NRL finals system V AFL finals system

[Dan26]

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.

Geelong or Hawthorn will not receive a secind chance this season. No one should. Finals are about performing on the day, and should be knockout.

The minor premier doesn't receive a second chance if they lose the PF or GF, yet the team they beat in the first week gets a second chance. It's stupid.

I'd have a knockout final-8 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5. The seedings are advantage enough. If it was a final-6, I'd give 1st and second a week off, and have 3v6 and 4v5 for the right to play 1st and 2nd.

I despise double chances. They go against the whole principle of what finals are about, which is performing on the day. There are no second chances for Geelong or Hawthorn this week, which is how it should be.

 

[mcgarnacle]

the so-called 'AFL' system was actually the old 'ARL' system of 1995 and 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Rugby_League_season_1995#Ladder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Rugby_League_season_1996#Ladder

i've said it before, and i'll say it again.......all of the AFL's 'brighter' initiatives have been pilfered from other sports........the AFL will usually just go on and **** 'em up.......priority picks anyone??

and let's not get started on the AFL's original bright sparks.....such as the post-it note interchange fiasco earlier this season.

so references to 'our system' should really be amended to 'their old system'.

 

[MagooTheRoo]

The McIntyre system is a joke. The concept of staying in the finals 'if other results go your way' doesn't make any sense. That's how you get into the finals and any uncertainty should end once you're there. The consequeces of winning or losing any given final should be a certainty for the teams involved before the game starts.

McIntyre had a good idea in 1930 (the final 4 system). By the time they went back to him for a final 8 system he'd lost the plot.

 

[A Living God]

the so-called 'AFL' system was actually the old 'ARL' system of 1995 and 1996.

But the AFL's current top 8 is really just an expansion of the VFL's old top 4 which they had 23 years before the NSWRL.

 

[red+black]

McIntyre had a good idea in 1930 (the final 4 system). By the time they went back to him for a final 8 system he'd lost the plot.

He was a bit older lol! Why on earth would they have asked the same guy 60 years later what he thinks?

I think he was still professing the merits of the original McIntyre Final 8 system on his death bed.

 

[eddiesmith]

The McIntyre system is a joke. The concept of staying in the finals 'if other results go your way' doesn't make any sense. That's how you get into the finals and any uncertainty should end once you're there. The consequeces of winning or losing any given final should be a certainty for the teams involved before the game starts.

McIntyre had a good idea in 1930 (the final 4 system). By the time they went back to him for a final 8 system he'd lost the plot.

Its not like you can get eliminated if you win

It adds some fun to the series and they dont have games in week 1 that no one cares about like the AFL does

 

[BillBailey]

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.

I know how the seeding works. I don't agree with it.

 

[BillBailey]

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.

Because the Storm battled for 26 rounds to finish on top of the table, and all that should count for nothing more than a second chance? My argument isn't so much that the Storm have to play in Brisbane, more that the 8th placed Warriors get a home final.

If the Dragons had beaten the Sea Eagles, both the 8th and 7th placed sides would have received home finals. How would that be fair, when both the Storm and Sea Eagles were the two best sides this season.

And why am I continuing to argue my point?

 

[eddiesmith]

Because the Storm battled for 26 rounds to finish on top of the table, and all that should count for nothing more than a second chance? My argument isn't so much that the Storm have to play in Brisbane, more that the 8th placed Warriors get a home final.

If the Dragons had beaten the Sea Eagles, both the 8th and 7th placed sides would have received home finals. How would that be fair, when both the Storm and Sea Eagles were the two best sides this season.

And why am I continuing to argue my point?

If they are the best team then why cant they beat the team who just scraped into the finals?

And why shouldnt the Warriors be rewarded for beating the top side?

 

[Hornet]

If they are the best team then why cant they beat the team who just scraped into the finals?

And why shouldnt the Warriors be rewarded for beating the top side?

The Warriors were rewarded by remaining in the finals race. They or whoever finish 8th deserve no more than that.

I don't have a problem with the McIntyre final 8 system except the re-ranking of teams after week one.

 

[that_dood]

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.

I want every grand final at the MCG. It is the best stadium in Australia. Everyone wants to play the grand final their. I bet the AFL players didn't grow up wanting to play in a grand final at Subiaco.

 

[THE WHITE LION]

I prefer the AFL system. Why the nrl is using a system that the AFL dumped because it didn't work is beyond me.

