Tanking, 100+ wins, The ‘big divide’, rebuilding… We’ve heard these words plus many more like them this season. I’ve always believed anything over 80 points is a very big win. I’ve counted 22 big losses this season over 80 points.
Seven 100 point beltings from Top 10 sides on the ladder given to Gold Coast, GWS and Melbourne. Also a lot of 90 point losses to those three sides as well as the Bulldogs, mostly all courtesy of your Hawthorns, West Coasts, Collingwoods, Sydneys and Adelaides.
It has become common knowledge that if a player is not 100%, there is no point risking him against the bottom sides. And for the bottom sides, players are sent into operation early than what they would’ve if they were in finals contention as a way of throwing in the towel.
And why wouldn’t you, with high draft picks comes great power! The difference between picks one through four to picks 12-20 could be your next 80 goal a season, 250+ gamer full forward, or your future Brownlow medal winning captain. Why risk losing a player of that calibre if you’re not even going to get close to win the big one?
I’m sick and tired of seeing teams getting smashed, I’m sick and tired of hearing about tanking and frankly I’m sick and tired of seeing the same clubs resorting to ‘rebuilding’ because they can’t develop their players properly. We shouldn’t be rewarding teams for finishing bottom three. In saying that though, we shouldn’t be punishing them – a point I will make clear later on.
Before last round, we had 12 teams mathematically a chance to make finals. Despite it now being impossible for Richmond, these next two rounds will be enjoyable to see who clinches seventh and eighth spot. We should be encouraging this!
I think I have a solution that will eradicate tanking, improve the equality of the AFL and hopefully increase crowds, viewers and general interest in the game. Using the 2011 ladder as the basis, I split the 17 teams into three divisions – top six of 2011, middle six and bottom five. I then included GWS to make it a bottom six and three equal divisions of six teams.
I then used the 2012 fixture to work out how many times they played the other five teams in their division and how many times they played the group of six teams in the other two divisions.
Here is the pic – pic.twitter.com/z4GlYnDB
As you can see, most teams played equal amount across the board. Playing seven or eight games was the standard within each division. However, we can see Collingwood and Sydney fixtured to play nine games against top six (five for Pies) teams of 2011, while Giants and Power only played each top six side once. Fremantle played bottom six sides of 2011 an amazing nine times, while Collingwood only six.
I am all for equality, and to finally put all these stats altogether, this is how I want to see the AFL fixture in future seasons and the future AFL drafts.
Firstly, split the 18 teams into the aforementioned three divisions. But we still keep the same ladder format, divisions are simply for fixtures and draft picks.
Secondly, for the fixture, a side plays the five other teams in its division twice – once at home, once away. It then plays the remaining 12 sides in the other divisions once. This hopefully will mean more important matches where equal calibre sides are playing each other for something, but still allowing each side to play each other at least once. So 10 games within their division, 12 outside. Still 22 games.
Finally for the draft. This is where I’m a little unsure so I have two scenarios. Either keep the same three divisions and it’s a lottery system between those divisions. Bottom six randomly get one of the first six picks, middle six get the next randomly picked six draft picks, top six randomly get picks 13-18. This will mean that there is no benefit from last, as your first draft pick may be number six. Perhaps do the lottery system once more and then 18th place gets number 37, 17th number 38 and so on. Sides which finish bottom three two seasons or more in a row get priority picks starting at number 19.
My second idea is same process as above except three teams at a time, so it’s a lottery system between bottom three for first three picks and same process as before. However, I still think teams will manipulate results to finish in the bottom three, so am more inclined towards three divisions, six teams per division.
AFL is not the EPL. We don’t want huge differences from middle of the ladder to 18th. Personally I have loved the upsets of 2012 and hopefully this continues. It is impossible to relegate Western Bulldogs to the VFL in exchange for Port Melbourne (as humorous that would be), or Port Adelaide for Norwood.
I’m not sure we can get away with actual conferences like the NBA because it wouldn’t mean anything to top a conference. Moving teams to different states won’t solve the problem.
If the AFL wants money then give people close games. A Suns or GWS home game versing Melbourne, Dogs, Power, Lions or each other will surely bring in more people than a home game against Hawthorn. People want to see their home side be competitive, no one will go if they think their side will be beaten comprehensively.
I think Adelaide versus Melbourne at the MCG will further prove my point.
At the moment, keeping and gaining more fans of AFL in Gold Cast and GWS is the key. Can’t be scaring people away with shockingly fixtured games at home against strong clubs. You want GC Suns or GWS fans going to those games, not away supporters who live or travelled to those places.
