What is the best and fairest Finals system?
Roar Guru By David Wiseman, 18 Sep 2009 David Wiseman is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, finals football, NRL, Rugby League
Jamie Soward is chased down by Sika Manu during NRL Round 19, Melbourne Storm vs St George Illawarra Dragons, at Olympic Park, Melbourne, Monday, July 21, 2008. Melbourne won 26-0. AAP Image/Action Photographics/Jeff Crow
St George are the best team after 24 weeks, and now have to play a final in Brisbane. Similarly, the Titans had four more wins than Parramatta and now have to play in Sydney, though not at the Eels’ home ground.
What is the best Finals systems?
With so many things to consider, it is a complicated thing to answer. On top of everything, you have to factor in ground availability, scheduling and television requirements.
Wayne Bennett was on the record beforehand as saying that he wasn’t a fan of the system the NRL uses and he became even less of one following the Dragons’ defeat.
What would Melbourne be thinking?
They have the week off and host the preliminary final, but had they lost to Manly, they would have switched places with the Sea Eagles.
Had the NRL being using the old system, which the AFL currently uses, the first week would have seen St George host Melbourne, the Bulldogs play the Titans at ANZ, Parramatta travelling to Brookvale and Newcastle taking on the Broncos in Brisbane.
The biggest difference here would have been that the top four are guaranteed a home final in the second week.
In the AFL this year, it has been pretty calm.
Having four Victorian sides in the top four meant that only two of the nine finals would be interstate and both of those were in the first week, when it is actually a good thing to have some games away from the MCG.
The Magpies weren’t happy when they had to play a Crows side who had two extra days rest, but that isn’t much of an issue now since Collingwood won.
The AFL was even prepared to have flexible preliminary finals this year had an interstate side still been playing.
The Lions are still smarting after having to play their 2004 Preliminary final in Melbourne on a Saturday night in a game which should have been at the Gabba.
This gave them two days less than Port to prepare.
If not one of these two systems for the top 8, what else is there?
The double chance seems to be ingrained in the Australian sporting psyche, so it seems unlikely that either of the football codes would ever revert to the NFL playoffs method where it is sudden-death from the get go and the top two teams receive the benefit of a first round bye.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, finals football, NRL, Rugby League
September 18th 2009 @ 8:43am
Savvas Tzionis said | September 18th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Final 5 was, is,will always be the best.
The rest is money making rubbish.
That’s it. No discussion is further warranted.
September 18th 2009 @ 11:30pm
David Wiseman said | September 18th 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
There isn’t too much of an advantage to the side finishing first? They may only play two games in September – receiving the benefit of a week off twice.
September 19th 2009 @ 1:53pm
danwighton said | September 19th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Final 5 = no eels, no broncos, but Manly and Titans get to be there? That would a crime against entertainment and logic in a 16 team comp. Top 8 is the way to go.
September 18th 2009 @ 9:06am
AndyRoo said | September 18th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Also love the final 5
but if it is to be a top 8 I think you can only offer rewards for the first week. If St George kept getting rewards in the second week even though they lost (at home to 8th place) then you decrease the incentive for actually winning that first round game.
You want both teams going at each other full bore and the more comforts you provide to the losing teams the less it hurts them to lose.
I think we saw that mentally with Parramata that being in a suddne death position lifts the players.
September 18th 2009 @ 11:40am
LT80 said | September 18th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
That’s strange logic Andy. First you say that you like a final 5 which only rewards the top performing teams over the season. But then you say with a top 8, you would give those 3 extra teams more advantages rather than less, to progress to the Grand Final.
Although I do get your point about wanting to see high intensity games where everything is on the line.
Ultimately our footy season is a hybrid between first past the post and a knock-out comp, which attempts to capture the best elements of both. There will always be a case to give greater emphasis on one or the other, and personally I would like to see more emphasis given to the results of the 24 games of the home and away season.
September 18th 2009 @ 10:30am
Warren Vargas said | September 18th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
The AFL had the same issues when the final 8 came in and found it to be unfair, The NRL need to change like the AFL did and have a final system where the top 4 teams are looked after and is a fairer system 1 v 4, 2 v 3, 5 v 8, 6 v 7
Once they change, the debate will end as there is nothing to debate, but if they don’t, every year when a top 4 team loses in the first week of finals it will come up again.
September 18th 2009 @ 10:39am
wallythefly said | September 18th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
true but if your number 1 team after TWENTY SIX rounds you deserve to be able to drop a game and not totally lose all the hard work ovre that time
September 18th 2009 @ 8:44pm
Fly on the Wall said | September 18th 2009 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
Hey Wally, you’re creeping dangerously close to identity theft. I’m the original, the expert and the ones who upsets the punters!
But I agree with you totally on the home ground point.
The AFL does, too, which is why the higher ranked team retains said advantage.
In AFL, as someone has said, all the Melbourne teams are out of MCG or Docklands so the issue really only matters when dealing with interstate contests, but in the NRL every team wants to maximise the home feel – hence St G playing out of Kogarah in week 1 and not SFS or ANZ.
