The week off before finals

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I have to take issue with all the complaining going on around this topic.

This is not about the week off itself. But specifically in regards to it's perceived disadvantage to the top 4 in finals.

The arguments being thrown around:
-The season is a war of attrition, therefore the healthiest teams should get the benefit of no bye (this was from Paul Roos and can be immediately dismissed. It's plain rubbish)
-The top 4 teams lose their advantage. Now by this they actually mean the teams from the top 4 who win in week 1 lose their advantage in prelim week.

Now noone seems to be arguing against the fact that the week off provides a better spectacle (admittedly we only have last year to go off and it was largely due to the bulldogs' stunning effort). But the main claim is that the top 4 should hold a significant advantage over the bottom 4. Essentially saying teams 5-8 should have next to no chance of winning the flag. This is utter rubbish. The top 4 have always and still have SIGNIFICANT advantages.
Firstly, they get a double chance! TWO GOES AT IT! No other major sport in the world allows teams in knockout stages to lose and then have another shot at it. Now of course the second chance makes sense because we have a finals system where the top half of teams play against each other. But it's still a fair advantage
Secondly, the top 2 get home ground advantage throughout the entire finals series. A pretty big advantage if you ask me. The two losing teams from week 1 also get home ground advantage in week 2 (but it's not about the losing teams from week 1 anyway)
Thirdly, there was always debate around whether the teams that had the week off before the prelims did indeed have an advantage. Were they rusty or well rested?
Fourth, the season with a 22 game format and playing random 5 teams twice is already unfair. So crying about this is fairly petty IMO.

I do agree that having a week off, then a week on and then another week off is not ideal. However it shouldn't make THAT much of a difference. If you're good enough you'll get through.

Of course, we have a sample size of 1 to go off so i think a lot of people are being precious about all of this. I actually think the week off is great. It allows teams to get fit and healthy to give us fans the best spectacle. Having all 8 teams with a realistic chance of winning it all is far better than the boring top 4 only. I still believe the top 4 get enough advantages that outweigh any week off side effects. Team can plan for this an adjust loads accordingly. Unfortunately i feel it will be the scapegoat when Sydney wins the flag from fifth. This, despite the fact they are currently clearly the best team just as we were not a true 7th placed side last year.

Thoughts?

[Twodogs]

I have to take issue with all the complaining going on around this topic.

This is not about the week off itself. But specifically in regards to it's perceived disadvantage to the top 4 in finals.

The arguments being thrown around:
-The season is a war of attrition, therefore the healthiest teams should get the benefit of no bye (this was from Paul Roos and can be immediately dismissed. It's plain rubbish)
-The top 4 teams lose their advantage. Now by this they actually mean the teams from the top 4 who win in week 1 lose their advantage in prelim week.

Now noone seems to be arguing against the fact that the week off provides a better spectacle (admittedly we only have last year to go off and it was largely due to the bulldogs' stunning effort). But the main claim is that the top 4 should hold a significant advantage over the bottom 4. Essentially saying teams 5-8 should have next to no chance of winning the flag. This is utter rubbish. The top 4 have always and still have SIGNIFICANT advantages.
Firstly, they get a double chance! TWO GOES AT IT! No other major sport in the world allows teams in knockout stages to lose and then have another shot at it. Now of course the second chance makes sense because we have a finals system where the top half of teams play against each other. But it's still a fair advantage
Secondly, the top 2 get home ground advantage throughout the entire finals series. A pretty big advantage if you ask me. The two losing teams from week 1 also get home ground advantage in week 2 (but it's not about the losing teams from week 1 anyway)
Thirdly, there was always debate around whether the teams that had the week off before the prelims did indeed have an advantage. Were they rusty or well rested?
Fourth, the season with a 22 game format and playing random 5 teams twice is already unfair. So crying about this is fairly petty IMO.

I do agree that having a week off, then a week on and then another week off is not ideal. However it shouldn't make THAT much of a difference. If you're good enough you'll get through.

Of course, we have a sample size of 1 to go off so i think a lot of people are being precious about all of this. I actually think the week off is great. It allows teams to get fit and healthy to give us fans the best spectacle. Having all 8 teams with a realistic chance of winning it all is far better than the boring top 4 only. I still believe the top 4 get enough advantages that outweigh any week off side effects. Team can plan for this an adjust loads accordingly. Unfortunately i feel it will be the scapegoat when Sydney wins the flag from fifth. This, despite the fact they are currently clearly the best team just as we were not a true 7th placed side last year.

