Finals Format Power Poll

Dear Andrew Demetriou,

Word on the street is that you are contemplating an expansion of the AFL finals series from a final eight to a final ten for the 2012 season. Before you make such a momentous (and potentially foolhardy) decision, how about a trip back in time to finals formats past, such that the strengths, weaknesses and in some cases glaring foibles of each format can be analysed. A power poll of finals formats, if you will.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s restrict the ranking of formats to those used at some point by the VFL/ AFL and/ or major rugby league competitions since 1990.

Note: For AFL fans who don’t follow rugby league and don’t immediately recognise the acronyms below:

(1) the NSWRL ran the major competition (the Sydney competition) until 1994;

(2) the ARL ran it from 1995-97;

(3) a rival ‘Super League’ competition also operated in 1997; and

(4) the two competitions subsequently merged in 1998 under the banner of the NRL, who still run the show to this day.

 

A distant last place – Final Seven (ARL in 1997)

Finals format:

Week One:  Second v Third (Qual F1), Fourth v Fifth (Qual F2), Sixth v Seventh (EF)

Week Two:  First v Qual F1 winner (SF 1), Qual F1 loser v Qual F2 loser (SF2), Qual F2 winner v EF winner (SF 3)

Week Three:  SF1 winner v SF3 winner (PF1), SF1 loser v SF2 winner (PF2)

Week Four:  Grand Final (PF1 winner v PF2 winner)

What a shambolic system, made even worse by the fact that the ARL competition had only 12 teams in that year and thus a team with a losing record (the Gold Coast Chargers, who recorded ten wins and a draw from 22 matches) was required to make up the numbers in seventh place. I'd call this the septic tank of finals formats, but septic tanks serve some sort of purpose.  I had both a bleeding nose and an eye tick by week two, while the apocalypse was looming by week three. My recollection is that only the epic grand final between Newcastle and Manly prevented the entire Earth from being destroyed. Let us never speak of the final seven again.

 

Seventh place – Proposed Final Ten (AFL in 2012?)

Finals format: From what I’ve read in various media streams, the proposed final ten would see the top six teams would receive the first week off in a five-week finals series, with the bottom four teams in the final ten  playing in week one. The seventh-placed side would play the tenth team, and eighth would play ninth. The winners of those games would become the seventh and eighth teams in a final eight.

In essence, what you are proposing is a seventh-place playoff and an eighth-place playoff in the week preceding the usual final eight system (which we’ll come to later in the rankings). Whilst your final ten system is a fraction simpler than the final ten adopted by the NRL in 1998, you lose the battle for sixth spot as a result of letting a team which finished in the bottom half of the ladder play in the finals.

 

Sixth place – Final Ten (NRL in 1998)

Finals format:

Week one: Seventh v Tenth (EF1), Eighth v Ninth (EF2), Third v Sixth (Qual S1), Fourth v Fifth (Qual S2)

Week Two onwards: See the BM final eight structure below, with the Qual S 1 and Qual S2 winners effectively moving to ‘third’ and ‘fourth’ on the ladder, the Qual S1 and Qual S2 losers moving to ‘fifth’ and ‘sixth’ and the EF 1 and EF 2 winners moving to ‘seventh’ and ‘eighth’ on the notional ladder.

Similar in structure to the 2012 AFL proposal but with a more complicated set of week one arrangements, there were simply too many pieces of the puzzle in 1998. It is an extended version of the final eight purely for the sake of it. Extending the finals series 'for the sake of it' is never a good thing. Since when was running tenth (even in a 20 team competition, as the NRL was operating in 1998) deemed worthy of a finals appearance?

