The annual finals system debate thread

[bileduct]

The current system is the best system.

 

[Eels Dude]

I have a system I think works:

1 v 2
3 v 6
4 v 5
7 v 8

Winner 1v2 V Bye
Loser 1v2 V winner 7v8 - game a
Winner 3v6 V loser 4v5 - game b
Winner 4v5 V loser 3v6 - game c

Winner 1v2 choses next opponent out of winner of games a,b,c
other two winners play with the higher ranked team getting the home state final.

Two winners play in grand final

Running through this years first round:

Dragons v Panthers @ Kogarah
Tigers v Roosters @ SFS
Titans v Warriors @ Robina
Raiders v Sea Eagles @ Canberra - loser eliminated

Now what I think would happen

Dragons v Bye
Panthers v Raiders @ Homebush
Roosters v Warriors @ SFS
Titans v Tigers @ Suncorp

Dragons v Roosters @ SFS
Raiders v Titans @ Homebush

Dragons v Titans

The main flaw with your idea is that in the first week 2 of the games are absolutely meaningless. 3 and 4 are going to be in the exact same position as 5th and 6th, as well as the winner of 7v8 the following week regardless if they win or lose. They're pretty much playing off for who hosts an elimination final the following week which is an unjust 'reward' if that's all they get for winning.

That's the main issue I have with the McIntyre system is that if 1 and 2 win, the other games are meaningless but at least with the McIntyre system having the games ordered the way they are means going into the game clubs know they have to win to guarentee survival or face the risk of hoping results go their way like the Tigers do today.

I'm a fan of a system combining the AFL, well ARL's top 8 system combined with our old top 5 system so:

Week 1

A: 1v4
B: 2v3
C: 5v8 (loser gooone)
D:6v7 (loser gooone)

Week 2

E: Loser A v Winner C (loser goooone)
F: Loser B v Winner D (loser gooone)

Week 3

G: Winner A v Winner B (winner goes through to GF)
H: Winner E v Winner F

Week 4

I: Loser G v Winner H (winner goes through to GF)

Week 5

Grand Final: Winner G v Winner I

Has its flaws too, but no system is perfect. I don't think we'll ever find a perfect system in a competition which is so close like the NRL has become in recent years.

 

[pirie]

Top 6 should only make it

teams 1 and 2 have first week off
3 v 6
4 v 5

week 2
1 v lowest ranked winner
2 v Highest ranked winner

final

 

[Eels Dude]

Top 6 should only make it

teams 1 and 2 have first week off
3 v 6
4 v 5

week 2
1 v lowest ranked winner
2 v Highest ranked winner

final

So 5 finals games instead of the current 9. That'll inject more money into our game :roll:

 

[lucablight]

lol @ people saying waah 3rd or 4th don't deserve to be knocked out in the first week. The current system is fine. If you win in the first week you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The AFL system is stupid because the top teams meet each other too early.

 

[Rovelli]

So many pros and cons with the current system (one that got my team knocked out this week).

On one hand, the finals should reward teams that at least win. If the Warriors had gotten up on Friday, then we'd be odds-on to make the grand final, since we would've had our first ever home Grand Final Qualifier. Instead Mad Monday's upon us.

8 teams is fair. In reality if a team can win a premiership from 7th or 8th, they would've played some almighty football to get there. Canterbury of 1998 came from very low (9th?) to almost take the title - what a run that was.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

I fail to see any disadvantage to a system where only winners and the 1st/2nd place teams are guaranteed anything. And I rather prefer letting teams earn home finals by winning to letting teams lose there way to a home final as in the AFL system or simply be given one as some people prefer.

What I wouldn’t mind, but what would certainly be objected to by any and all, is a system where the entire finals system changes based on who wins. In the “Five Options” System the first week is always identical to what we have now in NRL: 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v6, 4 v5. What varies is what happens in the following weeks, as all of the Top 4 get a second bite of the cherry.

Option 1: 1-4 all LOSE:

• Week Two will be a replay of Week One, but ALL games will be knockout games
• Week Three will have the Week Two winners playing for a spot in Grand Final, which will be Week Four.

Option 2: One of the Top 4 Wins, the other 3 lose:

• The Top 4 Winner will be reseeded as Team #1
• Week Two will have sudden death knockout rematches of Week One, except for the game won by the higher side.
• Week Three will have the three Week Two winners and the new #1 playing each other in Preliminary Finals.
• Week Four will either be the Grand Final if #1 wins or it will be a knockout replay of #1’s game with the Grand Final being delayed a week.

Option 3: 2 Win and 2 Lose from the Top 4:

• Week Two is identical to Week Two as it is now with the two Top 4 Winners getting a week off.
• Weeks Three, Four and Five work out to be the same as the original Top 4 Finals system: 1 v2 (the two Week One winners), 3 v 4 (the two Week Two winners)….

Option 4: 3 Win and 1 Loses

• Starting with Week Two we have a Top 5 Final Series—which doesn’t seem to be an unpopular option around here.
• The highest ranked of the three Top 4 Winners gets the bye, the other two go into a Qualifying Final and the remaining two teams play a knockout rematch and must beat every team above them to make the Grand Final.