There is my idea, I truly think this will at the very least remove tanking from our game. But have no doubt if properly implemented, the AFL and we supporters of all teams will reap the benefits for years to come.
What do you think Roarers? Any improvements or got queries, leave them below.
dalammardo
Roar Rookie
New divisions each year based on previous years ladder positions. So adelaide would obviously be in 'Top Division' next year as it will finish top 6 this season but if the divisions were in force start of this season it would have been in 'Bottom Division' as it finished bottom 6 last season. Still same ladder system as now, so it is not possible to top or bottom your division as it is only used as a guide for the fixture and then the draft.
Lachlan
Roar Guru
Love the fixture idea, love it. The first draft idea is the better one, but im still not sure its the best idea we can come up with. My only question is, and i may have missed it, does the winning team from each division move up and losing team move down?
Bee Bee
Guest
Paul. That is a brilliant idea. This would also enable conferences to go to ten teams quickly. May I suggest Team NT Dynamite and the Hobart Devils. Then we can finally call this AFL gig the national game. The end. NRL can take their billion dollars and invest it.
Paul
Guest
Personally, I'd like to see ladder split into two 9 team conferences with five Melbourne teams and four interstate teams in each. Name them after a legend, say the Whitten and the Barassi Conferences for example. Then you'd have a team play the other 8 in their conference twice, for 16 games, and play each team in the other conference once for a total of 25 rounds. Finals could be either the top four from each conference or a combined top 8 based on wins, pecentage etc... You could keep the two Perth & Adelaide (and other rivalries) in the same conference if you wanted to maintain 2 games a year. And, as a bonus, there'd be the opportunity to have a genuine, conference vs conference all star game too if it was popular! Doesn't solve the current problem of 100 point thrashings though...
Dan
Guest
The best compromise as I see it is everyone plays each other once over 17 rounds, and the 18th round used to allow for the home state rivals to play each other a second time (B V GC, S v GWS, WC V F, A v PA). The Vic teams could rotate over a 9 year period, so everyone gets to capitalise on playing Collingwood twice at some stage. Four less rounds than the traditional 22 (traditionally with no byes) giving 162 minor round games, but the players get their 2 weeks off plus another 2 which could be used for State of Origin / All Stars games &/or IR games, which the players also want. But with the new TV deal requiring 198 minor round games (9 games per week x 22 weeks), four weeks of finals AND as many blockbusters as possible it won’t happen….unless we expand to 20 teams (10 games per week x (19+1) weeks = 200 games).
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Here's a little extract or two on the subjects raised. Was part of an article I sent into The Roar, early this week. The Draw – the AFL spends too much time trying to give clubs their “Wish List’s” and then build in their own little revenue raisers and as such, the draw itself is compromised. 3 divisions of 6 teams with a game against every other team, plus a second game against the 5 other teams in your own division, resulting in 22 games, works! Following year you reverse the venue for the teams you only play once – ie. if Essendon play Freo in Melbourne one year, the next year they would play in Perth. We also agree that the divisions need to be selected on location to some extent, but not to eliminate travel for some clubs and make more for others. So, split the competition into 2 halves – interstate (8) & Melbourne (10) based and then perhaps shuffle Hawthorn due to their Tassie games, into the interstate side, making 9 in each. Then split them into 3 groups of 3, on each side and put an interstate group with a Melbourne group. Personally, I’d split Melbourne into 3 sections, being West (Geelong, Bulldogs, Essendon) Central (North Melbourne, Carlton, Melbourne) and East (Collingwood, Richmond & St. Kilda). Then you take 1 from each, so perhaps Geelong, North Melbourne & Richmond, being matched in with West Coast, Sydney & Port Adelaide. Essendon, along with Collingwood & Melbourne, plus Adelaide, Brisbane and GWS. This leaves the Bulldogs, Carlton, St. Kilda, with Fremantle, Hawthorn and the Gold Coast. Some developing rivalries in there, along with some traditional stuff. Yes, we would lose the 2 derbies and showdowns, along with some of the AFL’s other “blockbusters”. But the new rivalries will develop and the once a year derby in Perth would be massive, as I’m sure would be the showdown between the Adelaide teams. The biggest problem we have at the moment is the “finals”. With 3 division winners it’s hard to give just 2 teams a week’s break, if you wanted to play a final 8 (the current arrangement). The only way it could work at the moment, would be to seed the teams based on win-loss, percentage, etc. Or, you could just retain the current consolidated ladder and merely use the 3 divisions for setting the fixture – which seems to be the best option at the moment. My biggest worry with Free Agency is that we create an elite 2 or 3 clubs, which everyone strives to get too, once they’ve done their apprenticeship with whoever sticks their neck out and drafts them. The salary cap is in place to ensure that we don’t end up with Manchester United and Liverpool slugging it out every year – but, creative accountancy is alive and well in most sports. Let’s hope that we don’t get to the stage where the premier each year is decided by the size of bank accounts. I was born in 1965 and I was way too young to remember the Saints one and only flag and a mate (same age) who follows the Doggies, hasn’t come close. We all know the Swans went over 70 years and Freo is yet to salute the judge. With 18 teams in the competition, you would expect to perhaps on average win a flag once every 20 years. When you get to a point that it has been 50 odd years or more, do you start to question the “even playing field” that is supposed to exist and wonder why you are following the Saints, or the Bulldogs, perhaps the Swannies? Maybe the AFL would prefer us all to follow Collingwood. Then we would have 80,000 to 90,000 fans at every game the Pies play, but nobody at the other 8 matches? I touched on a few other points - media beat ups, MRP & tribunal, umpiring standards, late withdrawal of players from selected teams. Overall, it read pretty well, but obviously, somebody didn't agree because it hasn't made it onto the site???