Thoughts?

The simple way around having that problem is to not finish top 4. Problem solved, next!:)

I do agree to an extent that the top 4 teams are slightly disadvantaged by the week's break but the competition benefited last year with an awesome (I thought it was awesome) finals series. Top 4 teams get a lot of other advantages (home finals for top 2*, double chance) so waiting out a week's break isn't going to be a huge ongoing disadvantage. Teams will come up with a way of counteracting the long break anyway with adjustment to training and more competitive sessions.


* if you are looking for a disadvantage what about if you are Brisbane and finish 3rd and get a road trip to Perth because the Dockers finished second but you can be Richmond and finish eighth and draw Geekong who finished fifth at the MCG. Sure in that scenario Brisbane have a double chance but even so.

[bornadog]

There has been a lot of whinging about this and if the top 4 are meant to be the ones going through, then don't have a top 8 system and just do a top 4. Problem solved.

[The Pie Man]

Sample size of this is far too small to make any real judgement, though I'll add a few points in support.

* The week off didn't hurt GWS' performance against us in the 2016 prelim at all. It will go down as a classic

* Didn't seem to hurt the top team a great deal when we had a top 5

e.g 1985. Essendon finish 1st, have a week off, pants Hawthorn in the semi, another week off, pants Hawthorn in the GF. Up to the prelim, it's the same gap b/w games as the winner of the 2 QFs in the current setup

Clarkson et al are overreacting, and the implication that we won last year due to the integrity of the finals series being compromised irks me aplenty

[Ozza]

Sample size of this is far too small to make any real judgement, though I'll add a few points in support.

* The week off didn't hurt GWS' performance against us in the 2016 prelim at all. It will go down as a classic

* Didn't seem to hurt the top team a great deal when we had a top 5

e.g 1985. Essendon finish 1st, have a week off, pants Hawthorn in the semi, another week off, pants Hawthorn in the GF. Up to the prelim, it's the same gap b/w games as the winner of the 2 QFs in the current setup

Clarkson et al are overreacting, and the implication that we won last year due to the integrity of the finals series being compromised irks me aplenty

Agree with this. Sample size is ridiculously small to be carrying on about it. Last year - the top team (Sydney) beat Geelong who they have smashed at Kardinia park in the same way only a handful of weeks prior. And a young GWS side played very well and went down by a goal in a classic, to the eventual premier.

The bye gives the footy public a better opportunity to have all of the best players available for finals. Shouldn't we be happy that due to the bye, two of the league's best players - Joel Selwood and Rory Sloane - will have the opportunity to get up to play? Aren't the finals better for having those two playing?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Agree with this. Sample size is ridiculously small to be carrying on about it. Last year - the top team (Sydney) beat Geelong who they have smashed at Kardinia park in the same way only a handful of weeks prior. And a young GWS side played very well and went down by a goal in a classic, to the eventual premier.

The bye gives the footy public a better opportunity to have all of the best players available for finals. Shouldn't we be happy that due to the bye, two of the league's best players - Joel Selwood and Rory Sloane - will have the opportunity to get up to play? Aren't the finals better for having those two playing?

On this point, Paul Roos is arguing its a war of attrition so advantage GWS. Yes a war of attrition with Sloane and his appendicitis. Give me a break. The whole competition is way better off having Sloane and Selwood available to play.

[Topdog]

The week off before the finals is a great idea. Its the week off after winning week 1 that is problematic because now you have 2 weeks off in a 3 week period. That can never be a good thing and would never have sounded like a good idea to anyone that thought through the consequences of their decisions.

So what should be scrapped? The week off before finals that ensures all 8 teams are fresh? The week off after week 1? Or do you change the entire top 8 system and get rid of the 2nd chance? so

a. 1v8
b. 2v7
c. 3v6
d. 4v8

Week 2 =
AvC
BvD

Winner plays off in GF but then you lose 1 week of money spinning for the AFL.

YET AGAIN THE AFL MAKES A "RULE" CHANGE WITHOUT THINKING OF THE CONSEQUENCES!

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Agree with everything posted above. Can also draw from the NFL. The top 2 teams get the first week off, play 2 games and then have another week off before the Super Bowl. It's pretty much the same thing. I think it's a bit of sour grapes, petty argumentation with a splash of boredom and irrelevancy.

