Fixturing flaws/inequities - a credible solution

[Albert Parker]

We all worry about clubs getting a raw deal in the fixturing each year, with some clubs getting to play the Giants, Dees etc twice, having a large advantage in getting access to the finals. Think Crows 2 years ago with a soft draw seeing them reach top 4. Last year drop out of finals altogether with a less favourable draw.

Heard a great suggestion today.

- Retain the 22 round season which the broadcasters have paid for
- All games between clubs which play each other twice though are played for 2 points per game. Beat Giants twice in the season and only get 4 points, same as you get for playing any other team in the season. Split the games and split the points like a draw.

Therefore broadcaster is happy.
Each team plays all the other teams for a total of 4 points per club in a season
AFL can maintain blockbuster games and a second game between traditional rivals to protect revenues.
No need for 'Conferences' etc in order to improve equity.

Still leaves percentage inequities, but most times the finals are decided by points won anyhow and this ensures that every team has access to 4 points up for grabs against every other team.

I really think the AFL should adopt this approach.

Interested in the views of Nicksters.

[Precarious]

It is an interesting idea.

A danger might be that each of the double-up games, considered in isolation, might seem (and would in fact be) only half as important. Maybe this would impact on crowds/interest. I'm not sure.

On the other hand, it does seem a clever way to double up on the traditional rivalries and other strong-drawing games without undermining fairness.

On balance, personally I like the idea.

Perhaps the percentage inequities could be dealt with in a similar way to the win/loss inequities by halving the scores of the double-up games (for percentage purposes only). In terms of both win/loss and percentage, it would then be as if every team had played every other team once.

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

This was discussed by a caller to Kevin Bartlett this morning , though the idea has been brought up about 3 years ago.

The game , draw , teams , venues will never be all equal , and never have been.

22 games were not always played every season even when it was a Victorian only competition.

The best team inevitability wins the Premiership every year.

Otherwise even our own Premiership wins would be deemed to be invalid.

[John Wren]

in a few years' time who would be wanting to play gws twice in a year? even with favourable draws the teams still have to negotiate the finals and make it to the grand final.

[King Monkey]

Ridiculous.
So, one week you play for 4 points and the next week for 2 points??
Huh??


If one team has a slightly easier draw one season, how about - bad luck!!

You might get a strong team in a form slump and/or a weak team on a high, what are you gonna do then?? Ask the weaker team to stick to the form guide????
No point trying to micro-manage an uneven fixture to make it more "fair".
Swings & roundabouts - nobody wanted to play St Kilda 3 years ago, now we'd love to play 'em every bloody week!!

If sticking with a 22 game season, the only logical solution in my eyes is -
Play every team once, then each club plays their 5 biggest rivals, and/or 5 closest neighbours in return fixtures. The teams you only play once alternate home games from year to year.
This way you maintain traditional rivalries, maximise attendance & revenue, and mitigate the travel factor in the last 5 rounds.
No brainer for me.

[mattys123]

The easy solution is to piss off the NAB Challenge/Cup all together and have a few extra regular season games.

If we had a 24 or 26 round season the draw would be fairer simply because you'd play more sides twice.

[neil]

How about play each team once 17 games then 5 teams twice=22 games.
Next year play 17 then 5 of 12 teams
Next year 17 then 5 of 7
Year after 17 and the 2 not played and start again.

Just keep rotating
The AFL can select which teams play twice but will have to plan long term.

[mattys123]

Blcokbusters is the reason why that will never happen, even though it makes sense.

The AFL wants 2 showdowns, 2 derbies, 2 Q-clashes, 2 whatever the Sydney/GWS clash is called, 2 Pies/Bombers, 2 Blues/Bombers, 2 Hawks/Cats etc etc.

[AN_Inkling]

[Pies4shaw]

[regan is true fullback]

in 1995 the Showponies played well known palookas Fitzroy and Fremantle twice, and the eventual 2nd and third teams once, which certainly helped them build up an unbeaten run in the home and away, and eventually premiers.

The best solution to the draw is a simple one - team last GWS gets first "pick" of the five teams to double up, which would be Melbourne, Saints, Dogs, Suns and Weagles.

Similarly Hawthorn gets last pick which would be Freo, Moggies, Swans Port and Carlton.

The bottom 6 get similar double ups so if 6th worst, Weagles, wants a particular game twice, ie freo, it loses one of its palooka games for it and the palooka goes into the middle 6 or the upper 6.

similarly middle 6 Adelaide gives up one of its easier games to take on Port twice.

all the rest, if it means our mob missing out on Essendon and Carlton twice so be it, provided we get an easier draw - playing Hawthorn twice again when we finish 8th - go figure!

[Cuthbert Collingwood]

26 round season - play 9 twice and 8 once. The 8 you don't play twice you play the next year plus one blockbuster, which guarantees the interstate derbies. For big rivalries like Pies v Dons / Carlton you would play them 5 times every 3 years which is fine by me. You could also bring in a list management rule that meant that players could only play a maximum of 22 or 23 games to keep everyone fresh. Yes, I am a genius, shall I go on...

[Raw Hammer]

It should be a 17 round season. Play each other once. That is all.

[Cuthbert Collingwood]

that would make for a pretty dull year imho

[HAL]

Perhaps it would.