Top 2..Is it that essential?

[Swansongster]

My point was that from 1945 until 2003, (a 58 year period), the South Melbourne/Sydney Swans had only won three finals games, all at the SCG, (2 in 1996 and 1 in 1998).

They didn't play any finals at all from 1946 to 1969. And they lost in Melbourne once in 1970 and again in 1977, and twice each in 1986 and 1987.

I hope many of the fans from that dark era lived to see September 24, 2005. This reminds me of how fortunate we have been in the last 16 years to have such a supportable team. Interesting times. I think it was Confucious who said "May you live in times when your football team is successful".

[msb]

I don't know what the fuss about the MCG is, we've lost one game there this year

And what a disaster that was, against a lowly richmond!! I think our form there is a huge fuss if we want to win the grand final. And we cant draw on wins at AAMI, Subiaco, Aurora etc it is not the MCG. Time will tell I guess.

[CureTheSane]

I would have thought that of all people, a Swans fan would know that's bull@@@@. Wanna go back and check where we finished in 05 and 06?

Top 2 is an advantage, but to win the GF, we need to be able to win away (MCG) anyway, so it's really not that much of a big deal.

As for whether the top 8 system is flawed, I don't think so. It's only right that you get rewarded for your H&A form in the finals, otherwise what's the point of competing once a spot in the top 8 is guaranteed. And 5-8 may have no realistic chance of winning the flag, but that's because they're not in the top 4 teams to begin with, and they still have the opportunity to play finals football, which can be invaluable experience for the players and the coach.

Let me first address your implication that I speak 'bull@@@@'
Well, I'll let Scott...

Here are all the GF results and ladder positions since 2000.

2011 Cats 2nd beat Pies 1st
2010 Pies 1st beat StK 3rd
2009 Cats 2nd beat StK 1st
2008 Haw 2nd beat Cats 1st
2007 Cats 1st beat PA 2nd
2006 Wc 1st beat Syd 4th
2005 Syd 3rd beat WC 2nd
2004 PA 1st beat BL 2nd
2003 BL 3rd beat Pies 2nd
2002 BL 2nd beat Pies 4th
2001 BL 2nd beat Ess 1st
2000 Ess 1st beat Mel 3rd


Finishing in 1st or 2nd seems to be the go, but finishing first is no guarantee!!
Only 2 teams from outside top 2 have won the GF.

[Nico]

My oath top 2 is essential. It gives big advatanges. If we can keep most of our players on the park until seasons end and finish top 2 it really does put us in the drivers seat. Beat Carlton and we are looking ok. I am overseas and have missed the mail on Reid. Can someone fill me in please.

[CureTheSane]

How is that?!?

The team that has been the best for the year is most likely to win the premiership. Sounds like it works to me.

See my post above.

what's the point in having a top 8 if it is unlikely that anyone finishing 1 or 2 can win?
Perhaps we should not have a finals system, so that the 'team that has been the best for the year' definitely wins?
Won't even bother getting into the unfair draw and home ground advantages etc

[CureTheSane]

On the other hand, 6 teams have made the GF from outside the top 2, and as far as I'm concerned, once you're in the GF anything can happen.

That's great if you're in it to be runner-up
I'd prefer to win

[BSA5]

Let me first address your implication that I speak 'bull@@@@'
Well, I'll let Scott...

No implication. I said it directly, and stand by it. You said it's essential to be top 2 to have a real chance at the flag, and it's not. You can definitely launch a flag assault from 3 or 4. There's not that much disadvantage finishing 3 or 4 compared to 1 or 2. The way the finals system works is that it makes it easier or harder to get through to the GF, depending on where you end up at the end of the H&A season. It obviously doesn't affect the GF itself, because that is always played on the same day, at the same time, on the same ground, so you can leave GF results out of the equation. The important part is getting through. And 6 times out of the last 12 years, a team from 3 or 4 has made it to the GF. Now, since there are two teams in the GF, you'd expect, all else being equal, that there would on average be 1 team from either 3 or 4 in the GF each year, so 12, double what is observed. But not all else is equal. The top 2 teams finish top because, generally, they are the two best teams in the competition. So it's no surprise that when they come up against teams 3 and 4, they tend to beat them. The fact that the chances of 3 and 4 getting through to the GF are only halved, despite an entire season of H&A football determining that 1 and 2 are better, is quite remarkable. I personally expected it to be much lower.

The upshot of all this? There doesn't seem to be that much of a disadvantage finishing 3 or 4 rather than 1 or 2, except that you tend to be a worse side. Sure, the away qualifying final sucks a bit, but in the scheme of things, if you're a non-Vic side like us, you need to be able to win away to win a GF, so no biggie.

Now, in an incredibly even year like the one we're having, where there's very little separating the top 4 (and even top 6), finishing 1 or 2, versus 3 or 4, doesn't mean us much as it normally would. If any team was going to launch a campaign from outside the top 2 (and even, god forbid, the top 4), this is the year to do it.

That's great if you're in it to be runner-up
I'd prefer to win

As would I, but as I said above, you've got to be in it to win it, and whether you finish 1st or 8th won't dictate where you play the GF, should you make it.

