When the GWS Giants take the field next year, expanding the competition to eighteen teams, the AFL will likely introduce the sixth finals system of the modern-era (post-1990).
Unfortunately, the people who have done such a magnificent job of growing our wonderful game, have a pretty bad habit of getting things off on the wrong foot, when it comes to the finals format.
AFL FINALS FORMAT EXPLAINED: HOW DOES THE AFL FINALS SYSTEM WORK?
For one shining moment back in 1990, fourteen teams in the AFL lived under the McIntyre Final Five system.
There was not only a reward to finish first, but second and third also held more value than fourth and fifth – it meant not only the teams fighting to squeeze into the finals had their foot flat to the floor in the final round, but the teams toward the pointy end had something to play for too.
There was no “Fremantle-esque” resting of half the team, because you’re settled in either the top four or bottom four of the eight.
The final five was almost perfect and had served the VFL footy public well for almost twenty years.
As the AFL began to expand, so did the finals format.
The heavily-flawed top six arrived in 1991 and was quickly altered in 1992 (it was better to finish fifth than fourth in 1991).
The changes ironed out the major problems but the system was still far from perfect.
In 1994, the final eight arrived in a format more suited to a best of seven NBA playoff series. It was finally changed in 2000 to the more settled top-eight we have today.
In 2012, the AFL can make things right again.
It’s time for a top ten. Well, two top fives to be exact.
How can every club get an advantage over the team underneath it?
Simple; first, fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth make up one ‘Top Five’ and second, third, sixth, seventh and tenth can constitute the other.
All the advantages of the McIntyre Final Five are revisited with the two winners of the final fives advancing through to the Grand Final.
It means only one extra week of finals, thirteen finals matches instead of nine, and for the first time in twenty years, a fight for every single rung on the AFL ladder.
andi
Guest
Agree totally with the top 10 systm as it gives the credit and advantage to the teams that finish higher on the ladder during the home and away season. It still has the floor that the team that finishes second has the same chance as the top team of winning the final though be it a slightly more difficult lead up in the final series. But lets wait until we have the 20 or 22 team competition.
woodsman
Guest
Completely agree. No expansion of finals teams until at least 20 teams in the comp. Even at 24 I see the top third reaching the finals (8) being reward enough.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Having five teams would IMO be extremely unfair, as you wouldn't give the teams a reasonable enough chance of making the finals. Eight teams IMO works best.
Sean
Guest
Ridiculous. You'll have teams that finished in the bottom half going to finals. Teams that play that badly should be punished, not rewarded. I've always said that finals should be half - 1, and then rounded down to the next smallest finals system. So if there are 16 clubs, half that to get eight, then minus one, that's 7, since there's no such thing as a final seven, round down to final six. Exclude clubs with a middle of the table finish.
Trust Me
Roar Rookie
Every AFL team is a winner - you don't need finals.
The Cattery
Guest
Like the soccer way? Yeh, I really notice the A-League taking your advice. Why do you reckon they are not taking your advice? How long would it survive if they took your advice?
Football United
Guest
I have no sympathy for losers in sport. Its already bad enough that a team that is crap can expect to get good player picks. We have this phenomenon of the afl trying to share the premiership around "because its the other teams turn." If you haven't won in years, tough luck. Get your act together, stop being useless and put an actual effort in.
TomC
Guest
Like most of the other posters I'd rather see fewer teams in the finals than more. As far as a top ten goes, it's not a bad system. The only major problem I have with it is that there's a lot of potential for games to be repeated. In fact, if all matches went the way of the rankings at the end of the season, four of the thirteen matches would be replays of previous games. Obviously some teams match up better than others, so this might not be the most even system you could come up with.
Bayman
Guest
I'd prefer a Top Five, I'd hate a Top Ten and the best we can hope for is to retain the Top Eight. Adelaide, in 1998, is the only team to win a flag from fifth spot and they actually lost their first final to Melbourne by plenty. These days they would be out, back then their minor round ranking kept them in it and they won the next three finals to take the flag. These days, numbers 7 and 8 are not even making up the numbers, They're usually just getting in the way - unless, of course, they're playing Adelaide and snatch it on the last kick of the day. The bottom line, though, is that the premier team, with only one exception, comes from the top four. Seven and eight have no chance, nine and ten even less. AFL has often been called a religion in Melbourne and perhaps this is why. Supporters of teams six through eight, or ten, can only be relying on faith - not fact.
