Melbourne Storm coach Craig Bellamy overseeas a training session in Melbourne. AAP Image/Julian Smith
With the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL) just completing their seasons with their respective grand finals, just how fair are both competitions? Much of the discussion about fairness focuses on the different final eight systems used by the AFL and NRL.
This is despite both leagues eliminating two teams each week until two remain to fight out the grand final on the fourth week, after the top two ranked winning teams from the first round of finals advance straight to the third week (preliminary finals).
The AFL has a fairer top eight if one believes that the top four teams from the regular season should be guaranteed a double chance.
While both systems eliminate the two lowest ranking teams of the four losing teams during the first week of finals, the NRL system does not guarantee the survival of the 3rd and 4th ranked teams.
This is because the NRL, under the McIntyre Final Eight System since 1999, sees 1st play 8th, 2nd play 7th, 3rd play 6th, and 4th play 5th. In contrast, the AFL protects the top four teams given that 1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 3rd, 5th plays 8th, and 6th plays 7th.
Under the McIntyre system, when one includes the disqualified Melbourne Storm for salary cap breaches, the top two NRL teams have won six of 12 grand finals since 1999 (including St George 2010), and were runner up eight times.
NRL teams that finished outside the top four in the regular season won no premierships but finished runner-up on four occasions (including Sydney Roosters 2010).
When the AFL used the McIntyre system from 1994-1999 with its final eight, the top two teams won four of six flags and were runner-up on four occasions. Of the teams that finished outside the top four during the regular season, one won the premiership and two came runner-up.
In contrast, with the AFL using the different play-off system since 2000, the top two teams have won 9 of 11 flags (including Collingwood 2010) and finished runner up seven times. Since 2000, no AFL teams finishing outside the top four in the regular season has made the grand final.
But the main factor limiting fairness in the AFL and NRL is not the final eight system. Rather, it is the reality that all teams do not play each other twice given the ongoing expansion of teams and the physicality of the two sports.
In contrast, major soccer national leagues, even with many more teams, play each other twice. For instance, England’s Premier League with 20 teams play 38 matches.
At present, the AFL’s 16 team competition plays 22 matches (17 teams in 2011), and the NRL’s 16 teams play 24 matches each.
In a previous era, notably 1970-1986, the VFL/AFL draw was completely fair as the 12 clubs played each team twice (22 matches).
So what can be done about the AFL and NRL to make the competitions fairer in terms of deciding who plays who, given that it cannot be expected that leagues of 16-18 teams (by 2012) could not play 30-34 rounds because of the extreme physicality of such sports?
At present, both the AFL and NRL have no clear rules, openly supporting profit over fairness. The AFL especially ensures that the big teams play each other twice, as evident by Collingwood playing Essendon (including Anzac Day).
The NRL is similar with its chief operating officer Graham Annesley indicating in 2009 that “we have worked with the clubs to ensure that the draw takes into account the contests that fans most want to see”.
The National Football League (USA) provides an example of a greater fairness with its 32 teams playing 16 regular season matches.
With two conferences (American and National) each having four divisions of four teams, each team plays the other three teams in their division twice (home and away); plays four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle; plays four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle; and plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division each is already scheduled to play.
While this scheme would be impossible to apply in the Australian situation, there is one sensible way that the AFL and NRL could ensure some greater degree of fairness.
With each team playing all teams once, remaining matches could be rotated on a yearly basis to ensure that each plays every team twice every two to three years (depending on the number of teams).
Again this would not be a perfect proposal as the standard of each team waivers from year to year which means that some teams will face tougher draws from year to year. However, such an arrangement would at least provide a schedule that is fair and consistent to all teams.
There are other measures that encourage a degree of competition fairness, although there are critics. Despite the recent controversy associated with Melbourne Storm’s breach of the salary cap, both leagues ensure some fairness with such a scheme. With the AFL implementing a salary cap on its clubs since 1987, the 2010 competition allowed total player payments of about $8 million for the 2010 season. The NRL, which adopted a salary cap in its first season in 1998, had a level of about $4.7 million in 2010.
