do the dragons deserve their finals position?

[Jason Maher]

Both those teams finished 3rd though, which is at least slightly more deserving of a second chance.

I agree with that, but they did also get belted.

Certainly the Dragons deserved to survive in 04 more than the Cowboys did in 05. But such is life. You have to play according to the rules as they are written, not as you think they should be.

 

[analyst]

I agree with that, but they did also get belted.

Certainly the Dragons deserved to survive in 04 more than the Cowboys did in 05. But such is life. You have to play according to the rules as they are written, not as you think they should be.

of course the players have to play according to the rules but as a fan I would like to see some modifications which ensures a team is in a final because they have taken control of their own destiny and efforts, not because of luck that another team has lost a match along the way.

 

[Jason Maher]

I agree, which is why I want to see us adopt the system we had in 95-96, and that the AFL currently uses.

I can't help but think that the real issue for you isn't that a team may get lucky (it has happened every year since 99), but which team may happen to get lucky this year.

 

[Loudstrat]

Losing by 7 points, when one (Marshall's first) was off a massive fluke, is no reason to punt a club.

They finished 5th, and lost Semi 1. There is a chance that they will be out by tomorrow night anyway. That's the beauty of this system that the AFL finals don't have. The MP placings have a direct result on a teams security in the finals, not only by increasing the chances of being punted the further down you finished, but also by making the games more difficult the further down you finish.

The Knights and Cowpats are out if they lose. This is definite

The Warriors can lose, but have to rely on the above 2 sides both losing to stay safe. This is probable

Saints need 2 of the above 3 sides to lose. This is distinctly possible.

Wests -had they lost, needed 2 of the above 4 sides to lose - possible, but improbably

Brisbane need any of the bottom 3 sides to lose - given that either 4th or 5th will lose their match - remotely possible, but highly unlikely.

Under the AFL system Wests would face a much harder game than Saints, who finished lower. Saints v Newcastle at SFS and Wests v Melbourne at AAMI would pretty much mean Wests lose and Saints win. We get the same result as next week, but Saints get the psychological reward for winning, and Wests get beaten up.

Anyway, would we even have this thread if it wasnt Saints losing? No.

 

[thommo4pm]

obviously we would, wouldnt that make for a tighter finals? at least on paper having all top 4 teams up againts each other?, some years the finals would be longer and other years shorter depending on results, if teams ranked 5,6,7,8 are good enough they will extend the finals by refusing to loss.

Have you really thought that through properly?
The finals series has always been 4 weeks.

What happens with the GF booked in for a certain date?
Grounds are booked in to ensure they can be used.
Do we have a week off during the finals to ensure the GF is played on the day it is scheduled for?

What about the loss of money for the NRL through gate takings, tv ratings and the loss of money they would have, then the potential hit it would have on the tv contract $$$

 

[KiamaSaint]

I think the only teams which should be allowed to loss 1 match in the finals are teams in the top 4, if the dragons are allowed to play again then the system shows that teams who perform terrible can still continue to play finals football and how can that be a good thing? I think when it comes to finals footy teams outside the top 4 should have to win everymatch in a row to win the premiership.

Think about how dominant the tigers were in the second half, they were all over the dragons and deserve to continue in the finals because they were directly responsible for their good result

on the flip side...

because of results which the dragons are not responsible for they can still play a part in the finals even after a poor performance, in other words they played poorly but can still continue based on just luck and chance not based on their own redemption.

Tigers are allowed to continue in the finals based on their own effort and redemption in the second half, but the dragons can continue now regardless of their intentions.

I know there is an arguement to be made either way but I would like to see only top quality matches being played in the finals and if the dragons are limping into another match off the back of a loss and are just there based on luck and other results can they justify being so deep into the tournament?

Imagine the dragons playing another finals match off the back of a loss and going up againts a team who has thrashed their previous opponent ,can fans then anticipate a closely contested match up?, shouldnt winners be harder to pick the deeper you go into the finals?

I've got it. Play a top 9. 2 v 9, 3 v 8, 4 v 7, 5 v 6, losers gone. 2nd week 1 v lowest rank winner, and so forth. Still a 4 week semi-finals, MP are rewarded with a week off and lol@50uff$ have a chance on making finals (although they would have missed out this year). :sarcasm: Oh wait that doesn't work either,

 

[eozsmiles]

If 1 and 2 beat 7 and 8 then it makes SFA difference what happens in the other games. 3,4,5,6 just swap around for a sudden death match. I suspect both the Warriors and Broncos will get knocked out next week no matter what happens tonight.