 

[MARVELDC]

I prefer the AFL system. Why the nrl is using a system that the AFL dumped because it didn't work is beyond me.

It just shows you in what part of the body that the NRLs brains are.

 

[Coondogs]

The old Macintyre system is clearly flawed. I even heard "Rabid" Ray Warren make a derogatory reference to it, saying it was merely palmed off to the NRL by The AFL when we went to a better system.

 

[red+black]

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.

More of a national game than NRL. Remind me where the NRL grand final gets played?

And given that the AFL gifted you a premiership, you should probably keep quiet on issues of fairness.

 

[BillBailey]

If they are the best team then why cant they beat the team who just scraped into the finals?

Anyone can beat anyone on the day. It's a 50/50 contest in the end.

 

[Hawkk]

The old Macintyre system is clearly flawed. I even heard "Rabid" Ray Warren make a derogatory reference to it, saying it was merely palmed off to the NRL by The AFL when we went to a better system.

Which begs the question, why did they change to it when we droped it for their system?

 

[Patronus]

Which begs the question, why did they change to it when we droped it for their system?

Because they are idiots who will deny anything is wrong until they are red in the face.

It has taken them until this year to admit there are problems in getting free to air tv in Melbourne before midnight. Now all we need for them to do is force a change, but they seem content to watch their sport go backwards.

 

[mcgarnacle]

But the AFL's current top 8 is really just an expansion of the VFL's old top 4 which they had 23 years before the NSWRL.

It's the (Page) Ken McIntyre's Final 4...........just like it was Ken McIntyre's Final 5..........and Ken McIntyre's Finals 6's...............and Ken McIntyre's Final 8. The VFL/AFL came up with jack shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_System

Anyway, i am in 100% agreement with Dan26.

Finals should be playoffs. The very fact that the there's no advantage of the double chance in a preliminary final or a Grand Final for teams that have not used it thus far in the finals is a major flaw. It allows 3rd-ranked and 4th-ranked teams who lose a wk 1 final to have another crack at 1st-ranked and 2nd-ranked teams (as is the case this season), where the 1st-ranked and 2-ranked teams will now be hugely disadvantaged in the event of a loss for either of them. They do not get to take advantage of an 'off' day.

So based on this, arguments from the double-chance proponents that you have to be the best team on the day is hypocritical in the extreme.

A Dogs or Saints premiership will be seen as inferior in my eyes.......just like the Eagles premiership of '96 (losing the QF to the Swans, albeit be a point).........just like the Lions premiership of 2003 (losing the QF to the Pies)....just like the Crows premiership of '98 (getting flogged by Melb in the QF to the Dees).......etc. People will counter that those premierships were won according to the systems in place at the time, but the systems were wrong to begin with.

The double chance in finals is very much an Australian Football invention through the old Argus systems which were then streamlined by Ken McIntyre.

All finals should be playoffs. The End.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

It's the (Page) Ken McIntyre's Final 4...........just like it was Ken McIntyre's Final 5..........and Ken McIntyre's Finals 6's...............and Ken McIntyre's Final 8. The VFL/AFL came up with jack shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_System

Anyway, i am in 100% agreement with Dan26.

Finals should be playoffs. The very fact that the there's no advantage of the double chance in a preliminary final or a Grand Final for teams that have not used it thus far in the finals is a major flaw. It allows 3rd-ranked and 4th-ranked teams who lose a wk 1 final to have another crack at 1st-ranked and 2nd-ranked teams (as is the case this season), where the 1st-ranked and 2-ranked teams will now be hugely disadvantaged in the event of a loss for either of them. They do not get to take advantage of an 'off' day.

So based on this, arguments from the double-chance proponents that you have to be the best team on the day is hypocritical in the extreme.

A Dogs or Saints premiership will be seen as inferior in my eyes.......just like the Eagles premiership of '96 (losing the QF to the Swans, albeit be a point).........just like the Lions premiership of 2003 (losing the QF to the Pies)....just like the Crows premiership of '98 (getting flogged by Melb in the QF to the Dees).......etc. People will counter that those premierships were won according to the systems in place at the time, but the systems were wrong to begin with.

The double chance in finals is very much an Australian Football invention through the old Argus systems which were then streamlined by Ken McIntyre.

All finals should be playoffs. The End.

