The annual finals system debate thread

[mickdo]

Meaningless whinge. Make some rules for the sake of it fs. As has been said before, team 6 has to win to keep going - and semis are all about winning.

Meaningless?? WTF? Team 6 doesn't HAVE to win to keep going, they can possibly lose and yet still win the GF. What part of that don't you understand???

 

[Eels Dude]

Meaningless?? WTF? Team 6 doesn't HAVE to win to keep going, they can possibly lose and yet still win the GF. What part of that don't you understand???

Agreed.

Team 3 could beat team 6 by 50 points in the first week, but as long as teams 1 and 2 win, both team 3 and 6 are going to be in exactly the same position the following week.

So what's the reward in that case for Team 3 winning???? and what's the punishment for Team 6 losing????

In fact Team 3 is punished as they will play 4th or 5th, higher ranked sides, and team 6 is rewarded by playing the same. It becomes meaningless.

 

[trudge]

I'm with you Souls but for a slightly different reason:

The silly Home Ground advantage (ie. playing at Kogarah rather than SFS) is costing the NRL and ultimately all our salary caps approx. $200,000 each. Bad business when we need to keep our stars in the NRL.
Big games need to be profited from but the Top 4 need to be compensated. Replace the home ground advantage of the top 4 with the AFL system that allows the top 4 the advantage to survive week one.

Each game would be closer and the result instant at the ground rather than waiting for other results.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

The Dragons need more incentive then money to move their home final. Im thinking some sort of salary cap concession for 2010.

 

[Hass]

As I said earlier, I prefer the Top 5 but I'm smart enough to know that boat has sailed.

The best thing for the NRL about the Top 8 is that it keeps more teams interested in the season for longer. They also get to stage a couple of extra finals.

I think there's room for a compromise.

The following system is a four-week Final 7 system based on the old Final 5. For teams 1, 2 and 3 it works just like the Final 5. For teams 4,5,6 and 7 it is designed to make winning the comp possible but very tough.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
WEEK 1:
4 v 7 - [1st Elimination Final]
5 v 6 - [2nd Elimination Final]
2 v 3 - [Qualifying Final]

MIDWEEK PLAYOFF:
Winner of 1st Elimination Final v Winner of 2nd Elimination Final

From this point on the system works just like the old final four.

WEEK 2:
[Major Semi-Final] - 1 v Winner of Qualifying Final
[Minor Semi-Final] - Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of Midweek Playoff

WEEK 3:
[Preliminary Final] - Loser of Major Semi-Final v Winner of Minor Semi-Final

WEEK 4:
[Grand Final] - Winner of Major Semi-Final v Winner of Preliminary Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Eight matches in total (compared to the current nine matches)

There's a very clear pecking order here and everyone knows where they stand at the start of the finals:

* The Minor Premiers have to win two matches to win the premiership and they get a guaranteed second chance before the Grand Final.

* Teams 2 and 3 have to win three matches to win the premiership and they get a guaranteed second chance before the Grand Final.

* Teams 4-7 have to win five matches in four weeks to win the premiership and they play sudden death the whole way.

* Higher placed teams also get the advantage of playing their opponents at home.

Some may say having a midweek playoff is a flaw in the system. I see it as a positive. It makes winning from the bottom half a tough ask and really rewards finishing in the top 3. For Team 7 to win the comp they would need to beat Team 4, either team five or six, then teams 3, 2 and 1 (although not necessarily in that order). If they can do that then they truly deserve the premiership.

It's also not like we haven't had midweek finals matches before. When the final five was in place ties for fifth were decided by a midweek playoff, not for and against. Balmain made the 1988 Grand Final after winning such a playoff.

Any finals system worth its salt gets to the "magic" final four with three weeks to go. This system does that while "keeping the dream alive" for 7 sides and rewarding the top three sides heavily.

I actually think it's much better than the mepelthwack/Glenn C/Five Week Final 8 system which I have previously supported.

 

[Ridders]

Much respect to you my friend, i like alot of what you have done. Only real problem i have is that a midweek playoff is unrealistic, would put too much of workload on the the team that proceeds from it. You have addressed that though, and its a concept that i'm sure will be more thoroughly discussed.

