The annual finals system debate thread

[Marshall_magic]

I think the main problem with our series is how complex it is. For an outsider looking to follow the game, the series is a very hard one to follow because it is not Winner A vs Loser C or whatever. For someone who understands it, it's a great system, but for an outsider it's hard to understand.

 

[ozjet1]

how about reducing the regular season to 18 matches per club, and then a 3 wk-top 6 playoff system.

oh, that's right.......news ltd need product for no lifers on a saturday for their cable service, so the rest of us get bored sh*tless with meaningless games.

 

[ozjet1]

I think the main problem with our series is how complex it is. For an outsider looking to follow the game, the series is a very hard one to follow because it is not Winner A vs Loser C or whatever. For someone who understands it, it's a great system, but for an outsider it's hard to understand.

a system which potentially allows the 6th ranked team to lose its first week final, then go on to win the premiership is not a 'great' system. in fact, its a crock of a system.

if the 6th ranked team gets to take advantage of the 2nd chance, then all 5 teams above it should get it too. that's why this system, and all of these systems which employ the double chance, are flawed.

The GF is determined in a playoff. A top ranked team may have won all their finals, but lost the GF and dont get a 2nd chance. Its arbitrarily awarded in wk 1 and wk 1 only. Teams who have lost a final on their way to a premiership are 2nd -class premiers IMO.

All finals should be playoffs. Give the top ranked teams the wk off and the lower ranked sides play in wk 1 of finals........and also, reduce the finals teams to 6.

 

[TooheysNew]

For this example we will assume the higher ranked team wins

wk 1 (First team has home advantage - E = elimination semi)

1 v 4
2 v 3

5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E

wk 2 (First team listed still has home advantage)

3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E

wk 3 (All games neutral venues from now on)

1 v 2 (winner straight to GF)
3 v 4 E

wk 4

2 v 3 E

wk 5 - Grand final

1 v 2

Sorry, but that is terrible.
You are rewarding teams for winning all season, and for winning in the finals by sending them into the finals with bugger all games under their belt?

It's no better than what we have atm - which is fine, by the way. If you can't win, you don't deserve to play, no matter what position you finished. The minor premiers get a prize anyway, so what does it matter? If you are good enough to finish at the top, you should be good enough to win through the finals.

 

[mepelthwack]

Sorry, but that is terrible.
You are rewarding teams for winning all season, and for winning in the finals by sending them into the finals with bugger all games under their belt?

It's no better than what we have atm - which is fine, by the way. If you can't win, you don't deserve to play, no matter what position you finished. The minor premiers get a prize anyway, so what does it matter? If you are good enough to finish at the top, you should be good enough to win through the finals.

Firstly, thanks for the feedback.

Secondly,

It's terrible because of that?

The old Top 5, reverred by almost everyone, had the same thing.

The Minor Premiers ALWAYS missed week 1 and if they won in week 2 they ALWAYS missed week 3. History has shown the best Minor premiers still won the premiership.

The break can be seen as a curse like you indicate but it can also be seen as a blessing. It seems that depending how the team affected by it goes, it is called a blessing or a curse. There are pros and cons for the break/s. On one hand players/coaches complain about too many games, not enough rest and on the other they need to keep playing for match fitness/momentum. We could argue this point all day, the pros and cons of the week/s off.

In any case in my system only 1 team (so not teams) will get 2 weeks off in the series.

If that alone makes my system terrible then how does the McIntyre System fare against it?

Cast your mind back to 1999, 1st year of the McIntrye System. Week 1 Dragons (6) thrash Melbourne (3) in Melbourne. Cronulla (1) thrash Brisbane (8). Week 3 Cronulla eliminated by Dragons whilst Melbourne stumble their way to Grand Final (and win). Consider Cronulla's (1) season and finish and compare that to Melbourne's (3), again, flogged in week 1. Were their fates fair? Should Cronulla get a 2nd chance if Melbourne did? Of course they should of, and examples like that have occurred consistenly ever since.

Don't try and come back with your but if you don't win you don't deserve to play response because as I just showed, not only did Melbourne NOT win, they were thrashed.

