In last week’s Inside the EFL, CEO Phil Murton spoke about percentage in junior footy.
A fortnight ago, there was some media about a decision made and communicated to clubs some time ago to remove percentage as a tie-breaker in junior footy.
As usual, with any change there are people for and against. Feedback from clubs and those involved in getting teams on the park every year and every week was overwhelmingly supportive.
The change is primarily about fairness in the fixture. The junior fixture is one big jigsaw puzzle, and a job that I was very happy to pass onto someone else after doing it for many years when football manager.
With nearly 450 teams, it gets more challenging every year. We’ve always tried to keep age group timeslots consistent, something that differentiates us from other junior competitions, and an area clubs and parents regularly tell us they want to continue.
The junior season is 14 rounds and with regrading and the challenge of scheduling nearly 450 teams in timeslots across the day, while we do the very best possible, is never quite perfect.
Some teams play six home games, some eight. Some teams play one team three times and another team only once, or in very rare cases due to the quirks of regrading, not at all. Where there are inconsistencies we try to fix them, but it isn’t possible every time. It for this reason we’ve made the change.
A lot of analysis of previous years’ ladders went into the decision and in reality, it won’t affect too much. We did, however, identify cases where teams qualified for finals or a higher ladder finishing position based on percentage and the mix of teams they played during the year, when compared to a team they finished equal on match points with.
One team may have played the bottom sides five times during the year when another team played them only a couple of times. And when the two sides did meet during the season, the team who was to miss out had won every time. It didn’t seem right.
If tied on points at the end of the season, surely the games where they played each other should have counted for more?
What I do find interesting is people who suggest that a change such as this in any way stops kids learning about winning and losing. It’s an argument that makes no sense.
There is still a result in the game. A team who was going to lose by plenty will still lose by plenty. What the other team will learn is the games against the good teams really count and in games when they are winning or losing by a bit, the other team’s still going to keep trying the best they can.
It’s also a system used in most professional sports in America, such as the NBA, NFL and MLB. If it’s good enough for those sports, why not us?
While creating what we think is a fairer system for tie-breakers, there is also another benefit in encouraging coaches to experiment a bit more with their players, particularly when winning by plenty.
We did a study a few years ago on players who had stopped playing junior footy. Not getting a decent go was one of the main factors in players quitting.
In all competitive teams there’s players who spend more time on the ball or in key positions and others who play more in periphery positions and on the interchange.
This is a fact of life in competitive sport. When winning by heaps, giving those kids who might not usually play there a run on the ball, or the better players an extended spell on the bench might just be good for everyone. Instead of having a competition with other good sides on who can beat the bottom teams by the most.
Players ranked 1-15 in any team will front up year on year. But they don’t have a team to play in unless players 16-24 come back too. So, we all, league and clubs, have a responsibility of creating the fairest and best environment for everyone.
It will have its most impact later in the year when the competition for percentage stops.
Sparing a group of kids who are on the bottom of the ladder and have had a tough year, and who are still going to lose the game by plenty, from potentially being absolutely smashed isn’t be a bad thing in my opinion.
For those people who think this is in any way diminishes the contest, I say have a think about what you want from junior sport. You never know, it might just help some kids on both sides come back next year.
