What's Best? Top or 2nd/3rd

[Wedgie]

I think about this every year.
IMHO I'd much rather come 2nd or 3rd.

If you come first you play an easy match in the Bulldogs with a double chance virtually wasted and then you're likely to have to play either Geelong or St Kida in the cut throat Prelim.
If you come second or third you play a difficult match but have the double chance and you play the easier option of either the Bulldogs or a 5-8th side in the cut throat Prelim.

Even in years when interstate sides are near the top 2nd still gets exactly the same priveldges as top with the added bonus of probably playing a lower ranked side in the Prelim.

Thoughts?

[FlyingHigh]

Agree Wedgie. The one downside of the final eight set-up is that the 1-4 teams that win the first week give up their second-chance, and as you said, the team that finishes second is more likely to need it, albeit having to play a week earlier, than the top-placed team. Not sure whether there is any other option other than brining back a challenge final for the minor premier, but obviously impractical.

[Booney]

With the gap between 1 and 4 this year being what it is and the closeness of 2 and 3 it is important to finish 1st this year, so I dont think 2010 is what your thinking about but yes, there will be times when 2nd or 3rd might be the better option.

Keep in mind the top 4 are Vic based this year so the travel factor is not part of the equation.

[Hondo]

I think about this every year.
If you come second or third you play a difficult match but have the double chance and you play the easier option of either the Bulldogs or a 5-8th side in the cut throat Prelim.

If you finished 2rd or 3rd and lose you will most likely play the 1st ranked team in the prelim if everything goes according to seed. The 2 highest ranked winners go straight through to separate prelim finals. Lose first up and you make the prelim harder than it would be if you won 1st up and you also lose the the rest week off.

This year I think playing the Bulldogs 1st up will be a good advantage with the top 3 being so close and the Bulldogs a bit behind them. Whoever loses out of 2nd and 3rd will drop down in the premiership odds I reckon purely because of losing the rest week.

[Wedgie]

With the gap between 1 and 4 this year being what it is and the closeness of 2 and 3 it is important to finish 1st this year, so I dont think 2010 is what your thinking about but yes, there will be times when 2nd or 3rd might be the better option.

Keep in mind the top 4 are Vic based this year so the travel factor is not part of the equation.

Read what I said again mate, 2010 is a prime example of the point I made, definately not an exception.
I'm saying it's better to play the easier team in the cut throat final as opposed to the harder side in the cut throat final (and I adressed the interstate issue).

[Hondo]

That's clearer that time Wedgie. Sorry I got confused about your comments about the double chance making me think you were advocating losing first up. You're saying the double chance is devalued by playing the weaker team.

Losing first up makes life very difficult, but not impossible. That's the risk in your theory of taking the harder game first and easier second and why getting the week off via the easier team may be better in the long run. But I can see your point now. I agree that finishing second or 3rd and winning could be a better outcome this year than finishing first so long as you actually win!

I think Geelong are more likely to lose to St Kilda than they would have been to the Bulldogs and I reckon Collingwood would be happy that one of St K or Geelong have to play every week of finals.

[Trader]

Wedgie, while I agree it's better to win from 2v3 than to win from 1st, the downside to losing 2v3 is so much worse than what you gain for the easy prelim.

Just finish top, with 3 games and get sh!tfaced.

[Wedgie]

Wedgie, while I agree it's better to win from 2v3 than to win from 1st, the downside to losing 2v3 is so much worse than what you gain for the easy prelim.

Just finish top, with 3 games and get sh!tfaced.

Spot on trader.

[Booney]

That's clearer that time Wedgie. Sorry I got confused about your comments about the double chance making me think you were advocating losing first up. You're saying the double chance is devalued by playing the weaker team.

Losing first up makes life very difficult, but not impossible. That's the risk in your theory of taking the harder game first and easier second and why getting the week off via the easier team may be better in the long run. But I can see your point now. I agree that finishing second or 3rd and winning could be a better outcome this year than finishing first so long as you actually win!

I think Geelong are more likely to lose to St Kilda than they would have been to the Bulldogs and I reckon Collingwood would be happy that one of St K or Geelong have to play every week of finals.

Yes, me too. Agreed.

[White Line Fever]

If you're the best team you should win regardless of who you play.

If you can't get through a Qually or Prelim you don't deserve to be premier.

[Wedgie]

Interestingly enough the team that came fairly comfortably top the last 2 years has come runner up and the second team has won the flag.

[FlyingHigh]

Quite simply, the team that finishes top faces the tougher cut-throat prelim even though they have done nothing wrong.
And that is simply unfair.
Assuming Saints go on and win v Geelong, Collingwood will face the 2nd side, while the team that finishes 3rd gets to play the team that finishes 4th or lower. Sure, Saint Kilda may have earnt something by beating a team above them, but why should the team that has finished top and done nothing wrong then be disadvantaged?

It would appear purely cosmetic as the AFL don't want the same two games a fortnight apart, even though it would seem to be inherently more fair.

[Hondo]

Perhaps week 1 should be 1 v 3 and 2 v 4 so that then the theoretical prelim final match ups are 1 v 4 and 2 v 3

[FlyingHigh]

Agree, because then at least the side that finishes 3rd has to beat the 1st side somewhere along the line either the first week or GF, whereas now they can win the GF without playing the minor premiers.

Of course it would be all turned on its head if the Dogs knock off Collingwood, but I doubt this has happened since the current final eight set-up.

[Rik E Boy]

3rd Clearly!

regards,

REB

[Wedgie]

Good call Hondo.

[Wedgie]

Who would you rather be, Collingwood or St Kilda?

[gadj1976]

Who would you rather be, Collingwood or St Kilda?

err, loaded question no doubt. St's by a street!

BTW, I'm pushing for a top 5 only in the AFL. The rest is a waste of time.

[White Line Fever]

Saints definately.
More i think about it and i agree with ya Wedgie.
The final 8 system needs to be overhauled.

[dedja]

Best is 4th ... you get a double chance when you don't deserve it.

If you're from Melbourne there's a fair chance you get to play at home as well.

Brilliant system AFL, brilliant.