NRL finals system V AFL finals system

[Costanza_]

I can't fathom why the NRL persists with the McIntyre system. As someone else pointed out, 3rd through 6th usually end up swapping opponents in Week 2 regardless of whether they win or lose. If 1-2-3-4 all win, then the team who finished 3rd and WINS get 'rewarded' with playing the 5th team in an elimination final, while the team who finishes 6th and LOSES gets rewarded with playing the 4th place team the week after.

The current AFL system has clear ramifications for each game. In Week 1 you are playing for a week off and a prelim final (1-4) or playing to avoid elimination (5-8). None of this sitting around waiting for other results to determine the outcome.

 

[Michael Scarn]

sucked in to the broncos! had a win, and get rewarded by playing the best team in the comp! regardless that they lost to the warriors. take that brisbane !!!

 

[erpel9999]

I can't fathom why the NRL persists with the McIntyre system. As someone else pointed out, 3rd through 6th usually end up swapping opponents in Week 2 regardless of whether they win or lose. If 1-2-3-4 all win, then the team who finished 3rd and WINS get 'rewarded' with playing the 5th team in an elimination final, while the team who finishes 6th and LOSES gets rewarded with playing the 4th place team the week after.

The current AFL system has clear ramifications for each game. In Week 1 you are playing for a week off and a prelim final (1-4) or playing to avoid elimination (5-8). None of this sitting around waiting for other results to determine the outcome.

true, but also one of the few flaws in the afl system.

When things go to seedings in the afl system, as per this year then the higher placed team gets the harder prelim.

cats - easier qf (saints), harder pf (dogs)
hawks - harder qf (dogs), easier pf (saints)

maybe it should be 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4

just a thought....

 

[kira]

i prefer the afl system

but it shits me that the final 4 is called the preliminary and not the semi

 

[Father Jack]

So a team that might have had the double chance didn't get the double chance because a team in a different game lost? That was always my biggest gripe with the old system, you really didn't have your own fate in your own hands, your reward for winning or penalty for losing depended on things out of your control. That is complete bs I reckon.

 

[that_dood]

i prefer the afl system

but it shits me that the final 4 is called the preliminary and not the semi

Yeah one of the few sports where the week before the GF is not called the Semi final.

 

[emuboy]

The system used by the NRL and the AFL from 1994-99 is absolutely ridiculous. A good example took place in 2005, when the Nth Qld Cowboys (5th) were thrashed by the Tigers (4th), and the 3rd placed Melbourne Storm won in the first week. The Cowboys were then played and defeated the Storm the next, and eventually progressed to the Grand Final!

The current AFL system is better, but not perfect. The Semi & Preliminary finals should always put the highest team against the lowest team. For example, Geelong, despite finishing top, will be playing the 3rd place Western Bulldogs, while 2nd placed Hawthorn plays the theoretically weaker St Kilda. The Prelim Finals should be Geelong v St Kilda & Hawthorn v Bulldogs; this would be fairer.

 

[ozasismick]

The current AFL system is better, but not perfect. The Semi & Preliminary finals should always put the highest team against the lowest team. For example, Geelong, despite finishing top, will be playing the 3rd place Western Bulldogs, while 2nd placed Hawthorn plays the theoretically weaker St Kilda. The Prelim Finals should be Geelong v St Kilda & Hawthorn v Bulldogs; this would be fairer.

Fair enough, and I do agree in theory, but just to play devils advocate, should it still then be 1v4 and 2v3 in first week and 1v4 and 2v3 in third week if results go as predicted? For me has to be one or the other.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Fair enough, and I do agree in theory, but just to play devils advocate, should it still then be 1v4 and 2v3 in first week and 1v4 and 2v3 in third week if results go as predicted? For me has to be one or the other.

You want fresh match-ups up until the GF. Re-matches of Geelong v St.Kilda and Hawthorn v W.Bulldogs after they just played 2 weeks ago isn't very exciting. Was one of the weaknesses of the Final 5 and 6 where you would have re-matches just 2 weeks apart. In the Final 5, a minor premier could just beat the same club twice to win the cup.

 

[emuboy]

Fair enough, and I do agree in theory, but just to play devils advocate, should it still then be 1v4 and 2v3 in first week and 1v4 and 2v3 in third week if results go as predicted? For me has to be one or the other.

