The AFL loves nothing more than to meddle. Incapable of letting go of footy’s so-called glory days, HQ is forever tinkering with the rules in a desperate attempt to return footy to something resembling the kick-it-long days of yore.
But while the game evolves and adapts to stricter holding-the-ball interpretations, and harsher deliberate out-of-bounds calls – just as it will to the ban of the third-man up – something much stupider is bubbling away in the minds of those entrusted with the game: the 17-5 fixture.
“We’re going pretty hard at the moment to see if we can make some changes or what changes could be made in 2018,” the AFL’s Travis Auld told reporters this week.
If you’re unfamiliar with the 17-5 plan, it essentially involves teams playing each other once and then after 17 games the league is split into three groups: the top six play for the top six finals positions, the middle six compete for seventh and eighth, and the bottom six compete for draft picks, with the highest finisher ‘winning’ the prized No.1 selection.
AFL House is pushing its fixture reform as a way to eliminate, or at least reduce, late-season dead-rubbers, as well as tanking, which the league has long denied exists.
A cynical outsider might see it simply as a way to squeeze more money out of the next TV deal by promising TV partners better match-ups in the final five rounds.
The major stumbling blocks appear to be appeasing the clubs – who would no longer be able to guarantee their members 11 home games – and the logistical problems of having to plan five rounds on incredibly short notice.
The reporting from the mainstream on the issue has been concerning. For such a flawed concept it seems few, if any, are willing to critique 17-5.
What the league is really trying to do here is double-dip by creating a secondary finals series. It’s debatable whether this cheapens the actual finals, as the stakes aren’t nearly as high, but at the very least it warrants discussion.
The idea that it would stop teams tanking, be it for draft picks or as, we’ve become accustomed to in recent years, by resting players on the eve of finals is perhaps the most laughable. What 17-5 would actually do is give clubs two chances to tank.
If a team is four games clear of seventh spot at Round 14, what is their motivation for the next three weeks? Same goes for a team in the middle six, who know they can’t crack into the top six or fall into the bottom six. Wouldn’t they manage their list to be best prepared for the final five rounds?
Not to mention the risk of a middling team trying to drop into the bottom six and then compete for the top pick – though the idea that players would be motivated to play for a high pick is naive at best.
Then there’s the matter of what to do with the wins from the first 17 rounds. Do clubs keep them, or does everyone start from a clean slate? Both present problems.
After 17 rounds last year, 13th-placed Richmond had six more wins than bottom-placed Essendon and five more wins than 17th-placed Brisbane. So if teams keep their wins, those two teams would have had no chance at topping their group – so much for the top-pick motivation.
At the same point in the season, the seventh-placed Bulldogs – who had the same number of wins as second-placed Greater Western Sydney – were three games clear of the ninth-placed Saints. So under a 17-5 system, in which wins are carried through, the eventual premiers would likely be locked into seventh or eighth position with two or three weeks to play – again, nothing to play for.
Meanwhile, Melbourne (11th) and Collingwood (12th) were four games behind eighth-placed North Melbourne and five games behind the Dogs, so really they would have had no shot at September.
Wiping the slate clean might be worse. It would devalue the first 17 weeks, and greatly increases the likelihood of teams tanking when they’re locked into their third. Sure, they could earn an extra home game by finishing in the top-three of their group, but for some teams that will be out of reach.
All 17-5 really does is push tanking, resting and dead rubbers forward, and in some cases creates two opportunities for such things to happen.
The reality is that it’s impossible to have every game matter in a competition where teams qualify for a finals series, and it’s time for the AFL to grow up and accept that.
Michael
Roar Rookie
I always think the worst problems with these systems are at the bottom end rather than the top. I think it comes from the misunderstanding that the top pick is a reward - it's not a reward, it's an equalisation tool. If you make the Number 1 pick a prize and make 13-18th play for picks, you are effectively condemning the bottom 2 or 3 teams to move in there permanently by putting one of their hopes for improvement (high picks) out of reach. The whole hyperventilation about tanking strikes me as short-term thinking. They seem to want to incentivise the bottom teams to think short term (win a couple of meaningless games, perhaps by playing 27-31 year olds who aren't part of your long term success) rather than long term (play young kids or players with potential who will maybe make you better next year and the years after that). No player or team deliberately tries to lose - teams just pick squads with younger players rather than has-beens, or they send players for surgery instead of forcing them to play with injuries. I can't see either of these outcomes as being inherently bad if you think long term, even if it means some games at the ends of seasons are poorer quality.
