What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wok cooks up new finals format

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
Wok cooks up new finals format

Warren Ryan: new Wok recipe for finals feast.

A new top-eight system devised by former premiership-winning coach Warren Ryan is set to be adopted for next year's finals series, ahead of a possible return to a 22-round competition and the introduction of a 16th team.

The changes were flagged at yesterday's clubs' conference, at which the 2004 season draw was also released and a handful of rule modifications unveiled.

Premiers Penrith will kick off the season on March 12 with a Friday night home game against Newcastle and hope to defend their title in the grand final at Telstra Stadium on October 3.

In between, all 15 clubs must contest 24 games over 26 weeks, which includes an Anzac Test in Brisbane, City-Country at Gosford and State of Origin, before the play-off series, likely to be staged under the new format outlined by Ryan at the beginning of the two-day conference.

NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said: "Warren is obviously a former coach in the game and now a media commentator and he's put a lot of time and effort into coming up with a unique rugby league solution, so we've asked the clubs to go away and have a think about it.

"Obviously we need to get their feedback on it and then the NRL board will have to make a decision, I imagine, before the season gets under way."

While identical to the AFL's finals system in the first week, with the top four teams protected from elimination, Ryan's model creates an extra match in week two, thereby guaranteeing extra revenue for the NRL.

It also rewards teams for their performances during the regular season, as their finishing positions are carried throughout the finals, even if they lose in week one, while only the minor premiers are assured of a week off by winning.

The major changes to the current McIntyre system is a third game in week two, with all three sudden-death, and it would be impossible for the teams finishing seventh and eighth to meet in the grand final.

If Ryan's system had been in place last season and the highest-ranked teams won, the Panthers would have advanced to week three, with Brisbane eliminated, and the three games in week two would have been identical to the others in week one this year - Raiders v Storm, Bulldogs v Warriors and Roosters v Knights.

Assuming results went the same way as they did, Penrith would have again met the Warriors in one grand final qualifier with the Roosters taking on Melbourne, instead of the Bulldogs, in the other.

A rematch of this year's grand final between the Panthers and Roosters will be played in round four at Penrith Stadium, one of several highlights early in the season.

Other features of the 2004 draw include:  the Knights, at their own request, opening the season with six away matches while EnergyAustralia Stadium is redeveloped;  double-headers at Telstra Stadium in rounds one and five;  an Anzac Day clash between the Roosters and St George Illawarra;  the Roosters to host the Bulldogs on Good Friday;  the Bulldogs and Wests Tigers playing home games against the Warriors in New Zealand;  South Sydney and the Dragons playing at the SCG in round 16; and  an improved Origin schedule for players, with a three-week break between each interstate clash.

"This year there will be some relief for our rep players," said NRL chief David Gallop, who revealed that the toll on the game's elite players had prompted a review of the season's structure.

"It's not something we can jump into quickly but we've certainly indicated that we are going to have a look in the first part of 2004 about a change in 2005.

"The clubs need to know what their financial budgets are going to look like and at the moment the 12 home games are very important, so the clubs need to know early if we're going back to 11 home games to give them time to prepare for that."

The timing of such a decision coincides with the verdict on applications by several consortia for admission to the competition in 2006, and Gallop agreed it would be difficult to have a 22-round competition with 15 teams.

"One of the considerations is the imbalance the 15 teams causes. It's not impossible, but it is difficult," he said. "There was a very, very brief discussion on [an expanded competition] this afternoon, and it is an issue we're continuing to monitor."


The Ryan system

WEEK 1 Game 1: 5 v 8, Game 2: 6 v 7, Game 3: 2 v 3, Game 4: 1 v 4. *Highest-ranked winner to Week 3, lowest-ranked loser eliminated.

WEEK 2 Game 5: top-4 highest loser v bottom-4 lowest winner. Game 6: top-4 lowest loser v bottom-4 highest winner. Game 7: top-4 2nd highest winner v bottom-4 2nd lowest loser. *All losers eliminated.

WEEK 3 Game 8: highest winner week 1 v lowest winner week 2. Game 9: highest winner week 2 v 2nd highest winner week 2. *Losers eliminated.

WEEK 4 - Grand final

Thank god the McIntrye system is gone, this system is so much better as all teams know what a loss will mean when they enter the playing arena.
 

keeney

First Grade
Messages
6,640
its pretty much the same as the AFL system, which beats the mcintyre into the ground
 

PB

Bench
Messages
3,311
its not bad, but if all things go as planned.... in week 1 of the semis
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

and then in week 3

1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

So why not just have a top 4 keep the home and away season longer by two weeks and shorten the finals series?
 

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
PB said:
its not bad, but if all things go as planned.... in week 1 of the semis
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

and then in week 3

1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

So why not just have a top 4 keep the home and away season longer by two weeks and shorten the finals series?

Money? Anyhow, I prefer the top eight as teams can have a bit of an off year but bring it all together by the finals series, ala Bulldogs 1995
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Ryan's format is a joke for one MAJOR reason. Team 7 could lose in week one yet still go on to win the premiership. That s just flat out REDICULOUS.
 

