Flaw With New Finals System

[Yosemite Sam]

Only time I didn't like it was say if team 7 beat team 2 in week 1 & got a home semi against team 4 or 5 the following week.

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.

 

[age.s]

But in the McIntyre system 3rd and 4th could be eliminated first week.

As I said, it was a mixed bag for 3rd and 4th. I feel it's probably overall an advantage to get a week off without playing a top 4 team away from home, but I could understand it being seen differently.

That doesn't change the fact that it was unquestionably better for the top 2. So the argument that this system is "better for the top 4" when it's only arguably better for 3/4 is simply incorrect.

In this system in Week 1 each team has an advantage over the team below it and know 100% of whether they are in or out or get a week off.

The bold is unquestionably the case in McIntyre. The rest isn't the system's best feature, but on the whole doesn't detract from the spectacle. I think the excitment around how other matches affect the earlier games to be pretty interesting.

 

[age.s]

I'm amused at the level of butthurt displayed by McIntyre lovers.

Not all vigorous debate on the internet is "butthurt". I don't really care, and McIntyre did have flaws (less even matches in week 1 being the primary one). We'll get an awesome final series no matter which system we use. I just think on balance McIntyre was fairer, particularly to the top best teams over the regular season.

 

[typicalfan]

As I said, it was a mixed bag for 3rd and 4th. I feel it's probably overall an advantage to get a week off without playing a top 4 team away from home, but I could understand it being seen differently.

That doesn't change the fact that it was unquestionably better for the top 2. So the argument that this system is "better for the top 4" when it's only arguably better for 3/4 is simply incorrect.



The bold is unquestionably the case in McIntyre. The rest isn't the system's best feature, but on the whole doesn't detract from the spectacle. I think the excitment around how other matches affect the earlier games to be pretty interesting.

Well if all results go the way they are intended in the McIntyre system and the top 4 all win then it is actually better to finish 4th than 3rd.

This system is fairer across the board, finals shouldn't rely on other results imo.

 

[Parra]

I'm amused at the level of butthurt displayed by McIntyre lovers.

Mainly due to the fact that the current system is geniused.

 

[age.s]

Well if all results go the way they are intended in the McIntyre system and the top 4 all win then it is actually better to finish 4th than 3rd.

This system is fairer across the board, finals shouldn't rely on other results imo.

But 3 had an easier game than 4 in week 1. 3 also had a better chance of getting a week off, and an almost negligible chance of being knocked out in week 1. If results go to script in week 2 both teams will have had the exact same path into week 3 (just reversed). It's close, but the advantage is with the team in third.

You don't have to rely on other results if you keep winning. The teams that get knocked out will only ever have themselves to blame.

 

[LRC69]

Until all teams play each other twice and no club games are affected by origin then no team particularly deserves a special reward for coming first as opposed to say 4th...

The comp is so close that the diff between 1st and 8th could potentially be those games lost during origin period without your half back or or the fact you got to play the worst team twice etc....

Having said this...I think no matter what system, the best teams all the year since I remember usually contest the GF and often the best team wins.

Once in a while you get that fairy tale run but these teams dont often wint he comp.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Exactly.

Look at the dragons in 09. Bundled out in straight sets by 8th then 6th. Does anyone honestly think they deserved another shot at the premiership that year because they had to play 1 game away? They were the minor premiers, and if they believed themselves to be the premiers then they should have been able handle the broncos in brisbane, let along parramatta at Kogarah.

Similarly, look at Parramatta that same year. They went through 1st, 2nd and 3rd to get the the grand final, only to be defeated by 4th. Similar story with us in 2010 going through 2nd, 3rd and 4th in our run as well. If either side had taken out the title they'd have been worthy premiers.

Really the only times I'd say the old system was a bit iffy was the warriors in 2011 and the cowboys in 2005. Both were thumped in week one after finishing in the bottom of the 8, but were still given a 2nd chance and then went on a dream run to the GF (the cowboys were even allowed to move their semi to brisbane for some unknown reason that year). And really with the new system we are just as likely to see similarly "unfair" results from time to time as well.

Thing is, the Warriors last year didn't deserve to get knocked out and wouldn't have been knocked out under any top 8 system (except straight 1/4 finals which I don't think anyone wants).

