2019 Fixture

[Blood Fever]

So much for Gill promising after the MCG Grand Final extension that interstate clubs would get more MCG games. It's a slap in the face. It's bad enough we only play there twice, but Adelaide only play there once. They should be filthy.

Inherent unfairness of MCG GF cannot be solved for at least 39 years. A few more games a year for non Vic teams would only be tokenism.

[CureTheSane]

Yes, we should reject their tokenism and request zero games at the G and only play GF's there...

[barry]

You need a viable Giants so you can continue to get up Swans fans/RWO'ers noses by rabbiting on about them ad nauseum.....honestly, that has to be one of the weirdest posts I have ever read.

You must lead a very boring life.

[KTigers]

When the AFL set the Giants going I was among the critics and hoped it wouldn't last. I've since changed my mind and now think that a place as big as Sydney should have more than one AFL side, and that the competition between the two Sydney sides has the potential to help grow the game in NSW, especially if we can avoid the ratbag rivalry that has marred the relationship between the two Adelaide sides.

I note that barry's post begins with "If Giants hit hard times, any of these things are possible". I think he's right. One possibility he left out was that the Giants could move to Canberra, which I would regret but which would be better than shutting down altogether.

And don't lose sight of the fact (as I see it) that one less club in Sydney means the Victorian input becomes a bigger percentage and will harm this great national game.

If Sydney with a population north of five million people can't support two AFL teams, then footy (and Sydney) needs to take the
proverbial long, hard look at itself. Seriously.

[KSAS]

Interesting article from Martin Blake surrounding the AFL fixture. It gets me why the AFL didn't implement the 17-5 fixture format if they think it's best for the competition, only because it was rejected by clubs due to their self interests. I thought the AFL (commission) had the power to implement such measures, whether or not clubs agree in the main?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/drawing-a-long-bow-on-the-footy-fixture-20181102-p50doa.html

[baskin]

I'm being a Negative Nellie about Collingwood being our opponent for the Marngrook Game. Why would they make us play them after what happened the last time?

My answer is it gives the press a chance to rehash the whole Goodesy saga. Eddie will be everywhere. Aagghh!

[R-1]

I don't really consider games starting at 4.30pm in winter as day games....

Optimal time to drive to from out of Sydney though. Coming up from Canberra it means no sun in my eyes on the way up, and getting home before midnight.

- - - Updated - - -

If Giants hit hard times, any of these things are possible:
Giants keep going.
1) Greater drain on AFL funds as propped up from scratch again.
2) Will be longer and harder than first time to establish a viable presence as fans and sponsors will be gun-shy second time around.

Giants fold.
1) All the development work out west will stop, or fall to the swans.
2) Swans will be forced to play a few games at ANZ/Spotless. (Basically reverting to the setup prior to Giants)
3) Less AFL interest in Sydney.
4) AFL will now rely on one team in Sydney, and if Sydney start to fail, AFL support in general from grass roots up will suffer.

Giants merge with Swans.
1) Dont rule this out. AFL is very likely to do something stupid like this.
2) Now Swans will be the major partner, but will lose part of its current identity.

Using your head instead of your heart, The Swans needs a viable Giants.

I must admit to an occasional hope that the Giant relocate full-time to Canberra. We should have our own team down here.

[R-1]

Interesting article from Martin Blake surrounding the AFL fixture. It gets me why the AFL didn't implement the 17-5 fixture format if they think it's best for the competition, only because it was rejected by clubs due to their self interests. I thought the AFL (commission) had the power to implement such measures, whether or not clubs agree in the main?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...02-p50doa.html

This is actually terribly inaccurate with regards to comparisons with American sport. When he says that "The current system, with its morass of double-ups and protection of 'blockbuster' games, does not even approach the professionalism that other big sporting competitions embrace", this is exactly what the big American leagues he discusses does. It's cultural cringe to suggest the AFL is uniquely deficient here. Conferences and divsions don't fully equalise the draw in those leagues.

The NFL reserves 2 of 16 games to play one team from two other divisions based on finishing position. So they weight the fixture difficulty by finishing position like we do.

The NBA has 2 conferences of 15 teams. Each team plays 10 in-conference teams 4 times, including their division-mates. Then they play and 4 out of division conference teams just 3 times. They rotate the teams which are played less times on a fixed rotation, which is another way of managing an uneven fixture, but the sides who don't cop the Warriors a 4th time are definitely advantaged.

