What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The annual finals system debate thread

Which System ARL 95/96 or McIntyre

  • ARL 95/96 which the AFL use now

    Votes: 93 59.6%
  • McIntyre System

    Votes: 63 40.4%

  • Total voters
    156

gong_eagle

First Grade
Messages
7,655
It's back: the finals system debate

Brad Walter and Andrew Webster | September 10, 2007
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...1189276546858.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


Wayne Bennett last night called for the NRL to dump the McIntyre finals system after Brisbane were thrashed 40-0 by Melbourne - and he appeared to be backed by his Storm counterpart Craig Bellamy, who suggested the Broncos shouldn't have even been in the play-offs.
The result meant that for nine successive seasons since the McIntyre system was introduced, the eighth-placed side had failed to beat the minor premiers. And the lopsided score reignited debate about how the finals could be improved.
Bennett prefers the AFL system - in which the top four teams play off for the right to have a rest the following weekend, and the bottom four play sudden-death football - but Bellamy wants the top-five system to be reinstated.
"When I was younger and it was the top-four or top-five and you made the semis, you had had a good year," Bellamy said. After prefacing his next statement with "no disrespect to Brisbane", he argued that teams that finish eighth with a record of more losses than wins don't "deserve a shot at the big prize".
While Bennett insisted his side had believed they could win yesterday's match, he conceded: "One and eight ain't no match, it's pretty obvious.
"I just think the league have got to move away from it; I think the AFL have got a better system. They started off with this one and changed it. One thing they've done is that at least the fans think every team can win. If five played eight today, we might have been a better chance. The last time we finished eighth we got towelled up by Cronulla, so there's a huge gap there."
Melbourne captain Cameron Smith also backed the AFL model. "I like the top eight, but I favour the AFL system to be honest," he said.
Meanwhile, the NRL will resist calls to reschedule Sunday afternoon's match between the Cowboys and Warriors.
There was speculation yesterday that the NRL had approached broadcaster Channel Nine about shifting the game to a night match, while Cowboys coach Graham Murray also said he wanted it moved to Saturday evening.
Warriors chief executive Wayne Scurrah confirmed he had told NRL officials he strongly opposed to moving the kick-off time from 4pm next Sunday.
"I heard a rumour and I voiced the club's concern to the NRL," Scurrah told the Herald. "The schedule was put out, and everyone should stick to the schedule. Sometimes we have to play a 7.30pm game in Australia, and that's 9.30pm for our players but we have to do it.

"The schedule was decided when the draw was put out for this season, and it should not be changed now."
NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley was adamant last night that the kick-off time would not be changed.
"Next week's matches will be as per schedule, no matter what," he said. "To change things around would give favouritism to another team, and that won't be happening. There has been a lot of speculation going on this weekend, but nothing will be changing."
Annesley admitted the NRL had discussed with Nine weeks ago the possibility of making the Townsville play-off a night match to avoid the humidity of the day.
When the Warriors contacted the league yesterday they were more concerned that such a change would give them one day less to prepare for the must-win match.
While a night match would seem more favourable to the Auckland-based Warriors, the Cowboys have an excellent success rate on Saturday nights.
Cowboys chief executive Peter Parr was diplomatic when asked about the issue. "Changing the game might be Graham [Murray's] opinion but it is not the position of the club," he said. "We are grateful to get another home final, and we're happy to go with what the NRL wants to do."
For Parramatta chief executive Denis Fitzgerald, the hosting rights issue was less contentious. He said the Eels were happy to play at Telstra Stadium - the Bulldogs' home ground - on Saturday night, despite having won the right to host the match by beating the Warriors.
"We've always known that would be the case, and it is the closest ground to Parramatta for finals matches," Fitzgerald said. "Telstra Stadium holds no fears for us. We've beaten both the Bulldogs and Wests Tigers there this season."
 

Big Mick

Referee
Messages
26,252
should follow the AFL system

This week would have been

Melbourne vs Warriors @ Olympic Park - Warriors only team to ever mount a challenge to Melbourne down there

Manly vs Cowboys @ Brookvale

Eels vs Broncos @ Parra Stadium - Always good games

Bulldogs vs Souths @ Telstra - Would have got a MASSIVE crowd and would have been a good game.

