The current AFL finals series is pretty good in getting the best two teams into the league to the grand final. But I would like to extend some thought into changing the series’ format.
For arguments sake, I have included schedules both decreasing and increasing the number of teams in the final. More than 50 per cent of teams making the finals makes it a meaningless achievement, but dollars talk.
Reducing the teams
There are two potential options to a reduced system. Either a five-team or a six-team system with varying levels of elimination/progression. For the five-team system, I’ve ripped it straight from the SANFL.
Five-team
Week 1: Qualifying/elimination final
Game 1: second versus third
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Week 2: Major/minor semi-final
Game 3: loser G1 versus winner G2
Game 4: winner G1 versus first
Week 3: Preliminary final
Game 5: winner G3 versus loser G4
Week 4: Grand final
Winner G4 versus winner G5
The pros of this system is rewarding first on the ladder with a guaranteed ticket to Week 3 of the finals, and an easy trip to the grand final. It also rewards second and third with easier passage to the grand final than fourth and fifth.
Six-team
Week 1: Elimination final
Game 1: third versus sixth
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Week 2: Semi-final
Game 3: first versus second
Game 4: winner of G1 versus winner G2
Week 3: Preliminary final
Game 5: loser G3 versus winner G4
Week 4: Grand final
Winner G3 versus winner G5
Another system that rewards positions one and two on the ladder, and pretty much punishes the rest for not making the top two. It would make the finals a lot more cutthroat, as the path is easy if you can win the one versus two match and a lot harder for everyone else.
Pros and cons of both, it may prove an easy ride, or it could cause a team to take the foot off the pedal too much and allow another side to swoop in.
Increasing the teams
Money talks and more teams in the finals series equals more games, which equals more advertising revenue and ticket sales. So against my better judgement that the finals should be small, I have expanded the series to include both nine and ten teams.
It is worth stating, there are a lot more non-elimination matches.
Nine-team
Week 1: Qualifying finals
Game 1: second versus third
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Game 3: sixth versus seventh
Game 4: eighth versus ninth
Week 2_ Quarter-finals
Game 5: first versus winner G1
Game 6: loser G1 versus winner G2
Game 7: loser G2 versus winner G3
Game 8: loser G3 versus winner G4
Week 3: Semi-finals
Game 9: loser G5 versus winner G7
Game 10: loser G6 versus winner G8
Week 4: Preliminary final
Game 11: winner G5 versus winner G10
Game 12: winner G6 versus winner G9
Week 5: Grand final
Winner G11 versus winner G12
What a difference adding a team makes, I squeezed two extra games in. The first week is a placements match to decide whether you get an easier go of it in the second week of the finals. There is still a reward for finishing minor premier and in the top three.
Fourth gets punished a bit more, especially if they drop their first game, as they are on the road until the grand final.
Ten-team
Week 1: Qualifying finals
Game 1: third versus sixth
Game 2: fourth versus fifth
Game 3: seventh versus tenth
Game 4: eighth versus ninth
Week 2: Quarter-finals
Game 5: first versus winner G1
Game 6: second versus winner G2
Game 7: loser G1 versus winner G3
Game 8: loser G2 versus winner G4
Week 3: Semi-finals
Game 9: loser G5 versus winner G8
Game 10: loser G6 versus winner G7
Week 4: Preliminary finals
Game 11: winner G5 versus winner G10
Game 12: winner G6 versus winner G9
Week 5: Grand final
Winner G11 versus winner G12
I don’t mind this version of a ten-team final series. It continues my trend of paying no respect to the first week of the finals, but eliminates two teams rather than just one in the nine-team version.
From there, first and second on the ladder get some assistance. Fifth and sixth have the potential to be big winners, and you could still potentially find your way from the bottom of the barrel and climb up. Though you’d still need to beat seventh, sixth, fifth, third at best to make the grand final.
Closing thoughts
Both increasing and decreasing the amount of teams have valid aspects. Realistically, the AFL would never give up the money that comes with the finals, but as a pure footy spectacle only having the top 35 per cent of the league in the finals series would likely breed high-quality games.
That being said, the ten-team version wouldn’t be the complete death kneel of finals footy. If a similar version was adopted, it would protect the top end of the ladder anyway, just prolonging the process by a week essentially. The cricket purists can just use the GABBA and the WACA while AFL uses the MCG one week longer.
And, I can’t escape the elephant in the room, leaving the finals alone.
They really aren’t broken, so why spend the time exploring the alternatives if the system is fine? Quite simply, I recalled reading something in one of the papers that floated the idea of expanding the finals with the introduction of the Giants and it got me thinking.
But what do you think, Roarers? Which version do you like? The current system, or even a return to the McIntyre system?
