ARLC vindicated in McIntyre scrapping
David Gallop has resigned as NRL boss (Image: AAP)
Related coverage
The ARL Commission claims its decision to scrap the McIntyre finals system has been vindicated with the top four all securing preliminary finals berths for the first time in history.
Not since the NRL moved away from its long-held top five in 1995 have the leading four sides all progressed through to the penultimate weekend of the season.
That included 13 seasons of the McIntyre system, which was often criticised for its failure to give enough of an advantage to those sides that had been the most consistent throughout the regular season.
But with the ARL Commission choosing to adopt the AFL’s top-eight system – which splits the finalists into a top and bottom tier – the top four finally won the right to battle it out for the two grand final berths on offer.
“The rewards which the top four received in receiving home finals week one and two has been a success,” ARLC director of football operations Nathan McGuirk told AAP.
“It justifies their position on the table that they receive that benefit.
“Before we made the decision we consulted the clubs and the large majority of them were in support of moving away from the McIntyre system.
“The consensus was that the top four required a greater reward for their efforts during the year and that’s what this system has delivered.”
The NRL actually used the current system in 1995 and 1996 when only two of the top four progressed through to the final four, while in all but one season of the McIntyre system – used from 1999 to 2011 – three of the top four sides reached the preliminary final.
Should this year’s results continue, there could be an argument the system gives too much of an advantage to the top four.
That certainly appears to be the case in the AFL, where 50 of the 52 preliminary finalists since the current system was introduced in 2000 have been top four sides.
© AAP 2013
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- ARLC, NRL, Rugby League
September 17th 2012 @ 9:37am
Cameron said | September 17th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
“That certainly appears to be the case in the AFL, where 50 of the 52 preliminary finalists since the current system was introduced in 2000 have been top four sides.”
Makes you wonder why a top 8, besides all the $$$$$.
September 17th 2012 @ 10:13am
Horatio said | September 17th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I thought the new Commission was supposed to show more analytical skill. There has been one year of this so its hardly a system verification. Besides the AFL has more interstate finals so the higher ranked teams usually have greater advantages. If it was a truly fair system Manly would play at home last weekend not at Allianz. If Manly had beaten Bulldogs in the first semi, then they wouldnt get to play at home from then on. Its just lucky the teams that play at ANZ are there this week.
September 18th 2012 @ 1:49pm
Haz said | September 18th 2012 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Their desire for media props probably trumps logical analysis right here.
I think the current finals system is good, but the reality is that the ARLC got really really lucky with the way the draw worked out. Think about how many marketable plots they’ve had:
* Week 1 finals in 4 different states/territories
* Souths v. Melbourne, Bellamy vs Maguire, apprentice vs master
* Manly vs Des Hasler,
* an all-Queensland Derby
* Manly v. Melbourne, replaying 07 and 08 grand finals, Donnybrookvale
* Canterbury v. Souths, arguably the two most popular teams in Sydney
And regardless of the outcome of the two games this weekend, you’ll have a popular Sydney team in the finals, and an unpopular but successful team.
September 18th 2012 @ 6:25pm
Australian Rules said | September 18th 2012 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Completely agree Haz…and well set out.
I think it’s been a dream finals draw for the NRL.
September 17th 2012 @ 10:42am
turbodewd said | September 17th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
If the McIntyre system was so good then why have our playoff crowds been pretty ordinary. Shouldnt all playoffs be sellouts?!?!?!?
Souths @ Melb – 19,000 (capacity for AAMI is 28,000)
Cron @ Canb – 24,000 (very good, limit is 26,000)
Manly @ Bulldogs – 35,000 ordinary for 2 Syd teams
Bris @ NQld – very good crowd
NQld v Manly @ SFS – 16,000 (poor, should have been at Brookvale or Blue Tongue)
Canb @ Souths – 35,000 (I though Souths were the most popular team in the league?!)
Basically if you want McIntyre youll get average crowds. If you want awesome crowds you need less games, i.e sudden death. What fan will attend so many games in consecutive weeks!? You cant, so u have to pick and choose. The regular season would only see a home game every fortnight on average.
Ill take quality over quantity any day.
