The annual finals system debate thread

[IAmDancingHomer]

2005 neither 1st or 2nd made it, and one of the teams that made the GF lost a semi by almost 50 points whilst neither 1st or 2nd got a life.

Just on teh 2005 final series. You have to be kidding me. The run by the cowboys and the Tigers was stuff that make the PR guys drool. There was more hype surrounding that final series than any other in recent memory. So I think that can only be good for the game.

Now if Parra and the Saints were unlucky and lost their opening match of the finals, I agree they do deservet o get a chance and make amends. After week 1 should be sudden death. Those who finished high enough in the regular season get a chance. Those who didn't, bad luck! Play better next time.

 

[j0nesy]

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.

I would much prefer a top 6, a finals system where 50% of the teams make it is laughable. It rewards mediocrity throughout the season.

 

[CycloneSteve]

The old top 5 system was the IMO as it guaranteed the top 3 teams a second chance all the way through. They had to lose twice to be out of the finals. The downside is that if the Minor Premiers won their first match (in week 2 of the finals putting them into the GF) they would have only played 2 games in a month.

 

[dallymessenger]

Just on teh 2005 final series. You have to be kidding me. The run by the cowboys and the Tigers was stuff that make the PR guys drool. There was more hype surrounding that final series than any other in recent memory. So I think that can only be good for the game.

Now if Parra and the Saints were unlucky and lost their opening match of the finals, I agree they do deservet o get a chance and make amends. After week 1 should be sudden death. Those who finished high enough in the regular season get a chance. Those who didn't, bad luck! Play better next time.

the cowboys got smashed by the tigers early on in the semis, they got a second chance.

parra and saints as the best teams by far that year in the nrl didnt get a 2nd chance.

thats really dumb

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

the cowboys got smashed by the tigers early on in the semis, they got a second chance.

parra and saints as the best teams by far that year in the nrl didnt get a 2nd chance.

thats really dumb

FFS at that point of time in the final series it is knockout stage for everyone. Are you seriously suggesting that they should be allowed another bite at the cherry because they lost their Preliminary Finals match? That is just stupid.

Like I said beofre 2006 Melbourne were by far the best team. Did they deserve a 2nd chance in the final series. If not then why? You are claiming that the teams finishing 1 and 2 should get a 2nd chance, if it is good enough for the Preliminary Final then why not the Grand Final?

Teams 1 and 2 get their reward regardless. If they win in week 1 they get a weekoff to rest any injuries. If they lose they are guarenteed to remain in the final series. That is pretty fair I would say.

As for your Cowboys theory, I admit they were very lucky to stay in the Final series. But would have been bundled straight out if Brisbane won their match against the Storm. The year before the Cowboys beat the Dogs. The Dogs got a life and went on to win the comp. That was fair reward for their 2nd place finish. TO NOT BE KNOCKED OUT IN WEEK 1 OF THE FINALS.

 

[dallymessenger]

FFS at that point of time in the final series it is knockout stage for everyone. Are you seriously suggesting that they should be allowed another bite at the cherry because they lost their Preliminary Finals match? That is just stupid.

Like I said beofre 2006 Melbourne were by far the best team. Did they deserve a 2nd chance in the final series. If not then why? You are claiming that the teams finishing 1 and 2 should get a 2nd chance, if it is good enough for the Preliminary Final then why not the Grand Final?

Teams 1 and 2 get their reward regardless. If they win in week 1 they get a weekoff to rest any injuries. If they lose they are guarenteed to remain in the final series. That is pretty fair I would say.

As for your Cowboys theory, I admit they were very lucky to stay in the Final series. But would have been bundled straight out if Brisbane won their match against the Storm. The year before the Cowboys beat the Dogs. The Dogs got a life and went on to win the comp. That was fair reward for their 2nd place finish. TO NOT BE KNOCKED OUT IN WEEK 1 OF THE FINALS.

like ive been saying, i think teams 1 and 2 should get a life prior to the grand final.

i think they deserve that for the form over the year.

 

[LeedsRhinos]

Currently, 12 teams compete in Super League. They play each other twice on a home-and-away basis, interrupted by the Magic Weekend round. An additional four fixtures are then played (prior to the introduction of Millennium Magic in 2007, an additional six fixtures were added). After the 27 rounds, a play-off structure is then used to determine the two teams who will meet in the Super League Grand Final to decide the championship. Currently the top six teams enter the play-offs. The structure is designed to reward the teams finishing nearer the top with easier routes to the Grand Final, which is played at Old Trafford. The system works like this:

Week One

• Elimination Semi-final A: 3rd vs 6th
• Elimination Semi-final B: 4th vs 5th

Week Two

• Elimination Final: Winners of Elimination Semi-final A vs Winners of Elimination Semi-final B
• Qualification Match: 1st vs 2nd

Week Three

• Final Qualifier: Losers of Qualification Match vs Winners of Elimination Final

Week Four

• Grand Final: Winners of Qualification Match vs Winners of Final Qualifier

 

[j0nesy]

Currently, 12 teams compete in Super League. They play each other twice on a home-and-away basis, interrupted by the Magic Weekend round. An additional four fixtures are then played (prior to the introduction of Millennium Magic in 2007, an additional six fixtures were added). After the 27 rounds, a play-off structure is then used to determine the two teams who will meet in the Super League Grand Final to decide the championship. Currently the top six teams enter the play-offs. The structure is designed to reward the teams finishing nearer the top with easier routes to the Grand Final, which is played at Old Trafford. The system works like this:

Week One

• Elimination Semi-final A: 3rd vs 6th
• Elimination Semi-final B: 4th vs 5th

Week Two

• Elimination Final: Winners of Elimination Semi-final A vs Winners of Elimination Semi-final B
• Qualification Match: 1st vs 2nd

Week Three

• Final Qualifier: Losers of Qualification Match vs Winners of Elimination Final

Week Four

• Grand Final: Winners of Qualification Match vs Winners of Final Qualifier

Even though I like your system it's never going to happen in the NRL because the NRL doesn't want to lose the revenue generated by a top 8 system...