Robbie
Guest
I'm a fan of the six team set up, over three weeks: Week 1 Elimination Finals 1. Third vs. Sixth 2. Fourth vs. Fifth Week 2 Preliminary Finals 3. First vs. Winner Game 1 4. Second vs. Winner Game 2 Week 3 Grand Final 5. Winner Game 3 vs. Winner Game 4 The advantage of this system is that it rewards the teams that finish higher on the ladder while cutting down on unnecessary games. Every qualifier has an advantage over the team below it, while the team above them has advantages over them
Griffo
Guest
Not really virtual round robin. The last two years 3 out of 4 semi finals have been won by the lower team meaning that the Preliminary finals weren't the H&A top four. Also 4 times a team has managed to make the grand final after losing their qualifying final meaning which would not necessarily happen in a round robin format. Each time that team has won the GF also incidentally. !st has the greates advantage, 2 guaranteed home games, they get to play 4th in week one, they get a second chance and the chance for a week off and they also typically get to play Friday Nights giving them the best recovery time. Second almost gets the same but not quite, they have to play 3rd in the first week (a tougher side). System also helps to prevent mismatches. For 1 to play 8, 1 must lose to 4 and 8 must beat 5, or they both make the Grand Final.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
It's something worth thinking about. If the 17/5 fixturing concept gets off the ground, you can effectively introduce a wildcard game for the 8th spot (8th vs 9th), meaning in your finals set-up, you are only playing one less finals game than currently occurs.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I agree, 8 out of 18 seems just about right, and in any event, we've had a top 5 and top 6 before, and it had its own problems (in the top 5 system, you regularly had teams coming up against each other a 2nd time, and interestingly, the top team often went out in straight sets). One concern I have about the present top 8 system is that about once every 3 finals you end up with first vs 2nd in the prelim. Ideally, you'd have a system where they could not knock each other out before the grand final. With talk of this 17/5 season fixture idea ongoing, the opportunity presents for the AFL to introduce something worthwhile for each of the three groups. In relation to the middle group (7th-12th), you are obviously playing off for the minor spots in the top 8, but you could introduce a wildcard entry, whereby 8th plays 9th in the week preceding the start of the finals proper, deciding the final spot in the top 8 - that's about as far as I would go in extending the current finals system.
Cat
Roar Guru
First week: 1 v 8 2 v 7 3 v 6 4 v 5 No double chances, If 1st can't beat 8th in the first week, they don't deserve to keep playing.
me too
Guest
Meaningless games in finals is ...meaningless. Finals should be cutthroat. Awarding second the same advantages as second is makes a mockery of the H&A season. Final 7 week 1. MP rests, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 week 2 1v4, 2v3 GF 1v2 Of course less games means the AFL wouldn't go for fairness. So we get the current mockery of a virtual round robin top four format, and sexond place actually gains a small advantage over first, with an easier PF.
Ahmed
Guest
If the AFL were to change the finals there needs to be a balancing act. More than 50% of teams makes the finals a farce. However what if we looked at reducing the home and away season and increasing the finals. I know money should not dictate football, but it could be great for the overall health of the game. Give more time for the local clubs to garner support while increasing the interest in each match by only playing each club once a season. A conference system would also help increase interest.
Griffo
Guest
I like the 5 and 6 due to the numbers of teams and the quality of those teams, however going back to these numbers for finals will not happen. I like the current 8 system. It allows for a 4 week finals series with each position higher getting a bit more of an advantage than the position below. More teams in the finals is too many and makes the finals too long. As for the McIntyre Final 8, both the AFL and NRL used to use this system. Both codes currently use the same Final 8 system after abandoning the McIntyre Final 8. There are a number of very good reasons for that. The McIntyre system needs to be confined to the annals of history.
mds1970
Roar Guru
I think 8 out of 18 teams making the finals is about right. 5 or 6 finallists would see teams out of contention a lot earlier in the season, and keeping the interest up would be harder. Having more than 8 and you'd often end up with teams making the finals with more losses than wins, rewarding mediocrity. I don't see any need to change the current system.
Nolzie
Roar Rookie
I don't think that it would though QConners, even with a 6 team finals series there is the potential for the 6th placed team to be 2 games clear of 7th allowing for the resting of the players. Fremantle did it as well last year on the back of a great season and by finishing clear on top had earnt that right, however it wouldn't change the ability or potential of a team doing it. I personally believe, why fix something that isn't broken. Richmond/North, Adelaide/Doggies provided us with a couple of great matches that wouldn't be there with a smaller finals series.
QConners
Roar Pro
I like the idea of a 6-team finals series. 10 teams are way too many. And with a reduced amount of teams qualifying, you prevent the idea of clubs resting their players towards the end of the year, similar to what North Melbourne did last year. It ensures that only the best clubs qualify. However the downside is we get less games, which broadcasters would not enjoy.