Rewarding flair could be bonus for AFL
May 16, 2006
A points system that reflects performances, not just wins, is worthy of consideration, Paul Connolly writes.
AFTER a stellar start that had me scoffing at this paper's so-called expert pundits, my AFL tipping has gone pear-shaped. The rot started in round five when four games were decided by eight points or less and I picked none of them, despite it being just as difficult to predict a loser as a winner. I'm beginning to realise why a good mate has sworn off tipping competitions. Friday afternoons, now spent sweating over the form, are no longer relaxing and all of a sudden I care how Richmond performs at the weekend. Which is no way to live one's life.
Of course, the aggravation I feel when a team loses by a fingernail must pale against how the team feels. Rather than blowing their chances at a jug of beer and a $1000 prize pool, they are potentially losing a chance at finals and a career-defining premiership.
Some will argue that that's sport: you win, lose or draw. Simple. But why should a team that throws itself into the fray and loses only because, at the death, a ball bounces left instead of right get the same reward (i.e. nothing) as one that stays in bed, phones in its performance and gets flogged by upwards of 10 goals?
For instance, why should Essendon, which lost by a point to Hawthorn in round five, get treated the same as Richmond which, in round one, finished pantless and 115 points behind the Bulldogs? In this day and age, considering the money involved, I don't think it should.
Rugby union's Super 14 tinkered with its points system to better reflect performances. Bonus points are awarded for scoring four or more tries (win or lose) and for losing by seven points or less. So you can lose a free-flowing game narrowly and pick up two points. How reasonable.
The system was devised to promote attacking rugby and I can't help but think it would apply for similar reasons to AFL, which is struggling to combat the flood and the possession game that is driving Sam Newman to the brink of insanity. Debate over the exact details would finish off the Amazon, no doubt, but, for argument's sake, I'd distribute a bonus point for scoring 20 goals or more (generous without being unattainable) and for losing by six points or less.
When I applied the above to the 2005 season, it took me bloody ages, I can tell you. But it also changed the ladder subtly but, perhaps, tellingly.
While Adelaide and West Coast both finished on 72 points (rather than 68 each), St Kilda's collation of seven bonus points enabled it to leapfrog Sydney (which earned a miserly two) into third. Could that have killed the Swans off? At the tail of the eight, the Bulldogs' seven bonus points lifted them to seventh, pushing Melbourne to eighth and Port out of the finals.
Port supporters might scratch their heads at this, but I reckon any system that rewards flair and effort, win or lose, is worth thinking about. Of course, how that might assuage twisted tipsters is another matter.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/05/15/1147545265071.html
