Collingwood’s Dale Thomas marks over Sydney’s Heath Grundy during the AFL Round 21 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Sydney Swans at the MCG. Slattery Images
It was discretely put out there this week what the AFL plans to do with the fixturing once there are 18 teams, some sort of ad-hoc scheduling after Round 17 once everyone has played each other once. They do this sort of thing in the Scottish Premier League, but this system comes with problems.
First and foremost, it puts a stake through the heart of a true home and away season.
People have already been upset about the fact that teams don’t play each other twice during the course of the season. The perfect number for a 22 week season is 12 teams.
At least in Scotland the teams have all played each other three times during the season. Such being the case, the last five matches are viewed as a bonus round and whatever happens happens.
This won’t be the case here and the traditional AFL stakeholders are going to find this Brave New World a bit too brave.
Factors such as travel to Perth are likely to throw a spanner in the works. One possible solution would be to introduce some sort of conference system similar to what the NFL uses. But then again, this creates its own set of problems.
The other issue brought up was the finals, and Andrew Demetriou suggested that there would be as many as nine or ten teams in the finals. With a team making the finals this year with less than eleven teams, more teams in the finals isn’t a good idea.
Then there also is the question of what the format of this expanded finals system is going to be.
What kind of benefit is the top team going to be conferred with? Who is going to devise it given Kenneth McIntyre is no longer with us?
Hopefully it won’t have anything to do with the Final 6 system, which just was a mess and even more difficult to explain than the Final 8 system.
The AFL should be applauded for having the courage to expand and to take the game to new regions. Once they get up and running the Gold Coast and Western Sydney sides are going to contribute a lot to the competition.
There are going to be teething problems, but that is the case with anything.
When a family welcomes a new addition, the existing children can be jealous of the lack of attention. Is this what the sixteen existing members of the AFL family are going to be feeling?
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
In that clip only Lloyd deserves suspension, the other guy simply caught him and didn't add anything that wouldn't have occured if he wasn't there. I know he will end up with a suspension but there was no one sent off and I hardly see how AFL fans can take the high road about what happened in SOO. The feeling of menace on the ground after the incident was the same.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
David - the SPL is a poor comparison in that it is a duopoly: Rangers and Celtic are so far ahead of everyone else that the very idea of a premiership is really somewhat ridiculous (notwithstanding that it was not always thus). The AFL could hardly be more different. (Incidentally, I have argued for some time that the SPL abrogates responsibility by not scheduling Rangers vs Celtic for the last two weeks, each at home once - this would be a much fairer way of deciding the issue than the present system.) Having said the above, I do agree with you that it's highly undesirable that scheduling for beyond round 17 will not be known in advance. The NRL has a reasonable system for overcoming this (it divides teams into two groups of even ability based on the previous year's placings). However it is obvious how this system may be imperfect.
Michael C
Guest
And Redb - to you and the baby Bombers - how important is it to make the finals - - just as a symbolic achievement? Reality is yep, you're just making up the numbers, but, to me, you've just won a couple of 'elimination finals' to get there (over StKilda and Hawthorn). And you've got bragging rights over Hawthorn (and Richmond). btw - quite pleased that North finished the year with a bit of momentum, new coach, new hope and new facilities coming together. Roll on 2010 with fit Ziebell, Warren and Je.Smith(????).
Redb
Roar Guru
I was at the G today along with 77,000 others, we redrew the line in the sand today. Beat Carlton twice. Won ANZAC day in an absolute thriiler. Beat Hawthorn twice First to beat St Kilda Made the finals for the first time in 5 years with a young team. Michael Hurley star of the future. We will probably go no further. Bring on 2010. :-) Redb
Pippinu
Roar Guru
By my estimate, at least two Dons will be missing from the first week of finals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3mo4KXbdQ By the way, it's piss poor that the ump didn't stop play sooner.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
David, what a beat-up! You seed Gold Coast at 17 and Western Sydney at 18. Teams 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 in Pool A Teams 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17 in Pool B Teams 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 in Pool C You play all 17 opponents once, then (i) your own pool a second time = 22 rounds (ii) one of the other pools a second time = 23 rounds Pretty simple. And you keep a finals eight. Option (ii) allows an extra round to cover for any would-be sham extra finals game involving ninth or tenth-placed teams. Perth is a non-issue. The AFL's draw guru tries to level out the trips to Perth by opponent, eg Carlton won't play West Coast at Subiaco two years in a row. Try an issue that matters - like Matthew Lloyd's head shot today effectively deciding the game and costing Hawthorn a finals spot (they're not my team, either). Surely a sin bin is warranted.
Timmuh
Guest
The proposal is a disaster on a number of fronts. Firstly, the possibility of 10 teams in the finals Far too many. Ideally we would still have a final five now, but television and the prospect of too many dead matches mean that is not an option. But any time that a system allows for an almost 50-50 chance that side with more losses than wins can play finals is inherently flawed. The "open" nature of the final five rounds has other issues. Demetriou was saying that the top half of the ladder might play each other, and the bottom half play each other, in each of these rounds. Why would you want to sit in 10th (or 8th if sanity prevails on the finals make-up) on percentage and play the top half, rather than 11th (or 9th) and play 5 teams whp have performed worse through the season. Get into 11th and you would be almost guaranteed of overtaking 9th and 10th in the last five weeks. Its also a big problem for country and interstate fans, who have to organise their footy trips weeks (months if trying to escape Canberra at a reasonable price on a Friday) in advance. The TV networks might be a winner in the short term, but over the medium to longer term there is only so much doctoring of the fixture that the fans will take before the league loses all credibility with the game's own public - and they are right on the edge of that at the moment according to some.
sheek
Guest
I agree with Pip. It's not a big deal. Playing every other team twice usually ends once the number of teams in the comp goes beyond 12. You go with what you have, & try to be practical about it. At least everyone should play each other once. With 18 teams, everyone plays each other once for 17 games. Then have 3 conferences of 6 teams, which gives you another 5 games. That's 22 home & away games all up. Don't get caught up with trying to come up with 3 perfectly equal conferences of 6 teams - it's impossible. Go with the flow. Any team good enough will adapt, improvise & overcome. More than 8 teams in the play-offs is stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid! Might be a money spinner, but there's nothing else admirable about it. Right now the 7th & 8th teams are unlikely to make the grand final, so the chances of 9th & 10th are even slimmer. Unless of course, it's a clever way for coaches & boards to say, "oh, we made the finals play-offs each of the past 5 years" (yeah, but never past 9th or 10th!).
Pippinu
Roar Guru
I don't get this article at all. We haven't had 12 teams in the comp since 1986, that's 23 years ago!! So I can only surmise that we have gotten over the fact that all teams don't play each other twice, and we did so a long time ago. It's a non-issue. I can't think of a single premier where one could have said that they only got there because they were favoured by the draw. It's actually an impossible case to make because every premier must win at least 3 tough finals games against other top teams. Also, I actually don't see a lot of difference between the SPL having a system where all teams play each other 3 times (and then play five games at the end), and this new draw where all teams play each other once and then finish with 5 games. The idea of leaving the last five games open to work out at that time actually has a lot of merit to it. For starters, we can avoid the scenario of this weekend where the games of finals participants couldn't be moved to give them an extra day's rest. And I imagine some flexibility in the draw will also suit TV partners (who are the ones actually paying the bills).