With the AFL offseason raging on, and the media needing to fill column inches, talk of a three-game AFL Grand Final series has been discussed.
Put simply – a best of three AFL Grand Final series doesn’t actually solve anything.
In theory, it removes the bias towards Victorian teams by not only playing a grand final at the MCG, where Victorian teams have an obvious advantage – but playing it at multiple venues, decreases the bias.
Personally, I see a few issues with this. Firstly, take the 2010 drawn Grand Final.
Interest dropped off significantly, and the reply saw Collingwood dominate a tired St Kilda. Now, what would have happened that day if there was extra time instead of a replay is a conversation for another time, but it wouldn’t have fizzled out like it inevitably did.
Secondly – what if two Victorian teams, one who plays home games at the MCG, one who plays their home games at Marvel Stadium, meet in the Grand Final series?
Maybe it’s just me, but having a game at a stadium that doesn’t exactly have much history isn’t the most appealing. Not to mention – roof on or off?
That’s not to mention logistics. By having a three-game series, you’re at best extending the season by a week, or a fortnight if it goes to a decider. Which way do you extend the season?
Do you eat into AFLW, which is already being hard-done-by, do you interrupt the cricket, or interrupt the soccer? Ground availability is something that hasn’t been discussed as much during this debate, but it’s something that seems partially unsolvable.
(AAP Image/Hamish Blair)
Given all this, I should put forth a solution. The idea of each team having a certain amount of games at the MCG is the best solution. Given that we currently have a fixture, rather than a draw, I don’t see why this cannot be accommodated for.
Whilst it is true that certain aspects of the administration seem to be lagging behind when it comes to the concept of a national competition, I hope this can be a wake-up call.
Part of what makes our game, and Australian sport in general, so appealing, is that it’s decided on the day.
You can compare to American sports all you like, but given the differences already present throughout our respective sports, trying to justify a three-game grand final series just doesn’t make sense.
Whilst of course, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it isn’t the right mentality, neither is fiddling with things for the sake of it.
Of course, I suspect that this isn’t a realistic idea. Instead, it’s an attempt for equalisation, which I fully support.
It’s not fair that interstate teams are at such a distinct disadvantage when it comes to playing on the biggest stage of them all. However, a best of three grand final series doesn’t seem like the right solution.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
I'm no Lawyer...... If on one hand the MCC agree in principle to a best of three GF series. And within that agreement is the implication of a possible interstate GF. So to protect MCC/VicStateGov interests there is a clause that the deciding game must be at the MCG. Yet it is not possible to predict whether that is game 2 or 3 so both must be at the MCG. The first game goes to the highest finishing club presumably (or maybe not but anyways...). All games might be at the G or one of the two interstate teams miss out on the chance of a life time. It's a clause that has been headlined as as controversial elsewhere. Like I said I'm no lawyer but is that a workable contract? I do know some good lawyers.
MarkD
Guest
Hi Cat , thanks for the response and i agree for most but i reckon the afl is full of it . Lip service nothing more . How do you get training time at the ground if your not playing there that weekend . Hope that the 4 fulltime and 2 part time tenants will give up some of there training times ? Don't think so. 2 fulltime tenants Melbourne and Hawthorne play games in Tassie and the Territory yet of those 6 games, 5 are against interstate sides. Straight up , there is 5 games that should have been played at the G , thus giving more access . Considering Melbourne play Collingwood and Richmond twice at the G why wouldn't the afl send one game each to the Alice and Darwin instead of robbing the interstate teams of a game at the G against Melbourne. The Afl is nothing but the Vfl in disguise and whilst this remains unchallenged the afl will continue to cater for the big Melbourne clubs at the expense of the interstate teams . Say Cat , has Collingwood who get the most games at the G pretty much year after year with about 2/3 of their seasons played their, have they ever played in Tasmania or the Territory ? Genuine question . At the end of the day the competition needs to be an even playing field whereas at the moment the afl is more like Fox News version of fair and balanced
Frank Deville
Roar Rookie
Thanks :-)
Sndon
Roar Rookie
There is no "S" in Grand Final. End of story.
Paul D
Roar Guru
The only surprise for me was that someone thought it was necessary to include the word "arguably" instead of "definitely" in the headline
Cat
Roar Guru
It's appeared on AFL.com, The Age, Foxfooty, The Herald Sun and plenty of other places. You must not be looking very much if you haven't seen it. The discussion or idea did not originate on this website.
