Tweet
The following was partly inspired by Annew's thread of 20 June but something I'd also been pondering for a while. Not sure if it shold be a thread or an article. It's kind of too long to be a thread and not quite sexy enough to be an article. Anyway I'll leave it up to umpire Scott H to make that call.
Season 2013 - With a View to a Draw with Parity
At time of writing it's looking likely that the mighty Bloods will miss the finals this year for the first time since 2002. I'm not convinced that our performances have been markedly worse than last year when we did make the finals. Ordinarily a 5-7 win-loss ratio would equate to a sense of concern as opposed to one of resignation. Logic suggests that we would need to win 7 of our final 10 games to make the finals this year and it's very difficult to see where those 7 wins will come from; particularly as we would need to beat one of Adelaide, St Kilda, Geelong or Collingwood at a bare minimum and not let any of the other 6 games slip.
There are of course a few factors that could explain why we are currently languishing in 11th position. Every dog and their owner would like to trot out the ageing list chestnut. This may be true to some extent, however the elder statesmen have in the main performed admirably. Poor and / or inconsistent form from a number of regulars, injuries to a swathe of youngsters, interrupted or missed pre-seasons for some players, the retirements of Fosdike and Kennelly, have all coincided with a very tough draw.
I had a theory last year that we were fortunate to have made the finals, and quite lucky to have hosted a final. Our form against other sides that made the eight was less than impressive as was comprehensively demonstrated with our disintegration at the hands of the Bulldogs. Still, it was a theory that I was interested in testing. I was also keen to determine how the 2008 draw compared with this year's draw. I decided to create a semi-scientific formula that looked at both perceptions of draw toughness and the reality. There may be a better way of arriving at such conclusions but my limitations in mathematics will have to suffice for now.
The assumption at the begining of each season is that teams that made the eight the previous year will again be competitive and teams outside of the eight will need to show dramatic improvement to contest in the finals. Therefore if you are drawn to play a swag of the previous year's finalists, invariably you would percieve that to be a tough draw. However the likelihood of all teams finishing in similar positions in consecutive years is very remote. To determine the strength of the draw for 2008 on a prima facie level I noted where each team finished at the end of 2007. I then numbered each side in reverse order, i.e. Geelong as premiers were assigned 16 points, Port as runner-up 15 etc and 07 wooden spooners Richmond 1 point. These points were accumulated across the 22 rounds for each occasion that they met the Swans. Of course some sides such as Geelong, Port and Brisbane we were required to play twice whereas others such as North, Richmond and Adelaide we played once. The total for 2008 comes to 186 and features games against 11 of the previous year's finalists from a possible 14 (as Sydney also qualified for the finals in 07).
186 is the aggregate score before the commencement of the 2008 season however the accuracy of this total shifts as the season progresses. Teams such as West Coast, Northand Port fell away during 2008, while Hawthorn and Richmond improved. With this information I re-tallied the scores at the end of the 2008 season. The figure was 190 which means that the overall toughness of the draw was actually slightly greater than perceived at the start of the season however we only played 9 games against teams that ultimately made the finals in 2008 (from a possible 14 not including finals themselves) as opposed to 11.
So, on to the current season. At the commencement of the season (before round one had commenced) and using the same formula, the difficulty of the draw was calculated at an aggregate score of 200; significantly greater than the perceived and actual 2008 scores. We were down for 11 fixtures against 2008 finalists including 3 of the top 4 sides twice. A further aggregate score was calculated at the end of round 11, 2009 (the halfway point of the season). The score had risen to 208, meaning that the actual strength of the draw is much greater than perceptions at the start of the season and considerably greater than last year's draw, due in part to the rise of Brisbane, Carlton and St Kilda (all three sides we play twice). A recent article suggested that the final eight has all but settled by this stage of the season, and there is usually no more than one side that is replaced in the eight between round 11 and round 22. Assuming this is correct and that there is little or no movement in ladder composition by round 22, this will translate in Sydney having to play 14 games against likely finalists from a possible 16. Very, very tough.
Although I haven't tested this against the fixtures assigned to competing clubs it's not unrealistic to surmise that there must be other clubs with comparitively easier draws, a factor which could be the difference between finishing 7th or 8th as opposed to 9th or 10th. It's always going to be difficult to arrive at draw parity when there are 16 clubs playing across 22 rounds. Clubs will have to play some clubs twice and some once. Teams playing West Coast and Melbourne twice this year should inadvertantly benefit from this in season 2009. We are not one of those clubs.
Assuming that the AFL's grand vision of introducing two new clubs early next decade comes to fruition, I'd suggest that this would be the ideal time to revisit the parity of the draw, something that hasn't occurred since the late sixties / early seventies. The proposal that I am making would constitute a reduction of overall games from 176 to 153 home and away games (which no doubt wouldn't be embraced by the AFL) but with the dilution of talent that will come with the introduction of two new teams it could also reduce the number of injuries and prolong careers. Hopefully more teams will be capable of fielding stronger sides due to shorter injury lists and games will be more competitive as a result. If the pace of footy increases incrementally each year, what does that mean come 2013? Maybe player welfare needs to be more carefully considered without needing to explore the free agency avenue.