I can see your point, but up until 1994, the AFL had plenty of "repeat" finals, that often produced very different results. For example, in 1989 Essendon beat Geelong by 76 in the Qualifying Final, but the Cats defeated the Bombers by 94 in the Preliminary. In 1985, Hawthorn demolished the Bulldogs by 95 points in the Qualifying Final, but the Preliminary Final was a thrilling game, with the Hawks winning by 10. And of course, when a team from 5th to 8th makes the preliminary, or an upset, there would be less or no repeat finals. So I don't think it would be boring.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Yeah one of the few sports where the week before the GF is not called the Semi final.

Yeah it irks me too, it's more of a historical anomaly in footy from back when there was only 1 Preliminary Final. Ideally, you could flip the naming of Weeks 2 and 3 around, which should have happened in 1994. With tradition as it is, it won't happen now.

 

[BillBailey]

I don't like the old system, because of 1st and 2nd both won, then 3,4,5, and 6 would all play amongst themselves in the secnd week, regardless of 1st week results.

But the fact that 8th can host a home final in the second week versus the 4th placed Roosters is perfectly fair.

Under the current AFL system, it would NOT be fair for 8th (if they beat 5th) to host 4th in the semi-final. Why? Because 1st plays 4th in the first week, meaning one of them HAS to lose. Because of this, the loser retains their higher seeding, simply because two top teams were playing each other.

But because 1st play 8th 2nd play 7th etc, all the top 4 have an opportunity to win. There are no excuses. 4th can't say "Oh, it's not fair, because we play 1st and one of HAS to lose" because 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th can all win.

So, if 1st lose to 8th they deservedly drop down to "5th seed" The four winners are seeded 1,2,3,4, and the 4 losers are seeded 5,6,7,8, meaning the warriors are now seeded 4th. They play the "6th" seeded Roosters.

Storm are 5th which is below the 3rd seeded Broncos and last time I checked 3rd is higher than 5th so the Broncos deserve to host the Storm.

Storm gave up their home ground advantage. If it was 1v4 and the Storm lost, the Storm would host the smei-final in week 2. But under the 1v8 system, they lose home ground advantage and this is perfectly fair. The 4 winners occupy seeds 1,2,3 and 4 and it HAS to be that way or the system can't function. Storm are now 5th and they have to do it the hard way.

The AFL finals system rewards performance throughout the season. The NRL system does not. I hardly think it's fair that the Storm have to slog it out for 26 rounds, virtually giving up 3 wins while players are on State Of Origin duties, still manage to finish on top of the table, then lose in a 50/50 situation with a last minute try and be forced to play an away final in Brisbane. Playing the 8th placed team does not guarantee a win.

 

[eddiesmith]

The worst thing about the NRL system is their ground allocation for finals

I dont see why everyone hates it so much, the AFL system is more boring, you know immediately if you are out or not, whats the fun in that?

The main problem it seems alot of people have is they dont want teams 5-8 getting past week 2, so why dont you all just demand a top 4?

As I said, the NRL system is more fun, it makes all 4 games an interest to everyone rather than just worrying about your own team

Besides this years AFL finals would have been better with the old system, Pies v Cats in week 1 would have been awesome

Finally wasnt it mentioned last week that Elimination finals dont draw much interest? So why is the AFL system better if no one cares about half the games in week 1?

 

[carsoutback]

Yeah one of the few sports where the week before the GF is not called the Semi final.

Also one of the few national sports where a Final can be played on a neutral ground (year-after-year, unlike the Superbowl that at least rotates venues). But let's not mention that as the single most ridiculous aspect of the finals system for our "national" game.

 

[Aucklander]

Credit to the Warriors on coming over from New Zealand to a ground where teams seldom win. They then play so well they become the first team to ever beat team 1 and in doing so score a fantastic try to wrap it up.

Maybe a home final against a team who lost in week 1 is just what they deserve. Sure, bad luck to the Storm, but they had everthing in their favour yesterday and blew it.

 

[And_ROOS]

Didn't Adelaide then go on and win the 1998 premiership after being belted by Melbourne the first week of the finals (after finishing 5th and getting a second chance by virtue of the top 4 teams all winning)?

The MacIntye system is not as fair for the top 4 finishers as the AFL system. The one advantage is that it throws the finals series wide open if top teams get beat in week one of the finals.

Predictably, in the AFL system after week 2 of the finals, teams 5-8 are all eliminated.

But fair enough, as the top 4 teams are the better teams this year, and i couldnt really forsee any massive upsets had the AFL finals this year been played under the old system.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Yeah, this will be the last year of the mcintyre finals for NRL.

The great folly of this finals format is shown with Worriers beating Storm.

