NRL Finals System Changed

[kurt faulk]

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.

you're looking at it with the view that the top 2 teams win in week 1. i'm looking at it with the view that they lose. this system is much fairer if they lose in week 1.

for example, if team 1 loses in the first week and the other top 4 teams win

Macintyre System for team 1:

week 1: v8
week 2: v4

ARL system for team 1:

week 1: v4
week 2: v5 or 8

they get an easier game in the second week making progress to the prelim finals easier for them.

no system is perfect and i hate the crossover after week 2 which disadvantages the minor premiers but it's still better than the macintyre system.

.

 

[muzby]

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

ahh.. so you did... my apologies.. sputid dyslexia skrites again.

 

[firechild]

So in effect, the Macintyre system can be, at worst, equal to the ARL system. At best (even if they lose week 1) it is an easier run. Nowhere is there an example that shows that the run to the GF is easier for the minor premier under the ARL system. I'll add to your example and say that if team 1 loses then they'll probably play team 2 in week 3. Under the Macintyre system, teams 1 and 2 CANNOT play each other before the GF.

 

[adamkungl]

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.

False assumption. Unless you're in the top 2 and getting the week off, you're gonna have to play teams above you in sudden death games in either week 2 or 3 anyway. The order is really irrelevant.

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

Fair enough, I had no issue with it anyway.

 

[adamkungl]

Also people saying we'll never see teams 7 and 8 make the GF again...wtf. They're guaranteed an easier first up game!

 

[milchcow]

False assumption. Unless you're in the top 2 and getting the week off, you're gonna have to play teams above you in sudden death games in either week 2 or 3 anyway. The order is really irrelevant.

My issue isn't playing teams ranked above you.
Its with your week 2 opposition being ranked higher than the week 2 opposition of the team you just beat.

ie 2,3,4,8 win.

Team 4 (winner) plays team 1
Team 5 (loser) plays team 8

Given 4 beat 5 its not a great system if they get a harder week 2 opponent. The only concession is that team 4 gets to play at home, but team 5 plays away. If all 4 teams happen to be Sydney teams then 4 would likely have been better off losing.

 

[firechild]

Also people saying we'll never see teams 7 and 8 make the GF again...wtf. They're guaranteed an easier first up game!

Exactly. Assuming all other results go to plan (the obvious exception being the 7th or 8th placed team), teams 7 or 8 will only play top 4 sides under the Macintyre system. Whereas they get one bottom 4 and 3 top 4 teams under the ARL system. Just as discussed above regarding top 2 sides, there is no way the ARL system can be more difficult for teams 7 and 8.

 

[Timmah]

adam, while you've made some good arguments, do you think it's acceptable for results of one team to rely on those of another to decide who's eliminated?

For that reason alone, McIntyre system was a laughing stock. Fancy not knowing who's playing who next week at fulltime in a semi-final.

 

[kurt faulk]

So in effect, the Macintyre system can be, at worst, equal to the ARL system. At best (even if they lose week 1) it is an easier run. Nowhere is there an example that shows that the run to the GF is easier for the minor premier under the ARL system. I'll add to your example and say that if team 1 loses then they'll probably play team 2 in week 3. Under the Macintyre system, teams 1 and 2 CANNOT play each other before the GF.

you're right, that's why i hate the crossover after week 2. but with any system that allows losing teams to stay in the finals you're gonna sometimes get situations like this. as i said in an earlier post the finals system should be flexible in the 3rd week to allow the highest ranked team to play the lowest ranked team. but for some reason the powers that be think two teams playing each other twice in a finals series is like leprosy.

back to the macintyre system, this is what i posted earlier.

just as an example, if the top 4 teams won then 3rd would play 5th and 4th would play 6th in the second week. how dumb is that, the 3rd placed team got screwed and the 4th placed team got the easier run. that's not how a finals system is supposed to work.

both systems have their flaws, i just happen to like the new one.

.

 

[Timmah]

The other great thing about the revised format is that 7 and 8 CANNOT earn a home final by winning in week one. You don't even deserve a chance at that from such a low position.

