| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Not a fan of the bye because it was born out of an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction from the AFL. Ironically, no match was a dead rubber for the top 8 sides in the final round because all of them needed to win to have any chance of making the top four.
I felt it disadvantaged the top four sides who won the Qualifying Final with only playing one match in four weeks. The Dogs are the biggest benefactors of this but it doesn't detract from how well they've performed in the finals overall.
I hope the bye doesn't return next year, but Gil and the AFL seemed to indicate that it would return next year despite vocal opposition from all eighteen club coaches and various other personnel.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
 |
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Reading the tea leaves we will have the bye again.
Brownlow will be the Sunday night. - ultra prime time.
The womens footy was such a winner, it will be the Saturday night again.
Friday was the Whitten match which rated very well but I can't see it lasting that weekend.
Soon enough there will be a play off for the final 1 or 2 spots on the ladder.
7 v 10 and 8 v 9.
8 v 9 would fit in perfectly on the Friday night.
But that will bring back the resting of players eventually, albeit much less likely year to year.
Another concept which I propose is a state of origin series for the women which could run that weekend with a final the weekend of the semis.
But the ratings success and quality of the one-off women's match was so good that it needs another run at least. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It depends on what you think is more important:
1. teams performing well in finals
2. advantaging teams that performed well in the home and away season
I lean towards (1). The break gives all teams a chance to perform closer to their best. It doesn't hamper the top teams, it just takes away some of their advantage.
When we have a season like this year where there wasn't much between the top 7 teams, you see that a few spots on the ladder doesn't mean much. Giving a huge advantage to the top 4 teams over what might be a few percentage points is not what I call fair. And it is a huge advantage which is only getting huger as the game is more physically punishing than ever.
To me, the finals are the true reflection of which teams are best. Does it matter that team X won all of their early games at this point, where team Y lost a few because maybe they were missing some players? Not really. Give all teams in the eight the chance to perform near their best, then we get a real winner not just the least exhausted.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Rush Stand Wing
Joined: 13 Sep 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The media hyped it up with 'one game in 27 days' when it was actually 2 games in 28 days. More debate means more clickbait.
Giving all finalists the chance to freshen up is a good idea from a player welfare standpoint. I like the way it turned out. We get to see the best players as unencumbered as possible and makes for a fairer system. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | It depends on what you think is more important:
1. teams performing well in finals
2. advantaging teams that performed well in the home and away season
I lean towards (1). The break gives all teams a chance to perform closer to their best. It doesn't hamper the top teams, it just takes away some of their advantage.
When we have a season like this year where there wasn't much between the top 7 teams, you see that a few spots on the ladder doesn't mean much. Giving a huge advantage to the top 4 teams over what might be a few percentage points is not what I call fair. And it is a huge advantage which is only getting huger as the game is more physically punishing than ever.
To me, the finals are the true reflection of which teams are best. Does it matter that team X won all of their early games at this point, where team Y lost a few because maybe they were missing some players? Not really. Give all teams in the eight the chance to perform near their best, then we get a real winner not just the least exhausted. |
I agree Inky.
This year more than a little unusual as well insomuch as there was only 2 games separating 1st and 7th on the ladder and there wasn't a lot between them.
I'm happy to give the bye another crack in 2017. |
|
|
|
|
sixpoints
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Location: Lulie Street
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | Not a fan of the bye because it was born out of an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction from the AFL. Ironically, no match was a dead rubber for the top 8 sides in the final round because all of them needed to win to have any chance of making the top four.
I felt it disadvantaged the top four sides who won the Qualifying Final with only playing one match in four weeks. The Dogs are the biggest benefactors of this but it doesn't detract from how well they've performed in the finals overall.
I hope the bye doesn't return next year, but Gil and the AFL seemed to indicate that it would return next year despite vocal opposition from all eighteen club coaches and various other personnel. |
That's not correct. In the last round over Fri/Sat - Sydney, Geelong, GWS & West Coast had all won. The final Sunday games only left whether Hawthorn or Adelaide would get the double chance. As we all know Haw beat us by a point. The Bulldogs could not make the top four (due to their percentage), regardless of winning over in Perth. So they lost to Freo in a dead rubber.
The Bulldogs finished with 15 wins (even with the loss in the dead last game). That makes them the best 7th finishing side ever. They were only 2 wins off top placed Sydney.
So there's something I don't buy into. That's the notion that the Bulldogs are some battling underdogs. I don't believe it as no stat backs it up. They finished just two wins off top. I dispute the initial bye as a factor also, as after only one go at it, no one can be sure. Geelong are the biggest complainers, but they lost to Sydney who had already thrashed them previously down in Geelong. No double bye got Geelong. Sydney are too good for Geelong.
A bigger factor for this year is the fact that we have never seen a side this good ever finish as low as 7th. |
|
|
|
|
loki04 
Tiger Treloar lmfao NOPE.
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Location: Broken Hill
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| yin-YANG wrote: | | eddiesmith wrote: | | Dumb idea, hope they get rid of it, the season drags on long enough as it is |
Totally disagree - I could handle another month of footy easily! the off season is what drags on! |
Agree.
It's interesting that both teams who copped the double bye came out sluggish.
_________________
Up the Mighty Mags 2016. |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Love how Gil is talking of tradition with the Brownlow. It WAS on the monday after the home and away. I wouldn't mind it being the Saturday or Sunday night of the bye round so that the beaten brigade (less VFL commitments) can do their reviews and the players can go on holidays earlier. Arguments of giving rewards to top finishing teams masks the fact that it is laready an uneven Season because we don't play all teams twice. Ditch the mid season round and play 8 games in rounds 8-16 with the 2 rested sides playing each other the week after.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
uncanny
Joined: 04 Mar 2014
Location: Castlemaine
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The end of season bye is happening again in 2017.
_________________
woodsmen rule |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| uncanny wrote: | | The end of season bye is happening again in 2017. |
Despite the coaches not wanting it, they're keeping it. Typical AFL! 
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sixpoints wrote: | | Jezza wrote: | Not a fan of the bye because it was born out of an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction from the AFL. Ironically, no match was a dead rubber for the top 8 sides in the final round because all of them needed to win to have any chance of making the top four.
I felt it disadvantaged the top four sides who won the Qualifying Final with only playing one match in four weeks. The Dogs are the biggest benefactors of this but it doesn't detract from how well they've performed in the finals overall.
I hope the bye doesn't return next year, but Gil and the AFL seemed to indicate that it would return next year despite vocal opposition from all eighteen club coaches and various other personnel. |
That's not correct. In the last round over Fri/Sat - Sydney, Geelong, GWS & West Coast had all won. The final Sunday games only left whether Hawthorn or Adelaide would get the double chance. As we all know Haw beat us by a point. The Bulldogs could not make the top four (due to their percentage), regardless of winning over in Perth. So they lost to Freo in a dead rubber.
The Bulldogs finished with 15 wins (even with the loss in the dead last game). That makes them the best 7th finishing side ever. They were only 2 wins off top placed Sydney.
So there's something I don't buy into. That's the notion that the Bulldogs are some battling underdogs. I don't believe it as no stat backs it up. They finished just two wins off top. I dispute the initial bye as a factor also, as after only one go at it, no one can be sure. Geelong are the biggest complainers, but they lost to Sydney who had already thrashed them previously down in Geelong. No double bye got Geelong. Sydney are too good for Geelong.
A bigger factor for this year is the fact that we have never seen a side this good ever finish as low as 7th. |
All good points and it was very even from 1st to 7th, but nonetheless the Bulldogs also benefited from having the extra week because various players such as Liberatore, Wood and Macrae were able to have the extra week off to get ready for their elimination final encounter against the Eagles.
It's likely if a bye of this nature didn't exist this year, then all three players concerned would not have played and it would severely hurt the Bulldogs chances of advancing further in the finals.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^And that's a good thing for mine. The top 4 have been steamrolling tired bottom 4 teams in the finals for too long. Needs to be more competitive.
Given the unprecedented evenness of this year's 8 though, it's very hard to say what role the bye had in both teams with a week off losing.
_________________
Well done boys!
Last edited by AN_Inkling on Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
ANNODAM 
Rebel Heart Tour - The Forum, Los Angeles 27/10/2015.
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Location: Eltham, VIC.
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We may as well have Wild Card entries...
Rigged AFL.
_________________
WE WERE ROBBED, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, RIGHT IN FRONT OF MEEE!
N.Y METS, N.Y GIANTS, PENRITH PANTHERS & HOBART HURRICANES FAN.
WE ALL LOOK GOOD AT TRAINING, IT'S THE MATCHES THAT COUNT! |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Dogs were awesome this September but you wonder how they would have gone with back to back Perth trips inside 7 days without a bye.
If it stays it gives all teams a chance if you bring your A game in September.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
GreekLunatic
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: doncaster vic australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| a lot of teams wont want to finish top 4 now I think gil has stuffed up this one |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
