Gillon McLachlan’s proposal to reform the home-and-away fixtures by splitting the teams into three conferences of six teams after 17 rounds doesn’t address the integrity issue.
This raised its head again when the Dockers and Roos rested players in Round 23 this year.
How will Gill’s proposal prevent a team, guaranteed of finishing in the eight, from resting players if they cannot improve their position on the ladder prior to the finals?
It doesn’t.
There have been many suggestions from people within and outside the industry as to how you address this issue – from having a general bye for all teams prior to the finals to awarding eight points for a win in the final round.
I agree with none of these.
Supporters would be up in arms if they missed a week of football, and awarding bonus points for the last round is a huge advantage to those sides at the top of the ladder drawn against a side languishing at the bottom of the ladder, who are probably in a mind to tank and improve their draft picks in any case.
The solution to the problem is so simple that even Blind Freddie can see it.
Instead of playing 18 games over three rounds in the middle of the season, play 9 games (split 5 and 4) over two rounds in the middle and at the end of the year.
This way every team will have a week off before the finals.
This solution can be refined even further to ensure the top eight teams are drawn to play in the second last round, so that they get the week off immediately prior to the finals instead of the second last week. This would mean that the draw for the final two rounds is not made until after Round 23, and as many of the top eight sides are scheduled to play in the second last week of the season.
The AFL shouldn’t have a problem with this due to the fact that under his proposal the draw for the last five rounds would also have to be left until after Round 17.
While on this point, if Gill is comfortable leaving the draw for the last five rounds until after Round 17, then we can look at reforming the draw even further by eliminating the vagaries and inequality by taking into account where each team finished previously.
Teams that finished in the top six positions in the previous year’s season are drawn to play two teams that also finished in the top six positions on the ladder. Then they will play two teams that finished in the next six positions on the ladder, and finally one team that finished in the bottom six positions on the ladder.
The flaw with this system is that a team’s performance can improve or deteriorate from year to year. And, so, a top six team could be drawn to play a bottom six team from last year that has improved their position on the ladder this year. A case in point being the Western Bulldogs who went from 13th last year to sixth this year.
Why not leave the draw for the final six rounds, if my proposal is adopted, until after Round 18 and thereby ensuring the draw is as even as possible?
Anonymous
Roar Pro
Agreed Paul, they need to keep the mid season bye but reduce the number of rounds it spans. My preference would be just one week where all teams have the bye, but I would also be happy if it was split over two. Under the current system it feels like it drags on for too long.
TheBlackCat1859
Guest
So the week before this 6/6/6 split, what is there to play for if a team can't move position? Aren't we just back to where we started? Why does every match need "something to play for"?
TheBlackCat1859
Guest
Behinds counted in the score? Team numbers reduced from 20 to 18? Bench expanded from none, to one substitute, to two substitutes, to two interchange, to three interchange, to four interchange? Penalty for kicks out of bounds on the full? Removal of the flick pass? Addition of the centre diamond/square?
Edgar Slosh
Roar Guru
Absolutely it is. 85% of rule changes occurred under Demetriou, a fact he says made the game better What a joke.
Steve
Guest
I like it, it could work well How about - regular season play for 2 points a game, conference games for 4 points so they are worth much more, teams less likely to rest players and tank. All teams carry points over from first 17 rounds. Final 8 run as it is now. top 6 play each other for ladder position, can't drop lower that 6th Middle 6 play for ladder spots with top 2 making the final 8, thus ensures the form side at the end of the season makes it. Bottom 6 play for draft position 18th pick 6, 17th pick 5 up to 13th for pick 1, 12th spot starts at pick 7. Everybody has something to play for right up to the last round. Just a thought.
TheBlackCat1859
Guest
That is not a fact whatsoever.
Axle an the Guru
Guest
Leave it as it is
Edgar Slosh
Roar Guru
90% of all rule changes have occurred in the last 12 years - FACT
G
Guest
Why does it matter that players are being rested? Coaches would be silly not to rest star players on the eve of the finals.
Griffo
Guest
I like it because the obvious setup for a final 6 would be to have 1 and 2 getting first week off and second chance, 3 v 6, and 4 v 5. Knockout from the start if you don't make the top 2 and only top 6 make it. AFL won't go for it. Only a third of teams make the finals which they won't like and gives only 6 finals, instead of 9.
TheBlackCat1859
Guest
The rules of Australian football have changed continually for over 150 years (and in the VFL/AFL for almost 120 years). Change for the sake of change is not good, however the product you enjoy today only exists because of tens or hundreds of rule changes.
Edgar Slosh
Roar Guru
I have the best rule change of all STOP PLAYING WITH THE RULES. That is all, nothing else to see here.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
No need to apologise. You were right to correct me.
Jackson Fanning
Roar Rookie
I disagree, the conference idea not only addresses the integrity issue but is proven to do so - predominantly in European football leagues (Check out the Belgian Pro League). Not only this, but it places more emphasis and prestige on the minor premiership and makes a 14th vs 15th Saturday afternoon game worth watching towards the end of the season. It also ensures the fairest way to draw any competition and that is to have every club play each other the same number of times, the only issue I have with this model is how we would allocate home games in the conference section? I guess another issue its that the AFL wouldn't get their two showdowns and derbies a year, but for the neutral fan the system would work perfectly.
TheBlackCat1859
Guest
Spot on. Is it even a big deal? It happens to various extents in every other round of the season (ie. no team does EVERYTHING to win most games) but no one bats an eyelid.
Matt
Guest
*their. Sorry, I totally agree that it's their right. It all comes down to list management. Personally I enjoyed the Richmond/ north game in the final round.
Nicholas Hartman
Roar Guru
It's only natural in a competition that has a finals series
QConners
Roar Pro
I would suggest instead of making it a top 8 system, you change it to a top 6. This way only the very top teams can make the finals and it also means that teams can't afford to not use their stars for some weeks.
Brian
Guest
I agree with the others that clubs should determine who plays in a particular game. From the AFL point of view why not introduce a co-efficient ranking similar to UEFA which would discourage clubs from tanking. I am not suggesting this co-efficient harm equalisation measures however it could be used in determining Friday night allocations . Now linking Round 23 results and Friday night fixtures 3 years later might not bother Ross Lyon but it should bother his board and some of his team's supporters at least mildly.
Me Too
Guest
It really isn't rocket science, but the AFL aren't interested in the KISS principle, or in equity. They tinker around the edges trying to draw out maximum revenue and compromise with the bigger clubs greed.