Philthy
Roar Rookie
In no other sport of note do they constantly mess around with the structure of the competition or the rules of the game. Is changing to a 17-5 really going to increase crowds or ratings as the teams in the bottom six play each other? It may well do the opposite. The top six playing each other may not make a difference in crowds or ratings either, as everyone will still be waiting for the finals. Tinkering with the rules just isn't necessary, the game will evolve into a better place of its own accord given time. Knee jerk reactions to change the rules like the deliberate rushed behind after the Hawks rushed a couple in the 2008 GF didn't add anything to the quality of the game, it only created confusion and seemingly endless commentary.
Republican
Guest
........self perpetuating change for change sake multi national business - thats the AFL...... How about putting some of those excess $'s, resources and brains trust into making a club happen in the Nations Capital et el - Mr Gillion?
SonOfLordy
Guest
I wouldn't mind if something like this was implemented. The season feels too long as it is. Anything that shortens the number of meaningless games can only be a good thing. Really it should be a 17 game season just for the sake of fairness -- but even then it still won't be entirely fair since one team will get an easy beat away whereas another won't. Still better than now. Don't need two derbies or showdowns each season.
Dean.R
Guest
Well written. Couldn't agree with what you've said anymore. A nonsensical farce. It would create the same problems that they are trying to avoid by tinkering with the foolish idea. Tanking will still be there, not to mention a team sitting on 6th spot after 17 rounds taking a breather for the rest of the series, knowing that they are assured of a top 6 spot, no matter the result. And what about a team placed sitting 13th. No matter how their last 5 games go, they will never be assured a chance for sneaking into the top 8.
Justin Ahrns
Roar Guru
Like any idea there are positives and negatives to it. I don't see why they can't keep the fixture the way it is and strictly hold accountable teams that tank. And maybe create a lottery similar to the NBA for draft picks to make tanking riskier.
Maxo
Guest
They change the rules in RL (to make it more even and therefore more entertaining) and RU every year and no-one bats an eyelid - get over it
Scott
Guest
Excellent idea. They would still have to shuffle to fit in permanent fixtures like the derbies but it's a good point to start at
MJ
Guest
In theory a big issue may come if the Eagles for example have qualified for a group yet may have already played all of their opponents in Perth. Travelling 5 weekends in a row from Perth to wherever (and possibly more if they finish 7/8) would destroy their flag hopes. Conversely if the opposite happened (played everyone else away meaning they get 5 home games) they would get the biggest leg up seen in the history of sport. I mention this because there's no way the now Perth based chairman of the commission would allow this to happen.
Perry Bridge
Guest
The 17-5 notion is okay in some respects - i.e. play everyone once in first 17 rounds. So - that we avoid playing some teams twice before playing other sides the first time. The '5' notion will solve as many problems as it creates. Need simply to accept that we can't have a perfect H&A structure. The '5' concept is where the AFL - if it goes down that path - denies the guarantee of 2 local derbies in each of NSW, QLD, WA and SA. At present the '5' sides that teams play twice has some degree of formula based on ladder position strands (top, mid and bottom 6). The AFL is able to tweak this current to ensure the derby double ups. Unfortunately 18 sides doesn't really support much around conference systems. For an even number of H and A games for each individual club you need to have an even number of sides NOT in your conference if to play each of those sides. So, 16 and 20 work but 18 doesn't.
Jim
Guest
Completely agree me too - I have similar views, when I thought about this, I had come up with a 3 season model but with similar principles to what you suggest - but no retention of double ups for derbies/showdowns etc . - Draw done on a 3 year cycle (determined before year 1 who you play each year, but detailed schedule could be done each year) - Every time you play someone, the ground alternates as it should. - Rd 1 to 17 - play each team once - Rd 18 to 23 - over the three year period, you'd play every team once, with 1 additional game against 1 team Before the start of each 3 year period, the teams you will play twice in each year are decided, and the '5th match' against one team in year 3 is also decided (with the only constraint being that it can't be the case you play one team three times in year 3). So over 3 seasons, you play every team bar one 4 times, twice at home and twice away, and one team you play 5 times - if one wanted, that could be a designated 'community/country rd' where games go on the round, so that you maintain a 2 home 2 away split across the other 4 games against that one particular team. My approach, or the approach you outline, brings back the 'draw' part into it and removes the massive amount of 'fix' in the current 'fixture'. Would remove all these weightings of the draw to try and give some teams easier matches and some harder, and would bring greater equity into it. The game is doing fine money wise and shouldn't reduce its integrity in a chase for even more $$$.
