I must admit I don’t understand why they let the last bit happen. Nothing sillier than playing someone for the first time in Round 20 or 21, when you’ve already played 4 teams twice.
Cut/merge 4 teams. Bigger lists. 26 round seasons.
Would work, but isn’t going to happen in the next 15-20 years.
Are you confusing me with AN or Bacchus.
AN was there before there were 12 teams.
There’s a good reason why we don’t have 5 day breaks. Aussie Rules is miles more intense athletically than NFL and more physical than NBA, and EPL, puh-leese.
Don’t worry though, Bacchus…my opinion of your mental capacity remains unaltered.
Not in “the National game”
Playing each team twice over 34 rounds would bring about an equity and integrity that the AFL would find unpalatable.
…and then people would just argue about how unfair it was that team X got to play away/home at the start of the season as opposed to the end of the season.
It would be less fair. It ignores that team strength changes quickly. Imagine the difference in playing Richmond or Bulldogs twice between 2016 and 2017. In 2015 Kangaroos made the prelim. You’re just exchanging one source of unevenness for another.
Because it allows more flexibility with interstate travel, days off and fixturing.
It also nips in the blood the perennial articles after round 17 about a pure draft.
I’m lost, I’m looking for the Conor thread.
its right next to the contract extension montage.
If you’d hurry up and post some highlights it would get back on track
I don’t really see why the groupings have to change based on relative strength.
You could break it up into 3 groups (SA+WA sides + 2 of the smallest 4 Vic clubs;
NSW+QLD + the other 2 small Vic clubs, then the 6 big Vic clubs in the last group
Play everyone once = 17.
2 games against the other 5 in your “group” = 22
Alternate each fixture Home-away-Home-away, none of this rubbish of playing Adelaide in Adelaide for basically a decade.
I can’t think of a way to guarantee a fair fixture, and I’m not sure it’s worth trying. This at least gives you transparency. Some years your group will be strong, some years it won’t. Can’t do much to plan against that.
Don’t be a tease
So… Back on Conor
No doubt he has the biggest upside next year. His growth this year was exceptional and far exceeded anyones, including his, coaches and teammates expectations.
It would not be any less fair than now. The issue of team strength applies to any variation of 17/5, teams in any group could jump up quickly. So your point is a negative in all cases, not just my example.
I also said you could still apply a weighting to even the strength of schedule out in the first two years, but it will still be imperfect anyways. Over time it would all generally even out.
It is a bastardized version of two codes.