Option 5: All 4 Top 4 Teams Win:

• Week Two:
  • 1 v 4
  • 2 v 3
• From Week Three we have the old Top Four Finals series once again, with the Week Two winners becoming Teams 1 and 2, while the losers become 3 and 4

 

[Eels Dude]

Option 2: One of the Top 4 Wins, the other 3 lose:

• The Top 4 Winner will be reseeded as Team #1
• Week Two will have sudden death knockout rematches of Week One, except for the game won by the higher side.
• Week Three will have the three Week Two winners and the new #1 playing each other in Preliminary Finals.
• Week Four will either be the Grand Final if #1 wins or it will be a knockout replay of #1’s game with the Grand Final being delayed a week.

You lost it there. In this day and age where people pay for grand final tickets 3 or 4 months in advance, and corporates pay tens of thousands of dollars for boxes etc, you can't just delay the GF a week. It has to be set in stone for a particular time and date prior to tickets being released and certainly not changed at the last minute.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

You lost it there. In this day and age where people pay for grand final tickets 3 or 4 months in advance, and corporates pay tens of thousands of dollars for boxes etc, you can't just delay the GF a week. It has to be set in stone for a particular time and date prior to tickets being released and certainly not changed at the last minute.

Oh absolutely. That is one of the many reasons why this overly complex plan could never work.

To be honest though: if I could I would bring back the old "Right of Challenge" from the 1920s (or whenever it was) then the Top 4 could never fail to win the premiership unless they had 2 loses. Totally unfeasible and probably not even wanted.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

love the system just don't like how the home final system works eg the 3rd side the tigers have to play the 7th side the raiders at Canberra next week. Don't think it is fair

 

[VictorTheViking]

If you don't win, you don't deserve any advantage, that simple, everyone is always harping on about finals football being a different kettle of fish, so why should you advantage metro based teams???

 

[lucablight]

love the system just don't like how the home final system works eg the 3rd side the tigers have to play the 7th side the raiders at Canberra next week. Don't think it is fair

The Raiders won and the Tigers lost. The Tigers had an advantage in week 1 and they gave it up by losing. The finals are a whole new competition and you should not be rewarded for losing.

 

[Zelig96]

Top 7

Wk 1
1 - week off
A: 2 v 7 - loser eliminated
B: 3 v 6 - loser eliminated
C: 4 v 5 - loser eliminated

Wk 2 (from here on, it is like old Final 5)
D: 1 v highest wk 1 winner - winner goes to GF in Wk 4, loser plays in Wk 3
E: 2nd highest wk 1 winner v 3rd highest wk 1 winner - loser eliminated

Wk 3
F: Loser Game D v Winner Game E

Wk 4 - Grand Final
GF: Winner Game D v Winner Game F


Using the 2010 Wk 1 results, Panthers, Tigers and Warriors eliminated.

Wk 2
Dragons v Titans (Major Semi Final - Winner goes through to Grand Final)
Roosters v Raiders (Minor Semi Final - Loser Eliminated)

 

[ozjet1]

The Raiders won and the Tigers lost. The Tigers had an advantage in week 1 and they gave it up by losing. The finals are a whole new competition and you should not be rewarded for losing.

yep, and we sit through 26 weeks of tripe just to determine seedings for 1 week of football.

 

[meltiger]

yep, and we sit through 26 weeks of tripe just to determine seedings for 1 week of football.

Not true at all.


The home and aways also determine the seedings for week 2 onwards, along with the result.


There is nothing wrong with this system at all. WIN finals games and get rewarded, lose and get punished, it's that simple.


Canberra having finished 7th, went away from home to 2nd and won, and have been duly rewarded, the Tigers having finished 3rd lost their "home" final, and have been punished. Penrith lost their home final, punished. Gold Coast, thanks to the choking of the teams above them have been rewarded.


I fail to see the issue.

 

[unforgiven]

I know it is discussed every year, but I really hate the current finals system. On the way home from work today this system popped into my head. Someone has prob posted this format before but I think it would be worth a try. I like it because it is very similar to the old top 5 system which I believe is the best system we have had. Anyway here it is.

Week 1​

Prelim final 1
5v8 NRL venue
Winner ES1
Loser out​

Prelim final 2
6v7 NRL venue
Winner ES2
Loser out​

Qualifying final 1
1v4 1 home
Winner Major S
loser ES1​

Qualifying final 2
2v3 2 home
Winner Major S
Loser ES2​

Week 2​

Elimination final 1
4v5 4 home
Winner Minor S
Loser out ​

Elimination final 2
3v6 3 home
Winner Minor S
Loser out​

Week 3​

Minor Semi final
4v3 NRL venue
Winner final
Winner final​

Major Semi final
1v2 NRL venue
Winner Grand Final
Loser final​

Week 4​

Final
3v2 NRL venue
Winner Grand Final
Loser out
Week 5​

Grand Final NRL venue
1v2​

Problems I see with this system is that it is a week longer. Only 1 game longer.
Teams in the top 4 could make the grand final and only play a game once every 2 weeks through the finals. This is however similar to the old top 5 format which I think is the best system used to date.
Does not reward the minor premiers enough, but neither does out current system.

