Simon Goodwin of Adelaide (L) and Nick Maxwell of Collingwood (R) shake hands before the AFL 1st Semi Final between the Collingwood Magpies and the Adelaide Crows at the MCG.
The AFL’s top eight system cops a few whacks every now and then. Like this week, for example, in the post-match digestion of Adelaide’s 96-point thumping of Essendon. Or like last year, when poor crowds turned out in Adelaide and Sydney.
No one can shy away from the fact the top eight system has its flaws. Anomalies will pop up from time to time.
This year it was bound to happen given the on-again, off-again relationship certain sides had with eighth spot.
Last year with the crowd issues, sides like Adelaide and Sydney were perceived to be at the end of their run of finals. So you would expect interest to be weaker than it was, say, this year with the Brisbane Lions – or with the born-again Crows for that matter.
But let’s be honest. At the end of the day, it is the best system out there in terms of keeping the high standing of the finals in tact at the same time as attaining the AFL’s goals of high attendances and TV ratings.
For every Adelaide-Essendon, there’s a Brisbane-Carlton.
For every year of dubious crowd figures (2008), there’s a year of record-nudging figures (2009).
The flaws in the current set-up aren’t overly prevalent, they just simply bob up every now and then. If there’s any system on the cards at the moment should be given a whack, it sure isn’t the current one.
Expansion is immanent for the AFL, and so there has been talk, naturally, of expanding the finals series in line with the introduction of new teams.
This is an example of something that sounds okay in theory, but looks horrific in practice.
The likely final nine system, which is explained in detail here, would give the minor premier an awkward path to grand final day, as they receive a bye in week one and then – should they keep winning – another one two weeks later.
Not every side thrives with the week off. You can’t tell me Geelong have been at their best during their last two preliminary finals. Other teams struggle to fire in the first half of the game after the break and are susceptible to being caught out.
Perhaps more dumbfounding, however, is the fact that ninth place – the team that otherwise wouldn’t make it – will act merely as a token addition. Their finals run would include: a first-up game against the fourth-placed side, then a clash with either the second or third-placed side, then a clash with another top three side after that.
And if they are some how able to pull off the impossible and win all those games, what is their reward? A spot in the preliminary final. That’s it. They’re still a game away from making the grand final.
It’s hard enough for the eighth-placed side in the current system to make an impact. So how would it be possible for ninth to do it with that run?
It’s difficult to see the AFL’s justification. Wouldn’t two extra teams compliment the current system?
The final nine alternative would be disjointed. It would be a mess. Worse still, it would exacerbate the flaws of the current system, to the point where they can no longer be passed off as “anomalies” that appear “from time to time”.
Having fourth play ninth isn’t going to avoid one-sided contests. Over-rewarding home and away season form – and restricting those benefits to the top three – isn’t going to avoid one-sided contests.
The confusing system of snakes and ladders – with only one extra “elimination” final – won’t help reduce the number of games that fail to ignite the kind of public interest befitting of a final, either.
The league has been going back and forth on this idea ever since they first floated it this time last year. In April, Gillon McLachlan came out saying the AFL was content with and sticking with the status quo.
“We are pretty happy with the finals system we have got in place, and there hasn’t been any work going on to review it,” he said.
But last month, Andrew Demetriou threw the idea out there once again. “If there’s a final nine, the top team might get a bye, you might get a five-week finals series,” the AFL boss openly pondered.
It’s all a little bit mystifying, to be honest. But it’s also quite fitting, in an ironic kind of way.
Following what the AFL are saying about the final nine is about as confusing as, well, following the final nine itself.