26 weeks of hard slog should not be thrown out the window after one loss.
Otherwise draw the opponents out of a hat.
The governing body has to choose – a wide open finals month in which ladder position doesn’t really matter, thus generating possibly more excitement and interest than usual – or a more ordered series in which 6 months of effort is rewarded.
Funny that we have the former rather than the latter.
September 18th 2009 @ 12:27pm
oikee said | September 18th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Mate, i must be the only person who loves this system, its so hard to understand, maybe just do what they have in place with the super league system, allow the top team to pick the team who they want to play week one. Who cares, as far as i am concerned the best team will win the final regardless. The bonus for Stowm and Brisbane fans, we get to at least see a good semi. Top teams playing lower teams still draw good crowds , and it gives you more hope being in a top 8 system, imagine if the broncos or Eels missed out this year.? Because of a top 5 system.
September 18th 2009 @ 12:38pm
AndyRoo said | September 18th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
With the Macintyre system though and you have 1st v 8th. 8th place is in knockout mode so you know they will be up for it but if home ground advantage carries on with 1st place then all they are playing for is a week off. Which used to sound like a big advantage but hasn’t played out that way and I am not sure if it is enough to overcome the “not the end of the world if we lose” factor. I think it’s that factor that I am worried about and probably the flaw of the whole Macintyre system in that you aren’t getting anything guaranteed for your win if your in the mid positions.
With the weird seeding it all looks all over the place in week two where I am not sure who deserves home ground advantage.
If say the Titans won and Manly won would it be fair for 5th place Manly who won away from home in their first week of finals to have to play away from home to the Dragons who lost?
If they moved wholeheartedly back to the system the AFL now uses with the top 4’s home ground advantage carrying on I would be fine with that.
September 18th 2009 @ 12:49pm
LK said | September 18th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Each system suits their respective codes reasonably well. In the AFL this year 5 v 8 resulted in a 16 goal win to the Crows. What would 1 v 8 been like? Absolutely terrible! The Saints could have beaten the Dons by 25+ goals. In the NRL the absolute difference in quality isn’t as great between 1st and 8th. This year, and last year, 1 v 8 were great games of footy with the underdog getting up. I like the unpredictably of McIntyre in NRL. The top 4 in AFL get guranteed home finals in week 2 if they lose, that also seems fair. I also like top eight because there are two preliminary finals on the same weekend. No team gets the advantage of going into the GF with a week off.
September 18th 2009 @ 12:52pm
AndyRoo said | September 18th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
But how do you sell the game to Manly. What were they playing for on Friday Night “‘you might be eliminated but probably not”.
September 18th 2009 @ 1:26pm
LK said | September 18th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Isn’t that the case in either system?
September 18th 2009 @ 3:20pm
MyGeneration said | September 18th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Surely they should have been treating it as an elimination game. I’m sure that’s what Des Hasler would have wanted them to think.
September 18th 2009 @ 3:25pm
AndyRoo said | September 18th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
But the players deep down would have known they were likely to still be in the comp.
It’s like training, when your told your supposed to treat it like a real game, you try but it’s not the same.
September 18th 2009 @ 3:34pm
MyGeneration said | September 18th 2009 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
I think it shows the difference between Manly this year and last – attitude has been hot and cold all year. Still don’t think a team with the right stuff would have any problem switching on.
September 18th 2009 @ 4:07pm
LK said | September 18th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
You’re right. Teams really shouldn’t be lacking motivation in Sept.
September 18th 2009 @ 4:10pm
AndyRoo said | September 18th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
There only human.
Look at it this way, there would have been much more tears on Friday night if they knew they were eliminated…the Macintyre system deprived us of Manly tears!
September 18th 2009 @ 1:32pm
Dogs Of War said | September 18th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
By simply adding 1 week (so 5 weeks finals all up) and reverting to week 2 of the old top 5 by week 3, all the current flaws get eliminated and all top 4 sides gain 2 bites regardless of any results. All bottom 4 play constant elimination as they should. It’s fair and all matches mean something.
In this example assume the highest ranked team wins but remember no matter who wins the top 4 all get 2 bites and the bottom 4 always play sudden death.
E = elimination
WEEK 1 (HOME team 1st)
1 v 4
2 v 3
(winners above advance to GF qualifier week 3, losers get home advantage in week 2 v bottom 4 winners which is more reward for their top 4 finish)
5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E
WEEK 2 (HOME team 1st)
3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E
WEEK 3 (all games from now on neutral venues and the system now flows EXACTLY as it did from week 2 of the old top 5 from here on)
1 v 2 (winner advances to the Grand Final, loser gets their 2nd bite nxt wk)
3 v 4 E
WEEK 4
2 v 3 E
WEEK 5
1 v 2 (Grand Final)
There were no where near the arguments with the old top 5 system, and this system rewards every team appropriately I don’t think the minor premiership is as important as it used to be, mainly because of the impact State Of Origin can have to teams in the middle of the season.
September 18th 2009 @ 1:49pm
AndyRoo said | September 18th 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
In the now AFL system they would have played Parramatta at Brookvale, loser is eliminated.