Another preliminary final weekend is upon us and once again the sides that finished in the top four at the end of the home and away season will face off for a spot in the grand final.
With Sydney and Geelong’s respective victories on the weekend its takes the record of home sides in semi-finals to 26 wins from 28 matches since 2000.
AFL FINALS FORMAT EXPLAINED: HOW DOES THE AFL FINALS SYSTEM WORK?
Let’s face it, the results in Week 2 of the finals are about as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
These results were probably even more likely this year as the teams in the bottom half of the eight were the weakest group of teams in some time.
Putting that aside, no side outside the top four has even come close to winning a grand final under the current finals format.
The question must surely be asked, should eight teams really be playing finals?
Perhaps the losers in Week 1 of the finals have too great an advantage. They get at least an extra days’ rest and have home grand support.
Should semi-finals be played on neutral territory or should home sides be given less time to prepare following a qualifying final loss?
That hardly seems fair for sides that have earned a double chance.
Perhaps the solution is ‘less is more’: cut the number of teams that play finals.
Two alternative formats are a top four playoff over three weeks or a top six over the same period.
Under a top four playoff, the games are as follows:
Week 1
1 vs 2 (Qualifying Final)
3 vs 4 (Elimination Final)
Week 2 – Preliminary Final
Loser Qualifying Final vs Winner Elimination Final
Week 3 – Grand Final
Winner Qualifying Final vs Winner Preliminary Final
The top six format would reflect the Super Rugby format with all finals being elimination, but the top two sides getting the first week of the finals off.
Change needs to be happen.
At the moment, the finals format reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Duffman hosts a quiz competition and states, “now for the final round which counts for 98 percent of the total score, making the previous two rounds a complete waste”.
Reading between the lines, the elimination and semi-finals are those previous two rounds.
No doubt from a money-making perspective, getting 95,000 to the MCG for an elimination final is certainly not a waste.
But the Richmond vs Carlton game will quickly become a footnote , and join many others which are quickly decomposing in the dust bin of history.
mlesliec
Guest
i dont disagree with your sentiments however any reference to Carlton is completely irrelevant, you state yourself they were not true top 8 , so therefore to assess their quality in respect to your belief that 8 sides is too much is moot as you are in all regards referring to side number 9. i also think you all seem to miss the point that the final ladder positions in any year can be decided by percentage. Given that every season some teams get up to 4 games advantage over others due to their favourable draw, the finals gives a chance for this anomaly to be corrected should it occur
Me too
Guest
A top 7? Minor premiers get a deserved advantage over second with a weeks rest. 1st week 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5. Week 2. (supposing top ranked team wins) 1 v 4, 2 v3 Week 3 GF. The current meaningless week two is removed. Could also add a rule that regardless of results, the higher ranked team plays the lowest ranked. So if 7 beat 2 they would play team 1 in the prelim.
Darren
Guest
It's a no brainer Rich_daddy and the 95000 at Richmond v Carlton are the reason. With 18 teams the AFL would never go for less than a top 8. Waste of time even considering it.
robbie
Guest
leave it alone its perfectly fine how it is 5th to 8th get a shot at glory but u gotta beat the best which is the top 4 i love the system dont change it its perfect GO SWANNIES!!!!!! BACK TO BACK BABY
Maca
Guest
If you could somehow get past the simple geography challenges with your suggestion, conferences would do nothing but dilute the quality and variety of matches. I find your comment about Aussies only slightly more offensive than the hyphen in your name.
Cat
Roar Guru
easy solution would be conferences, but most Aussies either don't grasp the concept or let their bigotry show and hate it just because it came from another country.
Les
Guest
The article is written to stir up the passions and thats wht it did. But lets face it, the final 8 (and its current finals fixturing) from a comp of 18 is the best possible outcome when all things are taken into account. Money, interest in the H&A competition to the end, tv rights, achieving taste of finals for 5-8 placed teams, membership, you can go on. Id venture that in fact the finals dont need fixing, the fixture needs fixing so that the right teams end up in the right position at the end of the H&A! Lets play 17 H&A games and alternate home games every year or find a way to play 34 H&A games each year - tough maybe but not totally impossible.
John
Guest
Carlton did.....
