My mates told me the McIntye System had to go

I devised the Final 8 System that is now being used by both the AFL and NRL. I sent it to both leagues in 1994 when I first saw the McIntyre System and realised all of its flaws beore it had even been used. The NRL switched to my system only weeks before their Finals started in 1996. The year before they had used a system they devised themselves which was even worse than McIntyres. It took 10 years of lobbying the AFL and its clubs before thety ditched the McIntyre System and began using mine. Both leagues claimed my system as their own when they first started using it - I have many letters from both leagues and a few media reports which clearly show this is not true. So this Final 8 System should not be called the AFL model ( the NRL actually used it first) - it should be called the Crawford Final 8 System as both leagues did in their correspondence to me before they began using it. Also there are only 2 combinations of teams that cannot make it through to play each other in the Grand Final, those are the knockout games of week 1 ie. 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7. Every other combination is possible because of the cross over of games between weeks 2 and 3. The system that was used by the NRL in 1995 did not have this advantage. It was simply 2 Final 4's with the winner of each group making it through to play in the Grand Final. My system has proven itself to be the best. It is a pity neither the AFL or NRL are honest enough to tell people where it really came from. National Sporting Leagues should apply the same morals and ethics to themselves as they do to their players, coaches and clubs.

i think the new AFL method is far superior to the Mcintyre system, but i do not agree with a top 8 for a 16 team comp. It should be a top 6 - having half the field in the semis is plain wrong!

I don't mind that, just prefer a small tinkering with it. Semi Final : Highest Ranked winner v Lowest Ranked winner, 2nd Highest ranked winner vs 3rd highest ranked winner. It throws up more possibilities for the final, not to mention the top team getting the easiest ride into the grand final.

I would’ve thought the most logical and obvious finals system would be more like the knock out stages of a world cup and be like this. Qtr Final: 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5 Semi-Final: Winner QF1 v Winner QF4, Winner QF2 v Winner QF3 Final: SF1 v SF2 Every game is a knock out but the topped ranked teams are always playing a weaker team. Plus if the minor premiers can’t beat team 8 or team 4 in a knock out game then they aren’t really deserved premiers are they.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Still would have preferred the warren Ryan system myself

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 ?

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

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.

Terry Lamb + Rod Silva. That is all.

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.