AFL Thread

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Question @ the experts again:
How is the schedule (home/away season) made? Since every team plays "only" 22 games, they can´t play each team home and away...

I guess each team plays against each other at least once = 17 games. So how are the 5 remaining distriputed?
Are the Swans for example playing teams from the last season final ladder 2-3-4-5-6 twice, while wooden spooners play 17-16-15-14-13 twice?

Thanks in advance.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

More about the comeback:
It wasn´t a twice-in-a-century comeback... heck no, it is the biggest ever. No team ever erased a deficit being down that high that late in a game. Leftover, is that the low point of your WB suffering years?

 

[gregrowlerson]

Yes, this season has been crazy thus far. The two time defending champions Hawthorn seem to me to still be playing good footy, yet they're 3-3. Yep, go figure.

I would say that the best four sides in the comp are Hawthorn, Port Adelaide, Fremantle & Sydney. But every week there are crazy upsets, and games with mad momentum swings.

As for the way that the draw is constructed, 10-20 years ago it used to be pretty random from memory. And there were less teams, so you played about half of them once and half of them twice. In more recent times the draw has become a lot more 'rigged'. For example Essendon. Collingwood & Carlton will always play each other twice due to their pulling power (drawing of big crowds), as will same state sides (local rivals) such as Port Adelaide & Adelaide, and West Coast & Fremantle. To be honest the way of the draw does lend itself to a little less credibility to the competition, but the AFL would naturally rather have 2 x Collingwood vs. Essendon matches each with 80,000 people, rather than 2 x North Melbourne vs. Western Bulldogs matches each with 25,000 people. Foxxxy Brown, I think that what you said about 1, playing 2-6 twice is correct; you play those teams twice that finished close to you on the ladder the previous season. But only to a certain degree, as the forced fixtures compromise that also.

The best scenario would be to have all teams play each other home and away, but a thirty-four match season isn't feasible. Teams cannot play more than once a week, unless you were to shorten the games significantly, and that would take too many traditions away. Fans wouldn't accept a 'one hour' game.

With the competition forever expanding, the next step will be to have every team play each other once. I imagine that the AFL can look at doing that when the competition increases to at least twenty teams (currently eighteen).

Speaking of AFL, we have a finals system of eight teams. I'd prefer it to be less, even having the old final five system which worked well, as I think that finals should be a reflection of a team having a great season. Currently a team can play finals having won only about half their games. I know that the American sports have a BIG playoff/finals series too, and I like NBA (sixteen team post season), but sometimes less is more.

 

[darwin553]

Go the Cats!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re:

Yes, this season has been crazy thus far. The two time defending champions Hawthorn seem to me to still be playing good footy, yet they're 3-3. Yep, go figure.

I would say that the best four sides in the comp are Hawthorn, Port Adelaide, Fremantle & Sydney. But every week there are crazy upsets, and games with mad momentum swings.

Yes. And as I said earlier, couldn´t be a better time for my first full season. It´s great so far. And it looks attendance is heading for a new record.

In more recent times the draw has become a lot more 'rigged'. For example Essendon. Collingwood & Carlton will always play each other twice due to their pulling power (drawing of big crowds), as will same state sides (local rivals) such as Port Adelaide & Adelaide, and West Coast & Fremantle. To be honest the way of the draw does lend itself to a little less credibility to the competition, but the AFL would naturally rather have 2 x Collingwood vs. Essendon matches each with 80,000 people, rather than 2 x North Melbourne vs. Western Bulldogs matches each with 25,000 people.

Understandable from a business standpoint. Thanks for the infos.

Foxxxy Brown, I think that what you said about 1, playing 2-6 twice is correct; you play those teams twice that finished close to you on the ladder the previous season. But only to a certain degree, as the forced fixtures compromise that also.

OK, so I was somehow guessing right.

The best scenario would be to have all teams play each other home and away, but a thirty-four match season isn't feasible. Teams cannot play more than once a week, unless you were to shorten the games significantly, and that would take too many traditions away. Fans wouldn't accept a 'one hour' game.

I think 22 is enough. Maybe even a little to much? Wonder how players make it trou a season still standing. 34 games is only possible for pretenders like soccer players.

With the competition forever expanding, the next step will be to have every team play each other once. I imagine that the AFL can look at doing that when the competition increases to at least twenty teams (currently eighteen).

20 teams would be cool I think. I think a team in Tasmania is over-due?

Speaking of AFL, we have a finals system of eight teams. I'd prefer it to be less, even having the old final five system which worked well, as I think that finals should be a reflection of a team having a great season. Currently a team can play finals having won only about half their games. I know that the American sports have a BIG playoff/finals series too, and I like NBA (sixteen team post season), but sometimes less is more.

