...and furthermore...

In these two previous posts ("Blow-out Me Down With A Feather" and "Money Can Buy You Wins"), I have tried to highlight that the blow-out losses are not necessarily the result of bringing in the Suns, and that other factors, mostly financial, are also at play. In particular, Andrew Demetriou made specific mention that bringing in new clubs would of course cause problems.

You can only assume he meant 'under the rules in place for the introduction of the Suns / Giants', because not only do the numbers not stack up (as per the second of the above links), but also according to the first post ("First Bounce") over at the AFL FootyMaths blog, all other teams introduced in the modern era (i.e. teams starting from 1987 on) have all performed extremely well in their first year.

So well in fact, that winning less than 1/3rd of their first season games is the exception to the rule. Only the Suns (Win rate: 14%) and the Brisbane Bears (Win rate: 27%) fit that exception. Where-as, all the other teams introduced since 1987 all have better first season records.

          1987 - West Coast -    Win rate: 50%

          1991 - Adelaide -         Win rate: 45% 

          1995 - Fremantle -       Win rate: 36%

          1997 - Port Adelaide -  Win rate: 48%

So, tell me again Your Andrew-ness... just why is it again that we have an emerging gulf in the AFL? Have you not overseen the creation of 'haves' and 'have-nots'?

A-League: I'm Struggling

Like most football (round-ball) fans, I was happy to see the reforms to the Australian game under Lowy. With the new teams and a fresh start, I joined and became a happy follower (even if from the distant reaches of suburban Tokyo).

But as the seasons work by and wheel away, I cant say I love the competition as much as I should... here is why...

1. The Melbourne Victory. 
The first team in Melbourne, and carrying the state colours. Must be the one team right? ...Well, no.

Picking navy and white is just too easy... teams picking colours on state affiliations is easy... lazy... cliche. 

As much as we love the Navy and white of the Big V...

I prefer this...                                                             ...over this.

And, then of course, navy and white is always linked to the very mortal enemy of the RFC faithful.

So from Day 1, I was never fully 'on-board' with the Victory.

2. The Melbourne Heart.

Seriously... that's the name. You almost lost me completely right there.

But the colours are at least not such an obvious choice on one hand (i.e. state based), but on the other hand, with a team in blue as your local rival, well red is just too easy.

I still cant get behind them though even though I do like the traditional shirts they have for home and away strips.

Home                                                                            Away

In fact, I actually prefer the away kit... very clean, very stylish.

But I can't get behind 'The Heart'. It feels wrong, odd.


So, I am kind of off the A-League...

Help!

Money Can Buy You Wins

... but I'm still not sure if money can buy you love.

Earlier, I posted about how the 2011 season was the worst for blow-out margins in the history of the competition on several indicators.
On looking at the chart further, I could see a period in the past that was similar to the 2011 season.

But first, let's pick -apart the season that was a bit further, as there is some feeling (from AFLHQ and others) that this was inevitable due to the introduction of the Gold Coast.


So It's All About The Suns Then?
As noted in my previous post here, blow-outs were expected by the AFL, as the expansion teams came in and built teams. So using this as a premise, let's allow that "we knew they would happen with Gold Coast etc" point stand on its own, and ignore the other "these are very rare occurrences" comment (from the same post) COMPLETELY ALONE then.

So, taking AD's comment that its all about the Suns, then I have to call bulltish. A simple check of the winners and losers highlights that the Suns may well be the worst, but there were quite a few others that also dished up some rubbish as well.

If you look at the thrashed teams what do we know about their 2011 season.
- Adelaide and Port Adelaide: teams in rebuild mode, profit and financial issues associated with the SANFL licence and ground deal. Both sacked coaches (one in 2010, one in 2011).

- Melbourne and North Melbourne: Perennial Melbourne-based financial misfits, both these teams were belted by Collingwood and Geelong in 2011.

- Fremantle: The financially weaker brother of the WA teams, but perhaps their losses were more injury or travel related, as they had two bad losses in Melbourne.

- Throw in the Richmond and Western Bulldogs results, again from a pair of teams that have had financial crises (and often poor recruiting) too.

- You should disregard the Collingwood result (the Round 24 loss to Geelong), as it was in a game that had little value for them... well, that's their side of the story anyway!

And how many of the above were in receipt of financial assistance from AFLHQ? From the AFL's 2010 report (pdf),
          A total of $7.1 million was paid from the AFL’s Annual Special Distribution
          fund to the following clubs:
          • Western Bulldogs Football Club ($1.7 million)
          • North Melbourne Football Club ($1.4 million)
          • Port Adelaide Football Club ($1.25 million)
          • Melbourne Football Club ($1.0 million)
          • Sydney Swans Football Club ($0.8 million)
          • Carlton Football Club ($0.6 million)
          • Richmond Football Club ($0.4 million)


From the winners perspective, the competitions big spenders and power clubs are there (Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast), joined (some what incongruously) by Melbourne. The grain-of-salt for that would be to consider their big wins were vs. Adelaide, vs. Fremantle and vs. Gold Coast, in what was a very odd season for them.