 

[adamkungl]

My issue isn't playing teams ranked above you.
Its with your week 2 opposition being ranked higher than the week 2 opposition of the team you just beat.

ie 2,3,4,8 win.

Team 4 (winner) plays team 1
Team 5 (loser) plays team 8

Given 4 beat 5 its not a great system if they get a harder week 2 opponent. The only concession is that team 4 gets to play at home, but team 5 plays away. If all 4 teams happen to be Sydney teams then 4 would likely have been better off losing.

Losing risks elimination. Winning gives them a chance at a week off. Whether it be in week 2, 3, or the GF, team 4 would have to beat team 1 eventually, or someone just as difficult.

 

[Freak2]

I think as a spectacle the new system has more going for it.

All games mean something in the finals series as were games under the old McIntyre system sometimes where meaningless which I think is poor VIEWING for the TV audience.

What's that FOR SALE STICKER for again?

 

[Dragon2010]

I'm not really against or for it.

Both systems have their positives and both have their flaws. It depends what works for the NRL as it's own sport. While copying the AFL structure might be an idea it might totally work against us.

There is flaws and issues that in arise in both system and either way people in the top 8 will bitch about these flaws then their teams looses.

 

[adamkungl]

The other great thing about the revised format is that 7 and 8 CANNOT earn a home final by winning in week one. You don't even deserve a chance at that from such a low position.

The point about uncertainy is somewhat valid I suppose, it never really bothered me though I can see the advantage of a simpler, easy to understand system.

This point however, I completely disagree with. If they can knock off the minor premiers then why not. Come finals time, big games count and winners take all.

In the end - I'm over discussing this. It's all semantics really, you need to beat the best to take the trophy. We're basically arguing about what order the games are played in. Whatever.

 

[Timmah]

I simply cannot agree.

Allowing an easy passage or any sort of advantage for teams 7 and 8 rewards mediocrity. It's as simple as that. For mine, if 7/8 want to make the GF, they should be doing it away from home in front of hostile crowds all the way.

IMO the NRL is finally rewarding consistency throughout the season and protecting the sanctity of the top four. The only major disadvantage of the new system IMO is the increased risk of 1v2 meeting before GF day

 

[age.s]

My issue isn't playing teams ranked above you.
Its with your week 2 opposition being ranked higher than the week 2 opposition of the team you just beat.

ie 2,3,4,8 win.

Team 4 (winner) plays team 1
Team 5 (loser) plays team 8

1 and 8 are where the teams finished at the end of the regular season. The fact of the matter is that in this scenario team 4 plays a team that proved to be inferior over 80 minutes just the week before. The Titans/Broncos scenarios in 09 are illustrations of this. Broncos got a Dragons team low on confidence after being beaten the week before and Titans got a red hot Parra team in Sydney.

 

[age.s]

I simply cannot agree.

Allowing an easy passage or any sort of advantage for teams 7 and 8 rewards mediocrity. It's as simple as that. For mine, if 7/8 want to make the GF, they should be doing it away from home in front of hostile crowds all the way.

It's not an advantage. Playing team 1, away from home, in sudden death is not better than facing off against team 5. It's downright the toughest job you can possibly be given in the finals. The reward for getting past week 1 is slightly greater (really the advantage a home city final gives you is notable, not overwhelming) but the challenge your given is far far tougher.

Really the problem with McIntyre is that the advantages for the teams in the top 4 aren't understood or properly valued. That doesn't mean they're not very real.

 

[Parra]

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.

What have you ever seen that makes you think any extra revenue will be spread around? Total revenue has increased but sfa extra has made it to the grass roots. It is wishful thinking only on your behalf. If you think that the NRL or ARLC is some sort of benevolent society then you clearly have nfi.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

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.

I haven't seen a f**king cent!

 

[M2D2]

Really the problem with McIntyre is that the advantages for the teams in the top 4 aren't understood or properly valued. That doesn't mean they're not very real.

...:lol: