NRL Finals System Changed

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Thank god is pretty much the common theme on here. My close mate is AFL mad and he was always going on about how much better the AFL is at everything related to their sport. Glad we have finally made a step in the right direction. Lets hope the Indep commission keeps making corret decisions in the future.

Look on the bright side - he's excited by rubbish 'product' with flashy ads, spin doctors and cluey management that is played in 3 states of a small country.

We have a great game with genuine links in several countries that is finally catching up on the managerial and financial front in reflection of equal or superior ratings and market appeal.
I know which boat I'd rather be in.

As for the make up of the finals series, the teams with form and momentum will still stand out.
What this does is offer greater reward for the top 4, and 5-8 still live with the fact that a loss means you're out. (5 and 6 in macintyre may get a second chance, but 3 and 4 could argue they've earned it more). The games should theoretically be closer matchups, making for better television ratings which leads us back to the real issue at hand: the next television rights deal.

This is a good decision in that light.

 

[muzby]

We'll never see a team from 7th or 8th reach the GF ever again.

to be brutally honest, if the best your team could do after 26 rounds is end up 7th or 8th in a comp of 16 teams, you really don't deserve to be in the GF anyway.

 

[bobmar28]

to be brutally honest, if the best your team could do after 26 rounds is end up 7th or 8th in a comp of 16 teams, you really don't deserve to be in the GF anyway.

So why do we have a top 8 at all?

 

[muzby]

So why do we have a top 8 at all?

gate & tv revenues...

if you cast your mind back to the winfield cup days, we had a 16 team comp but only a top 5 finals (IMHO, the best format..)

8 teams in teh finals simply isn't needed from a "competitive" point of view, but it stays because it's more games for the season, which = more revenue...

the biggest joke was when we had 15 teams in the comp, but still ran a top 8 - so you could effectively have 'failed' (come in the bottom 50% of clubs) but still be in the finals..

yes, the top 8 gives the occasional 'fairytale run' (parra in 09, roosters in 10 etc) but these teams always get found out come grand final day & the game is a non-contest..

 

[Ozzy]

I agree. Is that Newcastlerabbit your with Muzby? It seems that you DO have a connection with him.

 

[juro]

Gees, the telegraph is going a bit overboard on this. Back page, picture of the guy dancing down the street after peace declared in WW2, altered to make him a bunnies fan. How is changing a finals system from one flawed system to another in any way equivalent to the end of a world war???

If it had been the end of the war between the ARL and News, fair enough, but all that over a stupid finals system which is going to make bugger all difference?

 

[VictoryFC]

Players seem to back it too unanimously...no brainer.

 

[Springs]

Quite. I'll probably never forget that first week of the play-offs in '09 when the Eels beat the Dragons. That day was awsome.

We'll never see a team from 7th or 8th reach the GF ever again. The top 4 are over-protected now, granted they were under-protected before, but I'd rather see them under-protected in the first round of the Finals Series. This "new" system takes away so much. Ask the fans to vote on it, of course the 'top' clubs wanted to being back the AFL system!!!!! I'm incandescent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

???

It's the same. They have to win three games like they always did.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

I am in favour of the new finals system because it leads to better matchups AND will lead to better/more flexible scheduling AND I believe teams are in more control of their own destiny i.e teams 3 and 4 can have a bye second week if they upset teams 1 or 2.

BUT

I have noticed a LOT of mention that this new system is much fairer system to the top 4. This is absolute bollocks!

It is now harder for the minor premiers to make the grand final.

The minor premiers have to now beat teams 4 and 3 (if no upsets) to make the grand final. In the McIntyre system, they had to beat teams 8 and 4. How is this fairer for the minor premiers????

It is now just as easier for the 2nd placed team to make the grand final as the minor premiers. PERHAPS EVEN EASIER!

They have to beat teams 3 and 4 to make the grand final (just like the minor premiers) BUT have the easier team to beat in the preliminary final than the minor premiers (4 vs 3). I have always found this a major flaw in the new system.

Even so it is still now harder for the second place team to make the grand final. In the McIntyre system they had to beat teams 7 and 3. Now it is teams 3 and 4.

The only thing fairer is that if they lose in week one they are not punished as much. And I think that is fair (we shouldn't punish the best team all year for a loss in week on)

I agree the new finals system is a better system for teams 3 and 4.

I have no doubt a lot of people will be complaining about the new system once they see the flaws in it over the next few years. It is still flawed and not perfect. I am not sure there is a perfect system.

 

[age.s]

it is much better for teams 1 and 2. if they lose in the first week they still get a home game in week 2, unlike before where they would have to play away.

if teams 3 and 4 lose in the first week they will get a home game in week 2.

this system gives more advantage to teams that finish in the top 4.

.