I think there is a case to be made, that the competition is unbalanced and that the richer stronger clubs have opened up an advantage over others. But in the world of the draft, and salary cap how can this be?

Well, there is still unrestricted off-field spending, which it has been argued has reached a new peak (FoxSports May 4 2011).
So, I put it to you, persistent reader that has gotten this far... that it comes down to spending and club finances as to not only how well your season goes, but also to how well you destroy the on-field opposition and create a blow-out game.


Finances and Poor Performance.
So how can anyone suggest in this day and age (of the salary cap, draft and other equalization schemes) that the finances and spend of clubs is creating disparity?

Looking back at the past year, there are many stories and hours of broadcast time that had been sent out around the off field spend of clubs, the overseas visits, and club facilities and staffing levels.  

Look back at the chart that shows the number of games lost by margins over 60 points. There is another period in AFL history that shows a very similar trend... that period between 1982 and 1996.

Any suggestions as to what happened between 82 and 96?

Here's a potted history right here...

    1981:    South Melbourne, in financial trouble, are relocated to Sydney by the VFL.

    1985:    The first murmurs of financial problems and payment issues at Fitzroy surface.

    1986:    Ranald McDonald resigns from Collingwood, leaving them in debt and at the foot
                 of the table. 

    1988:    Richmond, suffering from rash management and a 'trade war' with other clubs

                 (principally Collingwood) have a huge debt, and create the "Save Our Skins"

                 campaign to fight off death.

    1990:    Footscray fight back against a merger with Fitzroy and survive (even though Ross

                 Oakley wasn't merged into outer space).

    1994:    Further financial troubles around Fitzroy.

    1995:    St. Kilda launch the "save our Saints" campaign.

    1996:    A proposed merger between Melbourne and Hawthorn is rejected, after both
                 teams struggled with debt and low membership levels. 

    1996:    The Fitzroy fight for survival finally ends after 100 seasons, and they 'merge' with 

                 the Brisbane Bears to form the Brisbane Lions.

That period must be the most de-stabilizing to the VFL/AFL competition in its history, with at least eight clubs suffering debt crises at some time (tell me if I missed any or got the years wrong). 

So, let's look at when these blowouts began rising and peaked (see the main chart here), and I will choose the period from 1973 (the year the '10 Year Rule' was introduced and retracted*) until now. Looking at that specific time, and overlaying the troubles above, yields the below chart.

Click to Expand

What is also noticeable is that there is an arrest in the growth of blowout games** from 1996 onward (for about 15 years), which may be related to the end of the turmoil of mergers and financial crises, the declared support of the 16 team structure by AFL HQ, and the generally improved fiscal management of the clubs and league itself.

What I haven't considered so much is exactly what is being paid to players... and whether third party deals or even breaches (known or unknown) are also skewing teams performances.

The Reduced Talent Pool

The main idea behind the Demetriou 'new teams = blowout games' theory is based on the idea that adding new teams reduces the talent pool and lowers the playing standard. This  also, doesn't stack up so clearly

Firstly from the above, adding a new team (and say 40 senior list players) does not necessarily create a higher chance of blow-outs.
- 1987 introduced both the West Coast and Brisbane Bears, and there were less blowouts than the previous 2 seasons.
- 1991 brought Adelaide with less blowouts than the previous season.
- 1995 brought Fremantle into the competition, with less blowouts than 4 of the previous 5 seasons.
Port Adelaide's entry in 1997 also saw the exit (via merger, if you like) of Fitzroy. That season, and the next two, were more even and balanced than 14 of the previous 15 seasons.


Final Proposition
So, I would think that with the above, you could offer a position that clubs financial strengths has an impact on performance. This was manifested in the 80's and 90's via general club financial problems, and in the recent era in the power to spend off-field and in the back rooms, to build on-field strength.
You can buy yourself an AFL premiership, even in the age of the salary cap and draft.

Let me know if I am wrong, or have missed something.


* What a great moment in VFL/AFL history the '10 Year Rule' was. Introduced as a kind of free-agency policy to allow players with 10 (or more) years service to transfer to a club of their choice, usually for an inflated fee. It caused such ructions and player movement that it was rescinded early the following year over concerns about ballooning payments and clubs wage-payment pressures. Additional player payment and recruitment detail here, by Ross Booth (pdf). 


** You could point to seasons 2000 and 2001 as exceptions, but looking at the raw data shows higher 60 and 80 point losses, but only a few losses over 100 points. To me, the dark yellow and red results are the key problem areas.

Blow-out Me Down With A Feather.

The 2011 AFL season was the most lopsided in the history of the competition. The number of blowout games (on most measures by margins), and also by ladder percentage disparity (since 1970, when a 22 week home and away season became the norm). I don't put this down to the start of the Gold Coast Suns, but to that commodity every team, and everyone else, wants more of.

I had tweeted about this during the season, with charts etc, but I felt it also warranted further study and analysis. It may be that I have also found a possible root cause... more on that in the next post though.


