The annual finals system debate thread

[mepelthwack]

Naar m8 it goes for 5 weeks. By week 3 it plays out exactly as it did from wk 2 of the old top 5 system from then on.

 

[*Paul*]

Once you've accepted the major feature of the finals i.e the best team all year has to prove it again, and a bunch of break even/also rans now get a chance at winning, why quibble about the minor features?

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

I don't like the fact that teams 3 + 4 miss out on a home game in week 1, whereas 5 + 6 do.

With a 16 team comp I would much rather see the old final 5 setup, but I know that will never happen

 

[Ladmate]

The difference is 5 and 7 have to survive an elimination game the week before, teams 2 and 4 are banking their double chance from finishing in the top 4, having lost the week before.

Incidentally, the current system awards team 3 by pitting them against team 5, and gives team 4 the theoretically easier game against team 6, because we can't possibly have a repeat matchup (assuming 1 and 2 win).

edit: ah, I see what you're getting at. Yeah, top 4 losers against bottom 4 survivors is a better option. What I suggested guarantees one bottom 4 team will make week 3, and one top 4 team will miss out (a bit like the 08 World Cup where the best of the rest made the semis at the expense of the worst of the best). Happened because I made some alterations when I realised another direction I was heading wouldn't work, and I forgot to change the week 2 games. Mind you, an argument could be raised that a guarantee of one bottom 4 side reaching the minor semi does give a little extra incentive for those teams. But I think on balance mepel's way is better (and is what I actually intended). Still think "dumbest system ever" is a bit of hyperbole though. The McIntyre system and the World Cup system have me beat easily.

To be clear, the system as I intended it:

Week 1:
A: 1 vs 4 (winner to major semi)
B: 2 vs 3 (winner to major semi)
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

Week 2: (top 4 losers get home ground advantage)
E: loser A vs winner C (loser eliminated)
F: loser B vs winner D (loser eliminated)

Week 3: (highest placed team gets home ground advantage)
Major Semi: winner A vs winner B (winner to Grand Final)
Minor Semi: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

Week 4: (major semi loser gets home ground advantage)
Preliminary Final: loser Major Semi vs winner Minor Semi

Week 5:
Grand Final: winner Major Semi vs winner Preliminary Final

Much better. We could have in Week 2, in your old system, 1 v 2 in an elimination final!

 

[Jason Maher]

Much better. We could have in Week 2, in your old system, 1 v 2 in an elimination final!

Ah yes, but just imagine the fun that could result if noted chokers Saints and Parra finished 1 and 2 and both slipped up week 1... ;-)

 

[anjado]

it's 5/11 2000,2003,2004,2007,2008,not 4/11, meaning it is more around the 45% mark then 36% you indicated, Which means it is you not being able to count which is the fail.

 

[Loudstrat]

The 5th and 6th placed teams play eliminators. You lose, you're out.

Teams 1-4 and 2-3 play each other, but the losers survive AND get a home final the next week. Makes perfect sense and a very fair system.

Utterly rubbish system.

Aside from the fact that the team coming 4th gets to play away to the best team in the comp, the next worst team gets a home semi to nuffies. If that ain't inviting teams to throw games....!

The AFL system is basically the old Top 4 of the 1960's replayed ad nauseum, with another side added from another pool of scrap fighters - repeated each week until there are no more token sides from the scrappers.

I remember the Roosters winning and constantly getting to travel to play lesser sides who managed to get home semis.

Yet, the Mac can throw up the anomaly - like 8th in 08 and 09. Last year 4 played 8, but only because 8 overcame the hurdles. The two games that caused that: Melbourne v Manly at Melbourne and Parra v Saints at Kogarah would instead have been Melbourne v Saints at Kogarah, and Parra v Manly at Brookie.

Melbourne at Kogarah are under a disadvantage, whilst Manly are at an advantage at Brookie. I'm sure Manly would have won that game - no so sure that Saints would have but Melbourne would have been less advantaged.