Me I think 8 is good since the AFL has 18 teams now. Imagine 5 teams only, then at least 5 teams have nothing to play for from lets say week 10 on.
And since the finals format heavily favours the top four of the ladder, I think 8 play-off teams is no problem at all. AFIK, only one team from spot 5 won the GF. None of the spots 6-8 ever won. Maybe the WB will do it this year, going from spot 7 all the way. Leftover & long suffering Bulldogs fans deserve it..

 

[leftover pie]

Re:

Leftover, is that the low point of your WB suffering years?

Foxxy the lowpoint is and will always be* the 1997 preliminary final, bulldogs up by 31 points at halftime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqCEQNPaJFI

Losing to St Kilda in the preliminary final in 2009 comes close.

Oh and the draw against the Eagles at Subi oval, would have been a bulldogs win were it not for an errant kick by Bob Murphy, that was harsh.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Oh oh Another major meltdown... still up by 23 with only 11 net mins left. And then the No 34 misses wide open with under 3 net mins left. And one week later the Crows win the GF. Hard!

 

[leftover pie]

Re:

Oh oh Another major meltdown... still up by 23 with only 11 net mins left. And then the No 34 misses wide open with under 3 net mins left. And one week later the Crows win the GF. Hard!

bulldogs supporter..

wouldn't have it any other way though!

through thick and thin, will make that eventual grand final win or even appearance all that much sweeter.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You booked the GF ticket anyway already , and WB will be the first 6-8 spot GF winner. So a 55-point meltdown does no harm at all. Just a bump in the road...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Intense bloody 4th Qtr. Great game. Could have gone either way. Too bad the ref helped NM win, especially with that late push in the back call.

Good to see Goodes is starting in place for Heeney tomorrow. Some weeks ago I thought they dumped him for good. Hope he´ll have a good game to give the coaches some headaches if they wanna dump him again.
Swans are 74% favourite, so it looks for a relaxing game for me.
WB is 26% underdog agsainst Freo on Sunday. All the best leftover, but I´ll root for Freo and Whiskey.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re: Re:

With the competition forever expanding, the next step will be to have every team play each other once. I imagine that the AFL can look at doing that when the competition increases to at least twenty teams (currently eighteen).

20 teams would be cool I think. I think a team in Tasmania is over-due?

Speaking of AFL, we have a finals system of eight teams. I'd prefer it to be less, even having the old final five system which worked well, as I think that finals should be a reflection of a team having a great season. Currently a team can play finals having won only about half their games. I know that the American sports have a BIG playoff/finals series too, and I like NBA (sixteen team post season), but sometimes less is more.

Me I think 8 is good since the AFL has 18 teams now. Imagine 5 teams only, then at least 5 teams have nothing to play for from lets say week 10 on.
And since the finals format heavily favours the top four of the ladder, I think 8 play-off teams is no problem at all. AFIK, only one team from spot 5 won the GF. None of the spots 6-8 ever won. Maybe the WB will do it this year, going from spot 7 all the way. Leftover & long suffering Bulldogs fans deserve it..[/quote]

Tasmania should have a team; the only problem is that it's all about sponsorship dollars, and Tasmania simply doesn't have enough big business to support and AFL team. Then again, I don't see why the AFL can't give such a club some extra handouts, it's a big competition, and like the NBA has a salary cap.

Which soccer doesn't. And I strongly dislike that about soccer.

There is the Northern Territory too which is very much into AFL, but similar to Tasmania, the issue is $. Oh, and opposition teams probably wouldn't be too keen on playing in high humidity in Darwin

But I would choose Darwin and Hobart or Launceston for two new teams. There won't be any more in Victoria. Two more teams in Western Australia? There's enough mining capital to fund that

As far as the final eight system goes, I probably preferred it when 1 played 8 in week one rather than playing 4; more reward for finishing top. But even with the current format, it would be improved in teams kept their seedings. So say team 1 wins four more games during the home and away season than team 4, but then loses in the first week (this happened to Port Adelaide in consecutive years, 2002/2003). Not only do they have to play in week 2 whilst their conquerer gets the weeks break, but they also have to travel in they win their semi final and go into the preliminary final. My opinion is that it would be fairer if team 1 were guaranteed a home final (except for the grand final which is always played at the M.C.G) in all matches. Even if team 2 beats team 3, and then has to travel away to face team 1 in the prelim, that's just too bad. And it would be an interesting comparison of the week's rest vs. home ground advantage.

And as for the Bulldogs, it's been a rough ride. That '97 preliminary final was the one that got away. Should never have lost that to the Crows.