 

Fifth place – Final Six (AFL 1991-93)

Week One:  First v Second (Qual F), Third v Sixth (EF1), Fourth v Fifth (EF2)

Week Two:  Qual F winner v higher ranked EF winner (Major SF), Qual F loser v other EF winner (Minor SF)

Week Three:  Major SF loser v Minor SF winner (PF)

Week Four:  Grand Final (Major SF winner v PF winner)

The final six was something of a go-between option when the AFL was transitioning from the final five to the final eight. The system was simple to understand and would have been a legitimate contender for third place on this list if it weren't for the loser of the game between the top two sides facing sudden death in week two whilst a lower ranked team played in a ‘double chance’ match. Case in point: In 1993, minor premiers Essendon lost to second placed Carlton by two points in an epic first week match and had to play sudden death for the rest of the finals. Meanwhile the fifth-ranked Adelaide Crows had to survive sudden death in week one but because sixth-ranked West Coast also won, the Crows leapfrogged into a double chance match against Carlton in week two. How was that fair? How can a team who scraped into the finals be involved in a sudden death match in week one but advance to a 'double chance' match in week two? That is a ridiculous arrangement for a finals series to adopt.

 

Fourth place – “McIntyre” Final Eight (AFL 1994-98, NRL 1999-2011)

Third place – “BM” Final Eight (ARL 1995-96, AFL 1999-2011)

Format: If you don't know the finals format that has been utilised by your football code(s) of choice for over a decade now, I'm not going to fill in the details for you. Suffice to say that the NRL uses the McIntyre system whilst the AFL uses a system that I don't know the name of, but which I will refer to as the "BM" (i.e. “Before McGuire”) system.

Side-note: Why refer to it as the BM system? That's easy – in 1995 and 1996, the ARL used this exact system before the final seven and ten experiments in the two subsequent years and a switch to the McIntyre system when the NRL reverted to a final eight in 1999. To reiterate, the BM system was utilised for two seasons in a sport televised to millions of viewers – please hold onto that thought for a moment. Meanwhile, from 1994 to 1998 the AFL used the McIntyre system for its final eight, a structure within which the flaws were painfully exposed by the Adelaide premiership of 1998. Eddie McGuire grabbed the old ARL 1995-96 format and referred to it as the “McGuire System” – a moniker repeated by the Melbourne media, with the system subsequently adopted by the AFL in 1999. I just wish one of the Melbourne football journalists writing about the proposal had checked in with their Sydney rugby league colleagues and/ or someone at Channel Nine and inquired about its true origins. However, as the Storm did not exist in the mid-90s and rugby league was barely an afterthought in Melbourne, the BM system was passed off by Eddie as his own without him ever being held into account for taking fraudulent credit. Well Eddie, I have followed both codes for the duration, flew right off the handle an 18-year old when you tried to pretend it was all your creation and haven't forgotten the unwarranted kudos that went your way for stealing the idea. You will get nothing but a ‘name and shame’ campaign from me – it's the BM system until someone can inform me of the ACTUAL creator (perhaps a person who was working for the ARL prior to 1995?). Anyway, back to the column…

I rate the BM final eight as a slightly better structure than the McIntyre system for three key reasons:

(1) Every week one finals match is clearly defined as ‘sudden death’ or 'double chance' in advance under the BM system – in finals, you should always be able to control your own destiny, and not have it impacted upon by the results of other games;

(2) The McIntyre system leaves open both the possibility of the third ranked team getting eliminated with a week one loss to the sixth team (if the top two sides also lose); and

(3) If the top two sides win, the McIntyre system renders the third v sixth and fourth v fifth matches in week one redundant. Irrespective of results in those two games, the same four sides would appear in the next week with the opponents switched around, a bit like a 70s swinger party – just remember that you can't pick up the same set of car keys at two consecutive parties….

The third issue throws up an additional risk exposed by Adelaide in 1998 and almost repeated by North Qld in 2005. In 1998, Adelaide finished fifth on the ladder and copped a 51-point thumping from Melbourne in the first week of finals. Was such a finishing position and finals drubbing followed by Mad Monday? Nope. The Crows won the flag from there. In a related story, that was the final year of the McIntyre system in the AFL. Switching to the NRL and in 2005, North Qld finished fifth on the ladder and were then belted 50-6 by the Wests Tigers in the first week of finals. Mad Monday? Try a Grand Final appearance, where they once again lost to the Tigers. The NRL failed to heed the lessons of 1998 and 2005, continuing to run the same risks. But mark my words – if a fifth (or even worse, sixth) seed gets pummelled in week one of the McIntyre-system final eight and then wins the premiership, that will be the last year of the McIntyre system. What a shame that change will almost certainly only follow an undeserving premier.

