The upcoming ‘blockbuster’ Friday night AFL match between Melbourne (17th) and Sydney (15th) is easy to mock, but is the AFL really to blame?
Forecasting Friday night blockbusters must be impossible. Take Carlton last year, for instance. They were a rabble we watched on Friday nights far too often, rolling into the weekend like a bucks show sans beer.
The problem is entrenched in inequality. What is the answer? Almost equality, undertaken by a brave, bullish and stubborn AFL House, historically known to toe the line for the outspoken minority (we’re looking at you, Collingwood).
So the answer lies in simplicity.
So lets say there are 27 Thursday and Friday night fixtures. Each club appears twice at a minimum. The remaining 18 spots go to – where possible – top six sides of previous year. This isn’t groundbreaking, but is much improved on the current fixture.
If the AFL embraced a fair draw, that would also mean having every side play 17-18 of their 22 games in their home state, which is possible given that ten of the 18 clubs come from one state.
The draw would also have one conference, not two – although that would make for fascinating final eight computations. Teams play their conference rivals twice and the other conference’s teams once for a 25-game season. The two-conference system isn’t required, but it would be if the AFL expanded to 19-plus teams, but let’s cross that wobbly bridge when we come to it.
(Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
But sticking to my proposal for a fair fixture, at the end of 17 rounds (once everyone has played each other once), the final six is locked in – no side from outside the six can make the six. Those six then play each other, the results of which are added to their win-loss record.
The same process goes for seventh to 12th, with no club able to finish higher than seventh or lower than 12th – effectively a play-off for positions seven and eight.
The same process for 13th through to 18th, with clubs competing for draft lottery positions. Thirteenth gets 18 tickets, 17th gets 17 tickets and so on until even the premier gets one ticket. These tickets go into a draw for the 171 draft positions.
Why should the bottom six have a new bottom six draw and then others just build on their win-loss record? Imagine this as it stands: North Melbourne had eight wins (13th) and Gold Coast only three wins (18th), so the latter would still have nothing to play for unless the ladder was reset.
There is no pre-season unless clubs want to do it. No ALFX, unless clubs want to do it. Any pre-season games will reward those clubs who want to do it for exposure, memberships or hope. Let those who see it as an investment reap the rewards or suffer the misfortune.
Now, let’s look at the big fixtures. Each club finishing first to 12th the previous year plays in one of the first game of the year, one of the two Anzac Day fixtures, the Anzac Day eve game, one of two Queen’s Birthday clashes or Easter Thursday. Essendon and Richmond retain the Dreamtime game until 2025.
And perhaps there could be an additional fixture rule where each club must play one game in a promotional location such as China, the Northern Territory, Hobart, Bendigo, Cairns and so on. Additional choices to play beyond this count as home games for the club behind it.
The grand final at some point needs to be looked at. Fifty-five per cent of clubs have the opportunity to play for the big prize in their home state, and while the MCG is the biggest venue, on that day in September, does it really hold the most football fanatics? Surely it simply holds the most corporates and a splattering of die-hards?
The problem isn’t just where it is, but how the tickets are allocated. When the deal with the MCC ends – and bless the MCC for locking that away recently on the sly – wholesale changes are required.
Who would envy the AFL?
Brian
Guest
1 Pre-Season round, no-one travels outside their state, except maybe Vic teams going to Tassie. Season -17 rounds followed by a bye Top 8 - Play each other for 7 weeks, teams 1-4 get 4 home games, teams 5-8 get 3. Top 4 make the Preliminary Finals with Grand Final the following week. Grand Finalists play 26 games as now. Bottom 10 - Knockout competition winner gets pick No 1. Teams who finished 9-12 have to play an extra round and lower placed team hosts every game. All done by end of August. Similar to 17+5 but much less games for the bottom teams to play Fair Fixture season total games including finals is
Johnno
Guest
Reducing the number of Vic clubs would be good but it won’t happen without some sort of major event. The best way to make the draw fairer is to get rid of clubs rights to games such as ANZAC day, the indigenous round, to open the season with Carlton & Richmond etc. fitting in these games compromises the fixtures, and it makes it hard or near impossible in making the fixtures fair. This is one of the reasons why you have the Eagles playing Richmond in round 22 for the first time this year. I know this will reduce attendances. But you can’t have fair and maximising attendances in the same sentence. For me, I would much rather fair.
Omnitrader
Roar Rookie
Can say the same about the NRL just being an expanded NSWRL comp, 9 sydney teams still. The VFL and the NSWRL were the ones who gambled on expansion and it worked.
Omnitrader
Roar Rookie
too many games, play all teams once and then if you finish top 6, you play two against other top 6 from year before, middle six the same and bottom six again.