Maca
Guest
We already HAD the McIntyre system - it was a mess, and was then improved to the system we now use. The NRL only recently adopted it, and really their game is so bland and random that ANY team could defeat any other team - so good luck to them.
Mal Hedges
Guest
Dead right first time.
Maca
Guest
But what's wrong with that Hawker? If your side doesn't even have a snow-flake's chance of making the finals half way into the season, how do you think they should respond? There are thousands of teams each winter faced with that exact scenario, and they play every bit is hard, and with as much hunger for the win as any other.
Maca
Guest
That's the whole point Connor - if you aren't good enough to make the finals then tough luck. Go away and think about it, and plan to not miss out next year. I don't agree with 4 as an ideal situation, but certainly think 8 is too much - the finals are meant to be about the best of the best, not also the mediocre.
James Shehan
Guest
I like the current top 8. It may not be perfect but I think it's the fairest system. It gives the top clubs the best possible chance of winning the flag whilst giving some lower clubs a taste of finals. I think it gets the balance right. Having less teams in the finals would mean more dead rubber games towards the end of the year. Increasing it to a top 9 or 10 would just be ridiculous.
G
Guest
We have to have a final eight, how else will Richmond finish ninth? (They lost to ninth this year from fifth so by my reckoning that means they finished ninth or "Richmonth" again)
Griffo
Guest
From 1972 - 1986 it was a 12 team comp with a final 5. We now have 50% more teams with 18. If you ad 50% to 5 you get 7.5 which gets rounded up to 8. I think therefore 8 teams are adequate for the finals. I think also there's merit in having 5th-8th teams playing off to decide their overall placings for the season after all we decide the premiership by teams playing off. Granted you could use this argument to say that all teams should make the finals but that would be a farcical situation. The final 8 as it stands allows a large minority of the competition to compete for the prize whilst giving substantial advantages to higher placed sides. It also ensures closer matchups in week one and ensures that the lower placed sides have to qualify to play higher placed sides by winning the first week. Even then they only get to play the sides that lost the first week. If they then win the semi final then they earn the right to play a preliminary final, a feat most cannot manage but they still have the opportunity as earned
duncan
Guest
As far as I can remember the dominant two or three teams in the AFL have always won the final and changing the final series to top four will mean the richest clubs will just monopolize the comp even more and turn it into something like the European soccor competition and being a one country sport with a small population we can't afford to have the top three teams dominate to such a ridiculous level although Hawthorne did in the eighties and only the draft being introduced and West Coast coming in to the comp or they would have been as dominant as Manchester United and in the last thirty or so years the only teams to dominate the comp but come up short were Geelong and Port Adelaide and Adelaide and ST Kilda in 1997 was the only genuine final that I can remember were the two dominant teams Kangaroos and Geelong didn't make the final
duncan
Guest
As far as I can remember the dominant two or three teams in the AFL have always won the final and changing the final series to top four will mean the richest clubs will just monopolize the comp even more and in the last thirty or so years the only teams to dominate the comp but come up short were Geelong and Port Adelaide and Adelaide and ST Kilda in 1997 was the only genuine final that I can remember were the two dominant teams didn't make the final
Cat
Roar Guru
Considering finals puts more people in the stands, tickets triple in price and a chance to have 2 GF's every year ... the afl would make more money. I know it won't happen tho.
kick to kick
Guest
There are several reasons why a top 8 works - and it can't just be seen within the context of a single season. The money and interest factor for the clubs and fans is obvious. But for a rising team finishing in the bottom half of the 8 is a step to getting finals experience and reaching the top level. Anyone remember the best semi final in the past decade - the Swans-Geelong match in 2005? Not only was it great drama but the disappointment for Geelong undermined them for a year but eventually lead to them revising their internal culture and setting up the great team of the modern era. In my view it is folly to sneer at the equalisation instincts of the AFL. A large finals group, like the draft and salary cap give perpetual flux and hope to all fans. You only have to compare this with the English Premier league where 6 teams at most are in the running from the first ball kicked in the season to view how poor the alternative is.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
A shame yes, but thoroughly deserved. You can't possibly argue that the team that finishes 5th deserves a double chance if they lose to 8th. Or 9th.