Beyond the BM v McIntyre system debate, the final eight has a broader problem – it rewards mediocrity. Over the past decade, the following AFL and NRL sides have made the finals with a winning strike rate of 50 per cent or less:

AFL

10-1-11:  Essendon (2009)

11-11:  West Coast (2002), Carlton (2010)

NRL

9-3-12:  St George-Illawarra (2002)

10-1-13:  Canberra (2002)

10-2-12:  Parramatta (2002)

11-13:  Canberra (2004), Brisbane (2007)

12-2-12:  New Zealand (2001)

12-12:  Brisbane (2003), Cronulla (2005), Manly (2005), Parramatta (2006), Bulldogs (2007), Souths (2007), Manly (2010)

Have a look at the NRL list in particular. In 2002, three sides with losing records played in the finals series. In 2007, one side with a losing record and a further two sides with a 50-50 record played in the finals.

In the past decade, 16 teams across the two codes have lost as many matches as they won during the home and away system and could have still won the premiership. We’re okay with this? Really????

 

Second place – daylight

I nearly awarded second AND third places to daylight. It warrants mentioning.

 

First place – Final Five (VFL/AFL 1972-90, NSWRL 1973-94, Super League 1997)

Week One:  Second v Third (Qual F), Fourth v Fifth (EF)

Week Two:  First v Qual F winner (Major SF), Qual F loser v EF winner (Minor SF)

Week Three:  Major SF loser v Minor SF winner (PF)

Week Four:  Grand Final (Major SF winner v PF winner)

The minor premier gets a week off and only has to win once in a two-week span to make the Grand Final. Second and third-placed sides have a double chance and have to win twice in a three-week span to make the Grand Final. Fourth and fifth-placed sides have to walk the tightrope for the entire finals series. All of the middle-of-the-road sides are excluded from the picture beforehand. What a fantastic finals system. I cannot say a bad word about it.

To contrast with the results for sides scraping into the top eight, the lists below cover the win-loss records of the fifth-placed side in both competitions each year, in order to establish what the cut-off for a legitimate ‘best of the best’ finals series would look like:

AFL

14-8:  Carlton (2001), Fremantle (2003), Melbourne (2004), Collingwood (2006), Adelaide (2009)

13-9:  Kangaroos (2005), Hawthorn (2007), Adelaide (2008), Sydney (2010)

12-1-9:  Essendon (2002)

NRL

15-9:  Cronulla (2002), Melbourne (2003)

14-1-9:  Brisbane (2008)

14-10:  St George-Illawarra (2004), North Queensland (2005), Manly (2006), Manly (2009), New Zealand (2010)

14-1-11:  Brisbane (2001)

13-11:  Parramatta (2007)

Those lists look so much better than the ones where teams won 50 per cent or less of their games – these teams would have been a great final entrant into the finals series each year, rather than having a further three inferior teams added to the mix each time.

In summary Andrew, I understand that many factors are relevant when choosing a finals system. Just remember that if you want a system that places an appropriate level of significance on performances throughout the year and forces more lowly sides to 'run the slate' in the finals to win the premiership, there's only one system that's worth a pinch of the proverbial poo.

Yours sincerely,

Cliff (on behalf of people who care about a decent finals system)

 

Postscript: Would sending this letter make one iota of difference? No. TV ratings and crowd attendances drive these sorts of decisions, not considerations of how the degree of difficulty for each finals side should reflect the regular season results.

Moreover, we are slowly evolving into a society where mediocrity is accepted and in some cases enabled. People expect rewards without having to earn them first – a shift no better illustrated than comparing the old days of putting purchases on lay-by and slowly paying them off until the big reward came at the end with the current method of taking the prize now and deferring the consequences until later. Modern society also allows people like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, attractive as they are, to make millions upon millions of dollars without having a single discernible talent between them. In light of this, why not let our standards slip and let an 11-11 (AFL) or 12-12 (NRL) team make the finals and still compete for a title these days?

Call me old-fashioned, but I like teams to earn the right to compete for a premiership in September. Maybe that makes me a grumpy old man about four decades ahead of schedule, but grumpy old men rarely change their views on these things… 

Thanks to Paul Kane/Getty Images AsiaPac for use of the photo