September 17th 2012 @ 12:46pm
Matt F said | September 17th 2012 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
You realise that the two games over the weekend were kncokout games right? Given that you’ve just classified both crowds as poor, it doesn’t exactly help your “every game should be knockout” reasoning
September 17th 2012 @ 12:47pm
Australian Rules said | September 17th 2012 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
turbo
Blaming the McIntyre system for small crowds is a bit rich. Unfortunately, small crowds are just a fact of life for the NRL.
Manly v NQ was a sudden death final and it attracted just 16k…to be fair, 16k is one par with Manly’s biggest crowd of the year. People that expected 25k to turn up at SFS (finals or not) were just delusional.
The MacIntyre system rewards the teams that have performed consistently all year. That’s the big selling point. It gives the top teams a home final AND a chance at a week off. It marries the regular season with the finals series better than any other system.
You say: “What fan will attend so many games in consecutive weeks!?”
Well, if you’re a fan and your team is in the finals, is it really an imposition to go? Further, if it was sudden death, the winning teams play on consecutive wknds anyway.
Are the crowds small? Yes. Is it the fault of the Mac system? Absolutely not – only the competition itself and the fans can control that.
btw…the AFL finals crowds have been disapointing also this year.
September 17th 2012 @ 2:37pm
Australian Rules said | September 17th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
oops…I was thrown by turbo’s comments…I defended the Mac system and obviously meant to defend the current AFL system as adopted by the ARLC.
September 18th 2012 @ 1:48pm
Chop said | September 18th 2012 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
To be fair (and not wanting to start a code war) the NRL actually used it first, then the AFL adopted it and the NRL went for the version used last year.
So the ARLC have gone back to the system they used originally when they implemented a top 8.
September 17th 2012 @ 3:47pm
turbodewd said | September 17th 2012 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
and Souths abused that reward by barely showing up vs Melbourne in the first game at AAMI. THis is coz they knew they could lose and have a home final in Sydney.
If you have so many games fans pick and choose about which ones to attend. The Manly v Bulldogs game, if sudden death, would have attracted far more than 35,000.
And this affects the following week where Manly hosted N.Qld. Some fans will have attended the Bulldogs game but decided to miss the NQld game.
September 17th 2012 @ 4:28pm
Australian Rules said | September 17th 2012 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
“The Manly v Bulldogs game, if sudden death, would have attracted far more than 35,000.”
I really can’t see what you’re basing that on.
The Manly v NQ game was sudden death and got 16k.
Round 8 Cant v Manly was a Friday night game at ANZ and drew less than 25k.
I’m not being snide turbo, but I think you’re overestimating the number of people willing to go to the footy in Sydney. (No doubt this week will see big crowds but Prelims are different)
September 17th 2012 @ 12:33pm
Roarsome said | September 17th 2012 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
“The ARL Commission claims its decision to scrap the McIntyre finals system has been vindicated with the top four all securing preliminary finals berths for the first time in history” If this is the criteria for vindication, why not just have a Top 4? Also, what message does that send to teams that finish 5 through 8. Thanks for coming, you’re here so fill the coffers by offering us more finals games to Channel 9, we do however expect you to lose. Terrible statement. Anything to try and take the focus of scrappy footy (Souths v Dogs) and inadequate officiating.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
September 17th 2012 @ 1:17pm
Smile said | September 17th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
“Anything to try and take the focus of scrappy footy (Souths v Dogs) and inadequate officiating.”
Whoa that’s a big call. Half of Australia are licking their lips in anticipation of this weekends games – particularly the big Sydney blockbuster. If you’re not exceited about the Bulldogs v Rabbits you should watch another sport and comment on that.
“what message does that send to teams that finish 5 through 8. Thanks for coming, you’re here so fill the coffers by offering us more finals games to Channel 9, we do however expect you to lose.”
They play all season to finish in the top four – they deserve the advantage. – the bottom 8 deserve a chance, of which they receive.
The system is fantastic!!
September 17th 2012 @ 2:19pm
Gr8rWeStr said | September 17th 2012 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
One season’s outcome is hardly sufficient to claim vindication.
