The AFL takes a lot of heat for a long-held belief that they put the commercial elements of the fixture ahead of a fair and equitable fixture for the 18 AFL clubs.
However in sport, particularly a dynamic one like the AFL which involves a game each weekend, can there really be a fair and equitable fixture?
Could it be that the AFL is actually doing the best to maximise what is an impossible task of creating all teams equal?
Two of the most debated solutions to creating a fair fixture for all teams involve either reducing the season to 17 games, where every team would play each other once, or by extending the season to 34 games, where each team would play home and away against each opponent.
It is a popular belief that this would make a fair fixture for all. But in reality, would all fixtures be created equal?
Consider from the 2014 season. Would opposition rather have played Richmond in Round 14, when they slumped to third last, or in Round 23, when they were on an eight-game winning run? Would a team want to have played Gold Coast in Round 15, when Gary Ablett was in full flight, or two weeks later in Round 17, when Ablett’s season was over?
Would a team rather have played Hawthorn in Round 1, when they are still four weeks behind the competition in pre-season, or in Round 17, when they were starting a run towards the finals? Would a team have preferred to play Essendon in Round 9, when they were struggling with form and injury, or in Round 18, when Jake Carlisle had become a game changing forward?
It would be lucky or unlucky depending on your scenario but imagine team A played Hawthorn in Round 1, Essendon in Round 9, Richmond in Round 14, and Gold Coast in Round 17, while team B played Gold Coast in Round 15, Hawthorn in Round 17, Essendon in Round 18 and Richmond in Round 23.
For the top teams in the league the fixture would likely not have mattered, but for those teams near mid-table – like West Coast, Collingwood, Richmond and Essendon – this set of scenarios could have a massive impact on the season.
The point of the above exercise is to highlight that in a dynamic league where situations constantly change and where playing personnel and circumstances are different each week, there can be no level of fairness or equality.
Kudos to the AFL for making the most of a tough situation and at least ensuring the game can benefit financially from the unfair, inequitable fixture.
Avatar
Roar Guru
I'd have to agree with you on the Dees not being fixtured interstate regularly. Minus the sold home games against Port and West Coast in Alice Springs and Darwin respectively, the Dees only have to travel interstate three times (vs Giants and Crows in Rounds 2 and 3, and Freo in Round 22). The Dees' 2015 draw is very similar to that of their 2014 draw: * play the Giants away in the first three rounds * avoid Queensland altogether * don't travel to Perth until Round 22. Perhaps when they improve their results they might get a game in Sydney or Brisbane. One fact is that the Swans have played the Dees at the SCG just once since 2007 (Round 8, 2012 for a 101-point win). Fremantle has regularly played at the SCG in every year since 2000 (except for 2009 and 2015), whereas West Coast haven't played at the SCG since 2010. Perhaps the Dockers have a bigger fan base than the Eagles in Sydney? Could be a factor. I'm also suspecting the AFL might try to get the Eagles to beat the Swans after eight straight losses - next year will be the fifth year running that their only regular-season meeting will be in Perth. And their sole meeting in 2014 saw the worst turn-up for an Eagles home game (25K or something from memory) for the year.
joe b
Guest
Disappointing that the AFL doesn't have an equal hosting policy. I presume the rationale in keeping Melbourne away from the non traditional states is that poor attendances would harm the image in those states... a tough juggle between fairness and product image.
Dan
Guest
I'm an Essendon fan and they didn't go out in straight sets, they beat Freo in the semi. Not a big deal, just a pet hate.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Re: Hawks and the Gabba, that's because we always wind up playing the Hawks down in bleeding Launceston, without fail. Some good spots there. 5 years running that Essendon, Adelaide and Sydney have had to play both WA sides away? Remarkable. I wouldn't say what you've listed is necessarily an argument for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it does show that there's still some inequalities no matter how hard they try.
Avatar
Roar Guru
A couple of flaws in next year's fixture: * West Coast and Fremantle don't play in New South Wales at all (discounting a pre-season match between Sydney and Fremantle at Drummoyne Oval, which is located close to the Sydney CBD). * Essendon and Carlton don't travel to Adelaide at all, and both don't get a home game against any of the WA sides. * Essendon, Adelaide and Sydney all miss out on home fixtures against Fremantle, Carlton and West Coast for the fifth year running. * Melbourne, for the second year in a row, avoids the SCG and Queensland entirely. * Hawthorn avoids the Gabba for the seventh straight year. * Essendon don't get a home fixture against any of the Sydney clubs. * By the end of the 2015 season Fremantle will be the only club GWS is yet to play host to. This year their only meeting is once again at Patersons Stadium in Round 18. Talk about equality.
Avatar
Roar Guru
Not to mention they also beat the Western Bulldogs with the last goal of the game in Round 23 this year, and came so close against the Saints in Round 2. Next year sees the Giants play four matches at Docklands, and I see at least two or three of those being winnable. Not only does Melbourne play the occasional home game at Etihad, the Hawks also have to play a home game there against Port Adelaide in Round 21 next year, and did so against West Coast in Round 13 last year. They also played two finals at the venue, winning both times (against Sydney in 2001 and Adelaide in 2007).
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
Collingwood play away from Melbourne!?! That's crazy talk.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Pick the Crows fan, lol. Sorry mate, that was the first example that sprung to mind, and one that I figured everyone would be familiar with. Like it or not the perception was Adelaide had an easier ride than other teams, and they did go out in straight sets. The last one was a tie-break 7-6 defeat, and there was a few dodgy hawkeye calls on the line, but the result stood. Don't read too much into it, my main point was that no-one has won the comp in recent years who could be said to be undeserving.
joe b
Guest
One aspect of the draw which can be fairer is ensuring equal hosting is maintained. Eg. If magpies host a non-vic team (or any team) this season, then they play them away next time...it rotates equally. Also, the ANZAC day clash should be shared amongst the big Melbourne clubs not the same two clubs each year.
Tony
Guest
AR - in Melbourne the games are scheduled for maximum crowds & TV viewers. This means the stronger & bigger clubs get the big games & the MCG more than the smaller clubs. This is not socialism!
Dan
Guest
Agree with most of what you said but get your head out of your backside re- Adelaide 2012, their 'soft' fixture has been totally overblown, and it's not as though they were blown away in straight sets, they went down to the Hawks by 6 points in a prelim, which was the most unfairly umpired match I have ever seen. If that's what you consider getting weeded out then I may need my head examined since I agreed with the rest of what you wrote.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
Nothing wrong with that. All the derbies should be double fixtures (WC-Freo, Port-Crows, GWS-Swans, Suns-Lions), they are usually great matches where the form book takes a back seat.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think you have to accept Sydney are always going to play GWS twice. Who knows, in 5 years time they might be cursing their luck. Or not. Also, that word! Compromised! You just triggered nightmarish flashbacks about Macca again, banging on and on and on and on about the draft.
Balthazar
Guest
So Hawthorn can play Freo in WA and commercially that will be successful. Win win if you like, as the Hawks don't have as long a trip as Freo is expected to endure to go to Tasmania, but it doesn't happen. And yes, we had this discussion in another thread and you pointed out that the Hawks came to W.A. for a while but it's certainly been one way traffic over the last few years. Melbourne-based clubs should go to Tasmania as the travel is more manageable.
AR
Guest
'If you have all your hard games early you’ll get easier ones later, and vice versa." Except they didn't. Hawthorn's run into finals was Coll, NM, Syd (which was a difficult run in 2013). And Sydney are guaranteed to play GWS twice. As you say, if you're good enough, then you'll win. But the fixture is compromised and doesn't always correlate to the policy that top-finishing teams get harders draws. That's what 2013 showed.
andyl12
Guest
Given the choice, nobody would play us in Tasmania given our virtual 100% record there. Brisbane are actually the ones who play there the most, on average we get one Perth team there every year. You're right, there is probably commercial decision making involved- put a Hawthorn-Freo game at the G and the Fremantle crowd would hardly be any bigger than it would in Tassie, but if you put a Hawthorn-Collingwood game in Tassie you're cutting the crowd figure by about 50K. GWS and a QLD team should be the first ones chosen to play there. If the Perth teams did get exemptions from it, Melbourne might be a deserving replacement for them.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
Either commercially driven decision making or they hate people West of the Murray; you choose! Given Port Adelaide's fixtures the latter may have legs :)
Paul D
Roar Guru
Didn't hurt Hawthorn at the tail end of the season though! From what I recall Sydney stumbled into the finals broken, battered and bruised and got blown away by Fremantle, courtesy of a tough second half of the season draw. If you have all your hard games early you'll get easier ones later, and vice versa. A fair bit of Hawthorn's draw was also because they're a top rating side, so it's inevitable they draw blockbusters. Not great for the players cartilage, but it's great for the club's bottom line.
DJW
Guest
Explain to me with all the travel they do already why do West Coast and Fremantle get sent to Tasmania?
AR
Guest
The most galling fixturing inequity that springs to mind was Sydney in 2013. The reigning premiers from 2012, came into 2013 with a cushy start playing GWS, GCS & NM...whilst the team that *lost* the 2012 GF (Haw) played the Top 8 in the first 7 games. If equalisation is meant to ensure that the top teams get a harder fixture the following year, this was a blatant thumbing of that policy.