Those 4 games would have been a lot better and competitive than the rubbish we saw from the Manly and Melbourne games.
 

the rebel

Juniors
Messages
107
I reckon it should be a top seven! imagine the matches in the first week, Manly Vs NQ, Nz Vs Parra, and an elimination match between Souths and the bulldogs.
 

eels_fan_01

Bench
Messages
3,470
Top 8 is good but id prefer the AFL system. Bellamy calls for a top 5 but i mean 6th and 7th have won nearly half the time agaisnt 2nd and 3rd so it hasnt been lopsided at all. Thats why its funny 8th has never won considering 2nd and 3rd have been beaten so much.
 

hindmarsh4pm

Juniors
Messages
1,913
it does suck big time, i mean parra v dogs this week and cowboys v warriors. both dogs and warriors have lost a game and can still make it, however if parra and cowboys lose it will be there first loss of the semis and get eliminated. not fair
 
Messages
3,877
hindmarsh4pm said:
it does suck big time, i mean parra v dogs this week and cowboys v warriors. both dogs and warriors have lost a game and can still make it, however if parra and cowboys lose it will be there first loss of the semis and get eliminated. not fair

Name me a credible top 8 finals system that doesn't have this problem.
 

Hass

Juniors
Messages
450
Well, the debate had to start up again eventually.

And it will start up again every year while we continue with a Final 8 and/or this flawed system.

This annual debate didn't exist when we had a Final 5. There were 16 teams from 1988-94 - just like there is now - and no one was calling for its removal.

What do we get out of having a Final 8?

* Three more finals matches (9 instead of 6)
* Keeps more teams interested in the run-up to the finals

Interestingly, going into the final round this year, there were 9 teams with a chance of making the Finals.

Had we been using the Final 5 system (with playoffs) there would still have been nine teams who had a chance of making the finals.

So this year the 'interest factor' turned out to be something of a moot point anyway.

Under a Final 5, the Parramatta/Warriors game would have been guaranteed sudden death.

Many would have played North Queensland and assuming the home-side won we'd be having a possible Grand Final preview between Manly and Melbourne this week.

The finals should be about the best playing the best.

Three cheers for Craig Bellamy!

Cheers.
 

eels_fan_01

Bench
Messages
3,470
Hass said:
Well, the debate had to start up again eventually.

And it will start up again every year while we continue with a Final 8 and/or this flawed system.

This annual debate didn't exist when we had a Final 5. There were 16 teams from 1988-94 - just like there is now - and no one was calling for its removal.

What do we get out of having a Final 8?

* Three more finals matches (9 instead of 6)
* Keeps more teams interested in the run-up to the finals

Interestingly, going into the final round this year, there were 9 teams with a chance of making the Finals.

Had we been using the Final 5 system (with playoffs) there would still have been nine teams who had a chance of making the finals.

So this year the 'interest factor' turned out to be something of a moot point anyway.

Under a Final 5, the Parramatta/Warriors game would have been guaranteed sudden death.

Many would have played North Queensland and assuming the home-side won we'd be having a possible Grand Final preview between Manly and Melbourne this week.

The finals should be about the best playing the best.

Three cheers for Craig Bellamy!

Cheers.

This year 9 teams could have made the top 5 yes because it was so close but alot of the time theres teams fighting out for 6th, 7th and 8th while the top 5 is already in place.
 

Hass

Juniors
Messages
450
eels_fan_01 said:
This year 9 teams could have made the top 5 yes because it was so close but alot of the time theres teams fighting out for 6th, 7th and 8th while the top 5 is already in place.

Yes, that happens sometimes.

But if that's the way the cards fall, just let it be.

The Final 8 tries to artificially manufacture interest at the back-end of the season by giving us a bloated cut-off of eighth place.

A fight for the fifth and final place in the semis truly is something to get excited about. Some years it won't happen, but that's because 5 teams have proved that they deserve to be in the finals ahead of all the others. Some years we will get a ding-dong battle and that will be good because we don't have a clear crop of teams who stood out from the pack.

I was talking to a few Souths supporters during the week who said 'get back to when we finish fifth or higher'. They said making the finals was good, but they felt as though it was a little hollow.

It's interesting. Brisbane haven't missed the finals since 1991. That year they finished 7th out of 16. Since that time they've finished 8th on a couple of occassions, yet 2007 is supposedly a more successful year than 1991.

We shouldn't be handing out consolation prizes that only serve to cheapen the integrity of the finals system.

Cheers.
 

eels_fan_01

Bench
Messages
3,470
Hass said:
Yes, that happens sometimes.

But if that's the way the cards fall, just let it be.