 

[Ulysseus]

Do the dragons deserve their finals position?
Ummmmm, they finished 5th after the regular season so make of that what you will.

They may or may not get a second chance, in any case they might be beaten next week anyway unless they urgently address the manner in which the look to close out games.

If you want to talk about fairness, how the f**k did Nth QLD get into the 2005 GF after getting absolutely belted in week 1?
f**king Cronulla put up more fight than them in week 1 for f**ks sake, ditto Manly.
In 2009 Saints finished minor premiers and lost their first semi, they then needed to travel to brisbane, had they won there it was then a game in melbourne and had they won there it was back to sydney.
What.
The.
f**k.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

If 1 and 2 beat 7 and 8 then it makes SFA difference what happens in the other games. 3,4,5,6 just swap around for a sudden death match. I suspect both the Warriors and Broncos will get knocked out next week no matter what happens tonight.

What makes you think the Dragons will beat either of those teams on their home grounds?

 

[Ulysseus]

What makes you think the Dragons will beat either of those teams on their home grounds?

They probably wont.

 

[icewind]

The Warriors can lose, but have to rely on the above 2 sides both losing to stay safe. This is probable

What??? If Manly and Melbourne both lose, then Broncos and Tigers get a week off, Melbourne and Manly play next week and the Warriors get eliminated along with the Dragons.

Conversely, if Warriors win and Manly and Melbourne lose, then the Warriors get a week off and Broncos and Dragons go home.

If they lose, they need Manly and Melbourne to WIN to stay safe.


That statement however makes a lot more sense if you are actually referring to the above 2 sides as in the ones in the paragraph above (Knights and Cowboys) as opposed to the "above 2" being Manly and melbourne.

 

[Loudstrat]

The above two - meaning Newcastle and North Queensland, who appeard in the paragraph above.

If the Warriors lose, they are only safe if both North Queensland and Newcastle lose.

 

[carcharias]

no.

3 / 13

 

[HowHigh]

no.

3 / 13

Regular season is 26 rounds and we still managed to finish 5th and well ahead of the sharks after that terrible run.

 

[Loudstrat]

Anyone who says a 5th placed side shouldnt be in the finals may as well go and check into Callan Park. There ward with Popeye, Perth Red and Moffo needs another dribbler.

 

[analyst]

to above^^, I dont think anyone has said that have they? on a personel opinion I think the top four teams of the top 8 should be the only teams allowed to loss a match and still make it to the grand final,

I know that can bring about logistical issue's since some finals weeks per year could be shorter than others for instance if teams 5,6,7,8 all loss in the first week then you end up with only 2 weeks of finals football,

however!!!....

you can still have the same grand final date every year, if you end up with just 2 weeks of finals football because of result then you simply let the 2 grand final teams train and rest until the date of the grand final, that problem solved

 

[Dragon]

We're awesome, OP is a f4ggot (just like the f*ckin censorship on this merkin of a board, making me edit sh*t as if im gabba ffs). The rest of you are merkins with a captial C.

Im drunk and mad so dont ask, just eat a d*ck and be done with it.

 

[Wayne's World]

I love how these threads come about because it was the Dragons that lost.

The only way your logic works is if they use the AFL model. So the Dragons would of been playing Newcastle not Tigers. I agree that is a much better setup.

It makes no sense that the Warriors get a home game next week if they beat the Broncos tonight and they finished 6th!

Shame the NRL will never change it.

Agreed with post. Some people's bias on hear is disgusting they mustn't know much about the game they "love".

 

[Wayne's World]

no.

3 / 13

Wrong 4/13 c*ck, next time you make a d*ckhead of a comment make sure it's right.

 

[Willow]

I think the only teams which should be allowed to loss 1 match in the finals are teams in the top 4

Yet you only put the Dragons in your title... ooops, eh? lol

If you geuinely feel this should apply to all teams, then it has the potential to be a good discussion. An annual one, but still one that can be debated.

Personally I have never been a fan of the top eight. IMO, the competition got it right with the top five. But that seems to be long gone. The prime argument in favour of the top eight is about money, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.