8 won, and played the losing 3rd placed Titans in Sydney. Well, f*ck me the Titans lost in week one, and a home semi as well. There is argument that 3rd should have had another home semi v Parra, but once they lost, they should bget no greater advantage, as their opponents jumped a bretty big hurdle to get there. And considering rarely more than 4 points will separate 3rd from 8th anyway, surely a second bite of the cherry is enough.

Anyway, the whole concept of finals is based on two things only:
1) The top side should be better anyway - given that 26 weeks round robin is a pretty thorough grading system anyway, and
2) The sides that scrape into the finals should be given a chance to go further, but have to beat the top sides to do so.

If the bottom finalists get to avoid the top sides until they have run into form - why have the previous 26 weeks?

And if the top sides get ground down by other top sides, and get to face a bottom club running into form - where is the reward for the past 26 weeks?

Basically the AFL can save a lot of time and effort by simply playing their top 8 format in two pools with the last ones standing playing on GF day. Sort out the placings on what the betting market says.

Its a f*cking ludicrous waste of time to have a finals system for the top sides, and then another finals system for the not really top sides....

 

[adamkungl]

Ah, the annual sook. BOOOOOOORING.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Utterly rubbish system.

Aside from the fact that the team coming 4th gets to play away to the best team in the comp, the next worst team gets a home semi to nuffies. If that ain't inviting teams to throw games....!

Really I don't belive it's THAT hard to understand... Give it another go, champ.

Yes, team 4 plays away at team 1. And team 5 hosts team 8. But the loser of 1 vs 4 survives. The loser of 5 vs 8 does not.
The next week, the loser of 1 vs 4 has home avantage vs the winner of 5 vs 8 in an elimination game.

How exactly is this inviting teams to throw games?

 

[Jason Maher]

it's 5/11 2000,2003,2004,2007,2008,not 4/11, meaning it is more around the 45% mark then 36% you indicated, Which means it is you not being able to count which is the fail.

Alright I got it wrong. You're still wrong, however. The McIntyre system is manifestly not a fair system. The mere possibility that teams 3 and 4 can drop out after week one is bullsh*t, and that doesn't change for the fact it hasn't happened yet.

 

[anjado]

Alright I got it wrong. You're still wrong, however. The McIntyre system is manifestly not a fair system. The mere possibility that teams 3 and 4 can drop out after week one is bullsh*t, and that doesn't change for the fact it hasn't happened yet.

It may be unfair to 3rd place compared to how the final 5 was, But why should 4th place automatically get a second chance at an opportunity, They get home ground advantage, That is all they need.

You keep saying it's unfair for 3rd and 4th, But in the AFL system it is unfair to 1st and 2nd, McIntyre system is good because if you finish in the top 2 and win you are one game away from the grand final you get to play the worst teams in the semi finals. If you finish 7th or 8th you have to make a hell of a run to make the Grand Final as it should be like Parramatta last season to make the Grand Final they had to beat 1st,2nd and 3rd.

Like i say it isn't a perfect system but it is the best system i haven't seen a better top 8 system. Finishing 4th deserves no special treatment.

lets break it down

4th placed teams finals records

1999 : Second week knocked out by 6th place team

2000 : Second week knocked out by 2nd place team

2001 : Preliminary finalists knocked out by 3rd placed team

2002 : Premiers

2003 : Second week knocked out by 6th placed team

2004 : Preliminary finalists knocked out by 2nd placed team

2005 : Premiers

2006 : Second week knocked out by 3rd placed team

2007 : Second week Knocked out by 3rd placed team

2008 : Second week knocked out by 8th placed team

2009 : Premiers

lets break it down

first week : 0

second week : 6

Preliminary finals : 2

Premiers : 3

First week - As you know no 4th placed team has ever been knocked out in the first round of the McIntyre system, It will happen one day maybe even this year but at the moment it hasn't happened and it has been 11 seasons these are pretty good odds that when it does happen it will be a rare occurrence that it shouldn't be too harshly critisized.

Played : 11

Won : 7

Lost : 4

Second week - Second week is a bit tougher you could argue Canberra were a bit unlucky in 2000, Due to the game being played at "neutral" Stadium which happened to be Roosters home ground.