Since 1999 other McIntyre flaws have come up. In 2005 the 5th placed Cowboys had 50 put on them and yet they were allowed to continue and made the grand final. Explain why the 5th placed team should get a 2nd chance but other top 4 sides including Dragons and Eels (1st and 2nd) did not?

I can't remember the exact year but Dragons and Penrith Played a 4th v 5th semi and there was a mere 1 (or 2?) point in it. I believe the loser was almost eliminated due to 2 winners nearly coming from the 6th-8th teams but it didn't quite happen (but easilly could of). Yet as I pointed out in 05, a team coming 5th had 50 put on them and were allowed to continue.

The McIntyre system is FULL of flaws.

How can anyone like a system that could allow the team who finished 6th to be beaten by 60 points and continue. Then, in the same series, a team that won the Minor Premiership by 10 clear points can have 1 off day and lose controversially in Golden Point! No 2nd chances for them just seeyuh later!

Explain the fairness in that for us all, please?

It could happen.

 

[Gaba]

The only fairness you can have in the finals is having a knock out all the way through , team who finish first gets the advantage by playing the lowest ranked team in the finals series

1 vs 8 loser knock out
2 vs 3 loser out
4 vs 5 loser out
6 vs 7 loser out



where a team gets flogged or having 40 or 50 points put on them do not get a 2nd chance

if a team 8 beats team 1 which has a bad day and loses so be it ,

under any current finals format a team can get flogged and get a 2nd chance

 

[BWNB]

How about we don't have finals and do it as they do in the EPL.

 

[bobbis]

McIntyre is terrible, if all goes according to plan and the highest ranked sides win 5th and 6th stay on after losing, not only that but the reward for the 6th place side losing to 3rd would be playing the 4th place side. Any system that has the potential to reward a side for losing is stupid. If 3rd place wins and 5th place win then 3rd place gets to play 4th while 5th plays 6. So effectively both the lower ranked loser and the lower ranked winner are rewarded with easier games.

Similarly if 2nd loses while all other results go according to plan then 2nd plays 4th and 5th plays 7th. Once again the lower ranked winner and the lower ranked loser are rewarded. Its a crazy system that throws away 26 rounds of rankings, where your fate half depends on your result and half on random chance, where some teams are effectively punished for finishing higher.

Who ever dreamt up that system must've been smoking some crazy sh*t.

 

[cupid]

Top 2 teams need more of an advantage in the finals, like in the AFL, all the deserving effort of making the two is not worth much in the NRL.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

I would like to see the teams hold their positions at the end of season right through the finals

I don't like it how team 1 and 2, in this years case Manly and Melbourne, only get that reward for the 1st week of the finals if they trip over. The 26 weeks should be worth a bit more, and i would like to see that the highest ranked side from the 26 weeks, get the home ground advantage

If Manly and Melbourne both lose this weekend, i beleive that Manly would play in Auckland and Melbourne would play in Sydney. It doesn't reward consistency enough in the current format, you could be 24/24 for the season, lose your 1st home final, and end up with nothing from that, and a team that wins 11/24, only just sneaking in, could get a home semi in week 2

Just my opinion, many would disagree

 

[Miller was a legend]

Hmmmm I think it is reasonable to suggest that if you are good enough it doesnt matter, you should just keep winning. If you lose in week one no matter where you finished you don't deserve any advantage week 2.

 

[Gaba]

so you agree with the knock out only too ,

 

[Gaba]

Top 2 teams need more of an advantage in the finals, like in the AFL, all the deserving effort of making the two is not worth much in the NRL.

in the afl system teams 1 and 2 got a better chance to be knocked out in week 2 ,then they have in the nrl system

so i dont know how you think the top 2 teams are more advantage in the afl system, when in the first week teams 1 and 2 play 3 and 4 , in the nrl they play 7 and 8

 

[Tommy Smith]

You saw the problem with the mcIntyre system last night. We had the best game of footy all year which in the end will in all likelihood count for nothing but a form guide.

