The "Draw"

[35forever]

We really need to stop using the word "draw" in conjunction with the AFL's nasty little money-grubbing plans. 'Fixture' is a far more accurate word.
For several years now Collingwood has been handed a ridiculously uneven fixture and we do nothing but accept it meekly while it costs us ladder position & percentage.
"Oh no", I hear you lament, "another conspiracy theory!"
Conspiracy, yes. Theory? No. (Okay, technically it is a theory, but in the same way evolution is a theory, a proven fact which can be used to predict outcomes and is backed by indisputable data)

The commentators claim that several sides have "tough draws", but they are usually referring to a side's next few games. I can show that, yet again Collingwood has been screwed over by Pigboy Demetriou, who has deliberately & carefully manipulated the seasons to disadvantage Collingwood, who he made no secret of despising.

Check the numbers for yourself.

There are several aspects to a season which affect how a team fares apart from just who they play from Round 1 onwards. There is of course where a side plays, which teams it plays twice, What time of day it plays, how long breaks between matches are, how much travelling a side has to do, how sides are expected to fare as compared to the previous season, and the psychology caused by previous encounters, among other factors.
The start of any season is by far the most important aspect, by about Round 8-10 the make-up of the top 8 is pretty well set, and tends to change little until the finals. In this aspect I can prove beyond doubt that we were screwed this season, and in previous seasons, the only remaining question is whether Gilly shares his predecessors dislike and whether he is prepared to act on it so deliberately.

So here's the methodology: I went through the fixture and assigned points to each side according to where their opponent finished last season, the only data available to the 'fixers' when compiling the fixture. If a side played Hawthorn in round 1 they got 1 point, Freo got them 2 Points, Geelong 3, Sydney 4, down to GWS & Melbourne who earned their opponents 17 & 18 points respectively. (I do realise that many would assign the points based on position at the end of the H&A, rather than the finals, but I did that too & it gives the same result.)
I compiled these points at the end of round 8, though It's really the first 5 rounds which define a teams chances, I provide results for both. Obviously a higher score means an easier draw, and a better chance to build a healthy percentage.
So, you won't be surprised, gentle reader, to discover that Collingwood, in the first 5 rounds of season 2014, scored a tiny 24 points. Obviously sides like Hawthorn should have a lower score, and sides which finished below us
a higher one. Should.
Hawthorn actually scored 40, Geelong 43, Freo 34, Sydney 47, Richmond 55, Port 58, and Carlton 53. Why does Collingwood have such a low number? 24!? Surely something in the high 40's should have been our lot?
Over 8 rounds the story doesn’t change with us earning a mere 52 points while Hawthorn picks up 65, Geelong 57, Freo 64, Sydney 77, Richmond 76, Port 78, & Carlton a cushy 85.
How is this possible? Why is there just one glaring anomaly in these numbers? Coincidence? No, not over several years, and not when it accords with other quantifiable factors. This is a deliberate plan to prevent Collingwood from gaining the confidence that comes with high ladder position, or a decent percentage. According to the 'draw', Collingwood should have been out of the 8 after 5 rounds, with a very low percentage. By round 3 that looked like it would come to pass.

And remember, this doesn't take into account factors like previous encounters, predicted performance, or where one side holds "the wood" over another. Our start to the season didn't just include top 8 sides, it also included North, who have beaten us twice in 2 years, and the obligatory matches against Carlton & Essendon, mostly because of the 'blockbuster' factor (we play these sides twice each & every year, 1991 was the sole exception in over a century). We also got our 'bogey' side & reigning premiers Hawthorn Twice, as well as West Coast & Adelaide, both of whom were predicted to improve significantly over last season.
And of course being forced to play at awkward times with short recovery times is a factor, and one which probably cost us two games and a spot in the 4 due to the soft tissue injuries which always attend short recovery times. The short recovery time after the Queen's Birthday Clash (which I totally agree should be dumped!) probably cost us Dayne Beams, Tyson Goldsack, and the legs to fight out a close finish. But despite the 'knee-jerk' claims, that loss also cost us a decent chance of a top 4 finish. Only upset losses to sides above us (or a flawless 2nd half of the season) will see us deserting our apparently permanent 6th spot.

I have gone through the 'Baileys ladder predictor' at AFL.com, and barring major upsets or form reversals, the top 8 as it stands is pretty much set in concrete. We WILL finish 6th, I would bet my house on it, and the primary reason for this has been our anomolously ridiculous 'draw' over the first 8 rounds of the season. While we were battling Fremantle the Premiers were kicking cricket scores against Brisbane, Geelong only had Adelaide to get over, and Sydney were (supposed to be!) racking up percentage against the reigning wooden-spooners! While we were facing down Sydney, Geelong had their turn with Brisbane, & Freo had GCS over for a thumping. And on it goes. Even if we'd beaten the odds and won all those early matches there was zero chance we could gain a percentage worth the name. I said so at the time and so it was.
We should be suing Pigboy Demetriou & the AFL for loss of income due to their deliberate manipulation of the 'draw'. But of course we won't, will we? Oh no, we will use our power as the richest & most famous sporting club in the land to do absolutely nothing and accept our annual screwing meekly. How long does it have to go on? We clearly should be in the 4, but we'll never get there at this rate.