In the NHL there's 31 teams so the Central Division of the Western Conference has 7 teams and the other has 8. This means uneven intra-divisional play for half the league - in the East, everyone plays their own division 4 times, but in the West, they have to play one or two teams inside their division a 5th team.

It's also really weird to suggest these sports don't prioritise blockbuster, derby and rivalry games. That's exactly what divisions do - they foster rivalries and reduce travel. The Packers always play the Bears twice, the Chargers always play the Raiders twice, etc etc.

And eugh, 17-5 is such a terrible idea I don't understand why people keep pushing it. It doesn't resolve anything, and creates a whole new set of problems.

[KSAS]

My understanding of the 17-5 is that you play every other team by round 17 (no double ups) and then play 5 teams for the 2nd time. Currently the teams you play twice is based on the finishing order of the previous season's ladder as a form of equalisation. My preference is you play 5 alternate teams twice every year (regardless of finishing ladder positions), so that each team gets to play every other team twice on a 3-4 year cycle. It's not perfect, teams can get soft or hard draws each year as it also depends how much individual teams rise & fall in a 3-4 year cycle, but at least it's not contrived & eventually balances out.

The other alternative is 17 round season where teams play each other once. This looks fair & balanced on paper, however it means some teams gets to play 9 designated home games & others just 8 cause of the uneven number of rounds. Can also kiss goodbye the chance of ever seeing a player having a 100 goal season again. It also reduces the Brownlow polling & the history records surrounding that, plus the loss of $$$$ from a tv rights view point.

Having a 34 round season plus the byes is just not practical. There is no perfect system other than going back to a 12 team competition which ain't ever gonna happen. Balancing everything up, I prefer the 17-5 (with rotating draw).

[barry]

My understanding of the 17-5 is that you play every other team by round 17 (no double ups) and then play 5 teams for the 2nd time. Currently the teams you play twice is based on the finishing order of the previous season's ladder as a form of equalisation. My preference is you play 5 alternate teams twice every year (regardless of finishing ladder positions), so that each team gets to play every other team twice on a 3-4 year cycle. It's not perfect, teams can get soft or hard draws each year as it also depends how much individual teams rise & fall in a 3-4 year cycle, but at least it's not contrived & eventually balances out.

The other alternative is 17 round season where teams play each other once. This looks fair & balanced on paper, however it means some teams gets to play 9 designated home games & others just 8 cause of the uneven number of rounds. Can also kiss goodbye the chance of ever seeing a player having a 100 goal season again. It also reduces the Brownlow polling & the history records surrounding that, plus the loss of $$$$ from a tv rights view point.

Having a 34 round season plus the byes is just not practical. There is no perfect system other than going back to a 12 team competition which ain't ever gonna happen. Balancing everything up, I prefer the 17-5 (with rotating draw).

I cant see us ever having a 100 goal season again, so no loss.
I also dont care too much about $$$ from TV rights. That is not my priority how much players are paid. Take cricket for example. The ACB are patting themselves on the back for the new $1.2b TV rights deal, but the only impact to me is that I couldnt watch the ODI last week. So for me, the deal is poorer.

Playing 17 rounds, each team once, is easy. Even make it that H&A venue is swapped every year.
The next 5 rounds should just be rivalry rounds. Pick the matches that make sense. Derbies is an easy 1 game. Maybe even 2 games(?!)
4 other rounds can be figured out just by which combinations make the most interest. This will also go a little way to avoid tanking.
Lets not pretend that equality is even in the top 10 of AFL concerns.

Suggested draw for Swans last five rounds
1) v GWS (either SCG or spotless depending on who hosted in 1st 17 rounds)
2) v West Coast
3) v Saints
4) v Pies
5) v GWS (Canberra)

[KSAS]

I'm being a Negative Nellie about Collingwood being our opponent for the Marngrook Game. Why would they make us play them after what happened the last time?

My answer is it gives the press a chance to rehash the whole Goodesy saga. Eddie will be everywhere. Aagghh!

Interesting point, that hadn't occurred to me. The AFL's most likely motivation was to schedule it as a blockbuster game for TV ratings. However I dare say sections of the media won't able to help themselves to bring up the Goodesy saga again. I think Eddie will be very low key about it though, as it was the lowest point of his career. If the media do bring it up, it would be fitting for them upon reflection as a whole how they & the footy public got it so wrong, rather than as a controversial incident. But I doubt that very much.