Storm, best side all year, now have to play all finals, sudden death, away from home. Their impressive season is wasted in the last 5 minutes of yesterdays game.

If they get elminated, as they probably will, in the next few weeks, Ch 9 wont be happy that they are not in the GF.

 

[fishmonger]

Face it, we're all talking about it, so maybe it is actually a good thing for the NRL.

Finals are finals people. The whole 2nd and 3rd chance thing has only crept into the AFL so they can milk fans of more money. Seriously, think about it.

Now it has changed the average AFL fan's perception of what finals are all about. I remember when the whole thing was cut-throat. Now it is basically a second season at the end of the first with heftier ticket prices and hype but the same ordinary standard of footy.

Personally, I prefer the drama of the old system. I mean surely the best side should have been able to put in a better performance at home.

It is the players fault - not the NRL.

Fantastic game to watch too. I'm a big fan of the way that Folau and Inglis have helped to bring elements of footy to rugby league, such as the perfectly placed drop punt and catching the ball overhead. In my opinion, it results in a much more exciting gameplay and is great for television. And forget crowds, the game had real finals atmosphere. I went to the Dogs vs Hawthorn and apart from when Buddy got the ball, there was zero atmosphere.

Hell my wife is so pro-AFL its not funny, but even she said that the Storm vs Warriors final was the best game of footy - AFL or otherwise - that she has seen all year. And that's saying something.

 

[Brasher]

But fair enough, as the top 4 teams are the better teams this year, and i couldnt really forsee any massive upsets had the AFL finals this year been played under the old system.

Actually it is really a top 2, then the next two and then the rest. The first two weeks of the finals have shown this.

The NRL system is flawed, especially in weeks 2 and 3 of the finals because of how home ground advantage is allocated. But the Storm can only blame themselves, at home against a team that finished seven spots lower and now they have to travel on the road to get to the GF....why the sympathy?

If they are good enough they will still get there.

 

[BillBailey]

I've got no problem with the McIntyre system, just don't reward the Warriors with a home final for finishing the season with a record of 13-11, scraping into the finals and winning one match of football.

 

[A Living God]

Finals are finals people. The whole 2nd and 3rd chance thing has only crept into the AFL so they can milk fans of more money. Seriously, think about it.

Yeah, I liked the old VFL system where if you lost you were straight out, no second chances.

 

[BillBailey]

Yeah, I liked the old VFL system where if you lost you were straight out, no second chances.

Then scrap the finals system altogether. What's the point of playing 22 rounds (26 in the NRL) and finishing on top of the ladder only to come away with nothing if you lose one match.

 

[Dan26]

I've got no problem with the McIntyre system, just don't reward the Warriors with a home final for finishing the season with a record of 13-11, scraping into the finals and winning one match of football.

They (the Warriors) deserve the home final in week two.

The way the seeding work, the HAVE to get a home final, because, by winning, they are now effectively "4th" which ranks them higher than the second best loser (who they now play) who is now ranked "6th"

4th is higher than 6th.

See my explanation on the first page of this thread.

 

[Dan26]

The AFL finals system rewards performance throughout the season. The NRL system does not. I hardly think it's fair that the Storm have to slog it out for 26 rounds, virtually giving up 3 wins while players are on State Of Origin duties, still manage to finish on top of the table, then lose in a 50/50 situation with a last minute try and be forced to play an away final in Brisbane. Playing the 8th placed team does not guarantee a win.

Playing 8th does not guarantee a win.

But playing 8th means the top 4 teams all have the opportunity to win. This means they lose a top-4 seeding should any of them lose. When 1st play 4th and 2nd play 3rd two top-4 teams have to lose, so it is unfair to rank them below the winners of 5v8 and 6v7.

If 1st play 4th and 2nd play 3rd two top 4 teams HAVE to lose. That is why they retain a higher seeding than the elimination finals winner.

Storm lost, and they are the "highest ranked loser." The highest ranked loser is effectively now seeded "5th." The 4 winners are seeded 1,2,3,4.

It's fair. At least the home ground advantage component is fair. Broncos are seeded 3rd, Storm are 5th. Third gets to host 5th. Why should 5th seed host 3rd?????????? That's ludicrous.

You can look at it this way. If it is 1v4 and 1st loses, they retain a higher seeding than the winner of 5v8, but the catch is they have a harder match versus 4th.

If 1st play 8th they play away in week 2 if they lose, but they have the easier match first up to avoid this scenario.

 

[Masten2McKinley]

The NRL system is shit everything about NRL is shit, AFL is so much better it rewards teams for there hard work