PB

Bench
Messages
3,311
Dogs Of War said:
PB said:
its not bad, but if all things go as planned.... in week 1 of the semis
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

and then in week 3

1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

So why not just have a top 4 keep the home and away season longer by two weeks and shorten the finals series?

Money? Anyhow, I prefer the top eight as teams can have a bit of an off year but bring it all together by the finals series, ala Bulldogs 1995

Probably just as much money in playing 14, possibly 16 extra regular season games, instead of 1/2 dozen semi's.

I see the point also of the person who said the team finishing 7th could lose in week one, and still win the comp.
 

ibeme

First Grade
Messages
6,904
PB said:
its not bad, but if all things go as planned.... in week 1 of the semis
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

and then in week 3

1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd

Yep, this is a fatal flaw as far as I'm concerned. It'd be criticised and ridiculed to no end if this were to happen. I don't know if this scenario is possible in the AFL system, but if not, then the AFL system's the way to go.
 

dannyboy

Juniors
Messages
1,629
Why not the old top 5 system...surely only a 3rd of the teams competing should have the right for the 'brass ring'.
 

antonius

Coach
Messages
10,104
WEEK 1 Game 1: 5 v 8, Game 2: 6 v 7, Game 3: 2 v 3, Game 4: 1 v 4. *Highest-ranked winner to Week 3, lowest-ranked loser eliminated.

Home team semis Team 5, team 6, team 2, team 1. So 5 and 6 get a home semi, and team 3 and 4 get away semis. I wouldn't call that rewarding a team for it's season performance, I mean the glaring example team 6 at home and team 3 away??? If I were team 3, or 4 I wouldn't be happy.
 

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
The AFL just use the system we used for 8 team semis before we increased the number of teams (pre 1995). They descided to use the McIntrye system as it allows the MOST combinations of teams to meet in the grand final, unfortunatly it is fatally flawed in that it allows lower ranked teams to lose and still continue in the playoffs, looking at it I'd prefer that we go back to this system even if it means we limit the combination of teams that can face each come the grand final.
 

Surandy

Bench
Messages
3,190
I personally prefer the existing system. It benefits the top 4 teams with the first week home final. But it also provides a certain element of uncertainty which makes it exciting.

If your team is in the finals then your care about all the finals games as it makes all the difference to who your side may/may not meet in future weeks.

As a Storm supporter I can recall the conjecture amongst the fans on the bus trip home after the Storm vs Raiders finals match this year. Everyone sitting there working out if this team wins and that team loses we meet that team on that date. It made the whole finals series much more interesting.

Surandy
 

dice

Juniors
Messages
1,719
I don't like Wok's system. It's bad enough having a top 8 dragging some pretenders into the finals. Now we are going to drag the pretenders even further into the finals by eliminating only one pretender in the first week.

I prefer the AFL finals giving the top 2 winners a well-earned week off and the bottom two losers a quick exit with some sudden death games every week filling up the stadium.
 

Prodigiousman

Juniors
Messages
933
The AFL format is actually a slight tweak of the format League used in 1995/1996.

Both were top 8s, but the league system didn't have a cross over allowing two sides who met in week one to end up facing each other in the Grand Final.

In 1995 i distinctly remember the fact that #2 Canberra played #3 Brisbane - Canberra won and got a week off (ultimately losing to the Dogs who were brilliant on the day in the semi - Canberra were brilliant that year but the Dogs did the business when it ultimately mattered).

What the system then meant was Canberra and Brisbane couldn't play each other in the decider after that first game.

The AFL has tweaked it so the above example doesn't happen.

Of the 3 being considered this model is by far the best.
 

CliffyGC

Juniors
Messages
258
El Duque said:
Ryan's format is a joke for one MAJOR reason. Team 7 could lose in week one yet still go on to win the premiership. That s just flat out REDICULOUS.
spot on El Duque but the NRL will go for it because it has the extra game and that means more revenue.

I think with a 15 team comp a top 6 is better.

I came up with the GC system 18 months ago which would be perfect

Week 1
Game a 3 V 6 (Loser out)
Game B 4 V 5 (Loser out)

Week 2
Game C Winner A V B (loser out)
Game D 1 V 2

Week 3
Game E Winner C V Loser D

Week 4
Grand Final Winner E V Winner D


The reason the NRL would never go for this system is because they lose 3 games in revenue[/b]
 

grayham

Juniors
Messages
170
Prodigiousman said:
The AFL format is actually a slight tweak of the format League used in 1995/1996.

Of the 3 being considered this model is by far the best.

The AFL format is the best possible for 8 teams because of three reasons:
1) Its relatively simple. No highest-ranked winner rubish
2) It has the cross over so no teams meet twice unless in the grand final.
3) Home games are earnt right up to the grand final.

Point 3 is critical. In the early stages as it makes non-elimination games important to be able to gain home ground advantage further into the finals. For example week 1 this year had 1st (port) v 4th (Syd) with the prize being the next week off for the winner, AND a home preliminary final. Once Port lost that game, there finals campain was shot, as getting past the preliminary became very difficult.
 
Top