NRL Finals System Changed

[firechild]

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!

You're right. So teams 7 and 8 should be forced to play teams 1 and 2 to progress, not teams 5 and 6. I can't understand how anyone thinks team 7 or 8 had it easier under the Macintyre system. Teams 7 and 8 are now blessed with playing teams that are ranked 4 places lower in order to progress. Even teams 5 and 6 have it easier, now playing the lowest ranked sides (considering teams 5 and 6 were often playing an elimination match due to upsets elsewhere) and given that in 12 seasons not a single top 4 side was eliminated in week 1 (and therefore no bottom 4 side got a week off) it seems the IC are addressing a problem that did not exist. 2011 was an anomoly, the first time that the top 4 sides all won and therefore both 5 and 6 got to progress after losing. Until 2011 I don't think a single team finishing 6th has lost and progressed to week 2.

 

[beave]

In 05 there was no way in the world we deserved to be anywhere near the GF after the week 1 drubbing we copped against the Tigers. The McIntyre system has more flaws in it than this new-old system they've changed to, people should be happier about the change, but as usual in here, half the people would whinge if they diamonds shoved up their ass.

 

[El Diablo]

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.

IIRC not since 2001 has a team from outside the top 4 made the AFL GF

 

[age.s]

and

Both said by McIntyre geniuss.

The only thing you could find wrong with my post was a straw man about some likely flawed reasoning by another McIntyre supporter? Get back to me when you have something worth reading.

In 05 there was no way in the world we deserved to be anywhere near the GF after the week 1 drubbing we copped against the Tigers.

Probably not, but there was every chance you would have been bundled out in week 1 despite the fact you had to come up against team 4 (as opposed to team 8 in the new system). The teams below you didn't take their opportunity and were punished for it. Still the Grand Final isn't decided in week 1, and teams will still survive the first week after playing terrible.

The McIntyre system has more flaws in it than this new-old system they've changed to, people should be happier about the change, but as usual in here, half the people would whinge if they diamonds shoved up their ass.

Pretty unfair and close minded really. I don't really dislike this new system, but like McIntyre a great deal better and I think it's a shame we've regressed to a less fair system.

 

[Tommax25]

No matter the system, the best team always ends up winning the league. But this is a better system.

I disagree. I think there a handful of teams that you can generally say were a step above the rest and out of those any are worthy winners/best team wins the league. If the warrios had beaten manly I wouldn't say that the best team ended up winning the comp because they were clearly not as good as manly, brisbane, and melbourne throughout the year, and in finishing below 4th and 5th were not as good as them either. Same with the roosters and eels the last few years from low positions on the ladder.

Its finals and anything can happen, which is a good thing and finals are standard in Australian sport but I wouldn't say that makes them the best team in the comp for that year, just that things came together for them in combination with reasonable ability.

 

[Tommax25]

a knockout comp works in the FIFA world cup why wouldnt it work here

You are entitled to your opinion, but the vast majority here seem to disagree with it and you have also not put forth any points to back up your stance aside from stuff like the above and even simpler responses like “it should be knockout” or “if you can’t win you don’t deserve to continue”, which tell me you’d rather scrap the whole season and just pick names out of a hat for knockout opponents and play from there until you have a winner. You might enjoy a monthish long comp buddy, but we want more games, and a fairer system, which we now have.


As for the fifa world cup comment, well its actually knockout after a long, LONG series of non-knockout aspects. There are differences for the regions but basically you play a home and away round of games against a bunch of teams in your region to establish the top two teams. The top team goes through and the 2nd placed teams play two games, home and away, against other 2nd place finishers to see who goes through. No knock-out games here.


This is the equivalent of the nrl 25 odd game season, and then you make the world cup finals where you again play for positions on a table where the top two go through. Again, no knockout and this is the actual FINALS. Finally, after the group stage we reach the knockout stage and go from there. Essentially what you said about the world cup is wrong and that you have nfi.


So as we can see your opinion holds little value, so you can go on thinking it but the new system IS better. Learn to live with it.

 

[juro]

Pretty obvious from the debate in this thread (as well as the threads that pop up each September) that both systems have their pros and cons. Some people prefer one over the other, but neither system is perfect.

Having the ARLC make this decision is definitely not going to stop the debate ever coming up again.

 

[Tommax25]

Creating more games for TV stations does nothing at all for the sport. It does a lot for the commercial interests.

Even if you take that statement at face value then so what? The commerical interests are important. More money from commerical interests=more money for clubs, grass roots developments ect =making the comp better=making the sport better=you have nfi.

 

[kurt faulk]

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.

any given sunday. if the top 2 teams have a bad day in week 1 they aren't punished the next week as well. they still get a home game against an inferior team making it easier for them to progress to the preliminary finals. i'm gonna have to disagree as i see all the top 4 teams being better off in the new system.

.

 

[muzby]

Even if you take that statement at face value then so what? The commerical interests are important. More money from commerical interests=more money for clubs, grass roots developments ect =making the comp better=making the sport better=you have nfi.

so where do you draw the line though?

a 16 team finals comp would also provide more revenue for the game....

 

[adamkungl]

So under the new system, the top 4 have a much harder week 1 game, making it harder to gain a week off. However they have a more lenient penalty if they lose, with 0 chance of being knocked out and a home game next week.
2 things to note here:

1) With the top 4, or at least the top 2-3 being favourites to win almost every time, this seems like they are overall worse off.

