Idiotic bye week pre finals to stay in 2017

[saintspremiers]

The bye cost the Swans. It was the idiotic bye that gave the doggies an advantage. Doggies didn't deserve to win they had the bye. All they had to do was beat WC on the road, the reigning premiers, and GWS on the road. Then the minor premiers of this year. They were gifted the flag and it was all the fault of the bye

Hey Einstein, the Dogs due to the bye were able to bring back injured players. Without the bye they would've been stuffed.

The week off helped them enormously

[Moods]

The bye cost the Swans. It was the idiotic bye that gave the doggies an advantage. Doggies didn't deserve to win they had the bye. All they had to do was beat WC on the road, the reigning premiers, and GWS on the road. Then the minor premiers of this year. They were gifted the flag and it was all the fault of the bye

Hey Einstein, the Dogs due to the bye were able to bring back injured players. Without the bye they would've been stuffed.

The week off helped them enormously

Yeah, I know that. It just so happened they had injuries and the bye came at a convenient time. It's one of the reasons why the Bye was such a good thing. Who wants to see a team limp out of the finals because of injuries? If WC had of beaten them we would have had some staid boring GF. Either GWS or WC would have made it. But all 8 clubs had the bye. No one was given more of an advantage over anyone else. All it did was enable the Doggies to play to their ability, not above it. They had no more or less rest than Sydney who they played in the GF. They had won 15 games during the H&A season. A fact conveniently lost in all this nonsense. Incredibly UNLUCKY to finish 7th with that win/loss ratio. In 05 we finished 4th having won 14 games. In 08 we finished 4th having won 13 games.

The advantage the top were given was home ground. And they still couldn't beat the Dogs. If GWS weren't fresher in the last quarter of their game against the dogs then the question is Why not? The bye is a falsity made up by ppl who can't handle change. The same ppl who cling to the belief that the GF should be played at 2.30 p.m. every year when it's obvious that a twilight or night GF is at least worth giving a go

[Life Long Saint]

How do you explain the top 5 concept the VFL used for 20 years? Top teams often played Grand Finals after only having played 1 game in 28 days - and somehow they managed to prevail. It's nonsense made up by hysterical coaches. Coaches are the absolute last people the AFL should be speaking to. They will adapt.

Easily explained. There were no byes during the season and there certainly wasn't one just before the finals. The rest for the top team was an advantage as the other teams weren't rested at all.

The Bulldogs were able to get five players into that team that played the Eagles...Liberatore, Macrae, Stringer, Suckling & Wood due to the week off.
If those players don't play, they don't beat the Eagles.

The season is a war of attrition and the rest before the finals has split the season into two sections. The finals are well and truly their own separate competition now instead of a culmination of the season.

If that's what the AFL wanted, then they've got it...But I don't like it and, judging by the some of the comments I've read, I am not the only one.

[Life Long Saint]

The % of the teams that finished top that actually won a flag under that system would be interesting. Did they have a bye throughout the year back then? That could factor in. And anyway the flaws in that system were realised when they moved to a top eight.

Cats finished second despite a huge number of changes. They are light on in mids if you take out dangerwood but I always said they needed at least another year to really bed in. But they won through to the prelim and you take out the first qtr they went toe to toe with swans . That first qtr for both cats and gws was proof positive that they extra week off leaves teams struggling to for match sharpness. As Oldersaint said players thrive on repetition. Stop playing Play stop playing play - thats a disaster.

GWS finished 4th with a much better % than dogs, beat Sydney in Sydney. They were clearly a better team than they dogs and without the extra week killing their timing and making them rusty would almost certainly have beaten the dogs. You can say thats good cos it get dogs in the grannie but you can't say its a fair system. You'd be the first to scream if it stopped St Kilda getting into a grannie.

In the 19 years of the final five from 1972 to 1990, 10 teams won the flag from first...including every team from 1984 to 1989 inclusive. 1990 was unusual due to the qualifying final draw between Collingwood and West Coast that had to be replayed. It meant that Essendon didn't play any football from the 1st September until 23rd September...They were subsequently smashed by Collingwood in the Semi final. Collingwood then enjoyed the week off and a rest into the Grand Final. The AFL changed the rules of a drawn final after that!

Interestingly, under the final five system, no team from outside the top three won a premiership!

It was the best system the VFL/AFL has ever had but the dollar rules the roost now and they'd be after more finals, not less.

[Moods]

How do you explain the top 5 concept the VFL used for 20 years? Top teams often played Grand Finals after only having played 1 game in 28 days - and somehow they managed to prevail. It's nonsense made up by hysterical coaches. Coaches are the absolute last people the AFL should be speaking to. They will adapt.

Easily explained. There were no byes during the season and there certainly wasn't one just before the finals. The rest for the top team was an advantage as the other teams weren't rested at all.

The Bulldogs were able to get five players into that team that played the Eagles...Liberatore, Macrae, Stringer, Suckling & Wood due to the week off.
If those players don't play, they don't beat the Eagles.

The season is a war of attrition and the rest before the finals has split the season into two sections. The finals are well and truly their own separate competition now instead of a culmination of the season.

If that's what the AFL wanted, then they've got it...But I don't like it and, judging by the some of the comments I've read, I am not the only one.

But now you're arguing something different. The bye was unfair because the teams that won the qualifying final only played 1 game in 28 days by the time they played the prelim. Now that I have shown that historically that has never been a problem, you're arguing that it's not fair because the bottom teams in the 8 get a chance to reload before the finals.....

