NRL and AFL top eight systems are unfair
Roar Guru Related coverage
The NRL and AFL top eight places are determined on the for/against differential model. This is an unacceptable system given the season’s imbalanced and unfair draws.
Teams don’t play each other twice, some play easybeat teams just once and in NRL’s case State of Origin skews results and margins.
At the moment when two or more teams finish on the same points their allocated position on the Top 8 table is determined by points differential.
In the NFL where the 32 teams do not play each other twice, the play-off positions of teams finishing on equal points are separated by tie-breaker rules.
In the first instance it just comes down whether Team A beat Team B during the season.
If they played twice then the combined scores are added to calculate a winner.
In the AFL some teams have played GWS twice, others have not had this opportunity to pile on the points.
In the NRL during the State of Origin period and just after some teams usually strong opponents were easily beatable.
In the NRL, Bulldogs and Storm could finish in equal first place this weekend, but Melbourne’s superior for/against will give them the minor premiership trophy even though in the cumulative two match total they lost to Canterbury 26-16.
Manly beat both the Cowboys and Rabbitohs in regular season but if the three teams finish on equal points for third to fifth place, Manly has the worse for/against and miss the Top four.
Souths beat North Queensland but that counts for nothing to decide play-off places.
When two or more teams finish in equal eighth place the team with the inferior for/against will be relegated to ninth place even though they may have twice thrashed the 8th place team during the season.
Both the NRL and AFL should fix this for 2013 by looking at the NFL model.
The NFL system essentially replaces a mid week play-off between the two teams to decide places.
The NFL tie-breaker rules address the unfairness of the imbalance in for/against due to teams not playing two complete rounds and also makes winning individual matches against rival teams during the season very important.
It is a joke and unfair that teams don’t play each twice during the season.
It is a bigger joke that the top eight systems of the AFL and NRL still use a points differential system.
This worked when everyone played everyone twice, but is outdated in the current draw.
What do you think Roarers? Which is the fairer system?
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- AFL, NRL, Rugby League
August 28th 2012 @ 8:27am
eagleJack said | August 28th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Completely agree with you. Some teams point differentials are certainly skewed by playing “easy” teams twice. I would have no issues with the NFL system being introduced. And as you say it would make games against potential Top 8 sides far more important during the season as a win propels you into a higher position if you happen to finish equal.
One question. Manly and Souths didn’t play until Round 23. If say in Round 22 they are both on equal points. Who sits in a higher position on the ladder? Essentially it doesn’t really matter as this system comes into effect at the end of Round 26 but just curious.
August 28th 2012 @ 8:34am
Billo Boy said | August 28th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
I don’t in the NFL anyone bothers with the f/a differential when they show tables. It would have to be a modification of the NFL system if the AFL or NRL tried to use it. A 100% application of the NFL model wouldn’t work as they break up into divisions, conferences and two leagues.
August 28th 2012 @ 8:33am
George said | August 28th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
You come up with a valid point but i think we should stick to what we got.
For the common person, Its easier to understand without trying to figure out who beat who in round 3 and it awards teams who score more points and conceed less thus being a more entertaining spectacle.
August 28th 2012 @ 8:40am
Kasey said | August 28th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
I can’t speak for NRL, but the simple solution is for the AFL to have a 17 round season, padded out by a few byes/split rounds here and there. 34=balanced draw with teams playing each other twice is too much for the players to handle and still have a career longer than 3 years , so one around seems the only fair solution. However the media deal probably specifies the exact amount of ‘product’ that needs to be available for the contract to be fulfilled on the AFL’s behalf so probably won’t happen.
Of course, the AFL could just continue expanding to extend the season. I’m sure there are plans for a NZ team just to reinforce how much they don’t care for Tasmania’s chances. I have to say that I like the idea of the NFL tie breakers(who defeated whom) replacing the % differential.
August 28th 2012 @ 4:24pm
Brewski said | August 28th 2012 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
The season can’t really be expanded because of cricket committments at quite a few grounds, and FWIW i would not like to see the season expanded, 6/7 months of football is great, then we can watch/participate in other sports etc, and when the new season rolls around we are waiting in anticiaption.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:21am
Cugel said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
For and against is like competition points, just with a different metric – it measures a team against all other teams (as opposed to just one or two). The NRL, until recently, did have a fair draw (on paper), it hasn’t been comprised too much I don’t think. As for SOO, if there is a warping of outcomes there, it’s the actual results that are the problem, not fluctuations in the scorelines.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:27am
nk7792 said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
The idea is fine, but I doubt it would make much difference as to who wins the comp at the end of the season and thus, it appears a change for the mere sake of having a change.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:37am
Meesta Cool said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Wake up guys. for years we have been unhappy with the Mcintyre system.. this move had to happen and is the fairest solution as long as you have teams scraping into the eight (some by mere points difference) then having the ‘right’ to play in the final series.
As for playing weakest teams — the weakest teams beat Storm and Manly and Bulldogs this year!..
There should be a qualifying points total to get into the finals.. but that could never work. So this iIS the fairest option. The teams in top 4 get the reward for their season’s efforts. — The lower teams have to fight harder for glory!.
August 28th 2012 @ 10:10am
eagleJack said | August 28th 2012 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I think the headline has mislead you. The article is not debating the merits of the McIntyre v the new system.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:39am
Pot Stirrer said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Dont know if it could work but what if at this stage of the season the NRL looks at all the games and decide the for and against on playing each team once on the first meeting if they have played twice. Could be complicated but i agree it is very unfair and if some gets eigth position on for and against it will be interesting to know if all things were equal would they still have got in.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:48am
Gaz said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
At the end of the day you will have two of the ‘better’ teams palying off in the final. The talk about the Broncos, Tigers Titans needing other results to go there way is a nonsence. These teams are all imposters and do not deserve to be be in the top eight. The Dogs, Storm, Eagles, Souths and Cowboys are all a level above the rest and deserve to be where they are. It’s a good comp this year and for those relying on points for and against your simply not good enough.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:56am
Billo Boy said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
If we accept that under the AFL & now NRL model winning from outside the Top 4 is improbable then something needs to be done to be fairer to decide when 4th and 5th place finish on even points.
It can hardly be fair in AFL that a team can come 4th thanks to belting Giants twice (8 points on table plus differential boost) & getting Collingwood or Swans once & losing, while the 5th placed team got the Giants just once & Collingwood or Swans twice & lost twice.
Nothing will be fair under the present AFL & NRL Top 8s unless the teams meet twice. That can’t happen so something fairer should be devised.
August 28th 2012 @ 9:57am
turbodewd said | August 28th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
The only thing I dont like about the NRL or AFL finals system is that the first round of playoffs is a waste of time for the top 4. Noone can be eliminated. Sounds fine, but it kills crowds. You can expect people to watch their team on so many consecutive weeks.
It should be all sudden death to maximise crowds.
1st hosts 8th, 2nd hosts 7th, etc. All sudden death. No excuses. Bring your A game. No mercy or forgiveness to losers. You dont get a 2nd bite at the cherry at the Olympics nor in the NFL.
I mean after the first week its sudden death anyway, with dither with this extra round of games?!