One point of discussion that has been missing from the sound track of this finals campaign has been the once annual debate around the finals system used by the NRL.
The McIntyre system had few allies by the end of its time and it was promptly consigned to the waste bin by the Australian Rugby League Commission.
The method used by the AFL was introduced and as it stands, we have the top four teams still in the competition fighting it out for a spot in the grand final.
So, it was surprising to hear a talkback caller to the Sports Today program on 2UE last night question the mechanics of the new system.
He asked why Melbourne, who finished second, now have a seemingly easier match by playing Manly, who finished fourth, to get into the grand final.
The Bulldogs, minor premiers, have to play South Sydney, who finished third.
Now, on the surface it appears as though Melbourne actually has the tougher match.
Manly, despite finishing fourth, went into their match in week one of the finals against the Bulldogs as the favourites.
South Sydney seems like an easier clash for the Bulldogs despite the fact they finished ahead of the Sea Eagles on the ladder.
The Rabbitohs were out-classed by Melbourne in week one of the finals and then were always going to get the better of Canberra in Sydney at the weekend.
So, even though this system is far better than the one previously employed by the league, are there a few quirks?
Is their a perfect answer?
In theory, shouldn’t the highest placed team have the easiest possible route through to the decider?
If that was the case the Bulldogs would be playing Manly again this weekend in a repeat of their clash from week one.
Some would argue that taking on the Sea Eagles would be a tougher test for the Dogs even though they finished below South Sydney on the ladder.
Others could say it would be boring seeing the same two teams face off in the space of three weeks.
Although a re-match between Manly and Canterbury wouldn’t be a tough sell this year, would a repeat of 1 versus 4 be a tough sell in the future?
Team three seeming weaker than team four has created a quirk this year and Dogs fans are probably breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to come up against their rivals again this weekend.
Under the current set-up, the team finishing first on the ladder would only get to face a weaker opponent in the preliminary final if an upset occurred in week two.
For example, if Canberra (6th) beat South Sydney they would play the Bulldogs while Melbourne (second) would play either Manly (4th) or North Queensland (5th).
The finals have been an amazing spectacle and rugby league looks set for an unprecedented period of growth and prosperity, but it will be interesting to see if this little quirk causes a stir in the future.
Steven
Guest
Who really cares? Rugby has one week of finals - 1 v 2 & 3 v 4 The two winners play the final, generally 1 v 2 so you get the top two teams all year in the final. All games are sudden death with the theory if you're good enough, you'll be there. It makes it more exciting than games where the tesult doesnt matter - you'll get another shot, often with an easier run to the finals. Pandering to the fans and income of extra games and chances is ridiculous.
SportsFan
Roar Rookie
I agree, I think this year the system has panned out well but it is the first year and we will be able to judge it better after 5. I like that the top 4 teams getting a shot at going to the grand final. But I think Manly and South's loses in week 1 takes the gloss of them to some degree, that's why the McIntrye system was good because if you were outside the top two you had to win to be assured of going through while Manly and Souths have lost, South's convincingly just two weeks ago, South's could face the Storm in the GF and has much changed for the Rabbits since then, I don't think so. The System has worked well this year but League fans are more likely to criticise than AFL's give it time people will grow tire of the system.
turbodewd
Roar Guru
You can have both actually, its not hard! Its so easy. RL is a great product, its just gotta broaden its appeal even more.
Mark Roth
Guest
If its 1 v 2, 3 v 4, 5 v 6, 7 v 8 in the first week, you'd have a lot of unfairness in the system. The loser of 1 v 2 has to play away should they make the preliminary final, while a lower placed team automatically gets a home preliminary final. Also, 6 not only never gets a home final, they have to play 5 in an elimination game while 7 gets to play 8 in a sudden death match at home.
apaway
Roar Guru
Ironically, in the first year that rugby league had a top 8 - 1995 - there was no crossover built into Week 3 of the finals. The league's blushes were saved by the fact that both Newcastle and Canterbury came from the bottom half of the eight to win their Week 2 matches, otherwise Week 3 would have seen the exact same 2 games as Week 1 at the top of the draw. As it was, both Cronulla and Brisbane were beaten in 2 straight games and in Week 3 Manly played Newcastle (having played Cronulla in Week 1, who were then beaten by Newcastle in Week 2), and Canberra played Canterbury (having played Brisbane in Week 1 who were then beaten by Canterbury in Week 2)
Cugel
Roar Rookie
Incidentally, the new system is often described as being the same as is 1995-96. However 1995 didn't use the crossover but as it happened, there were no repeat matchups. 1996 crossed over, but in the second week, not the third as is currently used.
apaway
Roar Guru
It's not a problem if they don't lose. Jeez, lose a game and it gets harder, surely there's sense in that.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Exactly right. If you make it so that 1 plays 4 again then you've effectively got Teams 1, 4, 5, and 8 playing each other over three weeks for one GF spot while teams 2, 3, 6 and 7 do the same thing for the other. The current system offers more variety which is a good thing. Besides you would think that if team 2 was able to beat team 3 in week 1 then it shouldn't be an issue for Team 1 to do the same two weeks later. Besides, if we were really trying to be fair to Team 1 we wouldn't have a finals series anyway.