The Blow-outs Of The Season.
There was a lot of media chatter about the 2011 season, particularly the blow-out games that have been posted in the back-half of the season. It all really fired up after this result:
        30/7/2011:   Kardinia Park  - Geelong  37. 11. 233  def  Melbourne  7. 5. 47

The aftermath of course brought the downfall of Dean Bailey, and an apparent push by the leading clubs to 'fly the flag' and post huge scores against lowly clubs as well. Which may have been the impetus for these results:

       06/8/2011:   Football Park  - Port Adelaide  3. 3. 21  def by  Collingwood  23. 21. 159

       06/8/2011:   Kardinia Park  - Geelong  29. 14. 188  def  Gold Coast  6. 2. 38 

All of this brought out talk (and tweets) about how blowouts were a big problem for the AFL, which His Andrew-ness said was an over-reaction (ABC News).

         "I just think they are a very rare occurrence," he said .... "We always knew that the

         Gold Coast would have a couple of largish results ... I don't think it's one that requires

         a crisis meeting and hysteria."

          - Andrew Demetriou: Aug 10 2011.

The following week, despite the head-honcho's assurances that massive blow-outs were rare, brought another belting (or big-club-showing-it-could-also-beat-up-a-lowly-club... read that as you will) 
       13/8/2011:   M. C. G.  - Hawthorn  31. 11. 197  def  Port Adelaide  5. 2. 32

So in the space of 3 weeks, the AFL served up the incredibly rare event of 4 blowout matches, for a combined scoreline of    120. 57. 767  -v-  21. 12. 138    Margin:  629 pts

And of these four, only one was a Gold Coast game... so much for His Andrew-ness's logic. Adding to the increasing rarity of these blowouts was the two earlier +120 point games in 2011 as well:

       01/5/2011:   Docklands  - Essendon  31. 11. 197  def  Gold Coast  8. 10. 58

       22/5/2011:   Subiaco  - West Coast  26. 19. 175  def  Western Bulldogs  8. 4. 52

Which benchmarks this season as the worst season EVER for
   - Margins 60 points and over           46 games
   - Margins 100 points and over         10 games (equal with 1991 season)
   - Margins 120 points and over         6 games (equal with 1991 season)
   - Margins 140 points and over         3 games

To put that in perspective, the chart below shows all results with margins of +60 points since 1897 (broken down into 20 point increments)

Click to expand.

And while this year has set a new high-watermark in un-evenness of the competition, the scoring rate (blue line) remains relatively stable at just around 180 pts scored per game.
Also interesting that the 2011 season has run against the trend of the last 10 years, which had been reasonably consistent.

You could also look to the disparity between teams ladder percentages over the years. Since 1970, when the now standard 22 round season was first introduced, 2011 is again the most unbalanced.

Click to expand.

The chart above shows the Standard Deviation of all teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 31.8, And the net difference between the maximum and minimum teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 111.4%.

     * NOTE: Removing results of games involving the Gold Coast, adjusts this to a Standard Deviation of 30.4, and
     total difference between the maximum and minimum teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 104.2%. Both of
     these adjusted figures are still record levels.

The Reaction So Far
So has this sent alarm bells ringing down at AFLHQ?
Well, it possibly triggered an internal season review (read as "crisis meeting" if you like), because His Andrew-ness came out at seasons end on Melbourne radio (MTR) to advise that...

         “What will happen you will see more one side affairs, you will see more one sided
          affairs, and western Sydney and Gold Coast suffering big losses as they build their
          team ... It will probably take three years for a correction to happen into the game
          where we get back to much more even games, get back to the pure draft after next
          year ... But for the next couple of years you will see these things that are skewed
          to blowouts"
          - Andrew Demetriou: Sep 28 2011.

...none of which is any surprise to football followers. Thanks, Andrew, for the concession speech, and lets assume this was written up in the Grand Final Edition "Football Record", on page 31, small print, bottom inside corner under the title "We Were Wrong"...?

Or, maybe not.

And to cap it all off, we can expect more in 2012, as

          "The AFL called a press conference yesterday to announce it was making ''no major
          rule changes'' for next year."
          - Sydney Morning Herald: Oct 12 2011.

 It will be interesting to see what happens further both in the off-season and during 2012.
- Will any post-season analysis and review bring up any root cause, or mirror to the past?
- Will AFLHQ read and consider any external opinion and study?
- Is Andrew planning on buying new curtains for the office and hoping it all goes away?


I will post up some ideas on why I think all this has happened and the link to the dollars later.
And also why I don't think this is a result of the arrival of a new team.

Feel free to offer your theories now.

4b. How Could Conferences Work in Practice.

As before here ("18 Into 22 Wont Fit") and here, here ("4a. How Could Conferences Work in Practice.") is another installment of a season trial run under a three conference system.


Case 2:
Conferences and Results:

Working from the same conferences as you would produce from the 2011 ladder, and adding in random scores, another season and conference tables can be generated, as at right.

In this, more complicated example, conference championships go to Sydney, Carlton, and North Melbourne (above the solid red line).

This, in my proposal, also gives those teams Qualifying Finals berths and the double chance. 

The fourth Qualifying final spot would be allocated to Brisbane, having the best record of the next 9 teams.

The other finalists would then be Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Richmond and Gold Coast, and missing out on finals in this instance are West Coast, Adelaide, Geelong and St. Kilda.