No it's really not. Teams 1 and 2 are the big losers here. They have to play teams 4 places higher in week 1 now, making it far more likely they will lose their week off. In McIntyre they had much easier games, and slightly harsher penalties if they lost. Home ground advantage is obviously handy, but playing a team with far less quality is a much bigger advantage. All the teams in the top 4 have much harder games in week one which is something no one ever mentions when they trot out the "this is fairer on the top 4" line.

If the top 2 lose against the worst teams remaining in the comp they should focus less on how unfair it is that they have to travel next week and focus on the choking problem that will destroy their good season if they don't rectify (see Dragons 09). I say that as someone who's team was affected by this two seasons ago.

The big winners here are places 7 and 8. Take Parra in 09 as an example. To make the GF they had to beat Dragons (1), Titans (3) and Bulldogs (2) where finally faced off against the Storm (4). If the games had gone according to seeding they would have played Manly (5) in week 2, but faced the Dragons (1) again in the GF. It really doesn't get any tougher than having to beat the Minor Premiers twice in 4 weeks.

In the new system they would have had a much easier game first up. They would have played Manly (5), then if things went to seed they would have played Melbourne (4), Bulldogs (2) then Dragons (1). That run is much softer because the easier games are at the beginning of the series, giving a team time to gain momentum if they're good enough.

We'll see more teams from the bottom 4 make the grand final under this system. I don't think that's a fair system.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

The best and most deserving team always wins in the end anyway. But this is a better system.

 

[M2D2]

We'll see more teams from the bottom 4 make the grand final under this system

and

Its a walk in for the top 4

Both said by McIntyre geniuss.

 

[Slackboy72]

Should be straight QF, SF, GF. Don't know any other top sports leagues that give second chances to teams that lose in the playoffs apart from the AFL and NRL, once you lose you should be gone

I'm pretty sure NHL, NBA, MBL, Champions League, NPB all allow teams to lose in finals.

 

[Springs]

It's fairer for the top 4 because they are all guaranteed a second chance and at least one home game, with the top 2 guaranteed 2 home games. It doesn't change much for the top 2, except that if they lose their first game they won't have to play away to 7th or 8th, which could have happened in the old system, which was geniused.

3rd and 4th get a deserved week off if they beat 1 and 2, instead of having a week off if say 3rd beat 6 then one of the top teams lost. The main problem with the old system is say 3rd beat 6th, depending on results they could either have a home preliminary final, or have to play 5th the next week. If they won their game they could be anywhere from having the highest reward to being penalised for winning. In this series they know, we win, week off, we lose we play again next week. It's far better.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I prefer the system they have chosen over the McIntyre. But the claim this removes the rewards for mediocrity doesn't really stack up. In 1995 the Bulldogs won the comp from sixth while in '96 St Pre-merge made the GF from seventh with a good run. It's just as easy to make it from the bottom end of the eight under the new system as the old one. In fact it's easier because you only have to upset a side just above you in week one instead of upsetting one of the top two.

True in the context you're stating, but to counter that, teams 5-8 have no chance of getting a home final in week 2 or 3. Of course, home region if two syd clubs would be the exception, but we won't see a repeat of 08 or 09 when Melbourne and Saints as MP"s both lost first week and then had to travel to Brisbane in week 2.

The higher the finish over the regular rounds, the higher the reward should be for the play offs.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

True in the context you're stating, but to counter that, teams 5-8 have no chance of getting a home final in week 2 or 3. Of course, home region if two syd clubs would be the exception, but we won't see a repeat of 08 or 09 when Melbourne and Saints as MP"s both lost first week and then had to travel to Brisbane in week 2.

The higher the finish over the regular rounds, the higher the reward should be for the play offs.

Yeah but the home allocation situation under the McIntyre system could have been changed without actually throwing the McIntyre system out. The system was used to rank teams based on first weekend results but the NRL didn't have to apply home advantage based on those rankings. They could have still used the minor premiership rankings if they'd chosen to.

 

[RABK]

How many AFL sides have made or won the Grand Final after finishing 5th-8th in this system? I doubt it's many at all.

 

[Timmah]

I'm pretty sure NHL, NBA, MBL, Champions League, NPB all allow teams to lose in finals.

Exactly. Hell, most of the football leagues with finals structures have two-leg finals matches with aggregate scores calculated.

 

[Timmah]

Sounds to me most of the upset people are fans of teams that rarely/never make the top four and want a greater chance at the GF from the bottom of the eight.

IMO - if you're bottom of the eight, it should be difficult to make the GF!

 

[gUt]

How many AFL sides have made or won the Grand Final after finishing 5th-8th in this system? I doubt it's many at all.

Not sure but in any given season the quality gap between 1-8 in AFL is usually much greater than in the NRL...