Played : 9

Won : 3

lost : 6


losses

Teams finishing above 4th : 3

Teams finishing below 4th : 3

Won in week 1

Played : 5

Won : 3

Lost : 2

Lost in week 1

Played : 4

Won : 0

Lost : 4

Preliminary Final - five out of eleven seems to point out it is relatively tough to make it this far. Both 4th placed teams who made it this far and lost Cronulla in 2001 and Penrith 2004 lost to the eventual premiers.

Played : 5

Won : 3

Lost : 2

Grand Finals - All three of the 4th placed teams who have made the grand final have gone on to win the premiership.

Played : 3

Won : 3

Lost : 0


So yes you can be knocked out in the first round, But it has also proven to be fair enough for three 4th placed teams to win the premiership.

Three of the sides also got knocked out by teams finishing below them. Every 4th placed side who lost in the first week was knocked out in the second week of the semi finals.

It may not be a perfect system but statistically so far it seems to be the best.

 

[Loudstrat]

Really I don't belive it's THAT hard to understand... Give it another go, champ.

Yes, team 4 plays away at team 1. And team 5 hosts team 8. But the loser of 1 vs 4 survives. The loser of 5 vs 8 does not.
The next week, the loser of 1 vs 4 has home avantage vs the winner of 5 vs 8 in an elimination game.

How exactly is this inviting teams to throw games?

Because if you play the gun minor premiers - you are odds on to lose in comparison to playing the nuffies at 8th. I'd say there are more likely to get injuries from the intensity of playing the minor premiers. And by playing the minor premiers and saying "at least we get a second chance" - that's sort of expecting to lose.

Who would you rather play? The side that was best, or the side that was worse than 7 others? Or put it this way, would you like playing a side that better than you, or worse than you?

If I coached a team in a finals match, I'd rather get a win than a sh*tload of bruises and a loss.

The team below you should have harder games. The team above you should have easier games. In the AFL system - what's the point with 1v4 and 2v3 anyway?

In the Mac, the only games that may be unnecessary actually serve to give the best two teams a week off. Plus they are both elimination games anyway. And from the first week on - all games are elimination.

The AFL system -like their code -is a hodge podge of crap with a pretty pink bow that all those paranoid of AFL think we should use. Proves there is a market for turds if they have a good marketing campaign

 

[abc]

AFL:
1-4 - double chance, 2 home finals, risk elimination in weeks 2 & 3
5-6 - 1 home final, risk elimination all weeks
7-8 - risk elimination all weeks
Week 1 Top 4 Winners 1 & 2 - home preliminary finals
Week 1 Top 4 Losers 1 & 2 - home semi finals
Week 1 Bottom 4 Winners 1 & 2 - play away semi
Week 1 Bottom 4 Losers 1 & 2 - eliminated

So the top half get rewarded for losing in week 1 with a week 2 advantage
The bottom half get punished for winning in week 1 with a week 2 disadvantage

NRL:
1-2 - double chance, 1 guaranteed home final, risk elimination in weeks 2 & 3
3-4 - 1 guaranteed home final, risk elimination all weeks
5-8 - risk elimination all weeks
Week 1 Winners Ranked 1 & 2 - home preliminary finals
Week 1 Winners Ranked 3 & 4 - home semi final
Week 1 Losers Ranked 1 & 2 - play away semi
Week 1 Losers Ranked 3 & 4 - eliminated

So winning is the only thing that guarantees an advantage during the rest of the finals and losing risks elimination

If Teams 3 & 4 lose in Week 1, do they deserve a home final against Teams 5 & 6 who won? In my opinion - No.

The current NRL system is better in this regards, although the fairest system would be all elimination finals - though that means 2 less final games.

I think the point that is getting missed here is that people are looking at the final's in isolation and not at the season itself. Over a long 26 week season under the McIntyre system, Team 3 may and usually does have far more wins than Team 6 but essentially has the same chance as Team 6.

