My mates told me the McIntye System had to go Roar Guru

By, is a Roar Guru

 , ,

16 Have your say

    Related coverage

    My mates in Victoria could never understand why I liked the NRL’s McIntyre Final Eight System. If I am to be objective, maybe it was because I was influenced by the fact that I have been lucky when it trying to find the grand final winner in advance.

    The new Rugby League Commission have flexed their bulging muscles by scraping Ken McIntyre’s system and adopting the AFL model.

    McIntyre’s strategy was to assist the top two teams after the regular season to meet in the Grand Final, and to ensure that no matches are repeated twice in the first three weeks.

    When compared the AFL model, the McIntyre system allows for many more combinations of the eight teams in the grand final – with only two combinations (1v7 and 2v8) being completely impossible.

    The Commission where no doubt concerned that under the McIntyre system, the possibility exists that the teams that finish third and fourth on the ladder could be eliminated in the first week of the finals. It should be pointed out that this has never happened in the history of the McIntyre system.

    There are criticisms of the AFL system, but it is designed to give the top four teams an easier road to the Grand Final than the second four teams. The top four needs to win only two finals to reach the Grand Final, while the second four needs to win three. In addition two of the top four teams receive a bye in the second week of the playoff and then play at home in the third week, while the other two play at home in the second week.

    What does this change mean for futures punters?

    It is significant, very significant. The McIntyre system heavily favoured the top two teams, but it was much easier for a team to make the grand final from outside the top four. Parramatta proved this in 2009 when they were 14th mid-season before finishing eighth after 26 Rounds.

    Under the AFL system, it is mathematically much harder the win the Flag from outside the top four and virtually impossible from seventh or eighth.

    I hope my mates were right about the AFL finals system being better, but I’ll get back to you once I’ve seen it for myself.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (16)

    • February 23rd 2012 @ 4:45am
      Andrew said | February 23rd 2012 @ 4:45am | ! Report

      Well the Bulldogs in 95 won the lot from the bottom half of the table. So it can be done. So did the raiders in 1989. Just means you have to get that roll on, and being league, it’s all about form at the right end of the season.

      • February 23rd 2012 @ 9:06am
        Patrick Angel said | February 23rd 2012 @ 9:06am | ! Report

        Terry Lamb + Rod Silva. That is all.

      • Roar Guru

        February 23rd 2012 @ 11:19am said | February 23rd 2012 @ 11:19am | ! Report

        The Bulldogs did not have the McIntyre in ’95.
        From 1999 to 2011 it was used by the National Rugby League.

        • February 23rd 2012 @ 6:18pm
          Patrick Angel said | February 23rd 2012 @ 6:18pm | ! Report

          I think he meant it was done from the bottom half under the old/new system.

    • Roar Guru

      February 23rd 2012 @ 3:20pm
      The Cattery said | February 23rd 2012 @ 3:20pm | ! Report

      The Adelaide Crows won the AFL grand final from 5th spot in 1998 under the McIntyre system. They are the only team to have ever won the grand final from outside the top 4 under any system. In that case, what got everyone’s attention is that they got flogged in the first week of the finals, but remained in it, and won their next three finals to win the whole thing – and it just didn’t seem quite right to us that that shold be possible.

      That won’t happen under the new final 8 system (I won’t call it the AFL final 8 system because it’s basically the original NRL final 8 system with a small tweak).

      But there is one major flaw with this new final 8 system – unlike the McIntyre system, the top 2 teams can meet in the preliminary final, if 3rd defeats 2nd in the first week of the finals. It’s the only real flaw in the system, and one I don’t really like, but apart from that, it appears to have worked well over the past decade or so.

    • February 23rd 2012 @ 8:48pm
      Captain Kickass said | February 23rd 2012 @ 8:48pm | ! Report

      My mate (anti-McIntyre) hated it on the basis that if the higher seeds won in Week 1 (ie: 1 beat 8, 2 beat 7, 3 beats 6, 4 beat 5) …
      – #3 would be rewarded with a harder game in Week 2 by having to play #5, after beating #6 in Week 1.
      – #4 would be rewarded with an easier game in Week 2 by having to play #6, after beating #5 in Week 1.

      My counter point is that using AFL’s model …
      – Teams #5 & #6 are rewarded with a Week 1 home final (albeit a knockout with higher stakes)
      – While team #3 & #4 are seemingly disadvantaged by finishing higher (no home final compensated by a 2nd chance).

      For the record, I liked McIntyre system … if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
      The only ones complaining are those who finished 3-6 that lost in Week 1 and got eliminated.
      Simple solution to that is to play according to your ranking and win your Week One game.

      And as for “rewarding mediocrity” … am I the only one who sees that allowing under performing Top4 team from AFL model, is rewarded in greater measure for any post-season mediocrity that may occur ?

      • Roar Guru

        February 23rd 2012 @ 9:20pm
        The Cattery said | February 23rd 2012 @ 9:20pm | ! Report

        Yeh, that was a big flaw, and that if all the higher seeds win , it’s just a lot of ring-a-rosy for no real good reason.

        That anomaly was even more pronounced if one of either 7th or 8th won, you’d have a situation where one of the teams which won from the previous week would end up having to play 1st or 2nd for their troubles! made absolutely zero sense

        It’s one big advantage is that 1st could never meet 2nd until the grand final, whereas that’s not the case with the new top 8 system.

      • February 23rd 2012 @ 9:37pm
        me, I like football said | February 23rd 2012 @ 9:37pm | ! Report

        Teams #3 & #4 are guaranteed a home final in the more important 2nd week if they lose against a bottom 4 side or in the 3rd week if they win. no disadvantage there.

        the only issue I have with AFL system is that 1st has a harder game in the prelim final than 2nd assuming the higher ranked teams win

      • February 24th 2012 @ 2:54am
        AndyMack said | February 24th 2012 @ 2:54am | ! Report

        I guess your “if it aint broke, dont fix it” comment doesnt work here, as many people think it is broken.

        If a team can finish 5th or 6th, get belted in week one of the finals, and then find themselves faced with a elimation final against the team who finished 3rd or 4th and won their final, then that doesnt sound like a fair system.

        The problem seems to be that if teams 1 and 2 win in the first week, then the other 2 matches were pointless and teams 3-6 just switch partners and do it all again.

        So glad to see the back of it.

    • February 23rd 2012 @ 9:02pm
      Josh said | February 23rd 2012 @ 9:02pm | ! Report

      Still would have preferred the warren Ryan system myself

    • February 23rd 2012 @ 10:59pm
      Jake Stevenson said | February 23rd 2012 @ 10:59pm | ! Report

      The aim of finals is to win. If a team isn’t doing that, then they should be getting knocked out. No questions on the system used whatsoever

      Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.

    • February 24th 2012 @ 12:02am
      Andrew said | February 24th 2012 @ 12:02am | ! Report

      I wish we kept the system we had, just tinkered it a little, by allowing a higher ranked team to choose whom they play. Would make the first week of the finals even more exciting, and it would be a great reward to the team finishing first to select whom they played out of the other 7 teams. 2nd highest (if they weren’t selected by the team finishing first), would get next pick and so on. The finals system otherwise would remain the same.

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    , ,