[chalbilto]

I cant see us ever having a 100 goal season again, so no loss.
I also dont care too much about $$$ from TV rights. That is not my priority how much players are paid. Take cricket for example. The ACB are patting themselves on the back for the new $1.2b TV rights deal, but the only impact to me is that I couldnt watch the ODI last week. So for me, the deal is poorer.

Playing 17 rounds, each team once, is easy. Even make it that H&A venue is swapped every year.
The next 5 rounds should just be rivalry rounds. Pick the matches that make sense. Derbies is an easy 1 game. Maybe even 2 games(?!)
4 other rounds can be figured out just by which combinations make the most interest. This will also go a little way to avoid tanking.
Lets not pretend that equality is even in the top 10 of AFL concerns.

Suggested draw for Swans last five rounds
1) v GWS (either SCG or spotless depending on who hosted in 1st 17 rounds)
2) v West Coast
3) v Saints
4) v Pies
5) v GWS (Canberra)

Barry if in this example won't the Swans and GWS play 3 times as they play everyone in the first 17 rounds which would include GWS?

[KSAS]

I cant see us ever having a 100 goal season again, so no loss.
I also dont care too much about $$$ from TV rights. That is not my priority how much players are paid. Take cricket for example. The ACB are patting themselves on the back for the new $1.2b TV rights deal, but the only impact to me is that I couldnt watch the ODI last week. So for me, the deal is poorer.

Playing 17 rounds, each team once, is easy. Even make it that H&A venue is swapped every year.
The next 5 rounds should just be rivalry rounds. Pick the matches that make sense. Derbies is an easy 1 game. Maybe even 2 games(?!)
4 other rounds can be figured out just by which combinations make the most interest. This will also go a little way to avoid tanking.
Lets not pretend that equality is even in the top 10 of AFL concerns.

Suggested draw for Swans last five rounds
1) v GWS (either SCG or spotless depending on who hosted in 1st 17 rounds)
2) v West Coast
3) v Saints
4) v Pies
5) v GWS (Canberra)

You make fair point about how you can even out the Home games every 2nd year with a 17 round season, however I still prefer 22 round season as I personally find 17 round season too short. I still have hopes of seeing a 100 goal season from a player again. I've followed footy long enough to see it go in cycles & it will be interesting to see if the 6-6-6 centre bounce starts next season has any impact to improving scoring.

You have preference playing the same teams twice each season and in our case GWS 3 times! But that means same teams are handicapped each year for better or worse! Who would GC double up on as rivals other than Brisbane?

[barry]

You make fair point about how you can even out the Home games every 2nd year with a 17 round season, however I still prefer 22 round season as I personally find 17 round season too short. I still have hopes of seeing a 100 goal season from a player again. I've followed footy long enough to see it go in cycles & it will be interesting to see if the 6-6-6 centre bounce starts next season has any impact to improving scoring.

You have preference playing the same teams twice each season and in our case GWS 3 times! But that means same teams are handicapped each year for better or worse! Who would GC double up on as rivals other than Brisbane?

Yeah, I actually wasnt advocating a 17 round season, just the first 17 rounds of a 22 rounds season.
Playing GWS 3 times works out well for us because we have 3 suitable venues to share it around with NSW fans (Canberra, Spotless and SCG).

Bit trickier for QLD, but could they use cairns for 1 of the 3 games. Be far better propotion than some shaat-kicker vic clubs selling a game up there.

I dont think Adelaide or Perth would have any trouble with 3 derbies a year. It kind of makes it a mini state cup.


The 3 games inside your state also makes it more likely that only 1 team from each state makes the finals, and less likely that both do. Its kind of conferencing at a very subtle level. It goes a long way to deciding who from your state is representing in the finals.

[liz]

The draw (or fixture) can't be fair until every team plays each other twice. I don't think 34 games a year is viable (or desirable) and nor do I think chopping the competition down to 12 teams is viable (or desirable). But there is a middle ground - 14 teams and 26 games per year, with slightly bigger lists to make the 26 games a little less onerous on players (and to absorb playing stock made redundant by deleting some teams).

The eight current non-Victorian teams stay. Geelong stays. One of the existing Melbourne teams shoves off to Tasmania. The remaining eight Melbourne teams duke it out for the last four spots in what would finally approximate a national competition.