Now if we were to adopt your system with a best of 3 grandfinal then we may get the NRL onside, but the players may not like it.

 

[LeedsRhinos]

Even though I like your system it's never going to happen in the NRL because the NRL doesn't want to lose the revenue generated by a top 8 system...

Now if we were to adopt your system with a best of 3 grandfinal then we may get the NRL onside, but the players may not like it.

The Super League system really does reward the top 2 teams but then i don't think thats a bad thing because they have been the best consistantly during the season.

 

[j0nesy]

The Super League system really does reward the top 2 teams but then i don't think thats a bad thing because they have been the best consistantly during the season.

The reason I say the players may not like a best of 3 grandfinal series is that they are forever harping on about being overworked.

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

It would be torture on their bodies a best of 3 series. Enjoyable to watch though I think. I just think that giving tems chances in the final series is wrong. Grant the two top teams passage past the first round but after that surely you must perform to deserve to go through to the next round.

You think the fastest 50m swimmer gets another crack at Olympic gold if he puts in a terrible quallifying time and misses the cut. Regardless of his form throughout the year he is out. He has to wait 4 years to make amends. Sometimes sport isn't fair, but that's life.

 

[Special K]

I don't like the SL one because if your a top team you only get to play twice in a month. I'd rather my team plays every week in the finals, or at least 3 times. The rest is to much otherwise imo.

Whats the AFL system?

 

[dallymessenger]

Even though I like your system it's never going to happen in the NRL because the NRL doesn't want to lose the revenue generated by a top 8 system...

Now if we were to adopt your system with a best of 3 grandfinal then we may get the NRL onside, but the players may not like it.

agreed.

the players would like it if the extra grand finals made $20 - $40 million and because of that the salary cap went up by $2 million per club

 

[dallymessenger]

The Super League system really does reward the top 2 teams but then i don't think thats a bad thing because they have been the best consistantly during the season.

exactly my point

 

[adamkungl]

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.

no bias here whatsoever...:roll: week 1 is when second chances happen and so it should be. from then on its harden the f**k up or mad monday

 

[dallymessenger]

no bias here whatsoever...:roll: week 1 is when second chances happen and so it should be. from then on its harden the f**k up or mad monday

your the only person to have picked that up
:lol:

i still think if your team finished top 2 and that happened youd look at the system.

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

How about we take our top 3-4 sides and play a round robin tournmament with the ESL top 3-4. Two top teams play a best of 3 series. Enough time for the vream to rise and still get your 2nd bite at the cherry if you f*ck up.

 

[eddiesmith]

I don't like the SL one because if your a top team you only get to play twice in a month. I'd rather my team plays every week in the finals, or at least 3 times. The rest is to much otherwise imo.

Whats the AFL system?

Qualifying Finals
1: 1 v 4
2: 2 v3
Elimination Finals
1: 5 v 8
2: 6 v 7

Semi Finals
1: Loser QF1 v Winner EF1
2: Loser QF2 v Winner EF2

Prelim
1: Winner QF1 v Winner SF 2
2: Winner QF2 v Winner SF1

Grand
Winner PF1 v Winner PF2

Is a good system and rewards all the top 4, something that should happen where the draw is not equal

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

Qualifying Finals
1: 1 v 4
2: 2 v3
Elimination Finals
1: 5 v 8
2: 6 v 7

Semi Finals
1: Loser QF1 v Winner EF1
2: Loser QF2 v Winner EF2

Prelim
1: Winner QF1 v Winner SF 2
2: Winner QF2 v Winner SF1

Grand
Winner PF1 v Winner PF2

Is a good system and rewards all the top 4, something that should happen where the draw is not equal

That is pretty much the same as what we have now except it guarentees that the top 4 teams cannot be knocked out in the first week of the final series (whick I think is fairer than the current system) That is where they get their reward. A week off if you win in week 1. A 2nd chance if you lose.

The problem some are having is where the the team ranked 1 wins the first semi but loses the Prelim final. They want to give them a 2nd chance then, seeing it is the only game they lost in the final series. I just think their logic here is a little silly, but each to their own I guess.

 

[eddiesmith]

If you are the top team and you get a week off after a long season to rest whilst your opposition has a tough game and you get done then they dont deserve to win the premiership

And they may simply be top because they got an easier run than 3rd which can make the 2 points or PD that seperates them at the end of the home and away series

Sure sometimes the top 2 can be sometimes well ahead of the rest during the year and 1 stumble can cost them, but often like this year the top 4 is so close together that does 2nd really deserve a greater reward than 3rd because they are seperated by PD?

In a league where everyone doesnt meet twice and there is the Origin problem where 3 weeks some teams are badly weakened, its hard to have a system where finishing top 2 is so far greater than 3rd when so little can seperate them

Or perhaps the NRL could bring in the old VFL challenge system which gave the top team the right to challenge if they lost a final, including the GF, is that what these people want?