What I would propose for season 2013 is a reduced home and away season of 17 rounds (9 matches per round) where each side would play each other once only. Home ground advantage would alternate in successive seasons. This arrangement would shorten the current season by 5 weeks* but there are ways to accommodate this without the season losing continuity. The season would still commence at the start of April and GF day would still fall on the last Saturday in September. Notable changes to fixturing would occur as follows:
The pre-season competition would still occur with the GF being a Sunday twilight game played on the last Sunday in March.
Round 1 would commence on the second Thursday night in April (10 days after the pre-season GF) with a replay of the 2012 day GF. Often this would coincide with the Easter holiday (i.e. Easter Thursday) but the season opener would still be played on the Thursday irrespective of when Easter falls and feature the GF sides of the preceding year.
Round 4 would be a split round across the first two weekends in May.
There would be a bye round falling in mid-June between Round 8 and Round 9. This bye round would feature an Indigenous all-star game as an annual attraction. It would face a new opponent each year on a rotational basis possibly played at different locations year to year.
A second split round (Round 13) would occur across the last two weekends in July. This would be followed by the final 4 rounds where teams still in the mix can focus on the run home to the finals.
The first week of the finals would commence in the last weekend of August, with the second week of the finals occurring the following weekend.
The Preliminary Finals would be played in mid-September with a two week break until the Grand Final. This is how it operates in the NFL prior to the Superbowl. There is an even bigger build-up before the main event and the two competing teams have a better opportunity to get their best team on the park. Players with niggling injuries racing against the clock then have more time to recover. Ideally the standard of the game will be higher and evenly contested more often.
The bye weekend that now falls between the Preliminary Final weekend and the GF weekend would feature two State of Origin games as a precursor with players selected from the 16 teams that have been eliminated. State of Origin fixtures would alternate each season and feature sides from Vic, WA, SA and a composite (Allies) team.
The International Rules Series would continue post-GF.
I realise it's difficult to implement a new system that is totally logical without upsetting the traditionalists but I think it could go a long way to introducing an increased sense of fairness. With every system there are faults, though this could keep playing lists relatively fresh and competitive. Anyway I'll throw it out there for discussion.
* At the most the season would be reduced by 5 weeks. Some seasons would be reduced by 4 weeks. It would depend on the number of weekends that fall between the start of April and the end of September. Some years feature two months during the winter period with 5 weekends other years will just have the one.
Season 2013 - With a View to a Draw with Parity
At time of writing it's looking likely that the mighty Bloods will miss the finals this year for the first time since 2002. I'm not convinced that our performances have been markedly worse than last year when we did make the finals. Ordinarily a 5-7 win-loss ratio would equate to a sense of concern as opposed to one of resignation. Logic suggests that we would need to win 7 of our final 10 games to make the finals this year and it's very difficult to see where those 7 wins will come from; particularly as we would need to beat one of Adelaide, St Kilda, Geelong or Collingwood at a bare minimum and not let any of the other 6 games slip.
There are of course a few factors that could explain why we are currently languishing in 11th position. Every dog and their owner would like to trot out the ageing list chestnut. This may be true to some extent, however the elder statesmen have in the main performed admirably. Poor and / or inconsistent form from a number of regulars, injuries to a swathe of youngsters, interrupted or missed pre-seasons for some players, the retirements of Fosdike and Kennelly, have all coincided with a very tough draw.
I had a theory last year that we were fortunate to have made the finals, and quite lucky to have hosted a final. Our form against other sides that made the eight was less than impressive as was comprehensively demonstrated with our disintegration at the hands of the Bulldogs. Still, it was a theory that I was interested in testing. I was also keen to determine how the 2008 draw compared with this year's draw. I decided to create a semi-scientific formula that looked at both perceptions of draw toughness and the reality. There may be a better way of arriving at such conclusions but my limitations in mathematics will have to suffice for now.
The assumption at the begining of each season is that teams that made the eight the previous year will again be competitive and teams outside of the eight will need to show dramatic improvement to contest in the finals. Therefore if you are drawn to play a swag of the previous year's finalists, invariably you would percieve that to be a tough draw. However the likelihood of all teams finishing in similar positions in consecutive years is very remote. To determine the strength of the draw for 2008 on a prima facie level I noted where each team finished at the end of 2007. I then numbered each side in reverse order, i.e. Geelong as premiers were assigned 16 points, Port as runner-up 15 etc and 07 wooden spooners Richmond 1 point. These points were accumulated across the 22 rounds for each occasion that they met the Swans. Of course some sides such as Geelong, Port and Brisbane we were required to play twice whereas others such as North, Richmond and Adelaide we played once. The total for 2008 comes to 186 and features games against 11 of the previous year's finalists from a possible 14 (as Sydney also qualified for the finals in 07).
