It’s an out-and-out miracle when you consider 16 teams and 22 rounds, and all the marketing needs, ground constraints, travel commitments, broadcast considerations and everything else that goes into one of the toughest tasks in football.
Technically speaking, it can’t be totally fair. Fair is every team playing every other team twice, on a home-and-away basis.
Indeed, the only time the VFL/AFL draw has been absolutely fair was from 1970-86, when we had 12 clubs and 22 rounds, with each club playing each other twice.
So, it’s interesting that as we look ahead to an 18-team competition from 2012, the AFL is now calling for public feedback on how the draw should work.
I’ve been around too long not to think that the AFL pretty much has it worked out already, but it’s a terrific PR initiative and you never know what someone might toss up.
To me, just like most issues in football, the draw is balancing the principle of a fair sporting competition against the practice of being a professional sport.
In an 18-team professional competition the conflict is massive.
If we had every team playing every other team twice it’d be 34 rounds. Of course that’s not going to happen. And a 17-round season in which each side plays each other side once won’t cut it because each club relies on a minimum of 11 home games.
So there is always going to be a degree of unfairness and the practical and financial issues are always going to take the highest priority.
There is no use beating around the bush in an era where thousands of people and the sport itself are fed by the national competition. The draw is mainly about maximising revenue via attendances and television ratings and that eliminates 90 per cent of potential changes that might otherwise be considered.
We’ll always want each non-Victorian club to play their cross-town rivals twice each season and for the same reasons we want the big drawing blockbusters between Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon to be played twice each year.
So what’s best? I favour a 24-game season over a 22-game season simply because it’s closer to absolute sporting fairness.
With 18 teams, 24 rounds would mean that each team will play seven teams twice, and 10 teams once. In 22 rounds you’ll only get five repeat matches, and 12 sides you’ll play only once.
But two extra rounds will put a significant extra burden on the players.
Maybe we should make our games a little shorter. Play four 25-minute quarters flat or four quarters each of 17 and a half minutes, plus time-on. Either way, make the playing time around 100 minutes instead of the current 120.
I’d also like to see a much greater reward for the side that finishes on top at the end of the home-and-away season.
I’ve always thought it is a greater achievement to finish top at the end of the home and away series than to put together a good September to win the premiership.
The trouble is finding a simple formula that rewards the No.1 ranked side appropriately and doesn’t upset everything else.
In a purely football sense, we’re stuck with a system where if the top four sides are all Victorian then the top side at the end of the home-and-away season has absolutely no advantage over the side that finishes fourth.
Perhaps there could be a $1 million prize for top spot. It’s not what anyone plays for and it would never replace the premiership, but if it was substantial it would at least be something.
If we’re going to have 24 premiership rounds there needs to be a cut-back in the pre-season because, especially the way the game is being played these days, there is a limit to how many games a player can get out of his body each year.
As much as it would not be good from a marketing and promotional viewpoint, perhaps we have to do away with ‘official’ pre-season games and go back to intra-club practice matches before round one.
No clubs are going to like it, but if everyone is working under the same criteria it’s at least fair to all.
Or maybe we could consider a pre-season lightning premiership over a couple of weekends to provide some inter-club competition and marketing opportunities without putting an unreasonable burden on the players.
Collingwood captain Nick Maxwell had another view on moving to a 24-round season, suggesting that to reduce the workload no player would be allowed to play more than 22 games.
As I said to Nick, it’s an interesting thought and I understand where he’s coming from but picking teams is hard enough without having to accommodate any further selection criteria.
If we choose not to go to 24 rounds - or if the practical considerations make it too hard - then is there a better way of working a 22-game season?
From a pure fairness viewpoint, there’s merit in the idea of splitting the competition into three groups after 17 rounds, when every side has played every other side once.
The top six would automatically qualify for the eight-team finals, and would play each other over the last five rounds to determine the final six finishing positions.
The next six, or the sides that were ranked 7-12 after 17 rounds, would play each other to finalise who would claim the last two finals spots.
And the other six sides would play for pride and to determine the last six finishing order. The downside of potential tanking immediately springs to mind.
The tanking issue aside, this system is nice in principle until you start thinking of all the other practicalities.
How do you guarantee each side plays 11 home games when you don’t know the draw for the last six weeks of the season until after round 17? Will you even be able to book the grounds that are used for other things?
How much of a hit will crowds and TV ratings take if we don’t have all the designated blockbusters? Will the excitement of three virtual qualifying finals in each of the last six weeks compensate enough?
And how do we meet match quotas for each mainstream venue and still slot in sufficient games for Launceston, Canberra, Darwin and perhaps Hobart? And anywhere else that bobs up?
If we play 24 rounds do we split the first two rounds over four weeks in March to get over the issue of the MCG, SCG and Gabba not being available?
No doubt a couple of bye weekends or split rounds would be valuable for player maintenance reasons. If so, when and how?
When do we play the ninth game each round?
Perhaps a twilight game Saturday is the best option - it certainly has worked well on Sundays.
The considerations are endless, but one thing I will say categorically - if the AFL decides to change to the most likely of the options, 24 rounds, inevitably the grand final will need to be moved to the first Saturday in October. As to the negative argument that this date means encroaching on the traditional start of the spring racing carnival, so what?
The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