Lou Tocci
Guest
Get rid of all practice matches Play Thursday night games every week Final 6 Only one bye weekend And everyone plays eachother twice once home once away ( if it’s a big draw crowd it goes to a big ground ) If mcg , Gabba , Sydney cricket ground are not a available play games else where for points at start of year
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Maxine, I wasn’t having a go at North per se. Ideally, I’d like all the Melbourne clubs to remain. I’m old school in that regard. Many aren’t though.
Cat
Roar Guru
Every team should play every ground. Not just KP but rotate who plays the Roos and Hawks in Tassie so the west coast teams don't have to do it every year. Rotate who has to play the bulldogs in Ballarat, rotate who plays Melbourne in Darwin and so on.
Cat
Roar Guru
Real reason something like that would have never happened at the time is the VFL was broke. The VFL expanded to pay the bills.
RT
Roar Rookie
2 teams from Victoria. LOL. The most ridiculous on this article.
Maxine
Guest
Hi Chris,some really good comments there. I think your scenario would have been a wonderful option. The current situation is a complete mess,and while I can understand the AFL investing money in NSW & Qld,the propping up of the lower level,under supported VFL clubs just seems like a lifeline rather than any sort of future investment. The irony in your last sentence is on performance Essendon and Carlton should probably be 2 of the teams making way. But that can't happen obviously due to Essendons supporter base and Carltons potential supporter base if they can ever get their act together.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
@Cat, @Maxine. Where the AFL went wrong is trying to turn a local competition into a national one. They should have set up a competition above the VFL. Two teams from Victoria, WA and SA, and one from NT, Qld, NSW and Tassie. 10 team premier competition, with the existing leagues still intact. With five games a weekend spread across Australia, it wouldn't have impacted the local competitions' (VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc) attendances or followings. So, for example, you could passionately, one-eyed barrack for Collingwood, Carlton or even Fitzroy still every weekend, but you'd also follow Victoria Red or Victoria Blue just as fervently. Would it have worked? Of course. This is exactly the scenario the WAFL and SANFL live under. How many folk from Adelaide or Perth follow both their local team (Port, Norwood, Glenelg, East Fremantle, Swan Districts, Perth etc)? But how many people in Melbourne follow a VFL team as strongly? Not as many I'd posit because their team is playing AFL. Alas, it didn't happen, and now we get this mess of a half national competition playing against half a Melbourne competition. (It didn't happen of course because the Carltons, Essendons and Collingwoods wanted all the money and adulation, they didn't want to play second fiddle.)
RT
Roar Rookie
Culling 3 teams seems a pretty dramatic way of making the draw fairer. The talent pool argument is way overstated. What is the other benefit of kicking out 3 clubs? Don't say they are a financial drain because all interstate clubs bar Adelaide and West Coast have been at some point and two in particular are each costing more than the three you want out ever have or ever will. You have to remember these clubs agreed to let others into their competition; pretty rude to them want to kick them out.
Klompy
Guest
Hey Gee that will not happen. How about getting rid of some underperforming Victorian Teams? Draw fixed.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Get rid of the interstate clubs, draw fixed.
Maxine
Guest
**the last sentence should read "VFL clubs".
Maxine
Guest
Hi IAP,the excessive focus on the VFL is hindering the AFL not bettering it. And no one is saying the VFL clubs are no good,or that Victoria isn't the life blood of the AFL,there are just to many VFL clubs. No one is saying to add more clubs from WA or SA. And I don't see how politely discussing how to better the national comp is 'whinging',as opposed to someone saying "Victoria's the best,stop talking about it or you're whinging",like many things in life,'whinging' can come in many forms. Yes the Bombers,Tigers,Magpies,Hawks etc pull big crowds and bring big money into the comp,they are massively important,this is not being questioned.But the Saints,Roos and Bulldogs don't,they are in fact a drain on the competition. There will still be 6 VFL clubs,a very good number,and those 6 clubs will continue to be massively important to the competition. What importance do the under supported VFL clubs offer the competition apart from making it seem VFL centric in the national landscape? The competition itself has to many clubs,hindering the draw,the talent pool and in some ways the competitions integrity. The culling of under supported VFL is the most logical solution.
Maxine
Guest
Hi J.T.,well their history is better than the Saints and Bulldogs,but there are 3 to many VFL clubs so unfortunately they have to go. And you're right,just like the Saints and Bulldogs,they simply don't have enough supporters to justify being in a national competition if we want to grow the AFL. These under supported small VFL clubs still have an important place,in the VFL playing against Victorian AFL reserves sides,as well as Port Melbourne and Williamstown. There will still be somewhere for their supporters to go.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Maxine, North’s overall history isn’t that terrific. It took them fifty years to win their first flag. You can still fit most of their supporters into a portable classroom.
Maxine
Guest
Snake Baker,what a magnificent,exciting footballer,and great finals performer. No denying North are a wonderful football club,with a terrific history. I just think we need to move on from the VFL in a national sense,but like I said,I certainly respect both sides on the touchy topic.
Cat
Roar Guru
My home and away membership (all Victorian games) already covers that. If there are less games, it too needs to go down.