The annual finals system debate thread

[Gaba]

thats the way finals system work, why its call finals , teams must win to know they will be back next week



why the afl system is a joke


There is little difference from finishing 1-4 in afl , the only difference is which week the teams get a home ground

teams 1 and 2 get it the first week and 2nd week if they lose, or teams 3 and 4 gets the home round in week 2 after a lost

it rewards teams who loses in week 1 ,


where the nrl rewards teams who can win game , afl rewards teams who loses

 

[Jason Maher]

You do realise that the old final 5 system rewarded teams who lost as well? But of course, the reward isn't actually for losing, it is for being consistent over the full length of a season, rather than bludging the first 3 months and making a charge to sneak into the finals.

 

[Springs]

If all the top 4 teams win, then 5 and 6 are also rewarded for losing. Especially sixth, who would have played thrid and lost, then gets to play fourth.

And teams don't have to win in week 1 to know they will be back, if sixth loses they are odds on to stay in the next week.

And why call it the 'AFL system' when the ARL used it first? Otherwise I am more or less talking about the 'ESL system' rather than the 'AFL system'.

 

[Gaba]

You do realise that the old final 5 system rewarded teams who lost as well? But of course, the reward isn't actually for losing, it is for being consistent over the full length of a season, rather than bludging the first 3 months and making a charge to sneak into the finals.

Yes its a completely different final series , it gave the team coming first a week off

then teams 2-3 were the higher ranking teams to get the double chance of a lost.


I agree the finals 8 system isnt the best but its the better one imo then the afl system

 

[Titanic]

I agree the finals 8 system isnt the best but its the better one imo then the afl system

Would be even better if we had 20 teams.

 

[Loudstrat]

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 Mac: 1 gets the week off if they win anyway. 4 can get a week off too. More than likely, 4 is playing for a home semi, which (according to the respondents to my poll) is not as big an advantage as a second bite -or presumably a week off.

And 4 doesn't deserve that chance anyway!

This weeks finals - Gold Coast v Warriors and Saints v Manly. Under the AFL system, Gold Coast would play Saints away, and New Zealand play Manly at home. Saints and Titans get "rewarded" with a tougher game, Warriors get a gimmee (and Manly's hurdle is achievable) `

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.

So? If they lose do they deserve help? Teams 4 and 5 are most vulnerable if they lose. Then again, 4th usually still loses over a third of their games. They have a home semi, and play to continue getting home semis (like Melbourne last year). Problem?

Yes, if they lose, they risk being out. So - two competition points and 107 points separate 2nd from 6th - if Canberra convert 2 losses into 40 point floggings they are most likely second.Teams are used to a tight comp - and that is the scenario Manly faced yesterday. I have no problem with it.

And yes, once my team were in that situation - needing Newcastle (2nd) to beat Saints (7th) at EA Stadium. Shoe in - until the one man team with the No. 7 red and blue jumper broke his bloody neck!

And if we would have won the semi (which is what you are supposed to do) we would have been safe.

 

[Cheops]

I don't think anyone is necessarily defending teams that lose - just the stupidity of relying on other results to determine your fate

Why is that one year a team can come 6th, lose their first final and still get another crack, but the next year a team can come 3rd lose their first final and their season is over. Unlikely I know, but absurd that it is even a possiblility.

Yes if you win every single game, it doesn't matter and you'll win the comp, but that's true of any finals system. We should at least have one that is as fair and logical as possible which I don't believe the McIntyre system is.

 

[Jason Maher]

What he said. ^

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6884906The AFL system is practically a top 6, because 5-8 knock each other out in the first week. That's great. But still it does give teams the motivation to get into the 8.
The top 4 only play to decide which get a week off and which need to play the bottom teams. Saying that the losers get rewarded a home semi for losing is a geniused statement, cos they lost to the top two teams, while 5 and 6 only eliminated the 2 sh*ttiest teams.

Saying that the 4th doesn't deserve the preferential treatment because they may only just finish ahead of 5th on points differential, is another geniused statement. In the McIntyre system, 2nd may also finish only just ahead of 3rd, and they get a hugely preferential treatment.

Add to this the fact that the fate of teams may easily be decided by other games, and the AFL system wins by K.O.

 

[Loudstrat]

The only geniused statement is that 4th deserves a far harder game than 5th. There is a MASSIVE difference in the path that 4th treads in relation to 5th in the AFL system.

And where is the sense in a playoff for a week off? Surely - if the top 2 can't be given one automatically, then make it a reward for beating the weakest finals teams, not the hardest.

Why should the Warriors get an easier game than Saints?

Besides, in the mac, 2nd doesn't get hugely preferential treatment. That's the beauty of the Mac - for each place on the ladder you go down, you get a gradual increase in risk. Not so in the AFL - there is a massive - and ridiculously slipshod grading of risk. In the AFL system - 4th gets beaten up, while 5th gets the easier game. How is that fair????

