The annual finals system debate thread

[gUt]

^ This

 

[firechild]

I have no problem with the system. The finals should be all about winning which is what the current system rewards. teams 1 to 4 get an advantage based on there regular season form and theams 5 to 8 get invited to the party.

Exactly what is the Tigers' advantage over the Dragqueens? Neither get a home final, they both play in their home city. The result of them winning or losing on Friday night is exactly the same. The only difference if their positions were reversed is that the game would be promoted as St George Illawarra Dragons vs Wests Tigers as opposed to Wests Tigers vs St George Illawarra Dragons. Wow, what an advatage they have to be listed first.

 

[Saint Doc]

Exactly what is the Tigers' advantage over the Dragqueens? Neither get a home final, they both play in their home city. The result of them winning or losing on Friday night is exactly the same. The only difference if their positions were reversed is that the game would be promoted as St George Illawarra Dragons vs Wests Tigers as opposed to Wests Tigers vs St George Illawarra Dragons. Wow, what an advatage they have to be listed first.

Don't forget the HOME dressing room. I hear the massage table has extra padding = winning

 

[firechild]

Very true. Ok, I'm off to put $100 on the Tigers. They're obviously going to be far more relaxed and ready to go with the extra comfy massage tables.

 

[docbrown]

I think it would add 100000 to 20000 casual supporters to the crowd.

Another typo methinks.

Whatever you add with crowds in the final - if that were even the case, you'd surely also be losing them from other teams in the 4-5 week lead up to the finals.

It's just pure mathematic that having more teams in contention will result in more games of meaning in the run to the finals on average over a 5 to 10 year time span.

Also I might add, if we can't pull 50k to the Tigers/Dragons game this week when either side can potentially be knocked out, then no Top 5 is going to alter that.

 

[mepelthwack]

The same tired old argument made by McIntyre apologists is "You get rewarded for winning" and that's it. Name any other system that doesn't reward a team for winning then.

In 05 Tigers smacked Cowboys 50-6 in week 1 (4th v 5th). Their reward was playing 3rd placed Brisbane and Cowboys punishment was playing 6th placed Storm. In other years 5th lost narrowly and were eliminated.

That's just messed up. Such an inconsistent and unfairly flawed system.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

It's crazy that Newcastle could have a home final in week 2 after scraping into 8th position

Depends on where youd define "home semi final".

From what I hear if Newcastle win, the SFS would be the venue, and they would be playing the 2nd highest ranked loser.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

The same tired old argument made by McIntyre apologists is "You get rewarded for winning" and that's it. Name any other system that doesn't reward a team for winning then.

In 05 Tigers smacked Cowboys 50-6 in week 1 (4th v 5th). Their reward was playing 3rd placed Brisbane and Cowboys punishment was playing 6th placed Storm. In other years 5th lost narrowly and were eliminated.

That's just messed up. Such an inconsistent and unfairly flawed system.

No advantage to Brisbane losing, but in todays system the Cowboys wouldve played in Melbourne and couldve been a different story.

But i still think the old ARL system is better cause the top 4 sides play each other, and the bottom 4 plays each other but the losers are eliminated.

Team 6 could lose but get a second shot.

 

[stormbati]

Yeah it should be changed really. Both Melbourne and the Dragons lost the 1v8 games and had to travel to suncorp to play a red-hot Broncos side. Melbourne may have won (in the 80th) but to play well all year and after 1 loss forced to travel in an elimination game seems unfair.
Yeah you can say the team finished first should beat the lowest ranked final team but the comp is getting tougher every year and if you finished 8th and win a game then you are in a better position then the team who finished 1st! Massive flaw and changeable too.

 

[adamkungl]

The team ranked higher after Round 26 should get the home venue in week two of the finals.

Disagree. If Melbourne are incompetent enough to lose to lolKnights they deserve whatever they get.

 

[supercharger]

No advantage to Brisbane losing, but in todays system the Cowboys wouldve played in Melbourne and couldve been a different story.

But i still think the old ARL system is better cause the top 4 sides play each other, and the bottom 4 plays each other but the losers are eliminated.