[CureTheSane]

^^^
We're dealing stats here, and I'm going to interpret them as what is needed to win a flag.
Seems that is 1st or 2nd
Top 4 is certainly more worthwhile than 5th, but since the sytem was introduced, for whatever reason, statistically 3 or 4 isn't as good as 1 or 2
11 years isn't a very accurate sample period, so it will be interesting to see if these stats continue over the next 10 (if it lasts that long)

[Dirtyburt]

No implication. I said it directly, and stand by it. You said it's essential to be top 2 to have a real chance at the flag, and it's not. You can definitely launch a flag assault from 3 or 4. There's not that much disadvantage finishing 3 or 4 compared to 1 or 2. The way the finals system works is that it makes it easier or harder to get through to the GF, depending on where you end up at the end of the H&A season. It obviously doesn't affect the GF itself, because that is always played on the same day, at the same time, on the same ground, so you can leave GF results out of the equation. The important part is getting through. And 6 times out of the last 12 years, a team from 3 or 4 has made it to the GF. Now, since there are two teams in the GF, you'd expect, all else being equal, that there would on average be 1 team from either 3 or 4 in the GF each year, so 12, double what is observed. But not all else is equal. The top 2 teams finish top because, generally, they are the two best teams in the competition. So it's no surprise that when they come up against teams 3 and 4, they tend to beat them. The fact that the chances of 3 and 4 getting through to the GF are only halved, despite an entire season of H&A football determining that 1 and 2 are better, is quite remarkable. I personally expected it to be much lower.

The upshot of all this? There doesn't seem to be that much of a disadvantage finishing 3 or 4 rather than 1 or 2, except that you tend to be a worse side. Sure, the away qualifying final sucks a bit, but in the scheme of things, if you're a non-Vic side like us, you need to be able to win away to win a GF, so no biggie.

Now, in an incredibly even year like the one we're having, where there's very little separating the top 4 (and even top 6), finishing 1 or 2, versus 3 or 4, doesn't mean us much as it normally would. If any team was going to launch a campaign from outside the top 2 (and even, god forbid, the top 4), this is the year to do it.



As would I, but as I said above, you've got to be in it to win it, and whether you finish 1st or 8th won't dictate where you play the GF, should you make it.

Give it up, you were wrong. Only 2 teams in the last 11 years have won from outside top 2 and none from 4th. We are all wrong sometimes, babbling on, war and peace style, doesn't make you any more right.

[Bloody Hell]

See my post above.

what's the point in having a top 8 if it is unlikely that anyone finishing 1 or 2 can win?
Perhaps we should not have a finals system, so that the 'team that has been the best for the year' definitely wins?
Won't even bother getting into the unfair draw and home ground advantages etc

I think you missed my point.

The best team finishes higher on ladder.

The best team should win the premiership.

Therefore it is likely that the team that finishes higher on the ladder should win the premiership.

For the teams that finish 5-8 it is not about winning that year, it's about gaining finals experience so they can challenge the next year, or the year after that. Doing as you suggest would eventuate in an EPL type competition where the minor premier wins the premiership (as it was at the start of the VFL). I love finals football.

[CureTheSane]

I think you missed my point.

The best team finishes higher on ladder.

Not always. Some teams will be getting very easy runs through the season ith the draw as it is.

The best team should win the premiership.

Therefore it is likely that the team that finishes higher on the ladder should win the premiership.

I'm thinking that even BSA5 is starting to come to terms with this now

For the teams that finish 5-8 it is not about winning that year, it's about gaining finals experience so they can challenge the next year, or the year after that. Doing as you suggest would eventuate in an EPL type competition where the minor premier wins the premiership (as it was at the start of the VFL). I love finals football.

Firstly, my suggestion was tongue in cheek. I don't propose to scrap the finals system.
I do wonder how long it will last with 10 teams ending their season early.
I would suggest that it may be inevitable that we end up with a 'play off' type system for the top 8, and a separate one for the bottom 10 teams.
The biggest thing supporters have is HOPE.
Your suggestion (9which I agree with) that 5 - 8 have little hope of winning the flag leave us with a finite finals system.
When it becomes more widely accepted that 5 - 8 isn't really worth much otehr then 'hope for next year' then AFL loses some of it's appeal and changes will be made...

[Thunder Shaker]

Thanks ScottH I stand corrected re Brisbane in 03, I think rather they lost their first finals game and had to do it the hard way.

The 2003 and 2005 finals were very similar.

Week 1 - 8th thrashed 4th, 6th thrashed 7th, 2nd beat 3rd in a close game, 4th beat 1st in a close game.
Week 2 - 3rd beat 6th, 1st beat 8th comfortably.
Week 3 - 3rd beat 4th with 42 points in last quarter while holding opposition goalless, 2nd beat 1st.
Week 4 - 3rd beat 2nd for the flag.

[Wardy]

Is being top 2 essential? You bet your balls it is - (it certainly can't hurt!! )GO SWANS!!!

[Big Al]

Is being top 2 essential? You bet your balls it is - (it certainly can't hurt!! )GO SWANS!!!

Agreed but I'll be betting with something a bit less valuable like the hope diamond.

[Wardy]

Agreed but I'll be betting with something a bit less valuable like the hope diamond.

Well the fence pailing would look a bit weird without the plums;-) back on topic - it's better for us to be where we are than having that "oh god we have to win this or we are cactus " thing hanging over us. Finals are a different kettle of fish to the H&A season. And we are in with a better chance now than in the last 5 years.