The interesting point with this scenario is that Carlton (50pts, 103%), with a worse record than Brisbane (52p 103%) and Melbourne (52p, 96%) are guaranteed a Qualifying Finals slot and double chance as conference winners even though there record would see them finish 6th on a traditional AFL table.

This might create a kerfuffle with those teams having better records missing out on the double chance spot, but here is how I see it...

  - Winning the conference and gaining an automatic double chance slot, gives teams more encouragement and reward to gain that title outright. Without the extra carrot to the guaranteed double chance slot, the conference title would carry little value.*1

  - If you are a conference winner with a poor result, or from a poorly performed conference, there is a good chance you will be 'out in straight sets' in the finals anyway.

  

Into The Finals:

As above, the In this proposal, all the conference winners are guaranteed a final, and I would also give them a double chance slot (along with the best second-placed team). I think it is important to reward conference champions in this way as it helps give that title meaning and a value to strive for.

So in the example, the top four finalists (with the double chance) would be;
QF 1: North Melbourne -v- Brisbane
[i.e. best performed conference winner -v- best 'wild-card' team (2nd place finisher in all conferences)].
QF 2: Sydney -v- Carlton
[i.e. second best performed conference winner -v- 3rd best conference winner].

For the other four finalists, ranking the  9 teams positioned 2nd to 4th in each conference (less the best 2nd place finisher) are then simply ranked by points and percentage, then allocated an Elimination Finals berth (or not finals ranked). This would then rank the remaining finalists from those 9 teams as below:
    Melb. (52points, 96%), W.Bulldogs (50p, 110%), Rich (48p, 104%), GCS (48p, 103%),

So using this system, the two Elimination Finalists would then be;
EF 1: W. Bulldogs -v- Richmond
[i.e. 3rd best 'wild-card' ranked team -v- 4th best 'wild-card' ranked team].
EF 2: Melbourne -v- Gold Coast
[i.e. 2nd best 'wild-card' ranked team -v- 5th best 'wild-card' ranked team].


Setting Up The Next Season:
To set up the next seasons conferences, the full teams list is merged back into a single (traditional) AFL ladder as at left, and then separate the teams based on that.


So from the left, the next seasons' conferences get built again as per the process;
- 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 16th.
- 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 17th.
- 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th.
*2


This creates the new seasons conferences as below.



In this, we still have the three conference winners in different conferences for the next year, but this is not by design, just the quirks of the process. There could be times where two conference winners are in the same group the following year.


*1 Possibly a very simplistic thought, as teams also want to win as many as possible to get a finals slot, but I feel there needs to be some sort of 'aura' about winning the conference. Manufactured or not.


*2 Happy to consider other proposals on allocating teams here... Obviously using this system, the Barassi group is slightly stronger than Robran (all teams theoretically 2 places better, etc). I haven't thought properly about balancing / seeding it too much, so if anyone has any ideas I will gladly consider.

Collingwood: You Still Have This...

I have co-opted someone else's data (via the web) into excel, and now have a list of every VFL/AFL game ever played. Teams, scores and venues. I used this to analyse 'blowout games' as I tweeted about over the last few months ...and may add that analysis onto this blog in the future.

But just as a little look back over all 13959 games, a full ladder of all games ever played (including finals, excluding non-premiership games) gives us the below ladder.

Note that I have had to base this on a 'Match Ratio' basis, as the number of games is imbalanced.

So over the journey, Collingwood hold the title of the team with the best win loss record. Something to help them sleep well at night, I'm sure. 

Also in the above I have grouped teams results as per the below, as ...

      South Melbourne (1897 - 1981) and Sydney (1982 - current)

      Fitzroy (1897 - 1996), Brisbane Lions (1997 - current) and Brisbane Bears (1987 - 1996)

      Footscray (1925 - 1996) and Western Bulldogs (1997 - current)

      North Melbourne (1925 - 1999, 2007 - current) and Kangaroos (1999 - 2007)

The table also roughly mirrors what you could consider the ranking of Melbourne clubs, membership and supporter wise... (debatable point, as it is...) 

    The Big Six:     Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Geelong, Richmond, Hawthorn,

    The Others:     South Melbourne/Sydney, Melbourne, Fitzroy

                          Footscray/Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne, St. Kilda

Also an interesting disparity between West Coast and Fremantle in performance, that is not mirrored in Adelaide.

I will pick apart these stats further in future posts.

* For purely academic purposes, a split-out those entities above to make the below table is produced.

The Grand Final We Had To Have *1

When I hear the terms 'Collingwood' and 'Grand Final', I always think.... "Gran Sale, Gran Sale, Gran Sale"

... or "Megalo Megalo Megalo Xepoulima", or "Grande Svendita".... or whatever. Because when I was a lad, 'Collingwood supporter' was a euphemism for 'multicultural'.

All my Greek and Yugoslav*2 mates were Wobblers (with the Italians firmly of the Blue Filth faith, of course).

Anyway...

As I have said before, the 2011 Premiership is Collingwood's to lose. Best team all year, depth of talent, depth of pockets. Unbackable favorites during the season, at least until September, they have the building blocks to go back to back*3. 