Cat
Roar Guru
Greater access is not 'more games'. Greater access is providing chances to train or practice at the ground (ostensibly when a team is scheduled to play there next). Chartered flight is just that. Its a flight just for the players and staff and scheduled to leave/arrive when the team decides they want to. Not shared with anyone else. No need to take a red-eye or other inconvenient flight. In theory will also have more room (depends on the plane chartered and how many people the club wants to bring across). There are only so many games to go around. Not every club can play 3 games at the MCG every season. Could the split be better? Yes. I've long been a proponent of every team plays every ground. WA teams should not be excluded from playing in Tassie but they should only have to once every 3 years or so on average if every other team had to. Teams like Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn shouldn't get to play 'away' games against Geelong at the MCG, they should travel to Geelong. This would open the MCG up for more games for others.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
A special occasion for the game across the country. Well said Tom C
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
That's a bit like saying that alcohol won't affect your batting performance since you've scored a hundred in the backyard after a half a dozen frothies.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Those articles about who is going to win each round are just fun. Enjoy it, Rob. That's what footy fans do in the off season. You haven't done the AFL Predictor yet? Have a go. Freo finishes on top.
Rob
Guest
The "media"? This concept has appeared no where other than this website and given there's someone on this website submitting very detailed analysis of who will win every game next year and the margin (in NOVEMBER) I'd say its hardly going to gain traction in the other media outlets. Grand Final is at the MGC. Get over it or join a new league where it isn't.
MarkD
Guest
When the afl announced the grand final staying at the mcg until 2057 they mentioned something about greater access for the interstate teams to the mcg during the home and away season and finals series as well as promising chartered flights if they make the grand final as some form of compensation I guess. So you would have thought that next years fixtures the interstate teams would have had more games at the G but outside of GWS and the Eagles getting 3 games there the rest get only 1 or 2games . Apparently that passes as greater access , so I wonder what do the afl mean by chartered flights ?
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
The answer's, no. Collingwood has lost there enough.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
The question isn't whether sides travelling to the MCG can win a GF at the MCG, it's whether it presents an undue disadvantage playing a tenanted side there.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Eagles, Sydney, Adelaide, Port, Brissy... Non-Melbourne sides have no trouble winning GFs at the G. No need for any change.
PeteB
Guest
Yep two wrongs don’t make a right !
Bell31
Guest
If this GF series is really something the interstate clubs are supposedly pushing, can we please stop knee-jerk reactions to fix systemic issues... it seems pretty obvious that there are inequities in the current draw - 18 teams and 22 rounds, GF only played at MCG (I'm based in Sydney but follow the pies) - I think there's a much broader discussion about if the AFL is trying to become a truly national competition, what does that look like in future and what are the steps to get there - what does it mean for how we want to structure the draw (conferences etc??) and what does that mean for finals series (new model?) - how does the afl address the real perception that it is vfl+ in other states... jumping straight for an idea like 3GFs to placate perceptions of bias is just asking for issues!
EagleBoy
Guest
Surely the talk of a best of three is to highlight the outrageousness of the MCG Contract. Are the Non-Victorian clubs pushing hard one way so that they finally get listened to and met in the reasonable middle (rotating the Grand Final). I know the contract has been signed but I don't see why this contract be torn up?
WCE
Roar Rookie
3 GF's is clearly the dumbest idea of the century. On the subject of making things fairer and more even for all clubs , you can start by making no Victorian team's home ground the MCG ..period. I don't give a flying stuff where they play just don't make a teams home ground where the season ending final game is played like Richmond and Collingwood, its complete bias and a distinct advantage, any moron can see that. Speaking of c/wood why not send them to Tasmania to play like some other teams have to in the home & away season is that to much to ask? apparently it is.
TomC
Roar Guru
Guaranteeing every club a minimum number of games each season at the MCG might be a good idea, but it doesn't really solve the underlying problem. Maybe it could be part of a broader solution. A best of three series will inevitably take some gloss off the occasion. No doubt about that at all. It's a very special day in Melbourne. But of course it's supposed to be a special occasion for the game across the country. The AFL Grand Final remaining the preserve of one city is surely only sustainable for so long, one way or the other. I don't think the writer's aversion to playing Grand Finals at the Docklands Stadium is a serious consideration. Nor am I all that concerned about a season extended by two weeks eating into other codes. The AFL is funding more than its fair share of the Australian sporting infrastructure, and it seems to be getting better at sharing facilities with other codes - the floating fixture to accommodate the A-league grand final is a positive step - so this shouldn't really be a critical issue. I see positives and negatives around a grand final series, but we're going to have to make a decision about the future of the grand final at some point. Maybe sometime soon we can trial a grand final series over three or four years and see how it works.