The annual finals system debate thread

[Eskimo Sharkie]

The current system has worked so far, but I think the AFL's finals system is a better one. In my opinion, the biggest downfalls of the McIntyre system is that you can have a situation where 5th through to 8th win and the teams finishing 3rd and 4th are eliminated. Also, from Week 2 onwards, everyone is on a level playing field, and matches are played at (relatively) neutral venues. The problem for rugby league is that most club side's have limited capacity at their home grounds.

There is no perfect system, but I do think that the AFL is further down the right track. The first week of the finals give potentially closer match-ups (everyone expects Manly and Cronulla to cop huge floggings this weekend, which also doesn't help with Parramatta and St George-Illawarra's preparations) and the home ground advantage persists for the higher placed side.

 

[Nonny1980]

By simply adding 1 week and reverting to week 2 of the old top 5 by week 3, all flaws get eliminated and all top 4 sides gain 2 bites regardless of any results. All bottom 4 play constant elimination as they should. It's fair and all matches mean something. With the Gold Coast being admitted the season can reduce to 22 weeks to accomodate this.

In this example assume the highest ranked team wins but remember no matter who wins the top 4 all get 2 bites and the bottom 4 always play sudden death.

E = elimination

WEEK 1 (HOME team 1st)

1 v 4
2 v 3

(winners above advance to GF qualifier week 3, losers get home advantage in week 2 v bottom 4 winners which is more reward for their top 4 finish)

5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E

WEEK 2 (HOME team 1st)

3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E

WEEK 3 (all games from now on neutral venues and the system now flows EXACTLY as it did from week 2 of the old top 5 from here on)

1 v 2 (winner advances to the Grand Final, loser gets their 2nd bite nxt wk)

3 v 4 E

WEEK 4

2 v 3 E

WEEK 5

1 v 2 (Grand Final)

This series is only 1 game extra over what we have now and eliminates all flaws. 1 of the top 4 sides will only play 3 games in 5 weeks BUT this is no different to 1 side only playing 2 games in 4 weeks in the old top 5 system. History has shown the very good sides overcame this and arguments raged whether it was better to have the week off or to play throughout.

IF anyone can help me push this to the the NRL or gain some high profile support, feel free to PM.

This is by far the best Top 8 system. You have big matches every week, every team in the top 4 must lose a game before they are knocked out (a true secong bite of the cherry) and the bottom 4 sides play elimination games all the way thru. The top 4 play for a week off and although the bootm four play against each other its for survival so their would be great interest in them. Imagine this years finals under this system (and the higher ranked team wins):

Week 1:

Parramatta v Wests Tigers (Parramatta Stadium) Winner to week 3
St George v Brisbane (Win) Winner to week 3

Nth Qth v Manly (Dairy) Loser Eliminated
Melbourne v Cronulla (Melb) Loser Eliminated

Week 2:

Brisbane v Melbourne (Suncorp) Loser Eliminated
Wests Tigers v Nth Qld (Telstra) Loser Eliminated

Week 3:

Parramatta v St George (Telstra) Winner to Grand Final
Brisbane v Wests Tigers (SFS) Loser Eliminated

Week 4:

St George v Brisbane (Telstra) Loser Eliminated

Week 5:

Parramatta v St George Grand Final


Under this system there are big games all over the place, while the lower ranked sides when meeting off are playing for survival. As has been stated one team will play 3 games in 5 weeks but has also been stated this happened under the old top 5 and everybody loves that system (Last Round, Second Week of semis, Grand Final).

Please NRL, adopt this plan!!!!!!

 

[The Engineers Room]

I have a proposed system.

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

lowest two ranked losers eliminated.

Teams re ranked

Week 2
1 v Highest ranked loser (rank 6)
2 v lowest ranked winner (rank 5)
Highest ranked winner (rank 3) v second ranked winner (rank 4)

lowest two ranked losers eliminated.

Week 3
Highest ranked winner v Highest ranked loser (game a)
Second ranked winner v lowest ranked winner (game b)

Losers eliminated

Week 4
Winner game a v winner game b

 

[Nonny1980]

I have a proposed system.

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

lowest two ranked losers eliminated.

Teams re ranked

Week 2
1 v Highest ranked loser (rank 6)
2 v lowest ranked winner (rank 5)
Highest ranked winner (rank 3) v second ranked winner (rank 4)

lowest two ranked losers eliminated.