The only problems for the Wobblers have been...

1) being beaten by Geelong twice this season, once in a crunch close game, and the other a blow-out... Value of that second game? Probably nil if your a Wobbler fan, probably lots as a Hand-bagger.

Me, as an independant... any win is good, and one for the psychological bank.

It's there in the back of everyone's minds - They. Got. Smashed!

2) An apparent drop-off in the late season... have they been worked out as The Age says? Maybe, and would be interesting too. Football and these 'structures' everyone talks about. At the end of the day, score more than them and win. Simple.

3) Last week, the Wobblers got beat-up by the Dawks, while the Hand-baggers had a reasonably easy game against the Weagles*4. If fitness levels and bums-on-the-ground numbers are weighted one way or the other in the 3rd quarter, that might be all she wrote.

Its not an easy one to pick.

- Well, we would love the Wobblers to get done. So would most of the football world.

- It would also be good for the philosopher Malthouse to go out on a win... a consistently good coach and former Tiger.

- If the Wobblers win, they will go down in history as 'those flogs that ditched a back-to-back premiership coach'... well worth writing to the papers about. Nice!

- Might be fun times if Mick gets a win, and Bucks brings nothing to the club for the next 5 years... just a bit of crystal ball schadenfraude-ing.

- Would also be good for the Scott-boy (I never know which one he is) and Geelong to prove one coach and one Browlow medalist do not a club make. You know... strength of team, and all that. 

So, time to put them on the block... lets call it.

Heart - Geelong ... and I don't really know why. 

Head - Wobblers or Hand-baggers... too close to call, but I still lean to Geelong.

Happy to hear your comments, either in the comments section here, or via twitter @TKYC.

... AND, no correspondence will be entered into with 'Monday's Experts'. Tell me now, or blow it out your ring-piece.




*1   With apologies to Precious Paul J Keating.

*2   Gen-Y'ers, ask your Mum and Dad about Yugoslavia.
*3   In some ways, Collingwood going back-to-back is a better thought than Collingwood supporters going at it in the-beast-with-two-backs mode... if you get my drift... Are you with me?
*4   So I'm told by my office non-serious football followers... never saw, heard or read anything about those games. The joys of a great week in FNQ!

4a. How Could Conferences Work in Practice.

I have written quite a bit over here ("18 Into 22 Wont Fit") about an AFL draw that tries to balance out the playing year to 22 rounds, with teams playing other teams at least once (and 5 other teams at least twice) inside a conference system. That post has grown so long that it might be easier to review how it works with results in a 'trial' on a separate blog post or two (or more).

Case 1:
Conferences and Results:
So now we have our conferences split and the draw organised, here is how the actual conferences work in practice.

I have used excels random number generator to determine each game and score line. The Micrsoft Excel function =RANDBETWEEN(40,150) was used to generate team scores between 40pts and 150pts*, which were plugged in to each game to generate wins, draws and losses.

The conferences, after a full (random) season, then produced the ladders as below, giving conference championships to West Coast, Geelong, and St. Kilda (above the solid red line).

It should be worth noting that in this first example, I have chosen a very basic set of results, where all the conference winners are also the best three teams of the season. This is done to highlight what 'should' happen using this system. I will follow-up later with posts on other possible scenarios as well.

Allocating teams from three conferences into eight finals slots creates issues. For example, the top 3 teams from each conference only gives 9 teams, which is one to many.

I would propose the conference champions get automatic entry into the finals as the first three seeds. The next three teams in each conference (below the solid red line and above the dotted red line) are 'wild card' teams for the finals, with the best 5 of those 9 teams gaining a finals spot.

I have run many iterations with results on this, and have found that on some rare occasions, a fourth placed team in a conference can have;
   a) a good enough record to be in a traditional finals 8, and
   b) a better record than 2nd or 3rd placed team in other conferences.
...I may even run more iterations to find one and then add it to the blog.

So working with the best 5 from the 3 groups of 2nd to 4th, there are finals berths for
- Melbourne and Collingwood;
- Adelaide, and;
- Hawthorn and Richmond.

Missing out would be Port Adelaide; Carlton and Essendon; and Brisbane, as they have the worst record.


Into The Finals:
In this proposal, all the conference winners are guaranteed a final, and I would also give them a double chance slot (along with the best second-placed team). I think it is important to reward conference champions in this way as it helps give that title meaning and a value to strive for.

So in the example, the top four finalists (with the double chance) would be;
  QF 1: West Coast -v- Melbourne
[i.e. best performed conference winner -v- best 'wild-card' team (2nd place finisher in all conferences)].
  QF 2: St. Kilda -v- Geelong
[i.e. second best performed conference winner -v- 3rd best conference winner].

For the other four finalists, I would propose that the 9 teams positioned 2nd to 4th in each conference (less the best 2nd place finisher) are then simply ranked by points and percentage, then allocated an Elimination Finals berth (or not finals ranked). This would then rank the remaining finalists from those 9 teams as below:
   Coll. (48points, 101%), Hawt. (48p, 100%), Rich (44p, 102%), Adel. (44p, 100%), 

So using this system, the two Elimination Finalists would then be;
  EF 1: Hawthorn -v- Richmond
[i.e. 3rd best 'wild-card' ranked team -v- 4th best 'wild-card' ranked team].
  EF 2: Collingwood -v- Adelaide
[i.e. 2nd best 'wild-card' ranked team -v- 5th best 'wild-card' ranked team].