Jarman

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Tasmania should have a team; the only problem is that it's all about sponsorship dollars, and Tasmania simply doesn't have enough big business to support and AFL team. Then again, I don't see why the AFL can't give such a club some extra handouts, it's a big competition, and like the NBA has a salary cap.

There are no local rich men? Even in the worst areas of the world are some Tinkov-like "lords" owning this and that around the corner. So I guess if the will is there, AFL could go first to Tasmania.

Which soccer doesn't. And I strongly dislike that about soccer.

Yes, same thinking here. That´s why there are the same winners again and again. It´s soooo boring.

There is the Northern Territory too which is very much into AFL, but similar to Tasmania, the issue is $. Oh, and opposition teams probably wouldn't be too keen on playing in high humidity in Darwin

... and I would be far far away, right?

As far as the final eight system goes, I probably preferred it when 1 played 8 in week one rather than playing 4; more reward for finishing top. But even with the current format, it would be improved in teams kept their seedings. So say team 1 wins four more games during the home and away season than team 4, but then loses in the first week (this happened to Port Adelaide in consecutive years, 2002/2003). Not only do they have to play in week 2 whilst their conquerer gets the weeks break, but they also have to travel in they win their semi final and go into the preliminary final. My opinion is that it would be fairer if team 1 were guaranteed a home final (except for the grand final which is always played at the M.C.G) in all matches. Even if team 2 beats team 3, and then has to travel away to face team 1 in the prelim, that's just too bad. And it would be an interesting comparison of the week's rest vs. home ground advantage.

TBH, I am not yet fully understanding the Australia playoff system. But from a (even though short) historical view, it seems to be fair in my opinion, since no team lower than seed five won the GF. In comparison just look at the National Luck League (IOW: NHL). It seems every year a 6th-8th seed team makes the finals (sometimes with negative point differential ). Why they still have a regular season (home/away season) is beyond me. And it´s further beyond me that people still pay hard earned dollars to attend that games, yet they shall understand those games are meaningless...

In weekend news: Parker, Franklin ofc, McVeigh, and even Goodes were impressive. If the Swans wouldn´t always slow start, their Pct would be up there with that of the Hawks, Eagles. and Dockers. So Iam optimistic for them going deep in the finals.
This week Hawks vs Swans. Hope I don´t miss that. Need to set my alert on the watch.

@leftover... in the end I rooted for WB. Great how the closed the gap vs Freo in the 4th Qtr. I like them more and more...

How about the GWS Giants? And BL clobbers PA? Seems they got their act together with two upsets wins in a row...

 

[leftover pie]

Re: Re:

@leftover... in the end I rooted for WB. Great how the closed the gap vs Freo in the 4th Qtr. I like them more and more...

I said to a fellow supporter last week "I bet we let them get a 6 goal start and then chip away, chip away, get close and then eventually lose by 2 goals", I shoulda put money on it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Jinxed... now I fully understand your avatar.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Hawthorn lost another game they should have won. Only at .500. Incredible.

 

[One Eyed Aussie]

Re:

Hawthorn lost another game they should have won. Only at .500. Incredible.

It was a very good game though and Sydney are a good team. Goodes had a good game, Rioli almost stole it for the Hawks but Mcveigh was ice cool at the end to seal the Sydney win.
I still think the Hawks will finish in the top 4. West coast and the SA teams will drop off.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Tasmania should have a team; the only problem is that it's all about sponsorship dollars, and Tasmania simply doesn't have enough big business to support and AFL team. Then again, I don't see why the AFL can't give such a club some extra handouts, it's a big competition, and like the NBA has a salary cap.

There are no local rich men? Even in the worst areas of the world are some Tinkov-like "lords" owning this and that around the corner. So I guess if the will is there, AFL could go first to Tasmania.

Which soccer doesn't. And I strongly dislike that about soccer.

Yes, same thinking here. That´s why there are the same winners again and again. It´s soooo boring.

There is the Northern Territory too which is very much into AFL, but similar to Tasmania, the issue is $. Oh, and opposition teams probably wouldn't be too keen on playing in high humidity in Darwin

... and I would be far far away, right?

As far as the final eight system goes, I probably preferred it when 1 played 8 in week one rather than playing 4; more reward for finishing top. But even with the current format, it would be improved in teams kept their seedings. So say team 1 wins four more games during the home and away season than team 4, but then loses in the first week (this happened to Port Adelaide in consecutive years, 2002/2003). Not only do they have to play in week 2 whilst their conquerer gets the weeks break, but they also have to travel in they win their semi final and go into the preliminary final. My opinion is that it would be fairer if team 1 were guaranteed a home final (except for the grand final which is always played at the M.C.G) in all matches. Even if team 2 beats team 3, and then has to travel away to face team 1 in the prelim, that's just too bad. And it would be an interesting comparison of the week's rest vs. home ground advantage.