But apart from that, well played. Alot of people, myself included, have bitched about the current system, but your the first i've seen thats come up with a very workable alternative. I applaud you

 

[18to87]

Nice job, Whilst not perfect it is at least a fair system in regards to rewarding effort put in during the 26 rounds.

 

[Gaba]

I think the only thing that needs changing is that the home team for the second week games should be the higher team on the table, not just the team that won the week before.

An example of this is if the Broncos win this week, they will get a home game vs someone like Manly, who are above them on the table. Doesn't seem fair really.

Was also extremely unfair last year when Broncos (5th) beat the Roosters (4th) and then got a home game next week vs the Storm (who came 1st), because they lost to the Warriors.

it is fair because teams like storm , and roosters lost to a lower ranked team and the broncos,warriors beat a higher ranked team.

So the team who beat the higher ranked team should get the home ground advantage it would be very unfair for a team who lost to a lower ranked team get a home ground advantage for losing

 

[hellteam]

I disagree, they've worked the whole year (26 rounds) to be in a higher position and then because of one loss, they lose all their advantage to a team 5 or possibly more places down the table

 

[grandorient]

Why is it, that the only persons opinion in this thread, that is correct, is mine.

GO

 

[flamin]

I disagree, they've worked the whole year (26 rounds) to be in a higher position and then because of one loss, they lose all their advantage to a team 5 or possibly more places down the table

Perhaps, but what would be the point of Brisbane winning only to play Melbourne in Melbourne. Melbourne were the losers.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

I think the NRL system is slightly better than the AFL system. Both are still flawed with advantages and disadvantages over the over.

NRL system advantages:
1. Teams 5 through 8 can only EARN a home final. In the AFL system teams 5 and 6 are guaranteed a home final
2. Allows home finals at suburban grounds in the first week. Applying the AFL system into the NRL would eliminate home finals set at surbuban grounds like Brookvale or Parramatta Stadium. That, or you would need the second week of finals allowed to be played at said surbuban grounds too. That is financially unfeasable.
3. Gives teams 1 and 2 an easier run into the grand final. In the AFL system, team 1 has to play harder teams to get into the grand final; team 4 the first week and team 3 the second week (if all goes to plan). In the NRL system, team 1 gets to play teams 8 and 4 to get through to the grand final. NRL much better system for the minor premiers.
4. You get rewarded for winning in the finals no matter which position you finish. Same can't be said for the AFL system.

AFL system advantages:
1. Better for teams 2 and 3 ... or maybe not. If Adelaide beat Collingwood today then it is safe to say that it would have been better to finish 5th in the AFL this year. You got an easier first up game, cruise to an hundred point win without any injuries and than are rewarded with a game against an injury depleted team who had a 'bruising' encounter against the minor premiers the previous week.
2. Even if teams 1 or 2 loses in week 1 they still get a home final in week two.
3. There are elimination games every week (games in which the loser gets eliminated)
4. Has potentially better match ups throughouth the finals series ... this is debatable now due to the closeness of the NRL and the lack of parody in the AFL.


I would eventually like to see a 10 team playoff system (once we get more teams) with the ten teams divided into two divisions/pods and then have a 5 team playoff within those pods. The winners of each pod play in the grand final.

 

[RL1908]

4. Has potentially better match ups throughouth the finals series ... this is debatable now due to the closeness of the NRL and the lack of parody in the AFL.

I think you meant "parity", but hey, "parody in the AFL" isn't entirely without accuracy! (and amusing).

I would eventually like to see a 10 team playoff system (once we get more teams) with the ten teams divided into two divisions/pods and then have a 5 team playoff within those pods. The winners of each pod play in the grand final.

An advantage of the current NRL system is that it offers the chance for any combination of 2 teams in the top 8 to meet in the Grand Final. The old ARL system (now AFL) doesn't offer that, and nor would your two pods idea.

But, as you say, they are still flawed with advantages and disadvantages over the over.