Setting Up The Next Season:
To set up the next seasons conferences**, I would merge the three conferences back into a single (traditional) AFL ladder as at left, and then separate the teams based on that.


Using the combined ladder completed after the home and away season means the next seasons conferences are based on a balanced results card... i.e two games vs teams from the same conference, and one game vs all other teams. I would not advocate incorporating the results from finals, as they may create imbalance.

So from the left, the next seasons' conferences get built again as per the process;
 - 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 16th.
 - 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 17th.
 - 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th.





This creates the new seasons conferences as at right. In this example, there has been
 a) some shuffling of teams into new Conferences,
[i.e. Richmond, Carlton, move into the Barassi Conference from other conferences].

 b) stasis of teams in the same conferences.
[i.e. Melbourne Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs and West Coast have stayed in the Barassi conference, but now has different teams to play against home and away].

Worth noting in this example, there is not as much mixing of teams as there could be. But that is just the nature of the system being reliant on previous seasons ladder position. Indeed there could even be a case where there was no change year-on-year.



* The end points of 40 and 150 are reached as an indication point from calculations on all the scores of AFL games from 2000 to 2011. The average score over that period is 95pts, and +/- 2 standard deviations of that in 38 to 151. I have not added any 'home ground advantage' as I have not adjusted the draw to balance for that. As before, it can be done, but I just haven't the time to go through and complete it. For the record, there is an average 10 point advantage as the home team over that same period.


** As before, in the "18 Into 22 Wont Fit" post, I advocate a season-on-season re-organising of conferences. This is both a way of distributing games among teams (keeping each season fresh and distinct from others before), as well as to dissipate any concerns of either 'strong conferences / weak conferences' or of developing a 'tiered, promotion/relegation' system. If strong conferences or promotion/relegation systems were introduced, I fear it would mark the beginning of the end for some clubs. 

Who's Got A Semi?

So I heard David Parkin talk up Carlton to win in Subiaco because they "have great form over there against West Coast". At least, I think that is a direct quote from SEN during the week.

So, do they have any form (in corresponding games ...i.e. at home)?


Semi Final 2 - West Coast -v- Carlton

Looking at the last 5 years, its 2-1 to Carlton. Can we take anything from this?

Well in 2010, Carlton won by 4 goals. In the middle of West Coast’s run of 13 losses from 14 games. 1 week after beating Essendon (did they get ahead of themselves?) and 1 week before another Derby (did they think ahead too much?)

The other two games (1W -1L) were in 2007 and ’08… take what you can from those games when a good deal of players, staff and the game itself would have changed.

Here are a few changes...
Carlton: 10 players were involved in the 2007 and 2011 games... Betts, Carrazzo, Gibbs, Houlihan, Murphy, Russell, Scotland, Simpson, Thornton, Walker.
West Coast: 9 players were involved in the 2007 and 2011 games... - Cox, Embley, Glass, Hurn, Kerr, Lynch, Priddis, Rosa, Selwood.
...ALSO: Judd and Kennedy also played twice, but for different teams!
...AND: Carlton were also under the guidance of D. Pagan in 2007 as well.

With the all that, the only good for is recent form, and Carlton lost the Etihad game this year. Parkin... I think there is little in it, other than inspiration for a blog post.
I think the Toasters are different proposition in 2011 than at any time in the last 5 years, so I think at home they should win. Then there is the Judd factor.

Semi Final 1 - Hawthorn -v- Sydney

Hawks v Sydney at the MCG, its 3-1 for the Dawks. Interestingly, Swannies can get past 80 points.

...and the Swans lost to Richmond at the 'G too. But some think that is the catalyst to their late season revival. Could be.
And Hawthorn got them in Sydney too, by 46 points (Sydney only scored 60pts).

Tough one... I think if Buddy plays, the Dawks get up. Without him, the Swans might get home but the Dawks still look likely.
Or maybe I just go with the heart, not the head...
Go Bloods! *

* Disclaimer: Author is a Richmond F.C. member, which has no bearing on this at all. Author's dad is a South man from way back... so now you know.

Sideshow Mick's Last Gleaming

Qualifying Final 1 - Collingwood -v- West Coast

Krusty old Eddie is now so close to bumping off his old mate, Sideshow Mick. But Mick wants to go out with one last bang, so looks to the big (air) show to do so... the finals. He has already been on the Tyrano-Vision, talking about how he doesn't feel the spark for 2012 at Collingwood, and that agreements may have been made under duress (sure to get any employer running). Now to play out the last act... Sideshow Mick v West Coast Eagles, with Bart Buckley waiting in the wings.

1. Collingwood
The 'Elgin Marbles' of the AFL. Slightly dusty. Slightly broken. Have been around forever. Removed form their former home to the 'Bank Centre' (formerly 'Japanese Car Centre') by those hanging on to the dreams of former empire, with 'new money'. If only they were back at their home.