PS: I am discussing last years top 4 sides here, but the other side the AFL really shafted was Brisbane (not that I give a rats) if you wanna see a horror draw go check out their start to the season! (Hawthorn, Geelong, GCS, Port, ...)

[Breadcrawl]

In the first place I want to state that I'm a subscriber to the theory.

I absolutely agree with you.

The problem is your far too liberal use of terms like 'fact' and 'proof'.

Theories like evolution are not proven facts. They are theories that have never been disproven, to the point that they are treated like facts but are called theories to remind us that they are not facts.

And there is no proof for our theory. None, There is circumstantial evidence which can be reasonably used to support the theory.

There is plenty more circumstantial evidence that can reasonably used to support the theory that umpires intentionally influence outcomes of games and that we are on the receiving end far more often than not,

But again, there is no proof. None,

Of course the next question is, "what the hell would proof look like exactly?" and outside of a confession or a taped phone conversation it's hard to imagine anything. They aren't stupid. Proving it becomes an unreasonable burden so I guess they will just get away with it forever.

You're also running a couple of theories in there which you won't find proof for because they are rubbish. You don't have to be in the top four in Round 10 to finish in the top four. It might tend to happen that way but that is natural when you think about it. If you give a good team a horrible early draw and that team beats the teams they should beat and loses to better teams then that team WILL climb the ladder in the latter part of the season.

Our percentage isn't poor because of the draw, it's poor because we just managed a negative winning margin against a struggling opposition.

I'm glad we are talking about it but you aren't going to win people over with spurious claims of facts and proof mate

[September Zeros]

There is one solid and undeniable fact. The draw will never be fair ever .....not until very side plays each other twice in a season. Once away. Once at home. Which would be 36 rounds of footy and will never happen.

The league needs two divisions - never going to happen either.

The end.

[John Wren]

life's too short to read most if these ridiculously long posts of late. suffice to say it's not a draw, it's a fixture.

[neil]

Even the AFL call it a fixture
Not even their marketing people dare call it a draw

[Stinger]

Fact or theory, it doesn't matter; there is no denying that it will always favour some teams and disadvantage others. It's always a tough draw when you are not the #1 team. Was the 2011 H&A season a particularly hard draw? No.

One thing missing in the OP is interstate travel - isn't that what everyone whinges about when talking about the Collingwood fixture? I personally think short <6 day breaks have more of a bearing than travel.

The thing I can't stand is that we have to wait 22 weeks to play GWS; and we play GC away - again. Plus 20% of our remaining games are against the Hawks.

[Harrysz]

In my opinion the significance of the draw is overrated.
In 2010 and in 2011 we had very difficult draws, yet still finished on top of the ladder in both seasons.
There's not much point having and easy draw if you get beaten by sides like Adelaide and Western Bulldogs.

[Lazza]

[Lazza]

[September Zeros]

[Lazza]

[ANNODAM]

Two divisions is the only answer!


Otherwise it's a joke of a fixture & competition!

[Breadcrawl]

They will never do conferences, or a shorter season where we only play each other once, because these are solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

The AFL don't want an equitable draw. They like to be in control and having a fixture which we accept as being inevitably unfair (like all you guys have done up there) means they can use the fixture to exert control without any need to explain or defend their decisions.

Every single change that has been made to our game in the last twenty years, to the way it is managed and run, the way it is officiated, even the way is it broadcast can be reasonably viewed as way to increase the level of control the governing body enjoys over the clubs, teams and players.

The draft was supposed to make it more fair. But then they use it to give 20 picks over three years to one club. It wasn't to make it fair, it was to afford control.

The salary cap was supposed to make it more fair. But then they only let a few clubs spend 85% of it, and give interstate clubs a little more as it suits their interests. It wasn't to make it more fair, it was to afford control.

Ditto rule interpretations, MRP inconsistencies, the freaking third umpire.

I mean if they wanted to get it right, there'd be some more cameras in some more intelligent locations, wouldn't there? Give me $5K and I will set a bunch of GoPros hooked up to my laptop via Wi-Fi and I'll get it right every time.

They never wanted to get it right more often. They wanted more control.

And got it.

And we hate it, and complain about it, and put up with it, and do nothing about it.

Like everything else.

[John Wren]

[September Zeros]

What's wrong with the top 9 playing each other twice and the bottom 9 once.

And the bottom 9 teams playing each other twice and the top 9 once.?

It's 25 rounds of footy and fairer than what we have now. It's a theoretical fixturing division but doesn't actually divide the league into two ladders.

Hell your could even have 3 fixturing divisions of 6 and tinker it further if you wanted an even fairer model but the mathematical part of my brain packs it in there. The point is there are suitable solutions to the "problem". But they won't happen.

Why? Let me answer my own question. The Money hungry coffers of the afl, that's what's wrong with such ideas, not the inactivity of the people.