Phil Murton – EFL CEO
Percentage
In last week’s Inside the EFL the issue of under 19’s and the challenges we face as a collective engaging this group of players in the future was discussed.
In that article the question of grading was raised and the fact that the under 19’s was, along with the reserves, the only competition we don’t grade teams based on ability is worth reviewing and debating.
One of the points that often gets noticed in competitions that aren’t or cannot be graded is very one sided results. This also happens in graded competitions too but generally the teams on the end of these move to a lower division the next year.
It is particularly seen in many senior country competitions and while we’ve all been on the end of a decent beating at the hands of a quality opposition from time to time, regular losses of a large magnitude become demoralizing, and can potentially lead to players and supporters losing interest.
I recently read an interesting article in Ballarat newspaper “The Courier” which suggested a potential remedy to help address one sided results is the removal of percentage as a measure on ladder finishing positions. It argued, quite correctly, that the current system encourages clubs to win by as much as possible, something potentially not in the best spirit of the game and also unnecessary, in light of other ways to determine ladder finishing position.
This is in no way the fault of coaches or players on the winning team, they are merely playing to the rules and systems in place. But we see it often, what becomes a race for percentage, where the opportunity to win by as much as possible must be taken to ensure it helps in finishing as high as possible on the final ladder. If one teams beats the bottom team by 30 goals, the team near them on the ladder feels like they have to beat them by 40 goals. Is this in the long term best interests of the game?
In the system suggested, games won/points would still be the primary determinant of ladder finishing position, but instead of percentage being used as the tie breaker where two teams finished on the same points, the head to head results of games between the two teams would be used as the tie breaker.
If the teams had won one each, then the team with the highest winning margin would prevail. In the rare circumstance the teams had only played once and it was a draw, or not played at all (juniors re-fixturing quirk), then a third level of time breaker would be used, such as results against teams nearby. And if three or more teams were all tied, then results against each other would be used, a bit like a mini-ladder.
It is similar to the systems used in most professional sports in America, such as the NBA, NFL and MLB.
The bias of percentage as a measure has been raised by EFL clubs before, particularly in competitions where teams don’t play each other twice, such as our 12 team competitions in senior Divisions One and Three, and many junior competitions.
The argument here has been if one or two teams are much weaker than the rest, and a club only plays these teams once compared with other teams playing them twice, they at a disadvantage.
Ground size is also a factor in the size of scores being kicked, particularly in one sided games. Teams with smaller home grounds may have an unfair advantage under the current system against teams that play on bigger grounds.
Taking all this into consideration, using head to head results to split ladder finishing position on face value seems fairer for all, while also potentially achieving other competition and coaching benefits.
The premise of The Courier article was that the incentive of percentage “didn’t promote good behaviors in football” and if removed may encourage coaches, who know a win is in the bag but with the final winning margin less important, to rest better players and give other players more of a go. This in turn may lead to a better experience for players on both teams. It won’t change the result, but may change the way the game is played in a positive way, so has merit and is worth considering.
Challenging the status quo for systems and procedures that are currently in place with others that may improve the quality of competitions and the overall experience for all involved is something we continually look at.
We would love to hear your thoughts on if removing percentage is a good or bad idea, Below:
