Further attention was given
over the past couple of weeks to the proposed ’17-5’ model for the AFL fixture.
Under this model, after
17 rounds the clubs would split into three groups. The
top six clubs would play off for a double chance in the finals, the next six
clubs would play for the last two spots in the finals, and the bottom six clubs
would play off to win the top draft picks. The aims of the new system appear to
be to have more meaningful matches towards the end of the season, and to
alleviate ‘tanking’ – i.e. clubs more or less deliberately losing matches to
get a lower ladder position and higher draft picks.
I don’t like the idea of
radically changing the fixture to stop ‘tanking’. Actually Cameron
Rose over at ‘The Roar’ pretty much summed up how I feel about it. In
Australian Rules no one player can make a huge difference to a club – no,
not even Patrick Dangerfield – and hence there is not
really that much difference between getting the #1 draft pick, as opposed to
the #2, #3, or #4 draft pick. In a league like the NBA, where
one player can make a massive difference, there is a much higher
incentive to ‘tank’. But I don’t think in the AFL that ‘tanking’ is enough of a
problem – or shouldn’t be if clubs are aware of the ‘true’ value of what they
are losing for – to warrant overhauling the fixture.
The argument that a ’17-5’
fixture would create more meaningful matches has more merit. This argument
seemed relevant to me this week as there were four matches I was interested in
because they contained two good clubs and finals hopefuls – Power/Dogs,
Cats/Roos, Eagles/Crows, and Giants/Swans. Indeed for the rest of the season
these are probably the only clubs, along with the Hawks, that I will bother
paying attention to – apart from Richmond as I support them, and whichever club
they are playing. So if there were more matches between these clubs I would
almost certainly pay attention to more AFL matches.
Still, I haven’t come around
to the ’17-5’ model yet. Like many footy fans I’m attached to the ‘home-and-away’
fixture, and having a final ‘home-and-away’ ladder.
The most notable thing
about the rankings this week is that the Greater Western Sydney Giants, with
their win over cross-town ‘rivals’ Sydney, have moved into second spot. For a
lot of their history I have described the Giants’ performances as being
something like ‘diabolically
bad’,
or at best just bad. Well, no more. Not only
do they have the league’s second-best theme song, the Giants are now ‘very
good’. The Giants are a premiership contender. I still can’t quite get my head
around it either.
No comments:
Post a Comment