We are currently in the middle of the NRL and AFL finals series. Unless you live under a rock you probably know of the controversy surrounding the refereeing in the NRL games so far.
If you only believe half of what is being said about conspiracies then there must be a huge doubt as to whether or not the best team will win the grand final – as is supposed to be the case.
But, does the best team always win the GF anyway? What defines the best team?
After playing 24 rounds in the NRL and 22 rounds in the AFL against all comers at home and away, surely the best team is the one that finished first?
Yet in both the NRL and the AFL these teams are labelled as Minor Premiers (albeit an unofficial title in the AFL) and made to play off against half of the competition to prove that they are the best.
They don’t always succeed at doing this and are resigned to being forgotten about. Who remembers the Minor Premiers?
So, who is the best? The team that finished first or the team that wins the GF? Or neither? Is it the team that played great footy all year but stumbled at the last hurdle, or was robbed by the ref?
It’s not an easy question to answer.
At the start, both the league and the Aussie rules comps had no finals and they were introduced, in the AFL at least, for the reason of ‘interest and gate money’ and not because the team that finished first was not deemed to have been the best team.
Since introducing a finals series both the NRL and AFL competitions have changed.
They do not have competitions whereby each team plays each other twice both at home and away as a ‘home and away’ competition should.
This gives rise to questions about the equality of the draw.
Did any of the teams get an advantage by playing the bottom team twice and the top team only once?
You may have a bad day against one team but then do not get to play them again and so you do not get the chance to equal the ledger in the second round.
This raises questions about whether the Minor Premier was the best team during the year.
In a league like the English Premier League (EPL) the Champion is first past the post – there are no finals.
The teams play each team twice which in a 20 team comp is 38 games each.
If the team on top after 38 games is not the best then I don’t think that another couple of games in a finals series will make us any wiser as to who is the best.
This first past the post system might be best at deciding who the best team is but it doesn’t always lead to exciting climaxes to the season even if the winner was the best team.
This year in the NRL would have been an exception. The Roosters v Rabbitohs game in the last round would have been the game that decided who the ultimate winner was and who we remembered.
Sometimes though, that winner could be decided well before the final round and thus robbing the season of an exciting climax.
I have no problems with the EPL system though, it is a long competition with each team’s schedule being equal and the team on top is deservingly declared the winner.
I don’t think that a comp without this equal home and away round robin set up could ever declare the team on top as the champion, though.
I also don’t believe that the team that is regarded as the best team will necessarily win the GF of a competition with a finals series.
I do think though, that we remember the team that won the GF as the best team regardless of what else happened during the year, regardless of refereeing decisions and regardless of whom they played twice and who they only played once.
There is no doubt, whatever system you prefer and whoever you think is the best team, that the finals, whether the best team wins or not, creates a lot of interest and excitement.
Does it have a winner that will go down in history as the best team that year?
Rightly or wrongly, it does that as well.
Mike Thomas
Guest
Sorry Craig As A player and coach, (known as Mike Patrick), don't agree, whist I agree.somewhat about setting up a cycle, to drop players to pick up better ones., fact we need to do Is explore contracts for great players.. AFL and NRL remains a minefield of money making Grand Finals, for TV Do We want that or a Purist Game.??
Clint
Guest
I think a return to the top 5 system of old might be a bit fairer. It seems a bit ludicrous that a team that has only won just over half as many games as they have lost and have never beaten a top 4 side in the regular competition gets a crack at the premiership. Sure, they've got to string together 3 wins in a row, but it comes at the end of the season when the teams that have been busting a gut to get to the top are absolutely knackered. Just my 2 cents. P.S. in my opinion, the ultimate pinnacle for teams to reach for in the current system is to win the minor and major premierships. Achieving that as a team, you know you've dominated all season without question, not just got lucky in a couple of sudden-death games.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
9 less games is less gate takings but also less money that Channel 9 is willing to pay for TV rights The GF should be a big payday for both Ch 9 and hot dog vendors (they'll probably be $8 each at the GF)
Meesta Cool
Guest
MONEY!...lol... that's why it gets complicated!.
al
Guest
Getting rid of finals altogether would be much fairer. All 16 NRL teams should play each other twice, once at home and once away, no byes. The team with the most points wins. It's so easy. Why make it complicated?