There were clearly 2 teams worse than them (7th and 8th were both well beaten). If it had been played under this year's system the Warriors would've played the Cowboys at home, and guess what- the Warriors beat the Cowboys at home in Rd 26 in what was effectively a play-off for 6th place!

Basically the 2 McIntyre systems each have a flaw and neither is really better than the other, they're just moving that flaw around. To say the Warriors "got lucky" last year just shows how flawed and illogical people's perceptions can be. They deservedly made the top 6 (two teams were worse after week 1 of the finals) and from there they won 2 games against strong opposition and made the GF. That's always how it's gonna work.

 

[clarency]

Isn't the argument the Rabbitohs are the 'stronger' team because they have just beaten the Storm in a finals match?

That is exactly it.

The flaw is just because the OP isn't thinking.

 

[themacemaceman]

Bearing in mind all the previous posts ..... Please remember that the whole comp is flawed because every team doesn't play every other team twice.

Some have an easier run. Some are more disadvantaged by origin .

So the team that wins the minor premiership isn't necessarily the best team during the rounds 1-26 and in my opinion and therefore doesn't necessarily deserve an easier path through the finals.


I like the new system. Much better than the McIntyre.... It rewards the top 4 and slightly evens out the fact that not every team meets twice.

 

[Doomednow]

I liked the McIntyre system, and I have a strong suspicion that most people who didn't couldn't handle being burned by it and needed something to whinge about.

 

[Shipsyeagles]

Its EASY...... just keep on WINNING. !!

 

[mongoose]

The new (old) system has its flaws but the Mcintyre system was a farce.

You don't have to look any further back than the 2005 finals series. Cowboys get smashed by 50 in week 1 except it means nothing, beause if teams 1 and 2 win then the results of the other 2 games become meaningless. Just plain geniused.

The main flaw with the new system is that teams 1 and 2 don't get much of an advantage. But it's better than having games that dont mean anything!

 

[Parra]

The main flaw with the new system is that teams 1 and 2 don't get much of an advantage. But it's better than having games that dont mean anything!

Have you even looked at the new system? There are now games that are useless. There were none under the old system, especially with the upsets happening with such a competitive comp.

Now we have 5 v 8 and 6 v 7 - rewarding the teams who fall in to the top 8 whilst the team who finished 2nd must play 3rd. What is worse is 3 & 4 can lose a match and it makes no difference at all. So in week 1 we essentially have 2 matches that mean nothing at all, with all losers continuing.

Under this new system 1st=4th and winning in the first week doesn't matter for teams 1-4. The bottom 4 teams get an easy run, all avoiding the top 4.

It is almost like a plate final / cup final system. It rewards poor performers. I don't know what sport they copied this from this time around, maybe a kids carnival where every team gets to play a few matches.

 

[franklin2323]

Take 2010 using this system. Both us & the Tigers lost round 1. Under this system we would of played each other. So 1 would go through. There's no guarantee the loser would of won week 2 in the finals. So teams win they have no problem.

 

[gUt]

I'm not going to pass judgement on this version of the finals until I see it in action again.

But I reckon the hysteria over the previous system was mainly a media-driven beat up to fill column inches and to give TV stooges the chance to appear authoritative. Pretty much like all commentary and opinion around rugby league.

The previous system would have made more sense to people if winning the minor premiership carried more prestige. Then we could draw a line under the home and away comp and start what was a new competition - the playoffs. Teams are rewarded with a seeded position based on their results in the minor premiership. Week 1 is the only week affected by the minor prem. Everything else fell into place and made perfect sense, at least to me. If you keep winning you're sweet as a nut.

But maybe all that will apply to this comp as well. One thing's for sure, someone somewhere in the media will fulfill his quota by having a massive whinge about this system and the whole circus will begin again.

 

[Lego_Man]

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.

 

[Parra]

This system is much softer.

The new commission can issue participation certificates instead of rings for the winners. Does the AFL do that as well?

 

[gUt]

This system is much softer.

The new commission can issue participation certificates instead of rings for the winners. Does the AFL do that as well?

 

[thommo4pm]

Complaints about the finals system are ridiculous anyway IMO.

If you're a bona fide contender, you'll win the games necessary to progress in the finals.

Agree.