[Twodogs]

On this point, Paul Roos is arguing its a war of attrition so advantage GWS. Yes a war of attrition with Sloane and his appendicitis. Give me a break. The whole competition is way better off having Sloane and Selwood available to play.


Just on that, improvement to surgery aside that's a mighty effort to have them out and be up and playing AFL a couple of weeks later. When I had mine out I was on the couch for 3 weeks before I managed to walk up to Francis st (about 500 metres) and back from my parents' house. Took me 48 hours to recover properly. It was 30 years ago I guess.



Agree with everything posted above. Can also draw from the NFL. The top 2 teams get the first week off, play 2 games and then have another week off before the Super Bowl. It's pretty much the same thing. I think it's a bit of sour grapes, petty argumentation with a splash of boredom and irrelevancy.

And newspapers and website space to fill up.



Sample size of this is far too small to make any real judgement, though I'll add a few points in support.

* The week off didn't hurt GWS' performance against us in the 2016 prelim at all. It will go down as a classic

* Didn't seem to hurt the top team a great deal when we had a top 5

e.g 1985. Essendon finish 1st, have a week off, pants Hawthorn in the semi, another week off, pants Hawthorn in the GF. Up to the prelim, it's the same gap b/w games as the winner of the 2 QFs in the current setup

Clarkson et al are overreacting, and the implication that we won last year due to the integrity of the finals series being compromised irks me aplenty

Meh! In years to come that premiership will be looked back on with astonishment. "How did they do that?" Little kids that are yet to be born will look at us in awe and say "wow, you were there?" We've got war stories to tell around the campfire! "And then JJ kicked it 70, no 80 metres to the Bont who out sprinted the entire 18 GWS players on the ground and then baulked around the 4 interchange players on the bench just for good measure before he kicked the goal."

[bornadog]

On this point, Paul Roos is arguing its a war of attrition so advantage GWS. Yes a war of attrition with Sloane and his appendicitis. Give me a break. The whole competition is way better off having Sloane and Selwood available to play.

To be fair, Bevo thinks the same way, and so do many coaches.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

To be fair, Bevo thinks the same way, and so do many coaches.

Ultimately it always comes down to a war of attrition but if some players can get back after a week off i'm all for it.

[The Pie Man]

The week off before the finals is a great idea. Its the week off after winning week 1 that is problematic because now you have 2 weeks off in a 3 week period. That can never be a good thing and would never have sounded like a good idea to anyone that thought through the consequences of their decisions.

So what should be scrapped? The week off before finals that ensures all 8 teams are fresh? The week off after week 1? Or do you change the entire top 8 system and get rid of the 2nd chance? so

a. 1v8
b. 2v7
c. 3v6
d. 4v8

Week 2 =
AvC
BvD

Winner plays off in GF but then you lose 1 week of money spinning for the AFL.

YET AGAIN THE AFL MAKES A "RULE" CHANGE WITHOUT THINKING OF THE CONSEQUENCES!

1 game in 3 weeks didn't seem to hurt the top team in the 80's when we had a top 5.

The whining because Geelong just did not show up vs Sydney in last year's prelim is somewhere between boring and annoying...yet of course we want to knee jerk against it like we did with the slide rule.

Hope the AFL let's this play out for a few more years yet.

[westdog54]

Sample size of this is far too small to make any real judgement, though I'll add a few points in support.

* The week off didn't hurt GWS' performance against us in the 2016 prelim at all. It will go down as a classic

* Didn't seem to hurt the top team a great deal when we had a top 5

e.g 1985. Essendon finish 1st, have a week off, pants Hawthorn in the semi, another week off, pants Hawthorn in the GF. Up to the prelim, it's the same gap b/w games as the winner of the 2 QFs in the current setup

Clarkson et al are overreacting, and the implication that we won last year due to the integrity of the finals series being compromised irks me aplenty

GWS played out of their skins, as did we.

Geelong were lucky to survive their QF and were blown out of the water by a far superior team in their prelim.

The week off was not the cause of their issues.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

GWS played out of their skins, as did we.

Geelong were lucky to survive their QF and were blown out of the water by a far superior team in their prelim.

The week off was not the cause of their issues.

Fine. It was the umpiring then

[Topdog]

1 game in 3 weeks didn't seem to hurt the top team in the 80's when we had a top 5.