Week 3
Highest ranked winner v Highest ranked loser (game a)
Second ranked winner v lowest ranked winner (game b)

Losers eliminated

Week 4
Winner game a v winner game b

So 2nd can lose their first match and be eliminated? Im not so sure about that.

 

[The Engineers Room]

If they can't win then they don't deserve to progress. And they get a free pass to week 2.

 

[Kiwi]

I prefer a top 6 which could look like this.


Week 1

Game 1 - 1 v 2 - Winner gets week off
Game 2 - 3 v 4
Game 3 - 5 v 6 - Loser eliminated.

Week 2

Game 4 - Loser Game 1 v Winner Game 2
Game 5 - Loser Game 2 v Winner Game 3 - Loser eliminated

Week 3

Game 6 - Winner Game 1 v Winner Game 4 - Winner into grand final
Game 7 - Loser Game 4 v Winner Game 5 - Loser Eliminated

Week 4

Game 8 - Loser Game 6 v Winner Game 7 - Winner into grand final

Week 5

Game 9 ( Grand Final ) - Winner Game 6 v Winner Game 8

 

[Hoops]

The problem I have with the McIntyre System and that Ryan system is that other games determine who you play next week. If you win or lose you should be able to know who and where you play next week without some huge mathematical formulae.
In the AFL system being a geelong supporter I knew that if we won (and we did) we would play the loser of the Sydney V WCE match at their home ground. Other games that are outside the control of Geelong had no bearing on that.

Also with the AFL finals system not including the GF these are set in stone

1 and 2 = 2 home games and double chance in first week of finals
3 and 4 = 1 home game and double chance in first week of finals
5 and 6 = 1 home game and no double chance
7 and 8 = no home games and no double chance
so the incentive is there

 

[borat]

The AFL system or the old NRL system was no good for Rugby League becuase you finish 4th place and you have a decent chance of upsetting 1st and go straight to prelim final. No real incentive other than finishing top 4 and not much of an advantage for the 1st and 2nd placed teams.

I quite like the MacIntyre system except that there is no real advantage over 1st and 2nd. The comments from the Dragons, Eels and broncos in recent weeks where they said winning the minor premiership wasn't that important to them.

I would keep the MacIntyre system in the way its a top 8 and the way it ranks its winners and losers for week 2. But I would rejig the match ups for week 1 to give a real advantage to 1st place.

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

By this method the loser of 6 v 7 is definitely eliminated and the top 3 are protected from elimination in week 1. I would extend home finals to include the second week and give them based on week 1 rankings. Meaning that the loser of 2 v 3 gets a home final in week 2. This means that team 3 won't miss out on a home final should they lose in week 1.

 

[Nonny1980]

I prefer a top 6 which could look like this.


Week 1

Game 1 - 1 v 2 - Winner gets week off
Game 2 - 3 v 4
Game 3 - 5 v 6 - Loser eliminated.

Week 2

Game 4 - Loser Game 1 v Winner Game 2
Game 5 - Loser Game 2 v Winner Game 3 - Loser eliminated

Week 3

Game 6 - Winner Game 1 v Winner Game 4 - Winner into grand final
Game 7 - Loser Game 4 v Winner Game 5 - Loser Eliminated

Week 4

Game 8 - Loser Game 6 v Winner Game 7 - Winner into grand final

Week 5

Game 9 ( Grand Final ) - Winner Game 6 v Winner Game 8

This is also a good system but I don't think the league wants a top 6. It also spreads the current 9 games we have over 5 weeks. That's why I like to top 8 that is similar to top 5 system because you get an extra game so you get 10 over the five weeks and the nrl gets to keep its top 8 and generate extra revenue.

 

[Hoops]

But with the McIntyre System say you end up 3-6th and happen to lose, your elimination from the comp is up to the other games, that you have no control over. Why if 7th happens to beat 2nd etc determine your fate.

You could argue that with the AFL system that if you do happen to finish 4th and play against the top side at their home ground and win you deserve a home prelim final.

 

[The Engineers Room]

But with the McIntyre System say you end up 3-6th and happen to lose, your elimination from the comp is up to the other games, that you have no control over. Why if 7th happens to beat 2nd etc determine your fate.

You could argue that with the AFL system that if you do happen to finish 4th and play against the top side at their home ground and win you deserve a home prelim final.

This is why it is a superior system to the current NRL one.

 

[aussies1st]

But with the McIntyre System say you end up 3-6th and happen to lose, your elimination from the comp is up to the other games, that you have no control over. Why if 7th happens to beat 2nd etc determine your fate.