Both the Broncs and Roosters are an overwhelming chance to be playing a knock-out semi next week. So even though Brisbane won they will be in the exact same position as the Roosters - playing sudden death football two wins away from the GF.

 

[Gaba]

You saw the problem with the mcIntyre system last night. We had the best game of footy all year which in the end will count for nothing but a form guide.

Both the broncs and Roosters are an overwhelming chance to be playing a knock-out semi next week. So even though Brisbane won they will be in the exact same position as the Roosters - laying sudden death football two wins away from the GF.

Same can be said for the afl system

say the broncos and roosters were coming 1 st and 4th and played like that, the winner and loser will still be in sudden death, yes broncos may get the week off but still puts them the same vague as the loser, lose next game they are out of the comp, i see no difference whether its 1 or 2 week from the gf there is no advantage to the winner in the afl system

thats why the finals should be just knock outs only

 

[Miller was a legend]

Just keep winnning! If you can't you dont deserve to win the Comp

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

The only way a top 8 system can be fair is if the entire top 4 get a 2nd bite at the cherry (if beaten prior to GF day) and the entire bottom 4 play constant sudden death.

McIntyre does not allow for this.

In fact, 6th place can be flogged by 50 points and yet get another chance while the minor premiers can lose by 1 point in extra time, as their only semi-final loss and be eliminated.

Yet Annesley will not look at viable alternatives.

Ryan's system is also flawed by the way, as is the so-called AFL system.

I submited my sytem to the NRL years ago and it is supposedly filed away but because I am not a RL personality it hasn't been taken seriously.

I guarantee it's better/fairer than all the other formulas, nonetheless.

My series goes for 5 weeks and reverts to (wk 2 of) the old Top 5 system by week 3. No top 4 side can be knocked out after 1 loss (before GF day) and no bottom 4 side ever gets a 2nd chance (this is fixed and can never change no matter the results).

For this example we will assume the higher ranked team wins

wk 1 (First team has home advantage - E = elimination semi)

1 v 4
2 v 3

5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E

wk 2 (First team listed still has home advantage)

3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E

wk 3 (All games neutral venues from now on)

1 v 2 (winner straight to GF)
3 v 4 E

wk 4

2 v 3 E

wk 5 - Grand final

1 v 2

If any teams 5-8 make or indeed win the GF they really deserve it under this system because it's a hard road for them (yet their week 1 chances are better than in the McIntyre)

The Top 4 are rewarded fairly for a consistent season and the rewards are scaled based on their finishing positions. 3 and 4 have a tougher 1st week than now but it's also a bigger, more meaningful game with bigger rewards than now and if they lose they still get a home semi against one of the bottom 4.

All semis have more meaning in fact, than they do now.

Anyway as soon as Annesley retires I'll push it hard at the NRL again, just biding my time (or waiting for some1 with some clout to help me push it).

That's a very good system. Everything is very clear, fair and well set out.

Well done.

 

[Gaba]

That's a very good system. Everything is very clear, fair and well set out.

Well done.

You will still have problems as now , people will complain about teams finishing on the same points.

why should this team get more advantage when they finish on the same points as 1st, 2nd and 3rd etc

you have team 1 - 6 on equal points

so team 6 could be better then team 3 , but loses out on for and against

thats why there should be no 2nd chances for any team KNOCK OUT ONLY is the only fair way


or in the finals if there has to be teams with 2nd chances then have play offs so there is not 2 teams on the same points 1st out right 2nd out right etc

have the finals extended for extra weeks if there are play offs required

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

You will still have problems as now , people will complain about teams finishing on the same points.

why should this team get more advantage when they finish on the same points as 1st, 2nd and 3rd etc

you have team 1 - 6 on equal points

so team 6 could be better then team 3 , but loses out on for and against

thats why there should be no 2nd chances for any team KNOCK OUT ONLY is the only fair way


or in the finals if there has to be teams with 2nd chances then have play offs so there is not 2 teams on the same points 1st out right 2nd out right etc

have the finals extended for extra weeks if there are play offs required

Ever heard of for and against???

 

[Gaba]

Ever heard of for and against???

So whats wrong with the current finals system then

it is decided on for and against