Flaw With New Finals System

[Sleep]

Both systems have gaping flaws.

I wish we could do something more along the lines of the NFL system. Two highest ranked get the first week off and guaranteed final at home in week two.

If you lose, whether it's in your hands or not you can't complain. If you lost you weren't good enough. Win your games or cry to someone else.

 

[Valheru]

5th is the premier finishing position in the new system it seems. An easier "warm-up win" against the 8th place side, meanwhile teams 1-4 beat each other up in two titanic clashes. And Mr 5th gets to play the beaten up loser of 1 v 4 in Week Two, before proceeding to face a refreshed 2 v 3 winner in Week 3.

Might work in AFL, but in a tough contact sport like RL I think they have the wrong idea.

The only thing wrong with the previous system was the Week 2 home finals allocation - and that could have been changed with a simple tweak rather than throwing the whole thing out.

So with that logic you must be of the belief that 3rd has the best spot in the widely used 4 team format where 1 plays 2 for a GF spot and the loser plays the winner of 3 and 4?

The current top 8 system is merely an extension of the aforementioned top 4 one and is clearly the fairest out of the 2 possibilities. You assume that 5th will beat 8th but that is by no means a certainty and guess what the punishment for 5th is if they lose, elimination! Unlike the McIntyre system where 5th and 6th can, and usually do, get a 2nd chance.

The only fairer system for a top 8 than the current one would be a straight elimination scenario ala NFL, MLB, NHL etc, in which case the McIntyre system of 1 V 8 and so forth would make sense.

 

[BunniesMan]

Old fashioned people support the mcintyre system. The new system is fair more fairer and far more rewarding. If Dogs lose first week why should the f**ken go to Auckland or Townsville or some shit like that. And why is 3rd treated little better than 6th.

New system has its flaws but it is a massive improvement.

 

[Parra]

New system has its flaws but it is a massive improvement.

Only for people who think losing finals should be rewarded and losing during the regular season should be rewarded with easier finals matches.

 

[typicalfan]

How does this system reward losing

 

[Canard]

Old fashioned people support the mcintyre system. The new system is fair more fairer and far more rewarding. If Dogs lose first week why should the f**ken go to Auckland or Townsville or some shit like that. And why is 3rd treated little better than 6th.

Once again, nothing to do with the McIntyre System and could easily be changed.

Up until about 2004 or so ALL finals were generally played at either the SFS or Stadium Australia anyway. (with some minor exceptions).

I actually think the new system is fine, with the only issue being that 4th place get's rewarded very highly. I much preferred the first week of the McIntyre which placed a big empahsis on winning and basically created a "knock-out" scenario in every match. The first week of this system seems to be the top 4 going through the motions a bit.

 

[Parra]

How does this system reward losing

First week, half the games mean nothing, and these are the games that involve the top teams.

I can see key players being rested by the top teams in week 1 with this format.

 

[SharkShocked]

First week, half the games mean nothing, and these are the games that involve the top teams.

I can see key players being rested by the top teams in week 1 with this format.

I cannot possibly agree with half the games meaning nothing.

In the top four you are playing for the week off and in the bottom four you are playing for survival. Why the hell would you rest a player when you have the opportunity to win get a week off so any struggling players get to rest up and come back for a preliminary final.

Whereas in the old system if "things go to plan" as everyone loves to take this stupid hypothetical.... games 4v5 and 3 v6 were a complete waste of time.

Not to mention the NRL is now free to schedule the order of these games as they see fit, whereas in the old system you were dictated to by having to play 2v7 and 1v8 last.

 

[Parra]

Yeah you're right. Week off and one less game is a big deal and worth playing for.

 

[unforgiven]

Yeah you're right. Week off and one less game is a big deal and worth playing for.

I dont know if you are being sarcastic with this post or not. The week off is a massive advantage to be playing for.

 

[SharkShocked]

I also had to read his statement a few times.

I think he is being genuine though.

He f**kn better be.

 

[Parramatta1947]

Bottom line is that both systems had flaws, this one rewards top four sides better.

Bingo. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Spot On]

Top four = second chance or a weeks rest. The way it should be. A much better system than the previous debacle.

 

[Parra]

I dont know if you are being sarcastic with this post or not. The week off is a massive advantage to be playing for.

Not being sarcastic, I am conceding that you are right.

 

[Loudstrat]

Old fashioned people support the mcintyre system. The new system is fair more fairer and far more rewarding. If Dogs lose first week why should the f**ken go to Auckland or Townsville or some shit like that. And why is 3rd treated little better than 6th.

New system has its flaws but it is a massive improvement.

It has only been mentioned about 16 thousand times that the Mac system had nothing to do with where they played!

No surprise from the forum dumb f*ck though.

 

[clarency]

A teams effort to stay in the finals race should not be determined by another game.

The McIntyre system only appeared to make sense because they played 4v5 and 3v6 before they played both 1v8 and 2v7. If the latter did occur and 1 and 2 win. THEN the remaining games become meaningless.

And yous are arguing the opposite?!

Yet again... the stupidity of the people on here...

 

[unforgiven]

Not being sarcastic, I am conceding that you are right.

Sorry, I wasnt quite sure when reading your post.

 

[papabear]

A teams effort to stay in the finals race should not be determined by another game.

The McIntyre system only appeared to make sense because they played 4v5 and 3v6 before they played both 1v8 and 2v7. If the latter did occur and 1 and 2 win. THEN the remaining games become meaningless.

And yous are arguing the opposite?!

Yet again... the stupidity of the people on here...

100% correct!! IMO this thread should be locked, the only debate should be why we persisted with the McIntyre system for so long.

The flaws of the McIntyre system were absolutely ridiculous.

 

[typicalfan]

Yeah you're right. Week off and one less game is a big deal and worth playing for.

It is.

 

[KiamaSaint]

This had nothing to do with the McIntyre system though, the home venues were decided by the NRL. The main complaints came in 2010 when the tigers finished top 4, lost, then had to go down to Canberra in week 2. Same with the Dragons going to Brisbane in 09.

If the Tigers and Dragons both got home matches in week 2 then nobody would have complained at all. The match ups were right, the venues were wrong. It could have been easily fixed without changing the system at all.

I agree with you Sam, it was the home ground advantage that needed to be sorted out. I understand the annoyance of being knocked out from 5th position, the Dragons were knock out after going down to the Panthers 31-30 and the Panthers got a week off. It was a fine line in and around 4th & 5th but the McIntrye system did reward the top 2 teams in particular and even more so if they had sorted out the second week venues. That is the way it should be.