The annual finals system debate thread

[Hass]

The only drawback of both the Clarke system and the old final 5 is that team 1 or 2 can potentially have 2 weeks off during the finals series, which history shows is a major momentum killer!!!

Other than that, the Clarke system is a very good alternative and really provides an incentive to finish higher up the ladder.

I'd say the "Crippler ammendment" could also be applied to the Clarke system.

Instead of giving the top two winners a bye in week two. We could play their clash over two legs.

This would remove the possibility of having a "major momentum killer".

The obvious drawback of a match over two legs is that if the first game is a blow-out then the second match also needs to be a blow-out, only with the scores reversed. Otherwise we could have a fizzer on our hands for the second leg.

I'd be happy to give it a try despite this, banking on the fact that matches between the top two teams should be close.

Cheers.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I'd say the "Crippler ammendment" could also be applied to the Clarke system.

Instead of giving the top two winners a bye in week two. We could play their clash over two legs.

This would remove the possibility of having a "major momentum killer".

The obvious drawback of a match over two legs is that if the first game is a blow-out then the second match also needs to be a blow-out, only with the scores reversed. Otherwise we could have a fizzer on our hands for the second leg.

I'd be happy to give it a try despite this, banking on the fact that matches between the top two teams should be close.

Cheers.

Easy fixed. F/A is not counted in the event of a 1 all result the higher ranked team (1) wins.

 

[Lego_Man]

What about Warren Ryan's finals system? I seem to remember that looked pretty good.

 

[_Johnsy]

Teams 1 and 2 at least one of them are guaranteed a grand final spot

Dont like it, injuries, suspensions. If either of these two teams are good enough they will make it. Finishing 1 or 2 should not give eiither side a spot in a GF, It is a privelege to play in a GF not a right.

 

[NK Arsenal]

The Muller system: Invented by NP - 13th September 2007

Week One

Byes
1 v Bye
2 v Bye
Qualifying Finals
3 v 4 - Match A
5 v 6 - Match B
Elimination Final
7 v 8 - Match C

Week Two

Semi-Finals
1 v Winner C - Match D
2 v Loser B - Match E
Winner B v Loser A - Match F

Week Three

Grand Final Qualifiers
Winner A v Winner F - Match G
Winner D v Winner E - Match H (Highest ranked team hosts)

Week Four

Grand Final - Telstra Stadium
Winner G v Winner H

***
In this system the higher ranked team gets the advantage that they deserve and the lower ranked teams get the disadvantage that they deserve.

 

[Tekken Lord]

I like the Clarke system.

 

[the rebel]

It think it should be a top 7 like the 97 Arl season. That was an amazing semi final series.

for example Week 1

Minor prems week off

2 vs 3
4 vs 5
6 vs 7 elimation match.

I reckon it would be much better than the current system.

 

[Dogs Of War]

It think it should be a top 7 like the 97 Arl season. That was an amazing semi final series.

for example Week 1

Minor prems week off

2 vs 3
4 vs 5
6 vs 7 elimation match.

I reckon it would be much better than the current system.

How does the rest of it work, I can't remember, was more interested in Super League.

 

[Hass]

It think it should be a top 7 like the 97 Arl season. That was an amazing semi final series.

for example Week 1

Minor prems week off

2 vs 3
4 vs 5
6 vs 7 elimation match.

I reckon it would be much better than the current system.

The ARL's Final 7 from 1997 was an absolute abomination.

There were two guaranteed dead rubbers in that system. In the current McIntyre 8 we have two potential dead rubbers (which is bad enough) but in 1997 we had the following...

4 v 5 played in the first week. Both teams were guaranteed a spot in week 2. Both matches in week 2 were knockouts. The winner just got to play an "easier" team in Week 2 (Gold Coast instead of Parramatta).

1 v 2 played in the second week. Both teams were guaranteed a spot in week 3. Both matches in week 3 were knockouts. The winner wasn't even guaranteed to get an "easier" match.

Whoever signed off on using that system must have thought it through for about 10 seconds. It is by far the worst finals system I've ever seen in use.

Cheers.

 

[dallymessenger]

English SL does it, very similar to our old top 5 system.

much better as it rewards teams 1 and 2 much more than the lottery we have atm.

in 2005 parra and saints were out of their semis after 1 loss (prelim finals) whilst the cowboys lost an early final and then still made the GF.

good form over the year should be rewarded more than the current system does.

off the top of my head : week 1 top two teams get a bye.
next 4 play each other sudden death.

following week winners of the previous weeks play each other and the top 2 play each other, with the winner going straight to the GF.

the loser then plays the remaining team to see who gets into the GF.