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Because 4th plays for a week off, but 5th plays to stay in the comp. Both will play very tough games, but 4th has a much bigger reward for winning, while 5th just survives. But if 4th is not interested in a week off, then they can just send out their reserves and lose by 50. No big deal. But I suggest that never happens.

 

[Loudstrat]

I don't think anyone is necessarily defending teams that lose - just the stupidity of relying on other results to determine your fate

Why is that one year a team can come 6th, lose their first final and still get another crack, but the next year a team can come 3rd lose their first final and their season is over. Unlikely I know, but absurd that it is even a possiblility.

Yes if you win every single game, it doesn't matter and you'll win the comp, but that's true of any finals system. We should at least have one that is as fair and logical as possible which I don't believe the McIntyre system is.

Why should you get some sort of fair treatment if you lose a semi? In any credible system if you lose a semi you are punished by losing whatever rights you earned when you get to the semis. The Mac does this well, the AFL system doesn't (ie 4th lose - guaranteed to play next week. 5th lose - off to the pub dressed as Mother Goose). The difference between 4th and 5th this year - A converted Titans try in round 1 when they beat the Warriors by 6 points. Or 4 points on Friday Night v the Tigers. Hardly a fair reason for a massive difference in finals.

From 07-09, one competition point separated them. In 06, it was 29 points.

Our code abandoned it for a reason. Just because AFL took it up doesn't mean we have to. In fact, it means that the system IS geniused - suitable for a geniused sport with geniused ideals like a GWS side aimed at Blacktown residents, promoted by a brainless Queenslander and playing games in Canberra.

There is no way Saints deserve to play Wests this weekend, and no way Easts deserve an easy game. If anyone deserves the gimme, it's Saints.

 

[Loudstrat]

Because 4th plays for a week off, but 5th plays to stay in the comp. Both will play very tough games, but 4th has a much bigger reward for winning, while 5th just survives. But if 4th is not interested in a week off, then they can just send out their reserves and lose by 50. No big deal. But I suggest that never happens.

I have seen it happen. Round 26 2009 when Parra rested Hindy and Guru Jnr and we got smacked by 37 points - the only big loss we copped in the last half of the comp.

I also saw it with Wests in the late 1970;s when they were in the hunt to win the Amco Cup, but out of premiership contention. The reggies played on the weekend and got slaughtered. Then on Wednesday night, suddenly Tommy, Dallas, Dorahy, Mullins et-al would be fit to play. If memory serves me correctly, they won the Cup that year (1977?)

And nothing in the Mac would allow that scenario - there are always big incentives to win.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Like a week off?

 

[Cheops]

Why should you get some sort of fair treatment if you lose a semi? In any credible system if you lose a semi you are punished by losing whatever rights you earned when you get to the semis. The Mac does this well, the AFL system doesn't (ie 4th lose - guaranteed to play next week. 5th lose - off to the pub dressed as Mother Goose). The difference between 4th and 5th this year - A converted Titans try in round 1 when they beat the Warriors by 6 points. Or 4 points on Friday Night v the Tigers. Hardly a fair reason for a massive difference in finals.

From 07-09, one competition point separated them. In 06, it was 29 points.

Our code abandoned it for a reason. Just because AFL took it up doesn't mean we have to. In fact, it means that the system IS geniused - suitable for a geniused sport with geniused ideals like a GWS side aimed at Blacktown residents, promoted by a brainless Queenslander and playing games in Canberra.

There is no way Saints deserve to play Wests this weekend, and no way Easts deserve an easy game. If anyone deserves the gimme, it's Saints.

Well why shouldn't you? Unless you play a straight knockout (which I'm not totally against), it's going to involve a reward for the winners and punishment for the losers but the McIntyre system bases your reward or punishment off games that have absolutely nothing to do with you. Your fate should be in your hands only

And one minute you seem to be complaining that 4th is hard done by in the current AFL system, and the next how 4th gets too big an advantage over 5th? Or I'm just not getting what you're trying to say

 

[CMUX]

In my opinion the AFL system is much better and much fairer and offers the top 8 the following:

- Positions 1 and 2 get a double chance as well as 2 home finals (Week1 and week2/3 depending on week 1 result)
- Positions 3 and 4 get a double chance and 1 home final (week2/3 depending on week 1 result)
- Positions 5 and 6 face sudden death but get 1 home final (week 1)
- Positions 7 and 8 face sudden death and get 0 home finals regardless of results

Additionally you have better matchups in week 1 of the finals and are not restricted to playing the games in a certain order i.e. 4 v 5 then 3 v 6 etc.

Under the AFL system this week we could have:

- Dragons v Titans (Friday 7:30PM)
- Penrith v Tigers (Sunday 4PM)
- Warriors v Manly (Saturday 5:30 PM, 7:30 NZ time)
- Roosters v Canberra (Saturday 7:30PM)

If all games went to form throughout the finals series you would have the following

Week 1

Dragons defeat Titans (Oki Jubilee)
Penrith defeat Tigers (CUA)
Warriors defeat manly (Mt Smart)
Roosters defeat Canberra (SFS)

Week 2

Titans defeat Warriors (Skilled)
Tigers defeat Roosters (SFS)

Week 3

Dragons defeat Tigers (ANZ)
Penrith defeat Titans (ANZ)

Dragons/Panthers GF

I think the overall advantage of the above is in weeks 1 and 2 where you tend to get better quality elimination finals.