2) The home ground situation is entirely irrelevant to the McIntyre system. A sensible compromise would have been to keep the structure of the system but to give the week 2 home city advantage to the higher ranked team. That said, I never saw a problem with losers losing their home advantage. Teams 1 and 2 are given a MASSIVE advantage under McIntyre, playing pleb teams that scraped into the finals, at home, with no chance of being knocked out. Losing puts them on a level playing field.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I personally like the systems I have previously posted better but the change is better than nothing.

 

[Tommax25]

so where do you draw the line though?

a 16 team finals comp would also provide more revenue for the game....

The line is drawn. 8. We changed finals system but didn't change the number of teams in it. It seems to be the optimum number to maximise money and create a decent finals experience, which they ahve now improved with more even games and more benefits for top teams.

 

[firechild]

any given sunday. if the top 2 teams have a bad day in week 1 they aren't punished the next week as well. they still get a home game against an inferior team making it easier for them to progress to the preliminary finals. i'm gonna have to disagree as i see all the top 4 teams being better off in the new system.

.

Let me put it simply and you might want to re-evaluate that statement.

Assuming all games go according to seeding:

Macintyre System for team 1:

week 1: v8
week 3: v4
week 4: v2

ARL system for team 1:

week 1: v4
week 3: v3
week 4: v2

Tell me exactly where team 1 benefits from this change.

The reality is that the top 4 teams are almost certainly going to have to play all other top 4 teams to hold up the trophy (weeks 1, 3 and 4). It might make for better games but it does not reward the top 4 teams at all. Under the macintyre system, teams 1 and 2 could get an easy game to progress to the prelim and then have 2 tough games to win the comp. That changed if they lost their week 1 game and even then, it didn't put them in a worse position than the ARL system except for the home ground which could have been changed.

 

[The Engineers Room]

If we look back it would have significantly changed the finals of the last three years and beyond:

2011

Storm v Tigers
Manly v Brisbane
Dragons v Knights
Warriors v Cowboys

Storm/Tigers would have been a cracker but at home Storm
Manly/Brisbane would be good also Manly just
Dragons way too good for Knights
Warriors were fairly awful week 1 but so were Cowboys, Warriors

Tigers v Dragons
Brisbane v Warriors

Tigers and Broncos as they did win

Storm v Broncos
Manly v Tigers

I reckon a Manly Brisbane GF may have happened

2010

Dragons v Titans
Panthers v Tigers
Warriors v Sea Eagles
Roosters v Raiders

Dragons, Tigers and Warriors but Roosters Raiders?? I'd go Roosters

Titans v Warriors
Panthers v Roosters

Titans and Roosters

Dragons v Roosters
Tigers v Titans

Dragons v Tigers GF

2009

Dragons v Storm
Bulldogs v Titans
Sea Eagles v Eels
Brisbane v Newcastle

Storm, Bulldogs, Eels and Broncos

Dragons v Eels
Titans v Brisbane

Eels and Brisbane

Bulldogs v Eels
Storm v Brisbane

seems familiar!!

Storm v Eels GF

So it may have had an effect and most notably it makes it harder for a late season run to have the same effect.

 

[muzby]

The line is drawn. 8. We changed finals system but didn't change the number of teams in it. It seems to be the optimum number to maximise money and create a decent finals experience, which they ahve now improved with more even games and more benefits for top teams.

okay, my question regarding 16 teams was rhetorical, however the argument about 'maximising money' doesn't float with just 8.. quite literally they could increase revenue by upping it to 10 teams (which i strongly recommend is not likely nor do i support). simply, the more games, the more money they can bring in..

but the 2nd bolded point, they haven't added in more games now with the new system... it's still the same as mcintyre..

 

[adamkungl]

so where do you draw the line though?

a 16 team finals comp would also provide more revenue for the game....

Draw the line at the top half of the comp imo.

When we expand to 18 keep it at 8, 9 is a weird number.
When we expand to 20, either keep it at 8, or in the likely event of the NRL wanting more finals matches, expand to a top 10, seeded into parallel-top 5s.

 

[muzby]

2010

Dragons v Tigers GF

is what should have happened.... the grand final in 2010 was played one week early in many peoples eyes..

 

[milchcow]

2) The home ground situation is entirely irrelevant to the McIntyre system. A sensible compromise would have been to keep the structure of the system but to give the week 2 home city advantage to the higher ranked team.

This has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but it should be made clear that this would be ridiculous.

If teams 2,3 and 8 win, then the winner of the 4v5 match would have to play the minor premiers away, and the loser would get a home match against the 8th best team.

If team A beats team B, then team A should have a better fixture the next week than team B does. McIntrye doesn't enforce this, and that's the chief reason why it its good that its getting punted.

Its bad enough that in the case of an upset winning teams can be given a harder draw than the team they just beat - but to have to do it without home ground advantage would just be ludicrous.

For McIntyre to work at all, it relies on winners keeping home ground advantage.

 

[Tommax25]

okay, my question regarding 16 teams was rhetorical, however the argument about 'maximising money' doesn't float with just 8.. quite literally they could increase revenue by upping it to 10 teams (which i strongly recommend is not likely nor do i support). simply, the more games, the more money they can bring in..

but the 2nd bolded point, they haven't added in more games now with the new system... it's still the same as mcintyre..

You could make more money by having 10 teams play off but what you make in money you lose in respect for your competition because people look and see more than 60% of the teams in the comp play in the finals. Aas I said, it was about maximising money while balancing the sporting aspect of it, and they probably have found that balance, particulalrly with the new system.

I know they haven't added in more games, I said that we have more even games now, not more total games.