Meanwhile, will be interesting to see the reaction/success of Super League's week 3 finals - where the higher-ranked team gets to choose their opponent.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

I think you meant "parity", but hey, "parody in the AFL" isn't entirely without accuracy! (and amusing).

I would like to say that was intentional ... but alas sometimes we write without thinking ;-)

 

[Bulldog Force]

Neck and neck here.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I don't get why people always say team x can lose by 50 and not be knocked out. In any system that offers teams 2 bites at the cherry a team can lose by 50 and stay alive. They can't and won't factor in a score variable for determining who stays in and who goes.

 

[Shorty]

It's a bit of a hard one...
As others have said both have their disadvantages and advantages.

Yeah I do definitely think that the top 2 teams in the NRL don't get enough respect in the finals.
I don't think Manly deserves a second shot after what they displayed last night but at the same time not every team or finals starter is like this and these teams are individual.

And although teams like Parramatta really sat on their *ss for the most part of the season, they have an extremely hard road to the final and did actually require effort in their run to the final as opposed to a mediocre run like the Broncos.

Yes it does require a great deal of effort to get into the top 2 but if the team can't defeat a lower ranked team than that's their fault and not the fault of the finals system.

I hate that Manly may undeservedly get another chance but, had the scoreline been much closer than I probably wouldn't as much.
It's the roll of the dice and I think keeps the NRL finals series a bit more exciting (not that it's hard with the AFL..)

 

[Loudstrat]

Meaningless?? WTF? Team 6 doesn't HAVE to win to keep going, they can possibly lose and yet still win the GF. What part of that don't you understand???

and how often does that happen you goose? Are you saying team 6 should be banned from getting a second bite in the off chance that team one of the top 2 lose to a minnow (7 and 8)?

Last year, we had 3 teams on top points, seperated by only f and A. However, first got defeated in week 1 by 8th - which was the story of the week. Team 2 smashed team 7 and eventually won the comp. Team 3 beat team 6, but had alarming injuries and a key player ruled out for another reason. In fact, it was teams 6-8 who dictated the worthiness of those 3 clubs as premiers.

Team 5 had the second bite. and earned a home semi, which was undoubtedly the classic game of the year.

Under the AFL, the top 4 would have been pitted against each other, while the best of the also rans gets a leg up.

The single biggest factor in the comp is injuries - and having a full deck by the finals. Teams 5 and 6 may be the sides that lost key players through the season, but came back at the right time to play good footy. Why deny that?

But hey, AFL does something different. We must copy - even if AFL is the giant sporting lemming heading for the nearest cliff.

 

[18to87]

It's a bit of a hard one...
As others have said both have their disadvantages and advantages.

Yeah I do definitely think that the top 2 teams in the NRL don't get enough respect in the finals.
I don't think Manly deserves a second shot after what they displayed last night but at the same time not every team or finals starter is like this and these teams are individual.

And although teams like Parramatta really sat on their *ss for the most part of the season, they have an extremely hard road to the final and did actually require effort in their run to the final as opposed to a mediocre run like the Broncos.

Yes it does require a great deal of effort to get into the top 2 but if the team can't defeat a lower ranked team than that's their fault and not the fault of the finals system.

I hate that Manly may undeservedly get another chance but, had the scoreline been much closer than I probably wouldn't as much.
It's the roll of the dice and I think keeps the NRL finals series a bit more exciting (not that it's hard with the AFL..)

Fair enough, but what about Melbourne? They just kicked Manly's a$$ maybe for nothing if Manly is still out there next week! If Saints and the Dogs win then last night may as well have been a practice run/warm up for the finals game.

 

[Shorty]

Fair enough, but what about Melbourne? They just kicked Manly's a$$ maybe for nothing if Manly is still out there next week! If Saints and the Dogs win then last night may as well have been a practice run/warm up for the finals game.

But think back to last year and where Melbourne were?
Yes because of the outcome of last night it have been take as a practice run, but it wasn't set in stone how Manly was going to be play.
It's not the system's fault that Manly put on such a display.

You're also making assumptions, Parra could beat the Dragons as could the Knights with the Dogs...