The Cattery
Guest
There's a very good argument for retaining the final 8 with an 18 team comp, and I think most would agree that it places a greater value on making finals. The flip side is the commercial argument, and I know people tire of introducing commercial arguments to sporting contests but the commissioners have to at least consider such arguments, and that is: the more teams you allow to remain in the hunt for a finals berth, the more interest is retained in the comp, the better attendances and ratings for a longer period of the season. The other thing that has to be confronted by the AFL is that in the space of 25 years, we've gone from sharing the one prize amongst 12 teams to sharing it amongst 18 teams, with the natural consequence that on average, fans will have longer waits to taste success. Some clubs may never taste it (at least one club has waited for 67 years, and previously the Swans took 72 years to win its 4th flag). How will this pan out in the future? We simply don't know. You would be aware that similar arguments were introduced to the manner that Super Rugby was structured from this season, ensuring at least one rep from each country - the exact same arguments are at play.
Neotraveler
Roar Rookie
The NHL has 16 of 30 teams make the playoffs - given once they qualify they have the same path (except home-ice advantage) of making the Stanley Cup. The 16th ranked team is well deserved of their place. I don't disagree that the 10th placed team is reaching far into the field - but a final 9 that reverts to the old top six system (that system doesn't even make sense - 1 v 2 and 3 v 4 both winners go onto the 2nd Semi????). For me the chance to use the old top 5 system outweighed adding the extra team (or two) to the finals system. Fairness won't play a part anyway - it will be how much money the AFL can get out of extra finals. In that case a top ten fits the bill.
sheek
Guest
I agree with the sentiment that there should be no more teams in the finals play-offs. I further believe there should never be more than half the teams contesting the play-offs. Even the 8th best out of 16 doesn't have a realistic chance of making the final, but I understand the need for 8/16 teams for revenue purposes. Final 5 is probably the best devised playoff system ever, although the current 8 system works exceptionally well. Even with 18 teams, I would keep it at 8 teams for the playoffs. To suggest more teams is to lose sight of what it means to make the playoffs.
The Cattery
Guest
There is a better version of the top 9 that is floating around, and actually receiving official attention. It starts the same as yours, but from week 2, reverts to the top six format circa 1992, played out over five weeks of finals. A couple of advantages to this format: 1. teams don't play twice unless they meet up again in the grand final (with the top 5 system it's common to get a couple of repeat games) 2. the top 3 teams get a bye, and will not earn another bye until they have played two finals games, under the top 5 system, the top team can have two byes in three weeks, and that is probably not as advantageous as it sounds.
Sherrin-Burley-Faulkner
Guest
In a 18 team comp, i want to see a final 5, not a ten or 8 or 6 or 4. Value it, not devalue it.
EvertonAndAustralia
Roar Pro
I have a better system. My final 9 system Week 1 (Qualifying Finals) Teams 1, 2 & 3 receive a first week bye. 4v9 5v8 6v7 Winners advance, losers eliminated Week 2 (Semi Finals) 1 v lowest qualified winner from Week 1 2 v second highest qualified winner from Week 1 3 v highest qualified winner from Week 1 Highest qualified winner gets a bye and direct passage to the Grand Final. Other two winners advance to the Preliminary final. Losers eliminated. Week 3 (Preliminary Final) Second highest qualified winner from Week 2 v Lowest qualified winner from Week 2 Winner goes into Grand Final, loser eliminated. Week 4 (Grand Final) Highest qualified winner from Week 2 v Preliminary Final winner
Unite the west
Guest
Idea will work well... But let's just wait for a 24 team comp first. Best thing re final five was reward of a rest for minor premier. This is a weakness of top eight..still like it though.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
No, definitely not, absolutely not, not in a million years.... I guess you're wondering, what do I really think? :D In an 18 team competition, with 10 clubs making the finals, it devalues the finals. What is so prestigious about making it if more teams make it than not? The NBA has 16/30 teams making the playoffs, and that truly astounds me. I really don't want the AFL to adopt a finals system like that. As such I think a top 8 is perfect; most teams do not make the finals, thus increasing its prestige, but also giving teams a reasonable chance to make the finals (as opposed to having a six or five team finals series.)