TBH, I am not yet fully understanding the Australia playoff system. But from a (even though short) historical view, it seems to be fair in my opinion, since no team lower than seed five won the GF. In comparison just look at the National Luck League (IOW: NHL). It seems every year a 6th-8th seed team makes the finals (sometimes with negative point differential ). Why they still have a regular season (home/away season) is beyond me. And it´s further beyond me that people still pay hard earned dollars to attend that games, yet they shall understand those games are meaningless...

In weekend news: Parker, Franklin ofc, McVeigh, and even Goodes were impressive. If the Swans wouldn´t always slow start, their Pct would be up there with that of the Hawks, Eagles. and Dockers. So Iam optimistic for them going deep in the finals.
This week Hawks vs Swans. Hope I don´t miss that. Need to set my alert on the watch.

@leftover... in the end I rooted for WB. Great how the closed the gap vs Freo in the 4th Qtr. I like them more and more...

How about the GWS Giants? And BL clobbers PA? Seems they got their act together with two upsets wins in a row...

the reason Tasmania does not have a team is because Hawthorn and North Melbourne rent-seek and play some games there for a few million a year, and channel 7 and Foxtel still broadcast to the consumers in tassie and sell media and advertising.

effectively, they still commodify the 600 thousand consumers in Tassie or how many live there, but they dont have to run a team at a loss down there and suffer the expenses.

I also think they "deserve" a team, whatever the damn defintion of deserve is I am using. (I aint even sure)

If Greenbay Pakers in Wisconsin or close to Milwaukee or wherever the GBP are, then Launceston and Hobart should be able to share a Tasmanian team.

For all the element of sport being the driving force, and life force, of the Australian culcha, then they are pretty incompetent about this.

Canberra looked like an option about 15 years back too.

I think it will be about 40 years before a Canberra team and a Tasmanian team.

next team will be one more WA team, that is likely about a decade out, since the mining revenues have come off. It might not even get up in the next decade, it could be a few decades.

Then a Townsville team. Heat issues pending.

 

[leftover pie]

after an insipid effort against the demons, the bulldogs premiership campaign is well and truly on the ropes. . . .


might be asking for a refund for my flights

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So Freo lost its first game. It had to happen. The 1st Qtr by Rich did it to them. I liked how "Whiskey" played, and then it´s a game they lose.
I had the feeling last night this might be the one they give in, and this time I could resist to look at the scoreboard before watching. Makes it so much more enjoyable.
Btw, the Haw-Syd game a couple of weeks ago, I lurked at the scoreboard first (like I did to many other thrillers before). So that day I told myself don´t do it again. Just don´t. Don´t. Hope I stay strong; either wake up in the night & watch half sleepy, or resist to go to afl.com.au... It´s sooo hard.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Saw my first ever on-the-ground-banana-goal... Guess who? Yep Franklin. Goodes still with some goodies, otherwise the Swans game was over after 1 Qtr.
And leftovers WB Bulldogs falling apart now? At least they kept it close for three qtrs.

 

[leftover pie]

Re:

And leftovers WB Bulldogs falling apart now? At least they kept it close for three qtrs.

The bulldogs fell apart a few weeks ago against st Kilda and have been hanging on for grim life ever since.

And despite their bad start to the year, people shouldn't underestimate port Adelaide, they "should" be easily dispatching teams like the bulldogs, interesting to see how their year pans out for them.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So you cancelled your flight already?
I think WB can still make the finals... and then turn a 2007-NYG-like playoffs.
BTW, what happened to Brad Scott? I didn´t see him in the coaching booth today. Great win for NM anyway. I thought they´d lose going against the wind & a strong WC squad in the 4th Qtr. So I am surprised they prevailed in the end... Love that small Blundstone Arena with the houses seeable in the hills. From a business standpoint bad, but a beautiful view... Hope Tasmania gets a team soon, so I can see more games played there.

Next week start the bye-weeks. I hate them in the NFL, and will certainly in the AFL.

 

[leftover pie]

And freo!

Disappointed of course, but hopefully it will be a valuable lesson in taking wins and form for granted.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The Freo game, they actually made a good comeback. Showed courage. Was just kidding with falling apart. They are strong enough (in my POV) to finish 8th or 7th.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Great intense close game. Should go down the wire. Surprised the Cats go step with step with Port. Rooting for the underdogs (Geelong)...