[Life Long Saint]

But now you're arguing something different. The bye was unfair because the teams that won the qualifying final only played 1 game in 28 days by the time they played the prelim. Now that I have shown that historically that has never been a problem, you're arguing that it's not fair because the bottom teams in the 8 get a chance to reload before the finals.....

Nope.
I said "It dilutes the advantage teams have for finishing top 4 and winning the qualifying final."
And it does. It gives EVERYONE a rest.
Imagine the Dogs having to go to Perth back to back weekends without five of their better players. The bye allowed ALL teams to freshen up. Not just those that earned it.

[Bluthy]

28 of 32 preliminary finals in the old system have been won by the team that had a bye the week previously. Under the new system its the polar opposite at 2 for 2 not having that week off before the prelim winning. Now thats a small sample size but its highly suspicious. Its indicating the teams that only got to play one game in a month were very rusty - which makes total sense only playing one game in a month and then thrown into the white hot heat of a prelim. The first quarters bore that out.

I don't believe in rewarding teams for losing. Call me old fashioned.

[Moods]

28 of 32 preliminary finals in the old system have been won by the team that had a bye the week previously. Under the new system its the polar opposite at 2 for 2 not having that week off before the prelim winning. Now thats a small sample size but its highly suspicious. Its indicating the teams that only got to play one game in a month were very rusty - which makes total sense only playing one game in a month and then thrown into the white hot heat of a prelim. The first quarters bore that out.

I don't believe in rewarding teams for losing. Call me old fashioned.

You're old fashioned....

No one is being rewarded for losing. The Dogs still had to play 4 tough finals, 2 of which were interstate. Great reward.

I like the fact that a team capable of going all the way, went all the way. I hated the top 5 where a team who finished 4th or 5th occasionally gave it a shake in the finals, but due to huge exhaustion, ruined the GF and were blown out of the water. If we want to reward the best team in the competition and give them so many advantages that they virtually are guaranteed of playing in the GF, why play finals at all? Just do what the poms do with soccer and give the flag to the team that finishes on top at the H&A. People always say that the finals are a different season, why not treat it as such.

The top 4 get plenty of advantages. They get home ground for a start. If WC can't win a final on their home deck, sheesh? Same with GWS. I guarantee you that clubs will work out this bye during the finals and over a 10yr period it will show that the top are more often than not playing in the prelim. This rubbish about the GWS being rusty is complete folly. They were up by 14 points in the last quarter FFS. If they can't win from that position, is that the fault of the bye? Why can't we just accept that they weren't good enough?

[mullet]

It's all by the bye.

Teams will adapt if it's permanent.

Exactly.... If its permanent. Would hate to think they change it up just as everyone adapts . Also agree, have the brownlow that week too, I think they used too.
Will stop all the players making dicks of themselves drinking everytime they get a vote.

[#gosaintas]

It's all by the bye.

Teams will adapt if it's permanent.

Exactly.... If its permanent. Would hate to think they change it up just as everyone adapts . Also agree, have the brownlow that week too, I think they used too.
Will stop all the players making dicks of themselves drinking everytime they get a vote.

Queue the outrage. Players drinking when they get votes. Will somebody think of the children? It's a disgrace I tell you. Ban it. Ban it all.

[Bluthy]

28 of 32 preliminary finals in the old system have been won by the team that had a bye the week previously. Under the new system its the polar opposite at 2 for 2 not having that week off before the prelim winning. Now thats a small sample size but its highly suspicious. Its indicating the teams that only got to play one game in a month were very rusty - which makes total sense only playing one game in a month and then thrown into the white hot heat of a prelim. The first quarters bore that out.

I don't believe in rewarding teams for losing. Call me old fashioned.

You're old fashioned....

No one is being rewarded for losing. The Dogs still had to play 4 tough finals, 2 of which were interstate. Great reward.

I like the fact that a team capable of going all the way, went all the way. I hated the top 5 where a team who finished 4th or 5th occasionally gave it a shake in the finals, but due to huge exhaustion, ruined the GF and were blown out of the water. If we want to reward the best team in the competition and give them so many advantages that they virtually are guaranteed of playing in the GF, why play finals at all? Just do what the poms do with soccer and give the flag to the team that finishes on top at the H&A. People always say that the finals are a different season, why not treat it as such.

The top 4 get plenty of advantages. They get home ground for a start. If WC can't win a final on their home deck, sheesh? Same with GWS. I guarantee you that clubs will work out this bye during the finals and over a 10yr period it will show that the top are more often than not playing in the prelim. This rubbish about the GWS being rusty is complete folly. They were up by 14 points in the last quarter FFS. If they can't win from that position, is that the fault of the bye? Why can't we just accept that they weren't good enough?

i

The finals are a different season but you work your ass off to get top 4, break your back to win a huge QF and you are punished by only playing 1 game in a month and not being match fit for the brutal prelim which is an extreme test of endurance. GWS couldn't run out the game. Neither could cats. Both teams also got jumped in the first quarter which is very unusual in prelims where both teams are usually very fired up. If they keep it and this pattern happens again next year start looking at clubs tanking that first game to ensure they have the necessary match fitness and touch for the prelim. That will be a farce.

That week off was incredibly boring. Will Travis Cloke be at collingwood? f*** me thats the lead news item for the week being discussed. Yeah lets not play the sport we love for two weeks when we are on the edge of our seat desperate to see how these teams that have battled so hard will go in Sep. Killed a lot of momentum. Lucky they had dogs winning to revitalise things. STop dragging out the season. One day in October sounds s***.