One important difference between the two leagues is that the AFL has a players draft whereas the NRL does not. While the NRL wants a draft, it has been unable to get the permission of the Rugby League Players Association, a reality evident since 1990 when the players successfully challenged in court the Australian Rugby League’s bid to introduce a salary cap and draft together on the basis of restraint of trade.
As the former Rugby League great, Ricky Stuart, points out, the salary cap was designed to work in tandem with a draft, and the AFL draft has been a great success after it gained agreement with their players’ association to provide concessions if the players didn’t challenge it.
As Carlton found out when cheating the salary cap in 2002, the $1 million fine was dwarfed, in effect, by it being penalised from obtaining future draft choices; it was only in recent years that the club has rebounded to play finals football.
Australia is lucky to have two great football codes. The AFL is the fourth most attended sporting league in the world in terms of average crowds (about 38,000 per game in 2010), while the NRL also enjoys a healthy average (about 17,000 in 2010).
Nevertheless, we can make the AFL and NRL fairer.
Do we simply go on promoting regular seasons that seek to maximise crowds, revenue, and preferences? Or do we adopt a set of rules to ensure that the competitions are made fairer in terms of who plays who on a consistent basis. I, for one, support the latter.
EvertonAndAustralia
Roar Pro
Have each team play each other once
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
Maybe in the NRL, but in the AFL my case stands. This is why I believe the AFL changed the system Why do you think 1 v 4 and 2 v3 are dead rubbers? Playing for a prelimary final spot and a week off is massive. Some of the best finals matches over the past few years have been these qualifying finals. "Also the top teams are given too easy a ride through the first week" eh? They play each other, how could they be given an easy ride? Sure the losers get a double chance but that is just reward for finishing top 4.
Fez's are cool
Guest
St George Illawarra vs Collingwood Sydney vs St Kilda First half RL rules, second half AFL - This would favour the RL boys as they would physically smash the AFL lads in the first half. First half AFL rules, second half RL - This would favour the AFL teams as they would wear the RL players out running around.
Fez's are cool
Guest
1 and 2 don't have it easy - last year and this year, 1 of the top 2 lost in the qualifying finals. The home venue and a weak oposition is their reward for finishing at the top. 7 & 8 don't do it too tough for teams that scrape in - Parra went all the way to the Grand Final last year from 8th spot! 4 vs 5 is not a waste of time - the loser of 4 vs 5 last year was eliminated (Warriors) and the winner got a bye week (Titans) Yes, progression is dependent on different results, but theres the catch: teams can't afford to lose in the NRL's system. The higher up you are more likely to get a second chance. The System is set up to reward winners first, ladder position second. The AFL system mollycoddles the top teams too much. Its finals - it should be all about winning - there are potential dead rubbers in 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Also, top teams are given too easy a ride through the first week. The reason bottom 4 teams don't make it is that its set up to boot them early. They don't really have much of a chance.
Fez's are cool
Guest
SOURCE?
Q
Guest
Having each team play each other once or twice a year still won't make for a fair draw while theres a glut of teams in the one city (AFL - Melbourne and NRL - Sydney). Not so bad in the NRL as its east coast only at this stage, but for the AFL with two WA teams its very significant.
Whites
Guest
1st AFL vs 1st NRL 2nd AFL vs 2nd NRL And so on the the winners go forward to the semis.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
So, the editors put the 'finals' into the title, but, the article goes a tad more wholistically across the fairness of the competitions. Main thing is - even the EPL is not overly fair. 38 games but with a whole lot of national representation drawing players away, and then parallel tournaments, the FA cup, and champions leagues etc. It's clear enough in Australia the impact that the roughly 6 weeks of SoO in the NRL has on club footy. So, even an apparently balanced draw league can be made unfair. That said - like most people it'd be nice to have a H&A season playing each team twice. re the finals - well, is the fairness of a season and its finals system validated by the top 2 teams being proven as such via the finals process? Probably. Miracle runs from 6th or 8th to the GF have to remain just that, miracles. Otherwise it cheapens the whole affair. The main thing ANY team still needs come the finals is to have as near as possible their best squad available. On that basis, a team flying home into 7th/8th with momentum, confidence and a fit list could go far. Although, these days it might more be that they (physiologically) peaked at the wrong time and will be certain to drop off by about week 3 of the finals and get hammered in the Prelim!!!