dave
Guest
I would like to see some incentive for the teams that have no chance of playing finals. It really sucked watching Freo last year knowing we were out of finals calculations and even though you still want your team to win you know that every loss puts us in a stronger draft position. In the last game of the season Freo had no chance of losing their number 3 pick and ended up having a surprise win. If that win would have pushed them up the ladder we would have had a situation of Freo desperately trying to lose against a Dogs team that was just having a rest before the finals.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
Completely agree its a terrible idea that should have died a long time ago. Supporters of this 17-5 pland appear to be stuck in an 'old boys' menality were everybody plays every game as if their life depended on it, or their marketers who think, how easy would it be to sell 3 games a week between the 'top 6' teams. Reality appears very different though. Remember the, infamous, Round 21 match between Hawthorn and Fremantle? Where Fremantle left a third of their starting side in WA for the game in Tasmania contributing to a 116 point loss. After Round 17 that year, Fremantle was 5th and Hawthorne 6th, so would both be in the 'top 6', come Round 21, Fremantle were still 5th (1 win from 4th but no hope of 3rd) and Hawthorne had slipped to 8th (unable to fall to 9th but, if results went their way, could jump back to 6th). So, why did Fremantle choose to send an understrength side? As it turned out Fremantle played Hawthorn 2 weeks later in an Elimination Final at Subiaco and won by 30. Would you trade a Round 21 loss for an Elimination Final win? Is the AFL learning from history? The ultimate goal in the AFL is to win the Grand Final, and almost anything, including late H&A season matches can be sacrificed in persuit of the greater goal. Resetting each ladder after Round 17 only pushes the issue earlier in the season, and probably makes the issue worse, because as soon as you're certain of the 6 you will be the result of any further games becomes irelevant.
Patrick Lawrence
Guest
You raise some good points but I think you're overly harsh in your assessment. I think it has potential to increase interest in the season if they get it right. From about round 9 onwards there are generally only a handful of games each round which actually mean anything. If you can increase overall interest it sounds like a good thing. Options for the ladder might be to reset by only including previous games against others in the group or give them a greater weighting than other games. The latter is obviously a bit more complicated for the regular fan but would help to address any tanking concerns. Not sure of the overall benefits of a 17-5 model if you don't reset the ladder. Up til round 17 it might be better but after, it creates too much inequity between top and middle groups post round 17.
Mark
Guest
Hard to disagree that it is a farcical idea. It's almost a tacit acknowledgement that the league has reached its absolute limits with expansion (and possibly exceeded them). The player pool is stretched thin to a point where everyone accepts that each year there will be teams that win 18 or 19 matches and teams that win only 2 or 3 matches. More than half of the teams in the league won't play finals, so for many the season is effectively over less than half way through, but expanding the finals further would be too unwieldy. You can't really have a 'finals' that goes for 5 weeks, almost a quarter the length of the season proper. Would a conference system be the answer? Two conferences of nine teams? Play each team in your own conference home and away and six of the nine teams in the other conference over the season. Top 3 in each conference automatically qualify for finals, four and five play off in a wild card? For finals, you could continue the conference separation (like American sports) and have the conference winners play off in the Grand Final, or mix them together from the start. You could even re-draw the conferences each season so that you don't get situations where certain teams rarely play against each other.
Cat
Roar Guru
So if say Sydney travels to the MCG to play Collingwood early in the season, that's worth 4 points. If Collingwood then travels to the SCG to play Sydney late in the season, it's only worth 2 points? Doesn't seem rational or fair at all.
Ian Morrison
Guest
Interesting. If I have done the exercise correctly, then Collingwood would play twice: Cats, Crows, Saints, GC, Dons (under the 123123) or Dogs, Crows, WC, Tigers, Dons (under the 123321) Much prefer the first option thanks very much. Also the AFL's idea of the 3 groups ignores really the order of team's due to very small percentage differences. Do not like that.
TomC
Roar Guru
Good read.
Adrian Polykandrites
Expert
I think there's a pretty simple solution to creating a fairer fixture, but didn't want to force it into this piece. Print/write out last year's ladder. Now, alongside each team from top to bottom, write 1,2,3,1,2,3 … OR 1,2,3,3,2,1,1,2,3,3,2,1… Each team with a 1 alongside it plays the other 1's twice, the 2's play the 2's twice etc. If Derbies are important, then shuffle a couple of numbers to make sure they are the same. Done.
me too
Guest
There is an easy fix to the 'fixture' and yet the AFL hasn't courted it. It has given us these so called six groups, which invariably contain exceptions to guarantee some marquee games and showdowns - compromising equity for money. Now it suggests three groups of mini-finals, with all the problems well outlined above - again money the major motivator in deciding a system. Quite simply create a floating home and away system. every team plays all other teams an equal amount over four seasons, and allow retention of the showdowns. Ensure over 8 seasons the number of home and away is also equal between teams. As it stands some teams always play a particular team away. st kilda fans must wonder how they'd go against port in melbourne - will they ever get a chance to find out? Some will hedge that different teams are good or bad in different seasons, but this is something unaccountable and no difference to arguing in a pure 34 game H&A that teams are in better form at some stages than others. Enough revenue chasing and more equity please.