The premiership is theirs to lose in 2011, and maybe 2012 as well. Strong form at the G, with the only chinks in the armor exposed by Geelong. Might be worried again by then, or the Swans (purely as they choke games). Can't see the Hawks or anyone else getting past them.


2. West Coast
And speaking of 'new money', the very AFL example of flaunting it. Back into the finals after being the best playing list to finish last since... for ever?
And what of the best ruck combo in the land... Can the Cox / Naitanui pair make any dent in the finals. No doubts on Cox as hes proven, but will NicNat continue to be the free-spirited player of week-to-week football, or does stage-fright beckon.

West Coast of course strong at home (barring excusing an early season Sydney loss), but the away form is simply rotten... though we are happy they bumped off the Blue Filth.
With the weather the way it is and the Eagles having a reputation (deserved?) of being dry-track bullies... what looked a good match-up last week may be a train wreck now.


Verdict:
Well... its the maggot-bags for mine. Has to be.
I also have a suspicion the Wet Toast might tank it, knowing a home final next week will give them a chance to re-load and go again.

Friday Night 'Bloke-buster' (...a.k.a. "Who Wants a Grand Final Shot?")

Qualifying Final 2 - Geelong -v- Hawthorn

So, its de-ja-vu all over again (thanks Yogi) as we see the Cats v Hawks again go at it in the 'mental showdown' QF. Read that how you want... 

 - mental:  as in they will be not holding back and charging in as if there is no tomorrow, or

 - mental:  as in psychological. Will Geelong hold their promise to not lose to Hawthorn again, or will the Hawks break the nexus and get a W.

One thing most people say (yeah... unsubstantiated guff!) is that the winner will go through the to Grand Final. Expect this to be fiercest final of the weekend.

1. Geelong
So at one stage during the season, I said that Geelong were 'virtually invincible', and any objective supporter would have thought that was a fair call too. At that stage they were undefeated, able to win anywhere, against anyone, and even come home to get the close ones.
And then of course, they beat Collingwood, the supposed indestructible team of 2011. Suddenly, people remembered that the team now without a coach or Brownlow Medal winner were still a big chance for the flag. A big chance!

Great form all year by Geelong, bar three losses near then end. Picked up all the finalist scalps that could be considered genuine Premiership contenders. Also were able to work a win when close... mentally tough set of blokes.
You would also think the late season losses were 'good to get out of the way', and would 're-focus' them. Either that, or the first signs the wheels were falling off.


2. Hawthorn
Steady and consistent all year, possibly underrated as well. Done very well to pull through without really much tall down the back (hoping you are the same).
Kids look good too... Puopolo, Bruest, Itzhak Shmith. Finals ready kiddies? Lets see.

Twice beaten by Geelong in close ones, and done over by the Wobblers. Is there any way for them to overcome that and grind a win? If it is a close one, will they be strong enough to push it over the line?


Verdict:
Close. Hard. Tough. Geelong by the cats-whisker for me... but its no lock. If Hawthorn are mentally tough, this is the day to show it.
Could even be a draw decided in extra time.

Of Bubbles and Bloods

Elimination Final 2 - St. Kilda -v- Sydney

What was once the 'Lakeside Derby' in now ...the 'St. Kilda to Kings Cross Cup'. Against the Ess-Carl Eliminator, this one is quiet and almost ignored.

A good effort by Longmire to keep the team up to a finals level. Will it really be Ross Lyon's last game as St. Kilda coach...? What money is there being offered to go to the Dees...? 

Does anyone in Sydney know the Swans are in the finals?

Is Seaford really in Melbourne? 

1. St. Kilda
The 'Aints... the poor old 'Aints. If the 2010 Grand Final had have had another 2 minutes, they could have their second flag. But it didn't, and they don't. All they got from the replay was a smacking.
And then there was the 'off field' dramas. The 'bubble' was burst over summer, and the 'Aints were gone. The early season cemented that thought, with 1 win and 1 draw from 7 games... but somehow they stuck it out. Hayes-less, with Riewoldt patchy and Goddard looking like he would rather be elsewhere (Try GWS), they still came back and snuck in to the finals.

Against other top 8 teams, they have the worst record... 2 wins and 8 losses. Beating Carlton maybe helpful, but did the Filth really want to win that one? Maybe... maybe not. They don't even have a good indoor record either (1 win, 3 losses). Overall it doesn't look good, but they have experienced finals players so should make a good fist of it.


2. Sydney
The romance of the Bloods continues. Seemingly in the finals forever (...well, 13 times in the last 16 seasons) and still largely ignored by the people of Sydney. They somehow work some magic and maintain a playing list that pushes them to September. Dour and perhaps the least exciting team in this years 8, but none the less still capable on the day of grinding out a win.

The highlight of the form line is the away win to Geelong. Also at the back half of the year they have had some good wins and close losses .Also equally capable of winning outdoors and on the road. They have only minimal M.C.G. experience which only comes into play later. This first game at Docklands, against the Saints they had beaten a few weeks back.
My tip for the team not in the top 3 to give the finals the biggest shake.  