Ben Somerford
Guest
Fly, is it ironic there's a suburb next door to Subi in Perth called Jolimont? Prob not, but two finals at Subi Oval would've been great, or even a derby final! One senses nowadays that possibility may not happen again for a long time.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
A few years ago 6 of the top 8 in AFL were interstate - and I think WCE and Freo were playing in prelims the same weekend. It could have meant both games at Subiaco! That would have shook Jolimont! Given the huge number of games at MCG and Docklands each year now, surely the MCG does not have to host anything until the GF if non-Vics earn the right to host finals in weeks 1, 2 and 3.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Fly if there three or four years of interestate teams in the top 4 - I think that would test the MCG deal to the max - some flexibility is now built in - but they definitely need to get games at the MCG over the longer term (I think there's more of an averaging deal happening). For instance, this year, something like 7 of 9 finals would have been played at the MCG - so that helps out in future years when there might need to be less finals at the MCG because of the interstate teams doing better.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
tks for clearing that up re home ground in AFL. Was unsure, thought the MCG deal may have still been in place.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
With 4 v 5 they ARE playing for a possible entry to the prelim - as the NRL showed when Melbourne beat Manly and there were two upsets. And if there are four upsets then 5 and 6 go straight to prelim. Totally logical. I would say the more athletic / endurance aspect of AFL compared to NRL means the fitter, better team wins more often in the first two weeks of finals, but the brutality of NRL leads to more upsets. That's two years in a row 8 has beaten 1 away from home in the first week. The best way to eliminate dead rubbers is to cut the finals back to 6 teams. My argument is that having four teams guaranteed to progress from week 1 is a bit soft. After all, we are talking about the word 'final'. The old final five was the best way, but with 16-18 teams you would have too many dead rubbers in the round robin phase. I'll take the 1 v 8 system any day, regardless of which footy code. Far more suspese and intrigue. For all those arguing against me - yet who favour the double chance for the top 4 - should first week losers from the top four forfeit the right to home ground? 22 weeks of hard yakka undone by one finals loss?
Pippinu
Roar Guru
AndyRoo the two that go directly through to the prelims (Storm and Bulldogs) get home ground advantage. The two losers of week one do not, which means that St George has lost the right to a home final despite finishing first. In the AFL system, the losers from the top 4 play offs retain home ground advantage as a reward for having finished in the top 4. Mind you, the AFL system has at least one negative - neither top 8 system is perfect - that's for sure.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Turns out I have no idea and everything is allright in the world Storm will host Semifinal on AFL Grand Final day.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Oh sorry Then I think the AFL have the right system in place then. I would love the NRL to adapt it because the possibility of a home semi final for Auckland, Canberra, Townsvillle and Brisbane would be fantastic for the game.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
AndyRoo under the present system - that wouldn't happen to West Coast (in the manner you have described). But in years gone by, West Coast has ended up playing an away prelim (when they deserved home ground advantage) on at least one occasion - all due to the contractual obligation with the MCG - which I think has now been rectified.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Fly sorry - but if two teams are actually playing for something (direct entry to the prelim) - thay can't be considered dead rubbers. What you are saying there is illogical. When 4th plays 5th under the McIntryre 9 seasons out of 10, the game means nothing at all. I'm not going to call that a dead rubber - but it's pretty damn close.