wisey_9
Roar Guru
Excellent article. Love the amount of thought and preparation that has gone into it. Your draft system sounds like a great idea. As for the draw, why can't we just have 34 rounds and play everyone twice? That would be the truest and fairest draw. It staggers me that these professional footballers get paid as much as they do, yet still have nearly a 6 month off season!
dalammardo
Roar Rookie
Thanks. It would be, who knows with that added drama and tension. Now that FOX Footy is back and apparently televising it in November, I hope they really get into it, make it seem really important to the general supporters, add to the excitement of it all. Build it up for a week or so. Have commentators talk about who they would pick, highlights of potential draftees etc. I watched a bit of the NBA 2012 draft and I thought it was pretty exciting and interesting and I don't follow NBA at all. Turn it into that and it would be fantastic ratings! As for the list managers, there should be no complaints about last minute picks. They do enough research and have enough information to prepare for the best and 'worst' case scenarios. Only problem is trading. I'm not exactly sure how NBA does it, whether they trade with future trades or they trade their spot in the lottery for a player or something like that. Would definitely be interesting. A change is needed but a lot of things to work out because we all want the change to be the right one. You're right about the money. Money always seems to be the issue, which is fair enough I guess. If I had to choose one out of the draft or the fixture, draft is definitely the one to change.
dalammardo
Roar Rookie
Didn't actually see your article till now, but great read and i probably would've only posted the draft bit had I saw your article. But good to see there are other people thinking as well but you are right. It is hard, and that was the only problem, less blockbusters, easier draw for a bottom side, for instance, adelaide (had this system started this season) would be on top without a doubt having played the bottom 5 from last year twice as well as beating the good sides. I like your reward of the draft pick idea for best performing team of Section C though
nathan savino
Roar Pro
A few weeks ago I tried to create a fair fixture too. It's bloody hard and pretty impossible to do fairly. My idea was to have a 22 round system, and have each team play each other once, then play 5 other teams again. So have Section A pies cats hawks eagles blues saints and so forth (from last years ladder positions). People said that the idea was Ok except a bottom team might get an advantage by playing weaker sides around them twice
Jano
Guest
The draft lottery system is great. I would have groups of 6 clubs and draw for draft order before the first 6 picks. Then draw the next six. It would add great tension anddrama to the draft. List managers would hate starting the day not knowing if they have pick 7 or pick 12. They would only find out after a player has been drafted at pick 6. The FIXture can not be fair unless the AFL is willing to give up millions of dollars. The guidelines used to draw up the FIXture begins with maximising exposure either in person or on TV. The guidelines then move to growing the game, accomodating club requests and then there is a mention of the word fair. I expect that a true and fair draw would cost the AFL about $80M a year and would almost halve the income of the AFL, the clubs and the players.
Rocket
Guest
Really like the idea of a conference system for fixtures, as much as I agree I can't really see the AFL adopting this. Take Sydney and G.W.S for example, the AFL will want 2 games per year with these teams, the same with Pies v Dons, Port v Crows, Eagles v Dockers, so although I think the concept is great the AFL will always want to tinker with the format slightly to suit the big crowd pullers (and I'm assuming TV scheduling) throughout the year. The draft is always going to be tricky to manage, personally I think a lottery system similar to that of the NBA would be the best, I can't see the merit in awarding a team who comes 6th overall one of the top 3 picks, the gap between the top and bottom would just widen.