I’m a fan of the McIntrye system over the AFL system. I maintain the AFL system over rewards the team finishing 4th and under rewards the teams finishing 1st and 5th. 4th and 5th can be decided on points differential and yet can make a huge difference to Premiership chances. If it was just top 4 there would at least be a play off between 4th and 5th. 1st has an identical path to Grand Final as 4th so little benefit, apart from prizemoney, in finishing 1st over 4th.
The AFL only scrapped the McIntyre system because of Melbourne, the oldest club, complained because they had a big win over Adelaide in a 4th v 5th McIntyre system play off but Adelaide went on to win the Premiership. Melbourne’s main complaint was actually that they had to play the team that finished 1st to get into the Grand Final.
Bring back the McIntyre System in both AFL and NRL!
September 17th 2012 @ 2:59pm
Horatio said | September 17th 2012 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
My view is the McIntyre was scrapped in the AFL was too many blowouts esp when team 8 had to travel interstate to play Team 1 (eg even in the new scheme North team 8 travelled to Perth and lost heavily to Team 5). However NRL prides itself on the games being more even because its your ball my ball situation and only the Warriors have to cross time zones so the the 8 beating 1 opens up the series…Friday night crowds (just too hard for most) have been poor but Channel Nine wont go saturday night and Sunday afternoon because they rely on friday night prime time… Have there been many Friday night NRL games at ANZ or Allianz to prove the point…
September 18th 2012 @ 9:35am
Gr8rWeStr said | September 18th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
During discussions on changes to the AFL season structure and the end of last season the only significant argument provided by the AFL for their current finals system was the ‘tragedy’ of Melbourne having missed out after a big win over the eventual winners.
September 17th 2012 @ 3:03pm
mushi said | September 17th 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
The irony of the ARLC’s self indulgent love is where they highlight “It justifies their position on the table that they receive that benefit”.
Correct me if I’m wrong but we now have 1st playing 3rd and 2nd playing 4th after every game going as per seeding.
Now if ladder position is supposed to reflect capability, haven’t 1st and 3rd been disadvantaged by the predicable outcome of the draw. How does someone, who is not violently allergic to logic, look at this system and say this is a system which rewards where you finish.
These comments to me show that McGuirk is either a liar or clueless when he lauds the reward aspects of a system that says coming second is better than first and third better than fourth.
September 17th 2012 @ 6:15pm
Mark Roth said | September 17th 2012 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
It could have been worse…
If 1 or 2 (but not both) lost in the first weekend and every other game went to form….
Melbourne and Canterbury would be playing each other this weekend for the right to play in the Grand Final.
September 18th 2012 @ 8:12am
mushi said | September 18th 2012 @ 8:12am | Report comment
But it’s a great system!
September 17th 2012 @ 3:27pm
Renegade said | September 17th 2012 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
I never had any issues with the McIntyre system….it rewarded the teams that finished top 4 with a home semi and that’s enough of an advantage plus the higher you finished the weaker your opposition in week 1 and vice-versa. From there on if they wanted to maintain their advantage (home ground) they would have to keep winning. Which is how it should be come finals time.
I’m not convinced that the new system is anything to feel vindicated about – not yet
September 17th 2012 @ 4:04pm
Horatio said | September 17th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
The NRL finals system was supposed to balance out because the Origin/Test series meant some teams were at below strength for up to six /eight week out of 24 games so a big competition evener. I’m not sure which is best for this problem…..
September 17th 2012 @ 6:17pm
Mark Roth said | September 17th 2012 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
If the NRL really wanted to consider imbalanced home and away results, the only really fair way would be make the top 8 a straight seven game knockout series where every team is out after its first loss. That way a team only needs to overcome any unfairness in the fixture lists by just finishing 8th.
I’m not saying that is a good idea. I’m just saying that if the tables are compromised by Origin, then that is what would need to be done overcome it.
September 17th 2012 @ 9:20pm
onside said | September 17th 2012 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
The big difference in all Australian football codes when compared with
other countries, is the scant recognition offered the ‘minor’ premier.
There’s nothing minor about finishing on top of the ladder.
Finishing on top at the end of the season in Australia counts for nothing
more than a finals birth.