The annual finals system debate thread

[*Paul*]

Finals = win when it matters, nothing else.

There's an idea. Instead having the last 3 or 4 games counting as the only games that matter, we might do a random pick. So it might be Rounds 4, 8, 17 & 19 = win when it matters. And just to heighten the tension, don't reveal which rounds they were until after the season

 

[Spanner in the works]

Well that would be wonderful if the funds were there to have an internal cup competition, enough funds and population base for a lower grade relegation system, and rugby league was popular enough worldwide and Australia wasn't located on the bottom half of the globe to enable an international cup competition. Unfortunately none of that is the case though so get with the real world.

Did I say anything about a relegation system? I said I want the EPL system in that the best team at the end of the regular season is crowned champions. Scratch the finals and use the money from running that for a small Cup competition + trophy open to all teams.

By the way, the FA Cup isn't an international competition. Why do you think a Cup competition has to be an international competition?

 

[Spanner in the works]

What an absolute load of horse shyte.

Finals = win when it matters, nothing else.

The only load of horse shyte is the current finals system.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

If Storm couldn't beat the 6th place team after being minor premiers and having a home game, then too bad for them.

Well played, Warriors.

 

[Eels Dude]

*double post

 

[Eels Dude]

Did I say anything about a relegation system? I said I want the EPL system in that the best team at the end of the regular season is crowned champions. Scratch the finals and use the money from running that for a small Cup competition + trophy open to all teams.

By the way, the FA Cup isn't an international competition. Why do you think a Cup competition has to be an international competition?

No but the reason why the EPL system works is that the cup system and relegation system come as a package as it gives every team something to play for right up until the final round. They either go hand in hand or not at all. If you had a first past the post rule in the NRL the way it currently stands half the fans would lose interest in the competition halfway through the season.

And the FA may not be an international competition but the UEFA cup is and that's also part of the reason there's enough interest in other parts of the EPL meaning they can get away with not having a finals series.

 

[MacDougall]

Scrap the finals series imo. For the Warriors to come from the clouds in the last two weeks and possibly win the comp is a joke.

 

[*Paul*]

Parramatta in 2009 was worse.

But back to the same old, same old. The finals aren't meant to crown the champion team, but getting that out of people's heads is impossible, it's just too well entrenched.

The function is, as ED has just pointed out, is to artificially prop up the hopes of the also rans and their supporters, and to introduce tension at the denouement of the season.

 

[Eels Dude]

Parramatta in 2009 was worse.

But back to the same old, same old. The finals aren't meant to crown the champion team, but getting that out of people's heads is impossible, it's just too well entrenched.

The function is, as ED has just pointed out, is to artificially prop up the hopes of the also rans and their supporters, and to introduce tension at the denouement of the season.

I might be slightly biased, but I think the difference between Parra in '09 was that we won 7 of our last 8 regular season games, not just winning but belting teams. Add to that we beat teams 1,2, and 3 to get the the grand final so were really on a roll over that last third of a season. The Warriors this year have really jump limped into the finals. Got belted in the first week too and were lucky to survive.

I hope they smash Manly next week, but if they do win they'll probably the most most unworthy premiers in the game's history.

 

[*Paul*]

I hope they smash Manly next week, but if they do win they'll probably the most most unworthy premiers in the game's history.

That'd be Canterbury in 95. Parramatta's 12-1-11 record is why they sprang to mind, a fairly mediocre season, but was so close to being the opposite.

But 2001 trumps them all, the fact that the Eels ended up not as winners after a season long stomping of every one else says it all. Week in, week out hammering of all and sundry, a poor 30 minutes and it was all undone.

 

[Eels Dude]

That'd be Canterbury in 95. Parramatta's 12-1-11 record is why they sprang to mind, a fairly mediocre season, but was so close to being the opposite.

But 2001 trumps them all, the fact that the Eels ended up not as winners after a season long stomping of every one else says it all. Week in, week out hammering of all and sundry, a poor 30 minutes and it was all undone.

Can't argue with Canterbury really. But they finished 6th out of a 20 team comp and won all their finals games whereas the Warriors finished 6th out of a 16 team comp and lost their first finals game. It really is hard to compare eras though.

 

[mepelthwack]

Whether they got thrashed or lost by 1 point is entirely irrelevant, what a geniused argument. The 2 worst teams in week 1 got knocked out, what exactly is farcical about that?

No doubt you're 1 of the McIntyre apologists that usually throws out the "it's all about winning" argument. You know, the only argument you even have, despite that argument applying to any possible system Well try that here regarding Warriors 2011 or Cowboys 2005. That's right you can't.

Like the guy who posted further down adding "when it matters". As if any1 apart from 7/8 knows when it matters in week 1 of this system. Lol it's your arguments that are geniused.

 

[big_matt]

No but the reason why the EPL system works is that the cup system and relegation system come as a package as it gives every team something to play for right up until the final round. They either go hand in hand or not at all. If you had a first past the post rule in the NRL the way it currently stands half the fans would lose interest in the competition halfway through the season.

And the FA may not be an international competition but the UEFA cup is and that's also part of the reason there's enough interest in other parts of the EPL meaning they can get away with not having a finals series.

I see what you are saying but it doesn't necessarily work out like this. In the vast majority of seasons only the best clubs are left in the FA Cup near the end of the season, and therefore the people supporting the smaller teams only have avoiding relegation to look forward to (or nothing to look forward to if you are a comfortable mid table team).