Team 8 usually has far far less wins than, Teams 3 and 4 so Team 3 and 4 by losing to 1 and 2 certainly deserve a home ground advantage over Teams 7 and 8 if they happen to win. Usually the best 4 teams are the Top 4 teams in a given season so any system that favours them is deserved by both them as teams and ultimately all the followers of the game who want to see the best teams play.

 

[abc]

Because if you play the gun minor premiers - you are odds on to lose in comparison to playing the nuffies at 8th. I'd say there are more likely to get injuries from the intensity of playing the minor premiers. And by playing the minor premiers and saying "at least we get a second chance" - that's sort of expecting to lose.

Who would you rather play? The side that was best, or the side that was worse than 7 others? Or put it this way, would you like playing a side that better than you, or worse than you?

If I coached a team in a finals match, I'd rather get a win than a sh*tload of bruises and a loss.

The team below you should have harder games. The team above you should have easier games. In the AFL system - what's the point with 1v4 and 2v3 anyway?

In the Mac, the only games that may be unnecessary actually serve to give the best two teams a week off. Plus they are both elimination games anyway. And from the first week on - all games are elimination.

The AFL system -like their code -is a hodge podge of crap with a pretty pink bow that all those paranoid of AFL think we should use. Proves there is a market for turds if they have a good marketing campaign

Injuries happen in all types of games.

The 1v4 winner advantage is that they get a week off which is a huge thing at the end of a season.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I think the week off is less of an advantage than thought.

I would have a radically different system (Top 7) where 1, 2 and 3 play in a pool and the rest play each other to make it through.

Week 1
1v Bye
2 v 3
4 v 7
5 v 6

Week 2
1 v 3
2 v bye
winner 4v7 v winner 5v6

Week 3
Highest ranked team gets the choice to play either lowest ranked (1,2,3) or winner (4,5,6,7)
second highest plays other opponent

Week 4
Grandfinal

The disadvantage is one less game but it gives teams 1,2,3 a huge advantage and has more games between the top sides, it allows for a teams choice round that adds spice to the contest and it forces lower ranked teams to work much harder to win the title.

The ranking of 1,2,3 would be by wins in the pools then their finishing position, so if 1 and two win then it is 1,2,3 but if 3 beats 1 then it is 2,3,1.

This year assuming all the higher ranked teams win

Week 1
Dragons v Bye
Panthers v Tigers
Titans v Raiders
Warriors v Roosters

Week 2
Dragons v Tigers
Panthers v Bye
Titans v Warriors

Week 3
Dragons v Titans
Panthers v Tigers

Week 4
Dragons v Panthers

only one team from outside the top 3 can make it to week 3. If a top 8 is wanted then perhaps a 7 v 8 game should be held one week after round 26 and the finals start two weeks after round 26 (not my option)

 

[Lego_Man]

Can someone post up the Warren Ryan system?

As far as i remember that looked like a pretty good compromise and was quite popular on here.

By the way has anyone considered an approach like the ESL, where the Minor Premiers get to choose their Week 1 opponents? (maintaining the rest of the McIntyre System in this case though)

 

[Lego_Man]

The disadvantage is one less game but it gives teams 1,2,3 a huge advantage

Why should they?

This year 2 and 3 are only separated from 4-6 by points differential and then one win.

 

[hellteam]

Can someone post up the Warren Ryan system?

As far as i remember that looked like a pretty good compromise and was quite popular on here.

By the way has anyone considered an approach like the ESL, where the Minor Premiers get to choose their Week 1 opponents? (maintaining the rest of the McIntyre System in this case though)

I think it's the preliminary finalists they get to choose.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I cant wait till the top 10 system returns..

 

[Springs]

The worst thing about the McIntyre system is the fact that teams that lose have to rely on other results to see if they advance or not. Manly finished 5th last year and were beaten by Melbourne, yet they would have advanced if Dragons beat the Eels. The Dragons winning meaning Manly deserve to stay in, yet the Dragons losing meaning Manly deserve to be eliminated. The same thing happened in 2004 when the Dragons lost by 1 point and were kicked out.
This is the main reason why I prefer the other system, a team knows their fate depending on their own result and no other.