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Making finals just means having to blow the budget on more tickets!! Finishing 9th means you maximised performance without maximising expenses! Okay - - just trying hard to find a positive in just missing the finals.
Roarr
Guest
I think alot of people forget the fact that NRL teams 1 and 2 get the biggest advantage by playing the 2 possible easiest teams (7,8 theoretically the weakest). They then get the weak off and get to play in their home city to be one game away from the big one. If they aren't good enough to beat the 2 worst teams in the playoffs, maybe they should lose their home advantage in week 2. I agree that winning is the most important part, if you can win a game against a 'tougher' team in the finals then you deserve to step up the ladder, rather than scrapping your way through. Both systems obviously have pros and cons, so I have never really picked one 100%. Am happy just to be watching finals footy instead of australias cricketers.
Koops
Guest
Lazza, what you have stated in regards to young players entering the system is quite wrong, young players that make it to the AFL have had professional coaching for years, drafted kids are most always in state teams or development squads.and receive the best available advice regarding, nutririon, health, techinical and training regimens etc over the years. The Lions Swans and Suns all have youth academies, really you have no idea, there is also a AFL-AIS youth academy. http://www.lions.com.au/tabid/5085/default.aspx?newsid=105906, as a example look below. 146 Kids from QLD in the 2011 Hyundai Brisbane Lions academy.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
The McIntyre has a couple of problems with it. 1. In my opinion it is too easy for 1st and 2nd to get a home premlimary final and a week off. 2. It makes it too hard for 7th and 8th to survive past the first week. 3. The 4th vs 5th is a bit of 'nothing' game. No matter the result, both teams are likley to play the following week. 4. A team's fate is dependent on other results-such as 3rd place hoping 1st or 2nd lose to get the week off. The AFL system has more certainty to it. However it is curious just how poorly teams 5-8 perform in regards to obtaining back to back victories in finals. Since the AFL introduced this system in 2000, I believe only twice has a team that has finished 5-8 made it to the premlimary final . Surely there can't be that big a gap between the top 4 sides, it has to be psychological. The winners of the elimination final feel they have 'passed' and the hunger to win is not as strong as the top 4 sides that have been beaten the previous week.
Redb
Roar Guru
TC, As has been already mooted I think the AFL will go to 20 teams before long, when this occurs they will break the comp into two pools which will ensure the 'conferences' add some more balance to the fixture.
Redb
Roar Guru
Part of supporting your team is sticking with them through thick and thin. Its not all about winning. I couldnt be happier with Hird at the helm and the Essendon family building again. We have some handy father-son picks to come and already have been benefitingfrom relatively early draft picks. Our list has showed great promise at times, many commentators beleive the young spine of Hurley, Pears, Gumbleton, Hooker, etc will hold Essendon on good stead. Ryder had a poor year in 2010 but he shows genuine promise and an ability to impose himself in the centre square. Our midfield is the worry, we have drafted some good kids in the last 2 years, Hird is a midfield general so I think he'll soon sort the wheat from the chaff. As long as we are competitive and fight to win every game I'll be happy Bomber for awhile yet. :)
Lazza
Guest
That may have been true in the past RedB as there was a genuine fear that players wouldn't leave their home state to play elsewhere. These days players from all sports will go anywhere for a professional contract so that no longer applies. Special rules have to be put in place for new, expansion teams but after they are established why do we really need a draft with all it's disadvantages? Your club Essendon may struggle for years until they get access to decent talent through the draft. Everyone will blame Hird even though his hands are tied by the draft and he has no real way to improve the team.
