For instance, this year, something like 7 of 9 finals would have been played at the MCG – so that helps out in future years when there might need to be less finals at the MCG because of the interstate teams doing better.

The two losers of week one do not, which means that St George has lost the right to a home final despite finishing first.

In the AFL system, the losers from the top 4 play offs retain home ground advantage as a reward for having finished in the top 4.

Mind you, the AFL system has at least one negative – neither top 8 system is perfect – that’s for sure.

Storm will host Semifinal on AFL Grand Final day.

Then I think the AFL have the right system in place then.

I would love the NRL to adapt it because the possibility of a home semi final for Auckland, Canberra, Townsvillle and Brisbane would be fantastic for the game.

But in years gone by, West Coast has ended up playing an away prelim (when they deserved home ground advantage) on at least one occasion – all due to the contractual obligation with the MCG – which I think has now been rectified.

When 4th plays 5th under the McIntryre 9 seasons out of 10, the game means nothing at all.

I’m not going to call that a dead rubber – but it’s pretty damn close.

the capacity to earn a weeks rest and get to go directly to the Prelim final……that’s a reward that’s hardly a ‘dead rubber’ reward,

and the loser risks going out in straight sets, and has to win 3 in 3 weeks to win the flag.

However, I’ll admit, I didn’t overly mind the old format that the NRL are running with, esp when in ’97 North at 7th rolled Geel at 2nd. The Cats then dropped a game in Adelaide to fall out, and the Roos got over the Eagles but were no match for StKilda come the Prelim.

Geelong had exercised their ‘double chance’, alas, their ‘home ground advantage’ was non-existent, hosting North at night at the MCG.

I don’t really think 1 week of is always a big advantage. It is for some teams but it also strikes me as unfair that say Westcoast could finish first then beat 4th place in the first week by 100 goals but come the Semi final they might end up playing a Melbourne team in Melbourne.

Would make for some great stories, for instance in the NRL that would mena Melbourne gets ahome semifinal which would be good for the game.

Personally, I like the certainty of knowing what the result of your game means immediately.

The 4th vs 5th game is an odd scenario – it might mean absolutely nothing (in most seasons) – or like this year – it mean something completely different!

In the AFL, I think we value all top 4 teams getting the double chance. I think it’s incorrect to describe them as dead rubbers – the winner gets the week off and goes directly to the prelim – and history shows that the majority of premiers take this root.

That rant over; personally, I feel the top five is still enough. Finals should be for the elite teams, not mid-table ones.
As for tanking, and I don’t believe its real (resting players for next season, yes; playing to lose, no); the finals are not the place to fix that. There may be other methods, eliminating the draft is the best of these.

Don’t ask me how or why it happened, but funnily enough, they appear to suit each comp quite well.

Re the knock out format (as happens in cup comps around the world), this might sound bizarre, but I have sometimes wondered if you had, say, a 20 team comp – whether a top 16 with straight out knock out would work.

The idea of the regular season becomes to work out your ranking for the finals, much lke the tennis ranking system, and clearly you get a bigger advantage the higher up you finish the season (as you should).

Very radical – but there’s a nice symmetry to a straight knock out system from 16 teams .

BTW Pip dogs need a key forward to go further, that is quite obvious, good luck though.

“preliminary final” kinda worked in the days when it was wedged in b/w the semi finals and the GF. Now, the 2 prelim final system effectively is a true semi final round – - which means the week 2 matches that we’ve just had this weekend should perhaps be ‘qualifying finals’ and the 4 week 1 matches perhaps should be ‘quarter finals’ = = = although, 2 are elimination and 2 are qualifying…..

…..so, the naming convention is all over the shop.

A straight knockout tournament doesn’t really work though….if team 1 plays 8 and loser gets knocked out – - the move to that from a traditional ‘double chance’ reward would not be popular – - that killed the AFL final 6 system when 3rd placed StKilda got knocked out by Collingwood….every other year 3rd place earned a double chance in week 1.