Who is Turning out to have the best 2006 draw?

[Wedgie]

A few might remember when the 2006 Fixture was announced I did a fairly comprehensive coverage of who had the best and worst draws according to teams played 3 times, games home, away, etc but that was based on the standings of 2005.
http://safootycentral.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=428&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I think we can now safely work out who has had the best draw and hope this doesn't put an artificial slant on the table after Rd 23:

The higher the number the easier the draw (the number represents the combined spots on the premiership table the teams you play 3 times add up to)
So from easiest draw to hardest 2006 has actually pan out this way:

Central: Play Sturt, West, Glenelg and Port three times - Rating 25
West: Play Port, South, Norwood and Central 4 times - Rating 22
Eagles: Play North, Norwood, Port and Sturt three times - Rating 22
South: Play North, West, Sturt and Glenelg 4 times - Rating 22
Norwood: Play Glenelg, Sturt, Eagles and West three times - Rating 21
Glenelg: Play Norwood, Central, North and South three times - Rating 19
Sturt: Play Central, Norwood, South and Eagles three times - Rating 18
Port: Play West, North, Central and Eagles three times - Rating 16
North: Play Eagles, Port, Glenelg and South 3 times. - Rating 15

Just remember as originally discussed this doesn't take into account the advantage some clubs have with more home games than others.
Interestingly one thing hasn't changed from the pre-season analysis in that Central have had the easiest draw.

Also Glenelg and North are the only team in the running for the final that don't get to play at least Sturt or West three times (CENTRAL get them both!!), will this make a difference in the end scheme of things?

[drebin]

Great work Wedgie! Quick put it on "The Roost" so we can add it to the excuse list come our now (2004/2005) customary end of the season collapse!

[Wedgie]

Great work Wedgie! Quick put it on "The Roost" so we can add it to the excuse list come our now (2004/2005) customary end of the season collapse!

ha ha, no excuses meant, I just love anaylysis of an unfair draw, I think we should go to 24 game seasons where everyone plays each other 3 times and get rid of the 3 of the practise games so its only 1 extra game. (and start the season earlier)

Also I don't intend to insinuate that the league is out to get clubs, noone can predict how clubs are going to go (unless they're nostradamus) BUT being unfair to the degree it is could mean the difference between a double chance and not or a finals spot and not with a couple of clubs, lets hope not though.

[am Bays]

FWIW I think the draw is as even as it can be for the length of the season, everyone playes each other five times over two years.

Haven't seen too many clubs be up for one year, done for another since they changed it to everyone playes 20 games.

[spell_check]

Even if it was changed to 22 matches, there still can be a cycle - each team plays another 11 times over 4 years.

[westiesgirls]

yeah but we had to go to encounter bay easter weekend and elizabeth twice a night game and day game and then norlunga once and only one game at adelaide oval and it was a double header so only the league got to play then, i think west were given at bad draw

[westiesgirls]

when port go the bye on the easter long weekend and the june long weekend that does not seem fair

[JK]

From a Legs fans perspective (well this one anyway) I don't have any complaints about how the draw has affected us this year ... If we were going to play finals I might have concerns about drawing the bye in the final round (again), but thats not going to be a problem so I've been pretty happy with it in the main.

[Rushby Hinds]

yeah but we had to go to encounter bay easter weekend and elizabeth twice a night game and day game and then norlunga once and only one game at adelaide oval and it was a double header so only the league got to play then, i think west were given at bad draw

Plus West only got to play teams above them on the ladder, for the second year in a row.

[Dissident]

yeah but we had to go to encounter bay easter weekend and elizabeth twice a night game and day game and then norlunga once and only one game at adelaide oval and it was a double header so only the league got to play then, i think west were given at bad draw

Plus West only got to play teams above them on the ladder, for the second year in a row.

That's not actually that silly a point Borat.

I guess it's just by nature that better teams will appear to have a better draw overall.

In the end, the better sides will win and the poorer sides won't.

[smac]

Lots of factors to consider when assessing the draw, breaks between games is another. Dogs had a 4 day break after ANZAC day (Eagles got a bye, not sure why it wasn't one of the weeks when 3 teams had a bye), followed by a 6 day break (admittedly North were on a 5 day break for the same game, but we were on our 3rd game in 10 days!). I think if all factors are weighed in, things even out a lot more.