Team 6 could lose but get a second shot.

i think you'll find that under that system if team 6 lost they would be eliminated

 

[PARRA_FAN]

i think you'll find that under that system if team 6 lost they would be eliminated

My point exactly, team 6 under the current system would get a second chance even if they lose.

 

[Warrior@Heart]

2010 Dragons
2009 Storm
2008 Sea Eagles
2007 Storm
2006 Broncos
2005 Tigers
2004 Panthers
2003 Bulldogs
2002 Roosters
2001 Knights

Since when has the best team not won the comp under the mcintyre system? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Perth Tiger]

Exactly what is the Tigers' advantage over the Dragqueens? Neither get a home final, they both play in their home city. The result of them winning or losing on Friday night is exactly the same. The only difference if their positions were reversed is that the game would be promoted as St George Illawarra Dragons vs Wests Tigers as opposed to Wests Tigers vs St George Illawarra Dragons. Wow, what an advatage they have to be listed first.

That is a problem cause by half the teams in the comp being from sydney, not from the McIntyre system, if the Warriors came in 5th then it is a big advantage.

And really what is the difference of playing at ANZ compared to SFS. The ground isn't going to have any affect on the result.

And there is still plenty at stake, there is a small chance of earning a ticket to to prelim final and retaining home field advantage for the winner and a small chance of being knocked out and losing home field advantage for the loser. I can guarantee both teams would rather win this game than lose

 

[firechild]

Exactly my point. Given the large number of teams from Sydney, the chances of 2 Sydney teams opposing each other in week 1 of the finals is huge. The non Sydney teams get their home ground advantage, the Sydney teams do not (with the exception of the Dogs, Roosters and the Homebush Rabbits). If we used the ARL/AFL system, the top 4 would have an advantage of a guaranteed 2nd chance in week 1. Therefore the Tigers would have a distinct advantage over the Dragons. Why should the Warriors, Storm, Broncos, etc get a further advantage that is denied to some of the Sydney clubs? The Tigers have even been denied using their home ground of the SFS even though it is one of the 2 that have been made available for week 1 finals.

 

[Canard]

Thats not a McIntrye thing, thats a recent NRL change.

AFL sycophants seem to love there system, but I cant justify 4th place getting two bites at the cherry.

Anyone from 3rd down, should be at risk of getting knocked out if they lose.

 

[mepelthwack]

Yet you can justify 5 and 6 getting 2 bites?

Only in the McIntyre.

 

[El Diablo]

Thats not a McIntrye thing, thats a recent NRL change.

AFL sycophants seem to love there system, but I cant justify 4th place getting two bites at the cherry.

Anyone from 3rd down, should be at risk of getting knocked out if they lose.

then why keep McIntrye?

if teams 6, 7 and 8 lose then team 6 still could potentially win the premiership after losing in week 1

that is a joke

 

[Perth Tiger]

Exactly my point. Given the large number of teams from Sydney, the chances of 2 Sydney teams opposing each other in week 1 of the finals is huge. The non Sydney teams get their home ground advantage, the Sydney teams do not (with the exception of the Dogs, Roosters and the Homebush Rabbits). If we used the ARL/AFL system, the top 4 would have an advantage of a guaranteed 2nd chance in week 1. Therefore the Tigers would have a distinct advantage over the Dragons. Why should the Warriors, Storm, Broncos, etc get a further advantage that is denied to some of the Sydney clubs? The Tigers have even been denied using their home ground of the SFS even though it is one of the 2 that have been made available for week 1 finals.

The same thing can happen in the AFL system. If manly come 1st and the Bulldogs came 4th they would still play the Bulldogs at ANZ and if Manly lost could easily have to play a team like the Dragons (who came 5th) in the second week at ANZ.

The only way to solve that probably is to have less Sydney clubs which isn't going to happen so they will have to suck up it and except that their home city advantage may not be worth much some times or whinge continually each year which appears to be the Manly option.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

2010 dragons
2009 storm
2008 sea eagles
2007 storm
2006 broncos
2005 tigers
2004 panthers
2003 bulldogs
2002 roosters
2001 knights

since when has the best team not won the comp under the mcintyre system? if it ain't broke don't fix it.

2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009