Fixturing can be tricky at the best of times, but some interesting ideas can come from unlikely places.
For the AFL it’s hard to produce a fair draw for an 18-team league. Seventeen rounds is too few but 34 is too many, so teams will play some clubs once and others twice.
Various models have been suggested and rejected, the major flaws being that an equal number of home games for each club can’t be guaranteed and that supporters want certainty when the games will be played before they commit to a membership.
Geelong midfielder Patrick Dangerfield has come up with a way around the issue. He’s suggested that the current length of the season in terms of minutes played is about right but that it could be spread over more weeks. Instead of having 22 rounds of games with 20-minute quarters plus time-on we could instead have 34 rounds of games with around 13-minute quarters plus time-on.
The number of minutes played over a home-and-away season would be about the same but the minutes would be spread over an extra 12 weeks.
Each club would play each other twice and each club would have 17 home games.
It’s a thought bubble. Nothing will come of it. But, hypothetically, could it work?
Fatigue in individual games would be less of a factor. With shorter games there’d be less distance run and less wear and tear to the body each week.
(AAP Image/Ben Macmahon)
But having to get up 12 more times over a year makes for a long season.
A 34-week season with four weeks of finals makes almost nine months of competition. There’d be no time for byes, a week off before the finals or any time off. This could possibly be worked around by mandating that each player is limited to 31 or 32 games, requiring the clubs to manage each player’s individual byes.
Would a suspension be able to be taken as a week off? If so, it may encourage more early guilty pleas and reduce the need for tribunal hearings. If not, there may need to be some flexibility in the rules for a player who the club was planning to rest in the last round but who gets suspended after the penultimate weekend.
For the non-Victorian clubs there’s a lot more travel with an extra six interstate trips. Even Victorian clubs would have eight interstate trips, not counting matches in Tasmania or home games played away.
With no time for a week off to recover, it would probably be the end of the Gold Coast vs Port Adelaide China trip. But with more home games on offer there’s more opportunity to take games to new domestic markets without reducing the number of home games currently played on the home ground.
Greater Western Sydney could play a couple more in Canberra, North Melbourne in Hobart et cetera. Maybe some other regional centres could be considered for games.
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
From a media perspective it would be a gold mine. Extending the season to nine months would guarantee the AFL would dominate the news cycle for longer.
With each game all over in two hours, games could be scheduled so there are never two games on at the same time. Currently the AFL viewing audience is split when there are concurrent games, but that wouldn’t happen anymore.
Further, with nine months in the season, then trades, the draft and the draw to come, that’s most of the year covered publicity-wise.
But there are plenty of logistical reasons why it will never happen. Access to venues is the big one.
For a 34-round plus finals season we’re probably looking mid-February to mid-November. But that would require cricket to give up access to the grounds during that time.
They’d probably give up October. The only cricket in October is the domestic one-day competition, which is played on suburban grounds in Sydney. The cricket grounds the AFL use sit empty in October, so I can’t see why there’d be any objection to the AFL moving into October.
But by November the Sheffield Shield is on and the Tests are looming. The cricket pitches need to be in the grounds by then, and cricket uses the grounds until late March.
If the Brisbane Lions were to make a home preliminary final, it wouldn’t give the Gabba much time to get a pitch prepared for the first Test of the summer.
(Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Such a long season would affect preseason schedules. Patrick Dangerfield acknowledges that.
Currently the preseason starts in mid-November. After about a month the players take a break for Christmas before restarting again in January.
With the season finishing in mid-November the players would need a break, so preseason training wouldn’t start until after Christmas. There’d only be about six weeks before it’s time for the season proper to start.
Would that be enough to get everyone match-fit given that there won’t be time for any practice games?
It won’t happen. It’s a thought bubble. An idea. Thinking aloud.
But, interestingly enough, I can see potential for a nine-month footy season. But the men won’t be playing all of it.
AFLW starts at the beginning of February and is expanding. By 2020 it will have 14 teams, extending from the current seven rounds to 13. It may not be too many years beyond that before every AFL club has an AFLW team and we’re running a 17-round AFLW season.
That makes some overlap with the men’s AFL season inevitable, but the overlap could be reduced by holding the men’s season back a few weeks, starting on the Anzac Day weekend and running through until the end of October.
(Michael Willson/AFL Media/Getty Images)
For those who want more trial match practice some AFLX could be scheduled in early March before the JLT Series in March and April.
The pre-Christmas preseason training would be abolished, with the preseason starting after Christmas as a single block instead of stopping and starting again.
Cricket would have no reason not to make the grounds available for October and could have them until the end of March or even early April for the Sheffield Shield final if they wanted.
Giving the women more time in the spotlight before the men’s season starts would mean on-field footy action from the beginning of February to the end of October, creating a nine-month season, and with trades, the draft and the fixture release to come in November, that’s most of the year’s news cycle taken care of.