You could argue that with the AFL system that if you do happen to finish 4th and play against the top side at their home ground and win you deserve a home prelim final.

That is the main problem with the McIntyre System. If you finish 3rd and 4th you shouldn't have the possibility of being eliminated in week 1.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Alternative

WEEK 1
1 v 6
2 v 5
3 v 4
7 v 8 loser eliminated

WEEK 2
highest ranked winner v bye
second highest winner v winner (7v8) [game a] - loser eliminated
third highest winner v second highest loser [game b] - loser eliminated
lowest winner v highest loser [game c] - loser eliminated

Week 3
highest ranked winner (week 1) v winner game c [game d] - loser eliminated
winner game a v winner game b [game e] - loser eliminated

Week 4
winner game d v winner game e

 

[Corbin]

What about the AFL 1, thats a pretty gd final system?

 

[Mr Saab]

What about the AFL 1, thats a pretty gd final system?

the then ARL used that system in 1995/6.
Abandoned it in 1997 as it was a split comp.
In 1998 it was a 20 team comp and they had a crazy 10 team finals system.
1999 it was a 17 team comp and the pathetic mcintrye system

 

[aussies1st]

Alternative

WEEK 1
1 v 6
2 v 5
3 v 4
7 v 8 loser eliminated

WEEK 2
highest ranked winner v bye
second highest winner v winner (7v8) [game a] - loser eliminated
third highest winner v second highest loser [game b] - loser eliminated
lowest winner v highest loser [game c] - loser eliminated

Week 3
highest ranked winner (week 1) v winner game c [game d] - loser eliminated
winner game a v winner game b [game e] - loser eliminated

Week 4
winner game d v winner game e

That is pretty good. At least that means 7 and 8 are made to pay for just making the 8. Rewards teams in the top 6. Number 1 plays the next easiest team and can have a bye the next week. Sounds good to me.

 

[Whats Doing]

The Whats Doing System

Week 1
Game (1) Team 5 vs Team 8 (loser eliminated)
Game (2) Team 6 vs Team 7 (loser eliminated)

Bye Teams 1, 2, 3 , 4

Week 2
Game (3) Team 1 vs Winner of Game (2)
Game (4) Team 2 vs Winner of Game (1)
Game (5) Team 3 vs Team 4

The 3 winners and the highest ranked loser to week 3

Week 3

Game (6) Winner of game 3 vs Winner of game 5
Game (7) Winner of game 4 vs highest ranked loser of week 2

Week 4 (Grand Final)

Game (8) Winner of game 6 vs winner of game 7.

Benefits
1. Top ranked team is rewarded with the easiest passage to the grandfinal of all teams
2. Top ranked team gets a second chance if they lose in week 2 and cannot be eliminated until week 3 if they lose a second time.

 

[Alan Shore]

IMO in the 1st week 1st and 2nd should play each other with the winner going directlyto theGF...

 

[Hass]

Any decent finals system must eventually get down to the following formula with 3 weeks to go

a: 3 v 4 - loser eliminated
b: 1 v 2 - winner to GF

c: Winner of (a) v loser of (b)

d: Winner of (b) v winner of (c)

*************************************

This is in fact the old Final 4 system that was in place from the 1950's to the early 1970's.

The Final 5 was merely an extension of this format that rewarded the Minor Premier with a week off in the first round of finals.

The reason for this system's fairness is that it gives the top teams a guaranteed two chances to make the Grand Final.

I remember the first year of the McIntyre 8 system saw teams 1 and 2 - Cronulla and Parramatta win in the first week of the finals. They then went to Week 3 and both lost elimination Preliminary Finals. Great work all season, they lose one match and don't even get to the Grand Final.

The Grand Final is out on its own. If you win every match all year and lose the Grand Final then that's just bad luck. Winning the comp still means performing on the one day of the year. But to potentially win every match bar one and not even make the grand final is not bad luck - it is a criminal flaw in the finals system.

They only Top 8 system that takes this into account is the 5 week one being advocated. If we must have a Top 8 -something I believe we most certainly don't- but if we must have one then the 5 week Final 8 with its combination of the old ARL/current AFL format and the traditional top 4 system is the only way to go.

Cheers.

 

[SunkenEyes]

I actually really liked the top 5 system the most, whatever it was called. There were some classic semis , let alone finals, under that system. i.e, Canterbury vs Canberra 94 Major Semi Final when the dogs won 19-18 in extra time, that was an awesome game. That system would mean more in todays comp with only 15 teams coz it would mean that making the semis is more of an achievement.