Slight flaw in the new finals system?

[RWB]

Why next week could (potentially);

1 play 3 and;
2 play 4

Shouldn't the Bulldogs (1) still hold the advantage of coming first by playing the lowest ranked winner(4)? From my understanding the competition has basically been split up into two separate sides of the draw after the first round of finals as to avoid a rematch (at least up until the Grand Final).

Apologies in advance if there's already a thread on this or if I have read the situation incorrectly.. but from my understanding I think this certainly seems to be a minor flaw.

 

[RABK]

You answered your own question. It prevents replays of week 1 games. I'm pretty sure it means that only the GF can see a replay of a previous finals game. A very good reason if you ask me. Manly is a much tougher match up than Souths and i'd wager a bet that over finals history the 4th placed side has often come into and performed better in the finals than the 3rd placed side.

It's really trivial and something that was discussed in the new finals system thread in depth.

 

[flamin]

You answered your own question. It prevents replays of week 1 games. I'm pretty sure it means that only the GF can see a replay of a previous finals game. A very good reason if you ask me. Manly is a much tougher match up than Souths and i'd wager a bet that over finals history the 4th placed side has often come into and performed better in the finals than the 3rd placed side.

What is that based on?

 

[LineBall]

It also means that if teams 1 and 2 make the GF, they both have played and beaten teams 3 and 4 to get there.

 

[clarency]

Saying "4th is usually better thab 3rd" is hardly solid enough to justify it.

While I actually do agree it is a minor flaw, the perceived benefits of avoiding a replay until grand final are more important.

 

[hellteam]

I'm still undecided on my preferred finals set up, this one definitely rewards the top 4 but I did like the unpredictability of the McIntyre system. As in you didn't really know who you would be playing each week until all the games had finished.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

I think the bigger flaw is that if 1 or 2 lose in the first week, they end up meeting in the third week. I believe that happened in the last year or two in the AFL, I was not impressed.


And after three seconds of research...next week the teams finishing first second in the AFL will meet in a grand final qualifier.

And I thought a system where Newcastle, Canberra, and to a lesser extent the Gold Coast could finish 3rd or 4th and never have a home final was bad.

 

[BranVan3000]

And if Canberra beat Souths, which they are more than reasonable chance of doing. This thread means nothing

 

[Saint Doc]

It's simple.

The system regards teams (1&2), (3&4), (5&6) and (7&8) to essentially equal.

It does not discriminate between whether you finished first or second.

 

[Slammin]

So OP wants to spoon fed the no. 1 team as much as possible.

 

[GongPanther]

At what exact date did they decide to chance this system?

 

[LESStar58]

Third and fourth getting a second chance is fine... but I reckon if you finish top 4 and lose your first finals match, you go to the home ground of the team that won the elimination final.

Methinks the new system is great but if you win from the bottom of the 8, why should you have to give up HGA if you win first up? I would have had last night in Townsville and tonight in Canberra.

 

[seanoff]

Third and fourth getting a second chance is fine... but I reckon if you finish top 4 and lose your first finals match, you go to the home ground of the team that won the elimination final.

Methinks the new system is great but if you win from the bottom of the 8, why should you have to give up HGA if you win first up? I would have had last night in Townsville and tonight in Canberra.

you play for 26 weeks to get seeding for the finals. want to play at home, finish in the top 4. if you don't, well tough shit.

 

[Saint Doc]

Third and fourth getting a second chance is fine... but I reckon if you finish top 4 and lose your first finals match, you go to the home ground of the team that won the elimination final.

Methinks the new system is great but if you win from the bottom of the 8, why should you have to give up HGA if you win first up? I would have had last night in Townsville and tonight in Canberra.

Most ridiculous, poorly thought through comment in a long long time.

So if you finish 3rd and 4th, you can never have a home final?

Play away to 1st/2nd in week 1
Play away to 5th/6th in week 2
Play away to 2nd/1st in week 3

But if you finish 5th/6th, you get two home finals

Play at home to 7th/8th week 1
Play at home to 3rd/4th week 2

Seriously think about what you've said. Utterly ridiculous

 

[BunniesMan]

Third and fourth getting a second chance is fine... but I reckon if you finish top 4 and lose your first finals match, you go to the home ground of the team that won the elimination final.

Methinks the new system is great but if you win from the bottom of the 8, why should you have to give up HGA if you win first up? I would have had last night in Townsville and tonight in Canberra.

Because the system puts more value on an entire season of good form rather than rewarding one week.

 

[LRC69]

It's simple.

The system regards teams (1&2), (3&4), (5&6) and (7&8) to essentially equal.

It does not discriminate between whether you finished first or second.

And so it shouldn't really considering the impact origin and the uneven draw has on the final placings.

Not just the games the players are not available for as byes assist here, but the games players back up for etc...the whole period is a distraction tot he teams with representation.

The dogs and Souths had limited representation at this time... yet Cowboys/Storm/Sharks lost some very significant players. (Inglis is a significant loss but is easier to cover than Carney/Gallen/Cronk/Smith/Thurston/Tamou/Scott etc)This would definately affected their final standings.

So not only was the top 4 influenced, even the next 4 were influenced by origin.

And then you get into the situation of different teams playing different teams twice etc.

In hindsight, they shouldn't even give a trophy or prize money for the minor premiers.

 

[BranVan3000]

Third and fourth getting a second chance is fine... but I reckon if you finish top 4 and lose your first finals match, you go to the home ground of the team that won the elimination final.

Methinks the new system is great but if you win from the bottom of the 8, why should you have to give up HGA if you win first up? I would have had last night in Townsville and tonight in Canberra.

What

 

[flamin]

Why next week could (potentially);

1 play 3 and;
2 play 4

Shouldn't the Bulldogs (1) still hold the advantage of coming first by playing the lowest ranked winner(4)? From my understanding the competition has basically been split up into two separate sides of the draw after the first round of finals as to avoid a rematch (at least up until the Grand Final).

Apologies in advance if there's already a thread on this or if I have read the situation incorrectly.. but from my understanding I think this certainly seems to be a minor flaw.

A potential solution to this problem (I haven't thought much about what other quirks it could produce though I'm sure others will point them out soon enough) is that 1 plays 3 and 2 plays 4 in the first week. That way if results go according to plan:

1 v 3 in week 1
1 v 4 in week 3 (elimination)

2 v 4 in week 1
2 v 3 in week 3 (elimination)

which would be better for team 1 than the current system which is:

1 v 4 in week 1
1 v 3 in week 3 (elimination)

2 v 3 in week 1
2 v 4 in week 3 (elimination)

 

[alien]

or they could just make it a top 6 finals system:

week 1 - teams 1 and 2 get the week off
(game a) 3 v 6
(game b) 4 v 5

week 2
(game c) 1 v (winner of game b)
(game d) 2 v (winner of game a)

week 3 (grand final)
(winner of game c) v (winner of game d)

 

[Spot On]

There isn't a perfect system unless we go back to a top five. This years system is the best for a top eight. Move on.