They have got an advantage, they got a week off.

 

[Ashb23]

The one thing I would do in AFL is re-seed after week 1. So instead of Dogs (3rd) playing Syd (6th) and Saints (4th) playing Collingwood (8th), I would have had Dogs V Pies and Saints V Swans. I think the prelims have to stay as they are, which is strange (1 is playing 3 and 2 playing 4), but better than repeat finals.

 

[MARVELDC]

Because they are idiots who will deny anything is wrong until they are red in the face.

It has taken them until this year to admit there are problems in getting free to air tv in Melbourne before midnight. Now all we need for them to do is force a change, but they seem content to watch their sport go backwards.

Keep it at that time, or better still NOT ON AT ALL.

What are you on about Rugby League IS a backward sport.

 

[Dan26]

Because the Storm battled for 26 rounds to finish on top of the table, and all that should count for nothing more than a second chance?

Hell, I think thre Storm got off lightly. They should be eliminated.

If the 4 completed games were all knockout "quarter finals", we could now
have two knockout Preliminary Finals with Manly (2nd) vs Warriors (8th) and Cronulla (3rd) vs Broncos (5th) to get into the Grand Final. Like the NBA playoffs, where all teams are treated the same exceot for A.) seeding and B.) Home ground advantage

Why even have a second chance? Manly won't get a second chance if they lose their Preliminary Final. Neither will Geelong or Hawthorn. Nor should they. Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances.

If you lose a final, and are allowed to continue that team should count themselves very, VERY fortunate. Double chances are a blight on the game. I hate them. HATE! Storm lost. They didn't perform on the day. Finals are about performng on the day. They should be eliminated, just like Geelong can be if they lose after one loss. What's the difference?

My argument isn't so much that the Storm have to play in Brisbane, more that the 8th placed Warriors get a home final.

They (the Warriors) have to get a home final. They are playing the 4th placed team who LOST. Why should that team (the Roosters) host the match? Hell, seven of the 9 finals are knockout so a team is fortunate enough to be in it at all if they lose. Now you want the Roosters to get a home final in ADDITION to losing?

Isn't just being allowed to continue without being eliminated after a loss a huge advantage in itself? You want the Roosters to not be eliminated, yet also get home ground advantage versus the team that beat 1st after they themselves lost to 5th. See, how ridiculous it would now appear to take home ground advantage away from the Warriors and give it to the Roosters? It would be a disgrace.

The Warriors are one of the 4 winners. They therefore become one of the top 4 seeds. If you are a top 4 seed, you deserve a home final.

If it was total knockout the Warriors wouldn't have got a home final, because Manly would host the warriors in one Prelim, while Cronulla would host the Broncos in the other.

Double chances, once again stuff everything up and create this controversy.

See how much better the total knockout would have been.

a.) You'd be happy because the Warriors would not get a home final for the next match.

b.) the Storm would be eliminated after one loss, which is no big deal, because the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF or GF anyway.

 

[Father Jack]

You essentially have two finals series, one where the aim is to get to the prelim, and one where the aim is to win the flag. The double chance is in the first, but not the second. In the old days you had the race to the GF (where there was the double chance), and then the GF itself where the double chance wasn't utilised. The NFL has a week off first up for the top teams, which in itself is just a variation on the theme. Once in though, they can't have a bad day, which is the situation that the Hawks and Cats now find themselves in.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

You essentially have two finals series, one where the aim is to get to the prelim, and one where the aim is to win the flag. The double chance is in the first, but not the second. In the old days you had the race to the GF (where there was the double chance), and then the GF itself where the double chance wasn't utilised. The NFL has a week off first up for the top teams, which in itself is just a variation on the theme. Once in though, they can't have a bad day, which is the situation that the Hawks and Cats now find themselves in.

yep thats a pretty good way of putting it. the current finals system provides a good balance in my opinion. revenue and "maintaining interest" considerations make, say, a final four unviable. they way it is setup now basically gives the top 4 after the h & a season two shots at playing off in the final 4. 5 to 8 play off for the right to challenge to play off in the final four

home finals (sometimes meaningless) and weeks rest add to balancing of advantage towards the teams that finished higher in the h & a

whether double chances are a good or a bad thing is surely subjective. it appears that most people are quite happy with double chances a few dislike them and one grade a knob hates them. HATES THEM.

there is surely no case for change