The whining because Geelong just did not show up vs Sydney in last year's prelim is somewhere between boring and annoying...yet of course we want to knee jerk against it like we did with the slide rule.

Hope the AFL let's this play out for a few more years yet.

It didnt seem to hurt the amateur teams playing against other amateur opposition, no. Professional teams it doesn't sound like a good idea and the complaining about it was around before both teams lost last year.

Anyway we all know the AFL love to jerk the knee so be prepared for another change

[Rocket Science]

Somewhat unrelated but interesting to learn Simon Garlick was one of those interviewed for the Head of Footy Operations role filled by Steve Hocking.

[Ozza]

GWS played out of their skins, as did we.

Geelong were lucky to survive their QF and were blown out of the water by a far superior team in their prelim.

The week off was not the cause of their issues.

Indeed.

I was at the Cats/Hawks qualifying final - and although the game was exciting and close, I didn't think the standard was that flash. Whereas, the next day watching GWS/Sydney - I thought that looked a 5 goal better game* (not sure how else to describe it!).

[Go_Dogs]

The speculation won't end until the prelim results - if both home teams lose perhaps the AFL will look to change it.

I like it because it gives sides another week to assemble a fit squad and perhaps get a player back - anything that helps get the best players on the big stage should be welcomed.

[soupman]

There are far bigger issues with the finals system than a week off that every team benefits from and assists them all to field their best sides.

Off the top of my head I can think of:
-Teams not getting to play at their home ground despite earning it, which includes Etihad stadium tenants, Geelong and Sydney forced to play at ANZ.
-Carrying on from that, the biggest game of the year being played at a ground that disadvantages all but maybe 4 sides. I get that it's the biggest ground and tradition and all that shit but it is farcical that the top side (Adelaide) will have to be the away side in the biggest game of the year at a ground they have played at maybe twice.
-Lastly the finals system is rather stupid really, for all the talk about top four being disadvantaged by the week off the bigger disadvantage is that 1st has barely any advantage over 4th (3rd has an advantage over 2nd this year), despite earning their spot after an entire season playing everybody proving they are the better side.

[Twodogs]

If you could only have one would you have an even season where each team plays each other twice or a fair finals system?

[boydogs]

The second bye is an AFLPA thing. The AFL don't have to put it right before the finals, but the war of attrition argument should be had with the AFLPA not the AFL

[soupman]

If you could only have one would you have an even season where each team plays each other twice or a fair finals system?

I love the finals, so I'd pick that. But you can't complain about the bye being unfair when the finals render much of the season useless and are already hugely unfair in terms of locations (and 7 day vs 8 day breaks).

[ledge]

I love the week off, gives teams time to get organised and no matter what people /media say it gave the greatest finals series ever in history in its first year .. The media go on about the top four don't benefit , of course they do the same as all teams. Selwood is a definite benefit as is Sloane.
The arguements against it are rubbish in my opinion , if your good enough you will win.
It's just sooky media making up another bullshit thing to talk about.
Funny how they raved on how great last year was when it happened now all
Of a sudden it's no good ?

[Twodogs]

I love the finals, so I'd pick that. But you can't complain about the bye being unfair when the finals render much of the season useless and are already hugely unfair in terms of locations (and 7 day vs 8 day breaks).

And no talk of teams resting players in the last round either.

[Topdog]

1st has barely any advantage over 4th (3rd has an advantage over 2nd this year), despite earning their spot after an entire season playing everybody proving they are the better side.

finishing first proves nothing to me, we dont play everyone an equal amount of times and until we do its an unequal system.

[bornadog]

finishing first proves nothing to me, we dont play everyone an equal amount of times and until we do its an unequal system.

Home final

[Topdog]

Home final

Yes I know the reward they get I was mainly responding to "proving they are the better side". They haven't as the fixture is compromised.

[bornadog]

Yes I know the reward they get I was mainly responding to "proving they are the better side". They haven't as the fixture is compromised.

It is worse than unequal, with venues also coming into it. When was the last time teams like Collingwood played in Geelong, Launceston etc.

Even if we wanted to keep the current 22 games, it should be constructed fairer. I have always advocated that each team should play each other twice over a 4 year period. Currently, there is the bullshit that Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond play each other twice, plus the Interstate teams play each other twice, eg Freo/WC, Port/Adelaide etc. That compromises all other teams.