Benefits. A true advantage for the top 4 sides and an even bogger advantage to the top 2 sides with a home semi.
Bottom 4 teams will need to win through 5 weeks of tough football to win the comp, which I believe is needed if we are going to have a top 8. Look at this week for example this weekend the side that finished 3 is playing the side that finished 7 in an elimination game.

 

[kay]

Not true at all.


The home and aways also determine the seedings for week 2 onwards, along with the result.


There is nothing wrong with this system at all. WIN finals games and get rewarded, lose and get punished, it's that simple.


Canberra having finished 7th, went away from home to 2nd and won, and have been duly rewarded, the Tigers having finished 3rd lost their "home" final, and have been punished. Penrith lost their home final, punished. Gold Coast, thanks to the choking of the teams above them have been rewarded.


I fail to see the issue.

My personal issue with the system is that team number 5/6 loses, and their punishment can be something from just playing away the next week, which they just did or going out completely depending on other results. The reliance on other results for their fate is what I personally don't like. You can say they lost and therefore they deserve it, but at the end of the day the teams are playing for different fates. 1 and 2 are home and hosed while 7 and 8 are fighting for their lives. 4th and 5th are effectively the own matchup playing for the same thing currently, and this week was jump straight to top 4 or go home, which is a big jump. If there are upsets, the 3v6 and 4v5 losers are effectively doomed for what I believe is losing 2 teams for the sake of losing 2 teams. I would have preferred watching the Warriors fight for their fate against the (Sea Eagles). In the AFL system, you know what you're playing for, and if you win in (top4 matchups) you know you deserve to go straight to week 3 as you're versing the cream of the crop, as opposed to 5 and 6 winning and getting lucky just because for example 1 and 2 get a whole string of injuries and happen to lose. People say the top teams play each other too early, but at the end of the day, the 2 teams you want to give a week break should be the top 2 and they earn that right by winning that first week match. The losers of that don't get disadvantaged as they get a home final the next week anyway.
The fact that Gold Coast get rewarded for the other teams choking I don't see why that is a good thing. If the other two teams don't choke, then their reward is different. However as I type I begin to understand the seedings you may be referring to as the top 2 seeded winners progress however I personally would like to see Gold Coast vs St George to get that right rather than get it after the above teams lose.

 

[*Paul*]

WIN finals games and get rewarded, lose and get punished, it's that simple.

Exactly. The home & away season is over, every one just forget it. For-get-it. The reason we have a finals series is not a finely honed, fair and equable way to decide the premier - it exists solely to minimise dead games at the back end the season. Are we clear on that?

So once we've started the finals series - Win good, lose bad. 1v8, 2v7 etc, all sudden death til there's two left is my horse in this perpetual merry-go-round

 

[unforgiven]

I really hate the current finals system. On the way home from work today this system popped into my head. Someone has prob posted this format before but I think it would be worth a try. I like it because it is very similar to the old top 5 system which I believe is the best system we have had. Anyway here it is.

Week 1​

Prelim final 1
5v8 NRL venue
Winner ES1
Loser out​

Prelim final 2
6v7 NRL venue
Winner ES2
Loser out​

Qualifying final 1
1v4 1 home
Winner Major S
loser ES1​

Qualifying final 2
2v3 2 home
Winner Major S
Loser ES2​

Week 2​

Elimination final 1
4v5 4 home
Winner Minor S
Loser out ​

Elimination final 2
3v6 3 home
Winner Minor S
Loser out​

Week 3​

Minor Semi final
4v3 NRL venue
Winner final
Winner final​

Major Semi final
1v2 NRL venue
Winner Grand Final
Loser final​

Week 4​

Final
3v2 NRL venue
Winner Grand Final
Loser out

Week 5​

Grand Final NRL venue
1v2​

Problems I see with this system is that it is a week longer. Only 1 game longer.
Teams in the top 4 could make the grand final and only play a game once every 2 weeks through the finals. This is however similar to the old top 5 format which I think is the best system used to date.
Does not reward the minor premiers enough, but neither does out current system.

Benefits. A true advantage for the top 4 sides and an even bogger advantage to the top 2 sides with a home semi.
Bottom 4 teams will need to win through 5 weeks of tough football to win the comp, which I believe is needed if we are going to have a top 8. Look at this week for example this weekend the side that finished 3 is playing the side that finished 7 in an elimination game.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Im happy with the Top 4 losing any advantage they have if they lose, why should you reward teams for losing??? If they want their advantage/week off, make them work for it.....

As for the 3-7 elimination game...the tigers lost, and we won, fairly simple really, if they don't like the position they're in, they should've beaten the roosters....

Surely I'm not the only one that notices its only ever the losers that whinge about the finals system?