Verdict:
I get that feeling that the Bloods will push this - and win. Call me an old softy, but the Swans recent off-field tragedy could be the wake-up call.

Ratten Out Of The Bag

Elimination Final 1 - Carlton -v- Essendon

This First Elimination Final is getting plenty of media cover, as you would expect wit being played between these two big clubs.. All that talk of rivalries etc... yeah, well the airwaves need content, so off you go and fill that dead air.

Also a fair bit of talk about a Carlton loss being the end of Brett Ratten. Maybe, but why would you? Steady progression at Princes Park... no alarms yet. Really, he is not Robert Walls and Essendon are not the Brisbane Bears of 1989.

1. Carlton
Much like their former President, Carlton in a different age were once the ruthless corporate villian of the AFL, cashed up, full of bravado and bluster, and constantly raiding the finals.
In 2011, they are also like their former president... still with plenty of fervour, but lacking bite and credibility... the AFL's grumpy old men hankering for a return to the glory days of yesteryear.

Carlton's form on the run in is patchy at best, with only a recent win v Essendon to hang their hat on. Form is a bit unbalanced, with 3 wins and 6 losses (+1 draw) v top 8 teams. Also, only 1 win at the 'G (and 3 other outdoor losses). Also they did not play at Subiaco or Sydney, so have no form on the road (which may come into play in week two of the finals.


2. Essendon
The wonderful 'Same Olds' of Essendon... the AFL's middle-aged, middle-class, Sunday church-going, weekly lawn-mowing fraternity of 'nice' folk. The Windy Hill White-breads shocked the AFL last year by sacking a coach, but of course they waited patiently until seasons end, lest they cause upset. And true to form retuned to an old favourite as their new coach a new coach. Just like on old man returning to the lolly jar for a toffee.
By the way, did they really get a new coach or a cardboard cut-out...? I really can't tell.

Essendon, as you would expect from an eight place finish, should be carrying the worst form. But the win against Geelong, would be giving their supporters hope of a good campaign.
Credit to Essendon, 4 wins (+1 draw) vs top 8'ers. But reality check time... you got the 'Aints at the start of the year when they had a shocking start, and picked up close wins v West Coast and Sydney (very close). Another problem is the inability to win away from the Docklands. All year. Dons also have not won away at Sydney or Perth, which should be a worry if they pinch this one.


Verdict:
The Same-Olds do get into gear for these type of games..., but I think it should be a win to the Blue Filth... unfortunately.

Eight Teams Out - Redux

With the finals now on for young and old, there is so much 'he-said, she-said' on the air now as to how they will play out. With that in mind, a short review of the past is in order to see who has the mental edge going in.

Re-run the games that mattered.

Top 8 Fixture - click to enlarge

With no disrespect to the bottom 8 teams, lets chuck out any games the top 8 have played against them, and re-work the season into games that only those in the top 8 played. This then gives all the results as per the (clickable) table at right.

This reduces the games of significance down to 39, with a few teams having played other top 8 teams 11 times, and others as little as 8 games. This is purely a function of the AFL draw and its obvious problem of not being able to schedule all teams to play each other home and away.



Re-work the ladder to reflect head-to-head form.
The current 8 lists out as below (PS: AFL, when did Geelong become Geelong Cats...?);

Courtesy: AFL website

Re-working the 8 to count only those games played amongst themselves yields the below;

Adjusted 8: only games between top 8 finishers

The above is an interesting shift in thinking about the 8, with a boost to Essendon and Sydney over Carlton, West Coast and St. Kilda.

Re-work that to compensate for 'games played'.
The above though is still not a fair representation as there is an imbalance in the games played (i.e. Essendon have had 4 wins from 11 tries vs. West coast 3 wins from 8 opportunities). To re-dress that, we pull out the old AFL favourite 'match ratio'. This also boosts Sydney's stocks, as well as reinforcing that Carlton and St. Kilda have little form against other top 8 teams.

Adjusted 8: only games between top 8 finishers, factoring for 'match ratio'

But, which ever way you cut it... the premiership is still Collingwood's to lose, with the only true outside chances to be the Cats and the Hawks. You should also be wary of West Coast and Sydney, as if they get a home final, they could go further than most would credit.

In the next day or so, I will look at the form of each team in the 8 on a head-to-head basis.

The Mighty Ninthmond

A question was asked on twitter

“what % of games have the tigers won post rnd 11 in the past 10 years #winwhenitdoesntmatter”

which is a great question since the Mighty Tigers once again have set themselves up for another Ninth place finish.

After a bit of research (from Wikipedia and the great AFL Stats website), I responded with the following tweet sent out...

- Last 11 games: 2011 3wins, 10 5w, 09 3w 1d, 08 8w, 07 3w, 06 5w, 05 3w, 04 0w, 03 1w, 02 3w #winwhenitdoesntmatter

Which really looks like a pile of gibberish, so I produced this table instead.

* 2011 has 1 game to play at time of posting.

Which does show that the wet sail gets deployed every once in a while, ‘when it doesn’t matter’. That said, with developing kids, you can get the squad gelling better with more games into them and teamwork developed.

It also shows that Richmond are less 'Ninthmond' in the last decade than people would know.