If I wrote this at the start of the season, I’d get shot down as “Mad!” and told “Impossible!”
However, one of the biggest discoveries of 2020 is that the AFL can make up the fixture on the fly. It doesn’t have to be all worked out the year before.
That opens up possibilities for fixturing a 22-round season that would never have been considered before. It opens up the possibility to make the draw less compromised and more interesting and exciting.
In light of that, I suggest the AFL considers a 17-5 home-and-away season. In this model, all teams play each other once over the first 17 rounds, then there’s a bye while the boffins get to work to work out and fixture the final five rounds.
In this 17-5 model, the final five rounds are played between each group of six teams from the top down. That is, first to sixth all play each other, seventh to twelfth all play each other, and thirteenth to eighteenth all play each other.
These matches would still count normally, incurring points and percentage and affecting ladder positions.
There are several advantages.
It gives teams the chance to jockey for positions with teams around them, effectively then, every match would be an “eight pointer”.
The extra five games teams play in the year are played against teams of similar calibre that year, not the previous year as in the current system.
Most teams in the top eight will have played each other twice and at each others home grounds, so providing a better representation of how they measure up against each other.
There will be a fairer and less-compromised meaning teams will earn their spot and better reflect their ability that year.
All these means more matches of significant interest which will put bums on seats and eyeballs on TVs
How could we improve the AFL fixture? (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
There are however some disadvantages.
You might not always get the crowd pulling teams (e.g. Pies and Blues) playing each other twice you get with the current manipulated fixture.
It might be harder for teams in the bottom of the top two sixes to hold out the teams at the top of the sixes below them.
But having considered that second disadvantage, I think it’s a small trade off for what I think is a much better, fairer and less compromised system than the we get each year now when the draw can greatly affect a team’s chances, both to help or hinder.
The current system attempts to rate teams based on the previous season and play similarly ranked teams against each. This is too late. Look at Fremantle, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs, and Melbourne of the last several years who fell abruptly down the ladder, not helped by their previous year’s success.
The reverse can occur too. Many grumbled that Richmond 2017 benefited this way in their draw that year.
Regards the issue of where to play the games, it’s simply at the home ground of the team that played away in their previous meeting. That in itself would help offset some of the disadvantages.
For example, in 2020, the Eagles (fifth) and Saints (sixth) would get home games against the Power (first), giving them a greater chance of holding off the charge from teams below them and also helping them climb the ladder.
I did consider if teams in the bottom six may use it as a way to tank, but I think those days are past, especially if this year is anything to go by – and it’s a lot harder to subtly tank against teams of similar calibre.
With the currently heavily compromised 22-round draw, I do think this “17 Five” is a much better alternative.
I am happy to hear if you agree or disagree – or have your own suggestions for a better 22-round fixture, especially in light of the opportunity for much more flexible fixturing.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
I see this exact system I proposed three years ago is now being considered by the AFL!!! Nice to know someone at the AFL reads The Roar! Tho they do claim to have been thinking about it since 2015. ????
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
That's a really good point, John. Will have to think about that. Thanks.
John
Guest
Problem with this fixturing is this. West Coast play 9 home games and 8 away games and finish in 4th on the ladder after 17 rounds. All the other 5 teams in the top 6 West Coast played away in the first 17 rounds. Now West Coast get 5 more home games taking the total to 14 home games and only 8 away.
MS
Guest
A slight tweak- make the season 23 games (24 rounds incl. a bye), and for the 6 games (not 5) where teams play each other a second time, each team plays 2 of the top 6 teams, 2 of the middle 6 teams, and 2 of the bottom 6 teams. Still gives AFL flexibility to schedule 2 local derbies, rivalry games, etc, and mitigates the risk of clubs trying to intentionally finish 7th or 13th at the end of the 17 rounds to get an easier last few games. And make the bye at the end of Round 17, instead of pre-finals.
Aus in Engerland
Roar Rookie
There seems to be two main problems that I can see. The first, obvious, and commented on problem is the advantage given to teams in 8th and 9th place and 13th and 14th over those at the bottom end of the group of six above them. That totally compromises the fixture. Teams would be chasing 7th and 8th over 5th and 6th. In your setup you would try to offset this a bit by giving the teams in 5th and 6th home games against Port. This punishes Port by making them travel interstate even more. Remember, travel is the curse of the non-vic AFL teams. The second problem lies with local derbies. These not only are some of the great fan rivalries (Port/Crows, Eagles/Freo), but these games reduce the travel burdens of these already over travelled teams by a game. I'm not sure any of those teams would want an extra cross country flight at the tail end of the season.
Geebee
Guest
No with the current draw if you finish bottom six the sides you play twice next year are three from the bottom six, one from the middle six and one from the top six. Each side plays three teams twice from their group of six and one from each of the other groups.
