The NRL finals series has been notorious for producing an underdog who has surged into the grand final. But with a new finals format we may see none, or we may see two.
Recently, it has been the Parramatta Eels in 2009, Sydney Roosters in 2010 and the New Zealand Warriors in 2011.
These three sides have been the grand finalists in previous years but they all have another thing in common: They qualified from the bottom half of the eight.
The three underdogs upset their opposition in week one of the finals to become that year’s Cinderella story.
But, in the end, the fairy-tale did not come true with all three sides falling at the final hurdle.
But did the previous NRL finals system have a role to play?
The McIntyre system had teams: 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5.
The ‘strongest’ team would play the ‘weakest’ team, with the top-four sides fancied to qualify for the next round.
Sides that managed to cause an upset in week one were provided the home ground advantage in week two.
In 2010, the seventh placed Raiders defeated the second placed Panthers in week one and played their week two fixture against the then third placed Tigers at Canberra stadium.
But this year the NRL has re-vamped its finals system to mirror that of the AFL, with teams: 1 v 4, 2 v 3, 5 v 8, 6 v 7.
The change has made it harder for the four sides in the bottom half of the top eight. Now, the top four teams are guaranteed entry to the second week of the finals.
Also, two of the bottom four teams are guaranteed to be eliminated in week one. And the lowest ranked teams to win in week one will not play at home in week two.
These three stipulations paint a stark picture for the bottom four sides wanting glory on the last day in September.
How have the AFL’s bottom four sides faired under this system?
No team outside the top four has won the flag since the AFL adopted this format back in 2000.
All the signs point to the premiership being decided by the NRL’s top four sides.
But, rugby league is unpredictable. The NRL competition, over the past few years, has been much closer than the AFL.
Like most of the regular season, the outcome of matches will not be decided on paper.
When the finals begin, the ladder doesn’t matter. Win and you are through, lose and you could be eliminated.
The bottom four sides: North Queensland Cowboys, Cronulla Sharks, Canberra Raiders and Brisbane Broncos have been more than capable against the top four sides.
The Canberra Raiders have defeated the top-two sides by more than 20 points this season.
The Cronulla Sharks have defeated three of the top four teams this season.
North Queensland has arguably the best momentum in the NRL at the moment, and the Broncos – while only scraping into the finals – can produce on their day.
Injuries will prove crucial in a side’s progression through the finals and can ultimately decide a team’s fate.
The NRL finals series is very open. The top four is very strong but can be upset by a team in the bottom half.
The last three years have seen a bolter ride a wave of momentum and surge into the final.
Will the trend continue? Or will the new finals format see the top four decide the premiership?
Kim Crawford
Guest
In 1995 the ARL used a system they devised themselves, it was simply 2 Final 4's with the 2 winners then playing off in the Grand Final. In 1996 they switched to the Crawford Final 8 just weeks before the start of their finals series. I had been sending them this system for 2 years and had been trying to tell them their 1995 system was seriously flawed. When they switched to my system they claimed it was their own idea which was not a very honest thing to do. I expected better from a National Sporting League.
planko
Guest
YOU CANNOT COMPARE AFL to NRL end of story. To prove it I hope that NRL keep this style of finals football for 10 years and prove it. Once every 3 years this style of top eight will generate a bottom 4 Grand Finalist. Once every 5 a winner. Mark my words. It will happen.
Keith Chekhov
Guest
Tonysalerno I am sure you are right: the NRL has adopted this system hoping it yields similar results to those the AFL have had with this system. So it is correct to start with a comparison of the two codes and apologies for suggesting otherwise. I was reinforcing the points in your article and in comments that there are factors which may cause league to have a different experience with this system than the AFL has had. And this view is supported by league's own experience with the 'AFL system' when league used it for a while in the mid-90s. Whilst it may have some minor improvements over McIntyre, I don't think the new system is fundamentally different to McIntyre. Therefore I don't think the new system rules out a 'late season bolter' from the bottom half of the 8 as definitely as people are saying. Interesting to see how it pans out. Guess we'll need 5-10 years of data!
Ridley
Guest
WImbledon - has qualifying and ranking to reward past performances. Olympics - many events have qualifying and ranking to reward past preformances. F1 - has qualifying to give advantage to better performers. Am not a Dragons fan and didn't care about them going out in 2 games, but they'd earned the right through performances during the season to at least be playing at home in that 2nd playoff week.
tonysalerno
Roar Guru
Keith Chekhov, i think comparisons with the AFL are relevant as people get perspective of results... how do you think the NRL developed this new system if they didn't like how the AFL fort was panning out?
eddy the eel
Guest
Also, I hope the sharks play the cowboys in the grandfinal. That will prove the point that this is an easier system. o
eddy the eel
Guest
Billo boy you are right. For the bottom 4 teams this new system is easier because you have to play easier teams. It is also easier for bottom 4 as 5 th and 6th get a home game.
Benn McNally
Guest
What? No way is a week off big enough reason to cause an injury trying to pull back a blow out!! In fact, momentum being such an important factor; the week off becomes even less valuable.. Your a little too confident in your opinion and your reaction pal...
turbodewd
Guest
St.Geo were clearly pretenders if they lost 2 games in a row. A real GF candidate wouldnt drop 2 games in the playoffs. If youre playoff worthy than you win in the playoffs. All playoffs should be sudden death. There's no 2nd bite of the cherry at Wimbledon or the Olympics or F1. You lose, youre out or last or whatever....just not first.
Ridley
Guest
New Finals system is much fairer in rewarding teams finishing higher up during regular season, esp with Home ground/town advantages. There was a crazy scenario in the McIntyre in '09 where Dragons who'd finished Minor Premiers lost in week 1, then had to play Broncos coming off a win in Brisbane in week 2.
JazzyJase
Roar Pro
Turbo, The 2009 Parra example will be a flaw in any finals format. i.e. they have a relatively poor home and away result then manage to hit form at semi's time. Still prefer finals format to first past the post ala English Premier League. Teams are coached and trained to reach peak form and produce their best on the day that counts and that's what i like about semi's / grand finals. Keep sticking it to em Turbo, maintain the rage
Keith Chekhov
Guest
As I've said elsewhere, comparisons with AFL are not relevant. AFL is a longer game and it has dozens more scoring events per game than league (which often only has a few scoring events per game). This accentuates the differences in class between teams in AFL and ensures that upsets (eg team 7 beating team 2) are rare. As someone else said, league had the current system in 1995 and 1996. What happened? Team 6 won the comp in 1995 and Team 7 was runner up in 1996. So much for it being harder to win through from the bottom 4 under this system. There really isn't much difference between the two systems. If anything, the new system will give more momentum to the two winners from Teams 5 to 8. They will go into week 2 with a win under their belt. They will each play a losing team (the two losers from Teams 1 to 4. As pointed out in the article, momentum is a big thing at this time of the year. Despite the above, the new system is a slightly more equitable system, in one respect. Last year, Team 6 (Warriors) was smashed by 30 in the first week, yet it survived and ultimately got through to the GF. There is no way that a team that finished as far down as sixth and then was walloped in that manner should have been entitled to any further shot at the premiership. The new system removes this possibility. If you want to ensure that only the top 4 or 5 teams fight it out, you need to go back to a top 5 system. Don't give Teams 6,7 and 8 a chance to start their season again.
turbodewd
Guest
No Ian, you look at ratings, crowds and operating costs to find the right balance. I suspect our ideal season length should be 20 or 22 rounds spread over 23 or 25 weeks. The NRL season and the NRL playoffs are too long. Its crazy that at playoff time we cant fill venues. Canberra Raiders mgmt absolutely deserve a brickbat for the poor marketing they do. Admittedly, as other posters have said, the previous season sets the mood on crowds to a certain extent. Weather plays its part. But Raiders mgmt have been poor at promoting the games, very poor.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Turbodewd, If you are going to make arguments based around a reduction to absurdity, then I could easily claim by your logic we could skip straight to the Grand Final between one and two and get a massive crowd. NRL clubs have crap crowds because teams like Canberra have been lazy and gutless and have refused to put time, effort and attantion to getting crowds to the game, in the same way Canterbury has.
turbodewd
Guest
Cugel, youre spot on really. No matter how you tweak the playoffs 2 teams will reach the GF and one will win it. And generally speaking the best 2 teams around playoff time are the ones who reach the GF. The first 17 rounds of the competition seem to matter little. If youre team is in form for the final 5 weeks and reaches the playoffs then they can make the GF, eg Parra in 2009.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
The point of finals is to artificially generate interest (the more the better), but it bears little relevance to the regular season. 1v8 etc sudden death is as good as any system, except we are irrevocably accustomed to the deckchair shuffling of the various finals systems.
Billo Boy
Guest
Under this system chances of advancing are worse for the bottom 4? I don't think so. 8th plays 5th not 1st. 7th plays 6th not 2nd. 6th plays 7th not 3rd. 5th plays 8th not 4th. What happens in AFL isn't really relevant as league is a different game. Recovery times are less for teams than in AFL & the chance of an upset is higher in NRL as scores are kept closer.
Hamish
Guest
If you finish 8th under the new system you still have to win all your games dont you just like the old system??
turbodewd
Guest
eagle, you cant state that the crowd would be the same, weve never had quality sudden death in NRL for all playoffs. The problem with current NRL playoffs is that youre expecting fans to attend many consecutive games, its a big ask. Id rather see one playoff game in front of 60,000 then 2 in front of 30,000.
turbodewd
Guest
The minor premiers get some cash reward dont they? And the JJ Giltinan shield rights for the year. The real reward is the Grand Final win. You cant give a team a GF, they must earn it by defeating the other best team in the league for that season.