Michael C
Roar Guru
FotW, the capacity to earn a weeks rest and get to go directly to the Prelim final......that's a reward that's hardly a 'dead rubber' reward, and the loser risks going out in straight sets, and has to win 3 in 3 weeks to win the flag. However, I'll admit, I didn't overly mind the old format that the NRL are running with, esp when in '97 North at 7th rolled Geel at 2nd. The Cats then dropped a game in Adelaide to fall out, and the Roos got over the Eagles but were no match for StKilda come the Prelim. Geelong had exercised their 'double chance', alas, their 'home ground advantage' was non-existent, hosting North at night at the MCG.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
I thought in both codes that the top winners fromt he First Week i.e. Sanints and Geelong in the AFL and Melbourne and the Bulldogs in the NRL should be rewarded with a home semi final (at the biggest stadium in their own state). I don't really think 1 week of is always a big advantage. It is for some teams but it also strikes me as unfair that say Westcoast could finish first then beat 4th place in the first week by 100 goals but come the Semi final they might end up playing a Melbourne team in Melbourne. Would make for some great stories, for instance in the NRL that would mena Melbourne gets ahome semifinal which would be good for the game.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
Pip - they are dead rubbers. All 4 teams know they are safe and their results do not affect 5-8. Whereas in the league the result of my team's match may drastically affect your team. That is great theatre. How about the Storm. Big win Friday, and on Sunday they find out they are thru to the prelim. Great stuff indeed. What is prob a bigger issue is who hosts the second week of finals. Should No.1 (St G) forfeit their home ground advantage by losing in week 1, or do they deserve to keep it as a reward for 26 weeks of hard work? It seems a bit strange that 6 will host 1 in the second week of NRL finals. I know AFL has certain deals with the MCG that prevent that - or they catch up the next year. Yes, the 2 best teams often end up in the grand final - but there have been so many big winning margins in the decider in the last 10 years (except WC-Syd) that you wonder if we end up with the 2 best teams at their best after all the finals have been played.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
I agree - they both have strengths and weaknesses - neither is perfect - and I've said a few times that for one reason or another, both have served their respective comps well since they switched over. Personally, I like the certainty of knowing what the result of your game means immediately. The 4th vs 5th game is an odd scenario - it might mean absolutely nothing (in most seasons) - or like this year - it mean something completely different! In the AFL, I think we value all top 4 teams getting the double chance. I think it's incorrect to describe them as dead rubbers - the winner gets the week off and goes directly to the prelim - and history shows that the majority of premiers take this root.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
dead rubbers? What about 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 in the first week of the AFL? Four teams have the comfort of knowing they can't miss out - against two in the NRL. That's two dead rubbers to start with. This weekend's NRL games were equally as exciting as the AFL's first weekend, probably more so - yet offered far more suspense in terms of who goes to the preliminary final and who is finished for the season. Manly players would have been very tense watching Parra yesterday. 4 v 5 must be on Friday, yes - and Manly spent the whole weekend sweating, only to get shafted. That's the beauty of the simple McIntyre eight. Which backs up my earlier argument about the strengths and weaknesses of the two comps. No argument there, surely?
Fly on the Wall
Guest
fair comment. I would have liked to see them win one of those cos for 22 rounds they were great. Same story Sat night. I'm still hurting over Carlton's blowout v Brisbane.
Timmuh
Guest
The bug problem with the original final eight, as used by the NRL, is one of scheduling. 4th v 5th might be a final that means absolutely nothing, and therefore has to be played early in the weekend regardless of when teams played in the last home and away round. If other game go to form, 1st defeat 8th and 2nd defeat 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th are not playing for survival or the double chance. The other games decide whether the winner of those two games gets any benefits or the losers suffer the penalties. Its especially true of 4th v 5th, as this match requires two upsets (by ladder position) in the other three games to be a meaningful game. Having finals which are dead rubbers is not a good thing, and it was for this reason that the AFL abandoned the original top eight system. As things stand the top four might get harder games in the first week, but they play for a shortcut to week three and are guaranteed survival until at least week two. That's fair advantage over playing a notionally easier game first up. Therefore, 4th v 5th almost has to be played on Friday night regardless of when teams played in round 22 (or however many rounds we move to). That's no good either. That rant over; personally, I feel the top five is still enough. Finals should be for the elite teams, not mid-table ones. As for tanking, and I don't believe its real (resting players for next season, yes; playing to lose, no); the finals are not the place to fix that. There may be other methods, eliminating the draft is the best of these.
Ben Somerford
Guest
Nice work Michael. On WA's ABC720 radio on Sat morning, Ken Judge commented that you could bet your house on the AFL keeping the top 8 system when the 17th and 18th teams come in. Not sure where he gets his info, but that's a confident bet!
Michael C
Roar Guru
nah...Adelaide were just chokers..... ;-)
megatron
Guest
Cool pic with this article. Where was the photographer shooting from? The ground?