Pieman
Guest
It seems to me that the ‘new’ draw worked sooooo well in soooo many ways. The reduced number of ‘rounds’ made every match feel more important. Many teams remain ‘mathematically possible’ finalists for much longer. This means that there are more crucial games in each and every round. This extra interest may result in larger TV ratings, and maybe the networks might agree to a shorter H&A season even on a trial basis. My thought are for the 17 (or 18 - an extra local derby) matches to be played over 22 weeks. That would be easily fixtured. Rounds 1,2, 21 & 22 would be 9 game rounds - the rest would vary; some 7 some 8. Your idea of alternating home games is a beauty. Remember that the most expensive football games in the world are the NFL gridiron games - and they play only 16 matches. Sometimes less is more. PS. Retaining shorter quarters and but reducing the number of interchanges would also add to the spectacle.
Pieman
Guest
What happens when two double up teams have a win each? By the same margin?
DB
Guest
It's also no fun to just debate how to keep things the same! But seriously, the 22 round season is a legacy of a 12 team comp. When we had 9 teams, each team played 16 games. We're now at 18 and we haven't changed anything. There's definitely a good argument that the best team wins the GF regardless, so it probably doesn't matter really. But I also think adding some rounds, would also be good for $$ in the current situation.
Charlie
Roar Rookie
I'm sorry ChrisH, while I don't mind the idea of a floating fixture, I think the prospect of the top 6, middle six and bottom six playing off against each other is horrible. It would be too easy to manipulate the system and, knowing how the coaches operate, they would abuse it the first moment they got. Take this year's ladder for example. Would both the Saints and the Bulldogs really tried to win that last game of the season, when the "reward" for finishing 6th would be to play Port, Lions, Tigers, Cats and Eagles? Especially when the alternative could have been to play Collingwood, Melbourne, GWS, Carlton and Freo. Similarly, would Freo have tried to win their last couple of games if they thought dropping one game (eg against Melbourne) would give them a great chance of games against the bottom 5 wins to finish the season, possibly then finishing on 11 wins (with probably a good percentage) to make the finals? Who knows, but the risk is too great in my opinion. I quite like DB's suggestion of a 25 game season, but I don't think the player's association will go for that, so my suggestion is to keep the season at 17 games and introduce an FA Cup style competition, with 14 clubs from the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and NEAFL (apologies if I've missed another comp) joining with the 18 AFL clubs. This would provide an extra 31 games of content for the broadcasters compared to this year (only 9 games less than a full 22 round season) and would probably also provide the opportunity for AFL listed players outside the best 22 to get some experience. 2nd tier comp players would get the opportunity to show their wares against AFL players, increasing their likelihood of getting drafted. Imagine the interest that would be generated as Subiaco or Norwood make it to the last 4, having eliminated Richmond, Hawthorn or Collingwood along the way.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
...that's "plan", not "play".
Dave
Roar Rookie
Like how all the neutrals keep complaining about how soft the Tigers draw is every year! Seriously, I’m not a fan of changing anything! Like I mentioned previously, the game has thrived over for over 100 years, just leave it be and stop changing things!
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Thanks, Dave. Coz it's the AFL - we have to keep changing things!! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Seriously tho... Coz every year a lot of people complain that the fixture isn't fair, that it's the "luck of the draw", that some teams get a soft draw whilst others get a hard draw etc etc. And I'm with them.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Yeah, DB, the conference model has a lot going for it.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
They can still manipulate when they play. It would make it awfully hard for the teams to play. The AFL is already compromised enough, it doesn't need more.
Mark
Roar Rookie
I see your point, but as per the current draw wouldn't only Teams that finished in the bottom 6 get to to play these Teams twice anyway? Finishing in the bottom 6 means you should get the slightly easier draw.
Dave
Roar Rookie
How about just leave the season as is, prior to mr COVID of course! Regular season and fixtures has worked well for over 100 years IMO! Why change it??
RT
Roar Rookie
I think it is. But that's just my opinion.
DB
Guest
So my hot take is a 25 game season. In short - two conferences of 9 teams, 4 interstate and 5 Victorian teams per conference. Teams would play each team in their conference twice and each team in the other conference once. Conferences are locked for two years, so that each team gets 25 home game in that period. Allocations of conferences could be randomised or based on results, but you'd probably keep interstate teams with the other team from their state. Top 4 of each conference play finals. These could either then be played across conference similar to current finals (i.e. 1st from conf A vs 2nd from conf B in qualifying and 3rd from conf A vs 4th from conf B in elimination, then same semi/prelim/grand final set up) or with a conference champ and then league grand final (i.e. 1st v 4th, 2nd v 3rd, winners play for conference championship, conference champions play in Grand Final). In the second option, you could always do a 4th v 5th cross-conference wildcard, if there are concerns about one conference being weaker. Not perfect, but seems more fair and would mean we get some extra games!
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
That's a really good tweak, GeeBee. Thanks. :happy: