). Readers in the UK may wish to comment on how well this system works, but my impression is that it is popular with all. Week One Elimination Semi-final A: 3rd vs 6th Elimination Semi-final B: 4th vs 5th Week Two Elimination Final: Winners of Elimination Semi-final A vs Winners of Elimination Semi-final B Qualification Match: 1st vs 2nd Week Three Final Qualifier: Losers of Qualification Match vs Winners of Elimination Final Week Four Grand Final: Winners of Qualification Match vs Winners of Final Qualifier

Of course, going the other way, the US system has a lot of merit. There are 2 conferences, each of of 3 zones (east, central, west), each of about 5-6 teams. Each franchise (in American Football say) plays its other franchise members on a home & away for 8-10 matches, then plays say 2-3 teams from each of the other two zones for about 15-16 home & away matches. Top 2 from each zone qualify for the playoffs, plus 2 wildcards, which is basically the betwo 3rd placed finishers. The two conference winners play off in the Superbowl. Is everyone still with me? The thing with the major US sports is that the depth is tremendous, & even the 8th place team in a particular conference isn't much off the pace of the 1st placed team. No so always in Australia, although that might change in the future. With an 18 team AFL, having 2 x 9 team conferences has merit. Every club in each conference plays each other home & away for 16 games. If they then play every team in the other conference once (roughly half home, half away), that's 25 season games over 26 or 27 weekends. You can have seperate conference playoffs (final 4), with the two conference champions meeting in a super-final.

The benefit of the AFL systems is that the top teams get two shots which is what they deserve. The final 6 system only gives them one geame into the final which isn't fair on teams who have hit the top of the table. There will never be a system to keep everyone happy but i like the AFL option and I believe the fans would as well. Fans of 7 and 8 would much rather play 5 and 6 and have the pride of pushing further into the finals (and would thereby draw greater crowds) than get thumped by 1 and 2 and head stright to mad monday. If the swans had played Geelong last week then AFL would be dead in NSW right now for the summer, as it is we have at least another week. We are also one win away from QLD whining about not having a semi or GF at Suncorp.

Bruce - I've been contemplating the 18 team system. There's been the ideas about 2 pools (conferences) of 9 -- out of which you could have two top 4s - and then given a final 4 is a 3 week competition - that provides two 'conference' winners - who play off in the GF. The season would allow 16 H&A games and play the other 9 teams once - - thus 25 rounds. Now - -we know many reasons why not - but - the AFL have clearly indicated that a 24 round season is on the cards. They probably haven't spoken about 'conference' structures - - but, there might be effective merit. However, presently, 16 divided into 2 groups of 8 would've allowed 14 H&A per pool and 8 matches vs other pool for a 22 round season and we'd all be relatively satisfied - - so, having not taken that path - - - we'd probably have to assume that a 24 round season would be skewed all over the shop with a single top 8,9 or 10 and a single finals series...............good grief Charlie Brown!!!! btw - a 24 round season with no bye?? - - kills pre-season tourney?? - - reduced pre-season matches and killed off knock out tourney kills off 'meaningful' 'exhibition' matches in Sth Africa or where ever. I wonder how they'll balance all their strategies.

Ironically, the AFL borrowed from a previous ARL system when it changed from the McIntyre system to the present one in 2000. What worries me is that there's talk of having a final 9 or 10 after expanding to 18 teams. Sheek's top 6 idea looks good to me for any comp with 14 teams or more, but it won't happen - remember the old one about he who pays the piper...

Don't forget, the present NRL MacIntyre final 8 is the same model the AFL went with initially - but, reverted to the present system. The initial final 8 system, I think introduced in '94. A lot of finals models are only as good as the teams performing somehow near to expectation. The old final 6 prior came under scrutiny in '92 when Collingwood finished 3rd, Stkilda 6th. Week 1 saw 3v6 and 4v5 and the losers were out. Collingwood lost, and so the team finishing 3rd had no double chance and were on their bike. (that would also apply in a final 4 - - but, certainly not the final 5 system from which the graduation had occurred to a final 6). The final 8 - - applied initially to a 15 team competition (similar to the NRL more recently) - until '95 when Fremantle entered. The major scrutiny came in '97 when Geelong finished second and faced North Melb (7th) in week 1. North got up and won - Geelong lost the next week and were out of contention. Why a top 2 team losing 2 straight finals should have bothered anyone, I don't know. But - the current system seems to go okay for the top 4 - - but, perhaps the old system allowed a potential gateway for a quality team at 7......... ..........because, being a money spinner is a little simplistic - - - every now and then an elimination final is deemed a non-event - - but, at least - the level of interest retained by a top 8 from 16 keeps the season 'alive' a little longer for a few more clubs. However, it also is a partial safety net for clubs that get injury hit early in the season that they can finish the season with momentum and if they sneak into the finals - then anything can happen. As it was in '97, North Melb were the reigning premier, lost Carey in round 1, managed to at least make the finals - but, Carey wasn't quite right and McKernan got injured in the Prelim - - but, they weren't a mug team making up the numbers - and they progressed to contest both the '98 and '99 GFs as well. The flip side is the young team on the rise, and in '95 Brisbane (Bears at the time) managed to finished 8th. They lost the first final to Carlton - but, got closer to Carlton than any other team in the '95 finals series. It gave Roger Merrett a fitting end to his career - it gave the playing group vital finals experience, Brissie made it to the Prelim in '96 and then after the Lions merger - they continued to build around the player group to achieve dominance in the early half of this decade. That's the role a 'token' finals experience (and disappointment) can have on building a list that may actually pay off not for another 5 years - - - when the boys have become 'men'.

In the AFL finals system, 4th has a much harder first game than 5th (4th v 1st, 5th v 8th). What incentive is there for a team to try to get up the ladder into 4th spot?

oikee, Final 8 might be exciting for teams fighting for positions 7 to 10 on the ladder, but that's all. Doesn't change the fact when the finals are on, 7 & 8 are usually cannon fodder. Like I said, occasionally 7 & 8 might win through, but only occasionally. And do you really want a team winning the premiership from 7 & 8???

I like having the top 8, have a look at the tight finish they had this year, if you looked at the a.f.l model then you would have seen that the last round had already been decided, and as for 1st playing 8th and 2nd playing 7th, these 2 games look pretty good to me. I like the warriors and thought they would go all the way this year , but if they cant beat the storm then they wont win a final, its that simple really.

Sheek, at least the top 8 is better than top 7 in a 12 team comp which was the case in 1997 ARL.