The Final 8 tries to artificially manufacture interest at the back-end of the season by giving us a bloated cut-off of eighth place.

A fight for the fifth and final place in the semis truly is something to get excited about. Some years it won't happen, but that's because 5 teams have proved that they deserve to be in the finals ahead of all the others. Some years we will get a ding-dong battle and that will be good because we don't have a clear crop of teams who stood out from the pack.

I was talking to a few Souths supporters during the week who said 'get back to when we finish fifth or higher'. They said making the finals was good, but they felt as though it was a little hollow.

It's interesting. Brisbane haven't missed the finals since 1991. That year they finished 7th out of 16. Since that time they've finished 8th on a couple of occassions, yet 2007 is supposedly a more successful year than 1991.

We shouldn't be handing out consolation prizes that only serve to cheapen the integrity of the finals system.

Cheers.

Some valid points, i do still prefer a top 8 maybe when there were 14 teams the top 8 was too much considering only six teams miss out but i think its good that half the comp gets a shot at the title considering how hard the teams work and how close the teams are in playing roster.

I know your Souths mate said that but if Souths would have beaten Manly im fairly sure him and all the Souths fans would be having mass orgys at Redfern.

7th v 2nd has had some great games.
 

Surely

Post Whore
Messages
98,503
Nothing wrong with 8, more interest more money, thats the name of the game.

Broncos were buggered because of injuries, but what would have happened if one week before the finals they managed to get back lockyer and co, then 1 v 8 may have been a lot more interesting.
 

The Engineers Room

First Grade
Messages
8,945
How about these two finals systems that I thought up:

System 1:

Week 1
1 v Bye
2 v Bye
3 v 8 a
4 v 7 b
5 v 6 c
lowest 2 ranked losers eliminated

Week 2
1 v highest ranked loser d
2 v 3rd highest winner e
highest ranked winner v 2nd highest winner f


Week 3 (on re-ranked week 2 rankings)
highest ranked winner v highest ranked loser g loser eliminated
2nd highest winner v 3rd highest winner h loser eliminated

winner g v winner h i loser eliminated

System 2:

Week 1
1 v Bye
2 v Bye
3 v 8 a
4 v 7 b
5 v 6 c
lowest 2 ranked losers eliminated

Week 2
1 v 2 d
highest ranked winner v highest ranked loser e loser eliminated
2nd highest winner v 3rd highest winner f loser eliminated

Week 3
winner d v winner f g loser eliminated
loser d v winner e h loser eliminated

winner g v winner h i loser eliminated
 

Eelectrica

Referee
Messages
21,106
Personally I'd prefer a top 6 or 7 system, but due to the extra games a top 8 system produces, it won't change.

I think the current system is fine the way to go and here's why:
- The top 2 teams are greatly advantaged and that's the way it should be. Especially this year. Every team below Manly has been average for much of the year.

- Teams one and two deserve the easier path to the prelims. Warriors and Cowboys don't deserve a good shot at a bye and the prelim. If Manly or Melbourne blew their chance then so be it.

- Using the current system we're not blowing the marqee matches in week one. We've got a good steady build up as the pressure intensifies as each week progresses.
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
27,650
This is the one I came up with earlier in the year.

My final 8 system, each game highest ranked team wins

W1
8 v 6 - loser gooone
5 v 7 - loser gooone
1 v 3 - winner week off
2 v 4 - winner week off

W2
3 v 5 - loser gooone
4 v 6 - loser gooone

W3
1 v 4 - loser gooone
2 v 3 - loser gooone

GF
1 v 2
 

Big Mick

Referee
Messages
26,252
because the AFL currently use it and we don't...thats why I call it the AFL system. Pretty simple really.
 

pantherz9103

First Grade
Messages
9,617
Hass said:
It's interesting. Brisbane haven't missed the finals since 1991. That year they finished 7th out of 16. Since that time they've finished 8th on a couple of occassions, yet 2007 is supposedly a more successful year than 1991.
Cheers.

You used to have to actually be quite strong to make the finals.

If you include yesterday's shellacking, the Broncos finished 2007 with 11 wins and 14 losses :crazy:

In 1991 they finished 7th with 13 wins and 9 losses, yet missed the finals.

The top five system worked perfectly well in a 16 team competition between 1988-1994. Arguably the game was never stronger than in that period. Now teams make the 8 with more losses than wins. Its all about more games, more $$.
 
Top