Tweet
I saw the other thread on a final 12 teams which is just ridiculous.
Lately though I have been thinking about Hayden and Gilchrist's comment that the tri-series is a tired format.
I tend to agree with them.
20/20 has had an impact, and so has the renewed interest in tests.
The World Cup is still important, but there format there is different to the tri-series.
Anyway, I have thought for a while that making the finals isn't any real achievement, especially for teams like the Swans who are run well.
My angle is that well run teams who have the proper medical support and are not in financial hardship etc are able to put all time and effort into winning games and as a whole unit should be able to finish in the TOP HALF of the competition.
So we get through a full 22 round season and are left with 4 weeks of finals to pick the best.
I am thinking that each opposition team is played once over 15 weeks.
After this the competition is split into two halves.
Top 8
Bottom 8
Let's take the Top 8 competition
Over the next 7 weeks the teams in the top 8 play each other once, creating a new ladder.
The two teams who end up on the top of the new ladder play in the Grand final.
Same with the Bottom 8 competition, they all play and end up with a "best of the rest" winner.
This finals system would also shorten the season by 2 weeks overall.
This is all just a dumb idea I pondered when thinking about the competition as a whole.
The point of the thread is to discuss whether the current system of finals is as relevant as it used to be.
The complaints I have are as follows.
1. finishing in the finals is not massive achievement, it is only finishing in the top half of the comp.
2. ideally teams would play each other once or twice in the H&A season eliminating the 'season draw'
3. 22 rounds is a long time to have to play to make the finals and I find myself not be as concerned as I should be with a loss, so long as the team is traveling well and appears likely to make the finals.
Lately though I have been thinking about Hayden and Gilchrist's comment that the tri-series is a tired format.
I tend to agree with them.
20/20 has had an impact, and so has the renewed interest in tests.
The World Cup is still important, but there format there is different to the tri-series.
Anyway, I have thought for a while that making the finals isn't any real achievement, especially for teams like the Swans who are run well.
My angle is that well run teams who have the proper medical support and are not in financial hardship etc are able to put all time and effort into winning games and as a whole unit should be able to finish in the TOP HALF of the competition.
So we get through a full 22 round season and are left with 4 weeks of finals to pick the best.
I am thinking that each opposition team is played once over 15 weeks.
After this the competition is split into two halves.
Top 8
Bottom 8
Let's take the Top 8 competition
Over the next 7 weeks the teams in the top 8 play each other once, creating a new ladder.
The two teams who end up on the top of the new ladder play in the Grand final.
Same with the Bottom 8 competition, they all play and end up with a "best of the rest" winner.
This finals system would also shorten the season by 2 weeks overall.
This is all just a dumb idea I pondered when thinking about the competition as a whole.
The point of the thread is to discuss whether the current system of finals is as relevant as it used to be.
The complaints I have are as follows.
1. finishing in the finals is not massive achievement, it is only finishing in the top half of the comp.
2. ideally teams would play each other once or twice in the H&A season eliminating the 'season draw'
3. 22 rounds is a long time to have to play to make the finals and I find myself not be as concerned as I should be with a loss, so long as the team is traveling well and appears likely to make the finals.
...Doh oh well their both nuff nuffs any way,but with this idea i think Mark takes the cake.
Comment