To those saying that this system rewards teams who lose is not true, rather it rewards teams who finish higher on the ladder (as it should be).

 

[abc]

In my opinion the AFL system is much better and much fairer and offers the top 8 the following:

- Positions 1 and 2 get a double chance as well as 2 home finals (Week1 and week2/3 depending on week 1 result)
- Positions 3 and 4 get a double chance and 1 home final (week2/3 depending on week 1 result)
- Positions 5 and 6 face sudden death but get 1 home final (week 1)
- Positions 7 and 8 face sudden death and get 0 home finals regardless of results

Additionally you have better matchups in week 1 of the finals and are not restricted to playing the games in a certain order i.e. 4 v 5 then 3 v 6 etc.

Under the AFL system this week we could have:

- Dragons v Titans (Friday 7:30PM)
- Penrith v Tigers (Sunday 4PM)
- Warriors v Manly (Saturday 5:30 PM, 7:30 NZ time)
- Roosters v Canberra (Saturday 7:30PM)

If all games went to form throughout the finals series you would have the following

Week 1

Dragons defeat Titans (Oki Jubilee)
Penrith defeat Tigers (CUA)
Warriors defeat manly (Mt Smart)
Roosters defeat Canberra (SFS)

Week 2

Titans defeat Warriors (Skilled)
Tigers defeat Roosters (SFS)

Week 3

Dragons defeat Tigers (ANZ)
Penrith defeat Titans (ANZ)

Dragons/Panthers GF

I think the overall advantage of the above is in weeks 1 and 2 where you tend to get better quality elimination finals.

To those saying that this system rewards teams who lose is not true, rather it rewards teams who finish higher on the ladder (as it should be).

Exactly 26 weeks of the season has to mean something significant for those that finish higher. 7&8 should not ever have a home ground advantage chance over 3 and 4 otherwise what is the incentive to finish higher on the ladder over a long tough season.

 

[Springs]

The Mac: 1 gets the week off if they win anyway. 4 can get a week off too. More than likely, 4 is playing for a home semi, which (according to the respondents to my poll) is not as big an advantage as a second bite -or presumably a week off.

And 4 doesn't deserve that chance anyway!

This weeks finals - Gold Coast v Warriors and Saints v Manly. Under the AFL system, Gold Coast would play Saints away, and New Zealand play Manly at home. Saints and Titans get "rewarded" with a tougher game, Warriors get a gimmee (and Manly's hurdle is achievable) `



So? If they lose do they deserve help? Teams 4 and 5 are most vulnerable if they lose. Then again, 4th usually still loses over a third of their games. They have a home semi, and play to continue getting home semis (like Melbourne last year). Problem?

Yes, if they lose, they risk being out. So - two competition points and 107 points separate 2nd from 6th - if Canberra convert 2 losses into 40 point floggings they are most likely second.Teams are used to a tight comp - and that is the scenario Manly faced yesterday. I have no problem with it.

And yes, once my team were in that situation - needing Newcastle (2nd) to beat Saints (7th) at EA Stadium. Shoe in - until the one man team with the No. 7 red and blue jumper broke his bloody neck!

And if we would have won the semi (which is what you are supposed to do) we would have been safe.

No, Saints and Titans get 'rewarded' with a second chance, something the Warriors do not have. If Saints and Titans lose, then they get an easier game the next week, plus a home semi, as are the advantages of finishing in the top 4.

But Canberra didn't flog those teams by 40 points, they lost, and thus deserve to be 7th. If we base the finals on the closeness of the competition then we might as well use a straight knockout. We could even have all 16 teams, if 1st can't beat 16th, then they don't deserve to stay in right?

I rememer that game, we finished 6th and lost more games than we won, if we lost the quarter final then we deserved to be kicked out, yet if Johns stays uninjured then we play on. And yes if we had won we would have been safe, but under the other system, if we had lost we would have been kicked out for certain, like we deserved to be, and if we won we knew our fate.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Why should they?

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

Because they finished higher and that is the point of the season, to determine the finals placing, if a team is top 3 they deserve to make it to the perliminary finals. Teams 4 and 5 get an elimination game against 6 and 7 at home then play each other for the final spot in the final 4. If the Titans, Warriors or Roosters don't like it then they should finish top 3.

We get more evenly matched games and no losses to teams outside the top 3 get you a second chance. Team 3 still has to play team 1 and team 2 for any chance to get a home prelim final.

 

[NZ_10c_Warriors]

the system needs to change. after that thriller, no way third place should be knocked out after that game, its a joke. im a warrior fan, but we deserve to be knocked out, the tigers, dont.