Yes, we should reject their tokenism and request zero games at the G and only play GF's there...
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
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
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!
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 - - -
I must admit to an occasional hope that the Giant relocate full-time to Canberra. We should have our own team down here.
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.
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)
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.
Bookmarks