TCunbeliever
Roar Guru
I agree that both finals systems work well for both competitions. And personally I would like it if all teams played each other twice, but the is no chance of that hapenning in the AFL. I am not sure about the NRL draw, but the AFL seek to have two local 'darbies/showdowns' and rivalry matches each year for each club - so the GC Suns will always have two games against their local opponent (Brisbane) as well as 2 games each season against a particular rival, like the Geelong football club. The AFL sides may either make money or lose money each season determined by how many fans go to their home games, which also compromises the draw as every small club always requests home games against the biggest drawing clubs (Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon). Hopefully when the Greater Western Giants enter the league, the AFL will settle on a draw that is fair and consistent..So they have a good year to figure out all that.
Redb
Roar Guru
The draft helps with expansion teams who dont have sufficient grass roots to generate full playing lists. The AFL is about to go to 4 expansion teams. The draft is not perfect, I agree with some of Lazza comments above, although i think the skill set issue for draftees is being addressed by the AFL AIS with increased skills tests. There is still a balance that needs to be struck between skills and fitness training at most clubs. Interestingly, the AFL is setting up state based academies in NSW and QLD to assist with development and recrtuiment for Swans, Giants, Lions & Suns. Other clubs are also starting their own form of academies. As for the finals systems, I think each year you will find one system would be better suited than another. All teams have to play by the same rules and in the end the cream usually rises to the top regardless.
NF
Guest
Lazza Another advantage of no draft is the Toyota Cup which helps teams develop local talent or breed talent from other area so there capable of playing at top level a great example is Josh Dugan who went from Under 20"s Raiders to the fine player he is today. They should up the age limit to 23 so it gives the time for coaches to develop these players before they are selected to play for there team or contracted elsewhere. In particular, my team North Queensland has some excellent Under 20's and if develope longer can be a force in first grade...hopefully the Cowboys retain them and not let them go elsewhere in previous occasions.
Lazza
Guest
The draft can only work properly in the States where they have a professional college system to develop young players and get them ready for a professional career. In Europe, clubs have academies and youth systems to train and nurture the next generation of professional footballers. The AFL has neither. Young, raw 17 year olds are drafted without any professional coaching and then spend the next 2 years 'bulking up' in a gym before they enter the AFL. The result has been a predictable decline in skill levels as there is no college or youth system for these young players to develop their skills. Late teens is too old to develop skills and that's perhaps why we are seeing so many mature players from other sports 'converting' to AFL without ever having played the game at a decent level. In my opinion having just a salary cap will bring about parity without all the disadvantages of a draft. Clubs will be free to develop and recruit players without having to wait years for the draft lottery. We'd get a better quality of skilled player, coaches would be able to build a team instead of just trying to get the best out of what they have. With a salary cap no club should be able to dominate the league. If new clubs or underachievers need assistance they should be given salary cap concessions not draft picks.
Fez's are cool
Guest
Its simple: the NRL has State of Origin which takes away the best players for 6 or more weeks of the season. This disrupts the final pecking order at the end of the year. Having a MacIntyre System gives top finishing clubs the reward of an oportunity to play "weaker" opponents and get a week off, while those who finished lower because of origin (often happens to the Broncos) have a better chance of progressing. This is why they changed it. The main two gripes with the system seem to be 1. Teams 1 & 2 losing week one and having to go away week 2 while teams 7 & 8 would play at home. I think this isn't such a big deal, because 1 & 2 have a second bite at the cherry. Its a finals system and should reward winning more than it does ladder position. No good finishing first and expecting to be in the Grand Final when loosing all your games. (I am a Dragons fan btw) 2. Teams 3 & 4 can theoretically get booted week one - never happened to team 3 but has happened to team 4. Simple solution: don't lose! its a final series and should reward winners.