 

[Butters]

English SL does it, very similar to our old top 5 system.

much better as it rewards teams 1 and 2 much more than the lottery we have atm.

in 2005 parra and saints were out of their semis after 1 loss (prelim finals) whilst the cowboys lost an early final and then still made the GF.

good form over the year should be rewarded more than the current system does.

off the top of my head : week 1 top two teams get a bye.
next 4 play each other sudden death.

following week winners of the previous weeks play each other and the top 2 play each other, with the winner going straight to the GF.

the loser then plays the remaining team to see who gets into the GF.

Umm what? Teams 1 and 2 aren't rewarded with the Mcintyre system? They get to play the 2 lowest finishing finals sides then get a bye if they win (which is almost guaranteed) and then have to win 1 more game at home to make the Grand Final.

How is that not a reward?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I thought this annual whinge wouldn't crop up for a few weeks yet.

Doesn't matter what system we have someone will reckon there is a better one. The SL system isn't that good because the gap between second and third is huge while the difference between finishing first and second, third and fourth or fifth and sixth is pretty insignificant. The best finals system should deliver a greater advantage to sides the higher they finish. The best was the old 5-team SL system. It was the same as our old one except they had home finals right up to the grand final. Even then plenty of people would complain about it for one or two reasons. If we have to have 8 teams go back to the 1v 4, 2 v 3 etc one we had in '95 and '96. Same as the AFL's.

 

[dallymessenger]

Umm what? Teams 1 and 2 aren't rewarded with the Mcintyre system? They get to play the 2 lowest finishing finals sides then get a bye if they win (which is almost guaranteed) and then have to win 1 more game at home to make the Grand Final.

How is that not a reward?

in the other system teams 1 and 2 are guaranteed a life if they lose their first game.

the mcintye system doesnt guarantee teams 1 and 2 a life.

 

[dallymessenger]

I thought this annual whinge wouldn't crop up for a few weeks yet.

Doesn't matter what system we have someone will reckon there is a better one. The SL system isn't that good because the gap between second and third is huge while the difference between finishing first and second, third and fourth or fifth and sixth is pretty insignificant. The best finals system should deliver a greater advantage to sides the higher they finish. The best was the old 5-team SL system. It was the same as our old one except they had home finals right up to the grand final. Even then plenty of people would complain about it for one or two reasons. If we have to have 8 teams go back to the 1v 4, 2 v 3 etc one we had in '95 and '96. Same as the AFL's.

next time im thinking of starting a thread, ill send you a PM to see if you agree on the timing of its release.
:lol:

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

in the other system teams 1 and 2 are guaranteed a life if they lose their first game.

the mcintye system doesnt guarantee teams 1 and 2 a life.

errrm yes it does. The two higest place losers get to keep playing. Given team 1 and 2 losing in the first round of the finals they will always get a life. regardless of the otehr results. It does make it scary for teams placed 3rd and 4th though.

 

[gregstar]

there is no way the nrl will reduce the amount of games.

too much is at stake for an adjustment. more advertising space, more fans, more revenue.

 

[pcpp]

Stupid, stupid idea.

The Super League Top 6 system is about the worst finals system ever.

1st and 2nd team get a ridiculous advantage over the 3rd place team. As it stands, there are 3 clear frontrunners in the Super League with just one point separating them. Two of these teams will get a free ride to the second week AND get a guaranteed second chance if they lose. The third place side will have to play two more games than the other grand finalist WITHOUT a second chance.

 

[dallymessenger]

errrm yes it does. The two higest place losers get to keep playing. Given team 1 and 2 losing in the first round of the finals they will always get a life. regardless of the otehr results. It does make it scary for teams placed 3rd and 4th though.

2005.

teams 1 and 2 lost later on and got no lives.

in the SL system teams 1 and 2 will always get a life.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

The best top 8 system is the one the AFL is currently using which is what we used in 1995-96. Same amount of games:

Week 1:

5 v 8
6 v 7
(both games elimination matches)
2 v 3
1 v 4


I mean in the McIntyre the top 4 should be safe from week 1, I know we havent seen it happen before but you never know when one of the top 4 sides is knocked after week 1. Stupid.

At least with the old ARL system you know you either through or gone after the match.

The McIntyre system you have wait until a certain game to know you're definately through or gone.

 

[bartman]

English SL does it

But they only have 12 teams, making it the same in theory as a top 8 in a 16 team comp...