Glenn Innes
Guest
Craig the minor premeirship would be as close to perfect as you could get if it was we had a true home and away draw and weekends off when rep football was on, which would mean the season would stretch for almost as long as the EPL does which as a League fan would suit me just fine - but the players might not be so keen on it.
daniel p
Guest
Guys why are you so determined to turn the NRL into an epl copy- this system works for Aus who cares how the epl is run?
daniel p
Guest
Notice how it's always the soccer fans calling for the NRL season to be shorter.
apaway
Roar Guru
It's a bit Oliver Stone of you Pest, to think that Channel 9 have decided the grand finalists. However, I agree totally that they have WAY too much influence over scheduling, which is what led to the farcical situation at the end of the home and away rounds where both Melbourne and Manly had more incentive to lose than to win their last games, due to the extra day's rest. And is it just me - or is it crazy to be playing a game between Manly and Cronulla on a Friday night at the SFS. Saturday night? Fine. Sunday afternoon - perfect.
DMW
Guest
Happy to support your claims here Pest with some examples of the issues you raise... Let's begin with the obstruction rule, the interpretation debacle and the subsequent rule 'tweaks'... all because the same teams (3 only) had a problem with it and were being constantly called for obstruction? Please... Forward passes... let me guess Pest... Isaac Luke and Cameron Smith from dummy half? Or were you referring to teams lower down on the ladder, Eels, Tigers etc and referees just letting them slide? On the matter of the MRC and consistency, one needs only look at Cooper Cronk. Contacted by the MRC and told he had "no case to answer" after lifting Tuivasa-Sheck into a dangerous position and driving him into the turf. Need I mention his effort against the Knights and the no sin bin? Referees bias? Of course not. Shouldn't we believe they are all fair because Anderson says so. Any psychometric testing done? Any? None. Ok. And of course its more than ok for Anderson to discuss with the referees as a group what he "thinks" teams are doing in relation to pushing the envelope. Name and shame them Anderson, no resulting premeditated thinking there. Fairness in the ruck? I watch JWH from the Roosters penalised after 18sec for holding down in the ruck. Possible, but highly unlikely...In preparation for the game against the Titans, the Roosters talked about discipline all week. I'm expected to believe after committing to make a concerted effort re discipline that the game plan went out the window in just... 18sec. It's an absolute blight on JWH intelligence if you believe it. Calling a spade a spade. Toovey is fined for stating the obvious. Recently it's the NRL stating the obvious "Sorry". So why didn't the NRL partner with One HD for less $, in return for control of telecast games rights and a say about how the "Greatest game of All" is portrayed. No club is seeing any additional funds as yet, and the quality of the NRL brand continues to slide. Quick taps? How many times has Darius Boyd been called back this season? He has a habit of sprinting the ball back to the 20m line. Answer: 0
john badseed
Guest
Most penalised team really means very little. It's WHERE those penalties are given or received. If a team gives away 10 penalties where the opposing team get little benefit, e.g., when given to get your defence in position, it often has little bearing. if you then get 6 penalties that get you out of danger or give you extra sets of six to attack your opponents, in the overall scheme you've come out ahead. Also, don't forget refs often play catch up which skews the numbers yet doesn't always benefit a team.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
re the Minor Premiership Soccer down my way has now changed the titles; the team that comes 1st at the end of the comp are the 'League Champions' and the team that wins the GF are the 'Grand Champions' It adds a bit more prestige to the 'Minor' championship which is, as you point out, not easy to win.
Meesta Cool
Guest
I have often wondered about the very things that this article deals with, it is a fact that tyher hardest trophy to win each year is deemed 'The MINOR Premiership, whilst a four week knockout competition with not all clubs playing gives us the Years Champions. in my tiny mind it doesn't compute!. If we want a knock out Championship/trophy (involving minor league clubs from all states in the early rounds) then surely a competition similar to the FA cup else RL Challenge cup would be the way to go. BUT, I love the Championship games too. so where do I stand,, DUNNO...lol.
mushi
Roar Guru
Problem is are we solving for fan interest (knock out finals woohoo) or "best team"
mushi
Roar Guru
I am the only one who has Paul Bettany shouting Lichtenstein! Lichtenstein! from A Knights Tale in their head now
AZ_RBB
Guest
Handful of issues. Some already mentioned. 1. Top of the table. Will be very exciting because first place will come with a lot of prestige. 2. Middle of the table. Why should these fans be excited? 3. Bottom of the table. Already an issue now. Do we bring in promotion and relegation? Just not sure how first past the post will work in NRL........if at all.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Poor Glebe.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I've wondered about that too. Alas, I'm not privy to the costs of running a rugby league club and the trade-off between home games and operational costs. I'm just working off of the assumption that quality and story creates long term interest and hence, revenue.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
Hi Glenn, yes that is one of the points that I made. But a finals series can result in the 'best' team losing because of an injury or a bad refs call and so the best team does not always win. No system is perfect The finals this year, as flawed and controversial as they have been, have certainly generated a lot of interest and comment.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
we would have Brisbane, Melbourne (?), Roosters, Penrith and if Russell hangs around Souths as well. Finals series would be top 5 :)