I've grown up in the UK and I think the minor premiership should really be the champions of the sport as it shows who were the best team over 7 months, not 3 weeks. If we are going to keep the finals, I definitely don't think half of the league should be involved. Top 6 at the most (and ideally just top 4). If there were no playoffs and you asked newcastle fans how good their season had been, they'd probably say "disappointing" or "mediocre", but they were rewarded with a spot in the playoffs and would only have and to play really well/be really lucky for 4 games to be champions.

The most respected playoff competitions in the world are probably the NFL and MLB, and in these competitions 6 out of 16 (about 33%) and 4 out of 15 (about 25%) of teams in each conference make the playoffs. NBA (like the NRL where 50% of teams make the playoffs) get laughed at and people say "its harder to miss the playoffs than to make them". They are also losing ratings (like the NRL did with the manly and melb games in the first round).

For a no-playoff system to work here (and using the regular season as champions) I think you'd need a huge cultural shift. People tend to go to games here when their team is winning and I've heard people say "there's no point me going cause we'll lose". That's alien in other countries which makes it possible to have teams with nothing still to play for filling their stadiums week in week out.

Note: this isnt a sour grapes post. I have no problem with the Warriors beating us. They were by far the better team.

i think there is just the broader argument of whether this system finds out the best team in a given year, or whether it simply finds out the team that peaked at the right time that year. Both are valid views.

 

[linny]

First past the post seems so sterile compared to a finals series, I don't think it would work here.

 

[big_matt]

First past the post seems so sterile compared to a finals series, I don't think it would work here.

I'm tempted to agree. I think it's the right system but I think it would require a huge cultural shift in Australia to work. Australian sport has been based on the american model, and they see first past the post as sterile also.

First past the post maybe doesn't have the excitement of the playoffs (although it certainly can on occasion - see rangers celtic a few years ago where the team that scored the highest goals on the final day won the league and the helicopter with the trophy was flying back and forth) but i do think it produces more true winners.

Look at the Superbowl in 2008 - the Giants won the trophy but everyone says the Patriots were the best team that season by a long way. The Giants were the champion team, but not the best team.

It depends what you want to find out - who is the best team for that entire season, or who can handle the playoff pressure the best.

For example, say the Warriors win on Sunday with 2 seconds to go due to a disgraceful refereeing decision. Were they the best team in the NRL in 2011? Some would say they are simply because they won the GF. Others would say they won the comp but werent the best. I can understand both views.

 

[RockWheel]

I'm tempted to agree. I think it's the right system but I think it would require a huge cultural shift in Australia to work. Australian sport has been based on the american model, and they see first past the post as sterile also.

First past the post maybe doesn't have the excitement of the playoffs (although it certainly can on occasion - see rangers celtic a few years ago where the team that scored the highest goals on the final day won the league and the helicopter with the trophy was flying back and forth) but i do think it produces more true winners.

Look at the Superbowl in 2008 - the Giants won the trophy but everyone says the Patriots were the best team that season by a long way. The Giants were the champion team, but not the best team.

It depends what you want to find out - who is the best team for that entire season, or who can handle the playoff pressure the best.

For example, say the Warriors win on Sunday with 2 seconds to go due to a disgraceful refereeing decision. Were they the best team in the NRL in 2011? Some would say they are simply because they won the GF. Others would say they won the comp but werent the best. I can understand both views.

Since when has the finals ever been about 'finding the best team of the season'.

 

[big_matt]

Since when has the finals ever been about 'finding the best team of the season'.

I didn't say it was. My point was about whether it should be that, or whether it should just be about finding out the best team for those few weeks.

 

[adamkungl]

Why have a 6 month season if 1 game can completely undo any advantage gained? Divide the comp into 4 pools of 4, play 6 games home and away, then have the top 2 from each pool advance to an 8 team finals series.

I like the AFL system because all the aces are held by the teams that have put in the effort and earned a high ladder position. This is as it should be.

lol. Typical Dragons fan, finished first with a home final and a second chance, against the bottom team and they don't hold all the aces :lol:

That'd be Canterbury in 95. Parramatta's 12-1-11 record is why they sprang to mind, a fairly mediocre season, but was so close to being the opposite.

But 2001 trumps them all, the fact that the Eels ended up not as winners after a season long stomping of every one else says it all. Week in, week out hammering of all and sundry, a poor 30 minutes and it was all undone.

Yeah, that was glorious.

No doubt you're 1 of the McIntyre apologists that usually throws out the "it's all about winning" argument. You know, the only argument you even have, despite that argument applying to any possible system Well try that here regarding Warriors 2011 or Cowboys 2005. That's right you can't.

Well f**k me, apparently sport finals aren't all about winning. :crazy:

 

[Spanner in the works]

Yeah, that was glorious.

Nah. That was crap. It promotes mediocrity. What's the point of playing at your absolute best all season?

 

[Marshall_magic]

First past the post seems so sterile compared to a finals series, I don't think it would work here.

Will only work if
1. everyone plays everyone twice, meaning the season has to be 6 rounds longer
2. rep football is either scrapped or put on stand alone weekends so teams aren't missing players through rep games.

Plus, if we used that, some years would have seen the premiership decided with a month or so to go, basically meaning nobody would care enough about the rest. The reason first past the post works in the Premier League (and other soccer competitions) is because they have other honours to play for (European spots, relegation, etc).