186 is the aggregate score before the commencement of the 2008 season however the accuracy of this total shifts as the season progresses. Teams such as West Coast, Northand Port fell away during 2008, while Hawthorn and Richmond improved. With this information I re-tallied the scores at the end of the 2008 season. The figure was 190 which means that the overall toughness of the draw was actually slightly greater than perceived at the start of the season however we only played 9 games against teams that ultimately made the finals in 2008 (from a possible 14 not including finals themselves) as opposed to 11.
So, on to the current season. At the commencement of the season (before round one had commenced) and using the same formula, the difficulty of the draw was calculated at an aggregate score of 200; significantly greater than the perceived and actual 2008 scores. We were down for 11 fixtures against 2008 finalists including 3 of the top 4 sides twice. A further aggregate score was calculated at the end of round 11, 2009 (the halfway point of the season). The score had risen to 208, meaning that the actual strength of the draw is much greater than perceptions at the start of the season and considerably greater than last year's draw, due in part to the rise of Brisbane, Carlton and St Kilda (all three sides we play twice). A recent article suggested that the final eight has all but settled by this stage of the season, and there is usually no more than one side that is replaced in the eight between round 11 and round 22. Assuming this is correct and that there is little or no movement in ladder composition by round 22, this will translate in Sydney having to play 14 games against likely finalists from a possible 16. Very, very tough.
Although I haven't tested this against the fixtures assigned to competing clubs it's not unrealistic to surmise that there must be other clubs with comparitively easier draws, a factor which could be the difference between finishing 7th or 8th as opposed to 9th or 10th. It's always going to be difficult to arrive at draw parity when there are 16 clubs playing across 22 rounds. Clubs will have to play some clubs twice and some once. Teams playing West Coast and Melbourne twice this year should inadvertantly benefit from this in season 2009. We are not one of those clubs.
Assuming that the AFL's grand vision of introducing two new clubs early next decade comes to fruition, I'd suggest that this would be the ideal time to revisit the parity of the draw, something that hasn't occurred since the late sixties / early seventies. The proposal that I am making would constitute a reduction of overall games from 176 to 153 home and away games (which no doubt wouldn't be embraced by the AFL) but with the dilution of talent that will come with the introduction of two new teams it could also reduce the number of injuries and prolong careers. Hopefully more teams will be capable of fielding stronger sides due to shorter injury lists and games will be more competitive as a result. If the pace of footy increases incrementally each year, what does that mean come 2013? Maybe player welfare needs to be more carefully considered without needing to explore the free agency avenue.
What I would propose for season 2013 is a reduced home and away season of 17 rounds (9 matches per round) where each side would play each other once only. Home ground advantage would alternate in successive seasons. This arrangement would shorten the current season by 5 weeks* but there are ways to accommodate this without the season losing continuity. The season would still commence at the start of April and GF day would still fall on the last Saturday in September. Notable changes to fixturing would occur as follows:
The pre-season competition would still occur with the GF being a Sunday twilight game played on the last Sunday in March.
Round 1 would commence on the second Thursday night in April (10 days after the pre-season GF) with a replay of the 2012 day GF. Often this would coincide with the Easter holiday (i.e. Easter Thursday) but the season opener would still be played on the Thursday irrespective of when Easter falls and feature the GF sides of the preceding year.
Round 4 would be a split round across the first two weekends in May.
There would be a bye round falling in mid-June between Round 8 and Round 9. This bye round would feature an Indigenous all-star game as an annual attraction. It would face a new opponent each year on a rotational basis possibly played at different locations year to year.
A second split round (Round 13) would occur across the last two weekends in July. This would be followed by the final 4 rounds where teams still in the mix can focus on the run home to the finals.
The first week of the finals would commence in the last weekend of August, with the second week of the finals occurring the following weekend.
The Preliminary Finals would be played in mid-September with a two week break until the Grand Final. This is how it operates in the NFL prior to the Superbowl. There is an even bigger build-up before the main event and the two competing teams have a better opportunity to get their best team on the park. Players with niggling injuries racing against the clock then have more time to recover. Ideally the standard of the game will be higher and evenly contested more often.
The bye weekend that now falls between the Preliminary Final weekend and the GF weekend would feature two State of Origin games as a precursor with players selected from the 16 teams that have been eliminated. State of Origin fixtures would alternate each season and feature sides from Vic, WA, SA and a composite (Allies) team.
The International Rules Series would continue post-GF.
I realise it's difficult to implement a new system that is totally logical without upsetting the traditionalists but I think it could go a long way to introducing an increased sense of fairness. With every system there are faults, though this could keep playing lists relatively fresh and competitive. Anyway I'll throw it out there for discussion.
* At the most the season would be reduced by 5 weeks. Some seasons would be reduced by 4 weeks. It would depend on the number of weekends that fall between the start of April and the end of September. Some years feature two months during the winter period with 5 weekends other years will just have the one.
Comment