The AFL would like to see that.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
Another way around that is to have double-header games... they do it over here in London for the union where they have 2 games on the same billing and the pack out Twickenham and it's great for TV. It could be organised to happen at the SCG for the Swans and GWS... same in Brissy and Perth for those games that attract less fans. It could easily work at the MCG/Ethihad too for those smaller interstate visitors.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
Another problem is the MCG and the cricket calendar, Cricket Australia/MCC have already had issues with the ICC over the Boxing Day test drop-in. Overall though, I like the idea of the shortened games to have a longer season as I've always felt the need to have a full H/A season.
Chris
Guest
Balanced approach:- 1. 34 games a year; 2. Shorter playing time; 3. The six non-Victorian teams should host a Victorian team or a team from another State per fortnight; 4. The extra games per week should be played in March, April, May and Auguts when the weather is usually not so wet and plaeyrs' injuries would not mount; 5. Increase the list numbers and allow for more ruckmen and running players; 4. Finals should be played over 100 minutes;
Chris
Guest
Dangerfield's proposal would only work if the AFL adopted an EFL approach of doubling up games during the week. If Collingwood were playing Adelaide on Saturday then they would play Port Adelaide on the Wednesday in Adelaide. The reason why I would propose these changes is that it would be more cost efficient and Aussie Rules wouldn't damage all the other sports played in Australia. Sure, shorten the home and away games playing time, but retain the traditional playing time for the FINALS.
Cat
Roar Guru
Easy solution. Don't watch, which I highly suspect you do little of anyway.
Cat
Roar Guru
So which teams get the extra home game every year? What a massive advantage that is both on field and financially. The fixture would be just as unbalanced as current because it would increase home ground advantage. Imagine a team getting to play 4 top 8 sides at home versus another side having to travel against the same 4.
JRW1973
Guest
22 games is too long already. A 17 game fixture where everyone plays everyone once is ideal. While it would hurt with reduction in TV money (which is the reason it will unlikely every happen), I believe that attendances would increase. With each team only having 8 or 9 home games instead of 11 people will attend more often (i.e. most members attend 7-8 out of 11 may be less selective and attend most games if there are fewer). The NFL is an example where this works and every home game is an event as they only have 7 or 8 a year Players would be more likely to get through the physical demands of a season and it may even extend careers!
anon
Roar Pro
The AFL would never remove matches because they are all about the money, but how about decrease game length to something approaching soccer or basketball where it's wrapped up within two hours. I think the AWFL (Australian Women's Football League) has a two hour game length.
truetigerfan
Guest
Complex?
truetigerfan
Guest
Nailed it, Redb.
anon
Roar Pro
Less is more. 22 games is too much as it is.
Cat
Roar Guru
Depends on perspective. If you are looking at the entire game the first quarter as a whole can be considered the start.
Cat
Roar Guru
Redb
Roar Guru
I think the length of the AFL premiership season is long enough. It's good to break up the year for sports, with AFL over end Sept, then horse racing kicks in, then cricket, tennis,etc By the time you get to the new year we are only a month away from pre-season kick and giggle (AFLX) and the AFLW as an addition if interested. Leave it as is.
I ate pies
Guest
Nice analogy Paul, but it's nothing to do with progress. Playing at night time won't get you to Gympie any quicker or in more comfort. It's change to make more money, not to please the crowd. Maybe you should go to a footy state for grand final weekend and experience what grand final day is like, then you might appreciate it for what it is. The tradition is good. Some traditions are good.
Josh Mitchell
Roar Rookie
Haven’t read all the comments, so apologies if this has already been broached. But 13-minute quarters shortens the game a LOT. As in, almost to basketball-length games. If a 34-round season was to be brought in, then perhaps the other consideration hangs around whether game frequency can be increased. You still play over 23 week’s or so, but play a game every, 4-5 day’s rather than every weekend. The NBA does this, with even less gap between games, so if you were going to totally rebuild the game with 13-minute quarters, perhaps you just start playing more often... ... Hypothetically, of course! :p
Cat
Roar Guru
Except apparently when it’s mine
Macca
Guest
Cat - I provided an example for my assertion and it is just common knowledge that "jumped" refers to the start. If you can't support your statement you shouldn't be so definitive-you made a statement of fact, I merely suggested it wasn't actually a fact.
truetigerfan
Guest
Never anything wrong with people having their own opinion, either.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
One of the advantages a shorter game could present is allowing younger teams to stay in the game for bigger portions of the game. It would be interesting to see the stats on scoring patterns within quarters, but intuitively it makes sense that a young side, sufficiently organised would be more capable of holding an older side for a shorter duration before the more experienced, longer attention spanned side could crack them with their experience across a longer timeframe. Add to that younger players more typically better at burst efforts, while older athletes develop better endurance as they get older reinforces the shorter gametime would be of more benefit to the younger teams. Sure you're going to have younger sides with more inconsistency in how they begin a game and may get blown away early and stay that way, but that's going to happen either way. At least with the shorter game there's less time for redundant footy in those cases. There might also be a greater sense of urgency for the players with the idea of less time to waste, thereby increasing the likelihood of being switched on to start the game. The criticality of momentum shifts would be really heightened in the shorter game. Coaches and players would really need to identify and implement strategies to wrest momentum as a team.