Renegade
Guest
"Teams and fans had no idea what they were playing for" They had to win.....if you win your fate is in your own hands - you lose, well tough luck. I'm with Ken on this, each match seem as a must win in the old system while this year the week 1 games between the top 4 meant SFA. The other point that Ken mentioned was that it was impossible for 1 & 2 to play each other before the GF.
turbodewd
Guest
sounds good to me!
me, I like football
Guest
Ken , if you assume the 2 top teams are located in the top 4 then they will play eachother in the GF lets say 4 and then 1 are the best sides. W1 4 def 1 W2 1 def 5,8 W3 1 def 2,3; 4 def 2,3,6,7 GF 4 v 1 The top 2 of any combination in the top 4 will always play off in the GF
Meesta Cool
Guest
With SOO in the middle of our season, anyone can make the eight. so really, the minor premier is a lottery. Any other system with this years results would have lead to the same games in the prelim final that were played in week one. at least this way the top four will have almost played each other to qualify for the Final -- the system is designed to have the final played between teams 1 and 2 (If they are good enough to win the games from week #1). there can be no fairer system without a complete overhaul .. ie round robin (home and away) of the top 4 teams. The top two at the end of these games play best out of 3 final. (Or Grand Final (winner takes the premiership!) Personally, I like what we have, not sure that teams 7 and 8 should even get to play in the series though. I do not like the fact that it is possible to become Premiers by just 'squeezing in..
Ken
Guest
There's 4 games in week 2 & 3 of the finals, and none of the teams playing each other in any of them can match up again in the Grand Final - any one of those games could contain the two most in-form teams in the comp. Even better, if the most in-form teams in the comp come 6 & 7 in the regular season, one of them goes home the first week! No system is going to change this. Whether or not we allow re-matches before the GF doesn't really affect that as far as I can see.
Ken
Guest
Luke's article and Mark's comment both detail a number of quirks, they do exist. My pet one is actually momentum, teams placed 3 & 4 are rewarded by their good result by games against teams 1 & 2 in finals week 1. Teams 5 & 6 get much easier assignments. Yes, I'm well aware the 'prize' of those other games is better but if form holds (like it did this year) then teams 3/4 get into the sudden-death second week on the back of potentially demoralising games against the top seeds while 5 & 6 get there with morale boosting victories. This didn't happen in the McIntyre system. 'To win the comp teams 1-4 need to win 3 in a row against the best teams teams 5-8 need to win 4 in a row. The winner of this comp will deserve the title Is this so different to McIntyre? There was a possibility that teams 5/6 could win the title with 3 wins rather than 4 but it didn't happen in the 10 years the system was in place. The winner of the comp deserving the title? Well in either system if you keep winning you'll get the title - if fairness was the only concern though we'd probably just award it to the minor premiers, when you look through the records that's usually the better indicator of which team was the best that year.
Smile
Guest
Well said
Smile
Guest
Mate it's not all about crowds. TV revenue is just as important, if not more important. More games = More $
Smile
Guest
Mate you really need to get over this "people only care if it is sudden death". It's rubbish. If the Rabbits had have played the Bulldogs in round one of the finals people would have flocked there en masse, with the winner being one win away from the GF and the loser facing sudden-death. The current system is the best solution. None of the games have been certainties, from memory only the Cowboys have been under $1.50 and that was due to the Broncos being duds. This years match-ups have been awesome. I didn't mind the McIntyre system but I would prefer to watch 1 v 4 than 1 v 8. The current system is not perfect and to complain that Melbourne have an advantage by playing team 4 instead of 3 is nit-picking at it's best. Intersting that all the higher ranked team has won every game in the NRL finals, whilst in the Toyota cup I think it's the opposite.
Horatio
Guest
Damn they shut down the NRL vrs AFL discussion with so many misreprehensible comments left hanging.... The NRL will get a bigger number and would get more if it were any combination of saints, Parra and the 2 teams on Saturday with perhaps Tigers although they seem to like leichhardt only. Caroline Wilson works for Nine so occasionally uses the NRL to bash the AFL so its not all one way. I at least will stop on this issue now...
Chris
Guest
It isn't too bloody hard and yet no-one seems able to pull it off. First week: 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5. Loser goes home. Second week: Best remaining team plays worst remaining team. Second best remaining team plays second worst remaining team. Loser goes home. Third week: Final.
Gareth
Roar Pro
Under the old system, and using a bit of "artistic" license to determine the winners: Week 1: Canterbury defeat Brisbane Melbourne defeat Sharks Souths defeat Canberra Manly defeat North Queensland Week 2: Manly defeat Canberra Souths defeat North Queensland Week 3: Canterbury defeat Manly Melbourne defeat Souths Grand Final: Canterbury vs Melbourne It's really not hugely different, except that there's a possibility of a Canterbury/Souths grand final and a possibility of a Manly/Melbourne grand final, rather than those being the preliminaries. In fact, we even get a lot of the same games, just in reverse order (ie Souths vs Canberra and Manly vs North Queensland in week 1, then Canterbury vs Manly and Melbourne vs Souths in week 3) I don't mind the new system, but it's hard to argue that it's "better", just different. As a Raiders fan, it might have been better to have the old system. We could have gotten the loss to Souths out of the way in Week 1, and then upset Manly, Canterbury and Melbourne (like we did in the regular season) for a fourth grand final win.