The NRL's finals-system farce

I think a bigger problems is:- Sydney teams,that suppose to get an advantage,by playing at home,don't,unless their home ground is Allianz or ANZ egs: Sharks vs Cowboys should have been at Cronulla's real home ground. Manly vs Penrith should have been at Manly's real home ground. Note: Both those teams lost,playing at a neutral ground too ie: No advantage for finishing higher than their opposition.

The NRL used the McIntyre Final Eight in 1995 & 1996, and from 1999 to 2011 (best to not ask about 1997 &1998^), as did the AFL during 1994-1999, when it changed to the [Top 4 + 2nd 4] arrangement it uses now. (I reckon just calling it the 'Final Eight' is too vague.) Later in 2012, the NRL switched back to a non-McIntyre Final Eight, a bit like it had in 1995 and 1996 ^ For an absolutely you-beaut website about this, google History Finals Systems Daryl's Rugby League.

Would you rather go back to the old system when 1 played 8. I think not. Current system is fine unless you want to go back to 5 team semis. I think not.

I agree.. when half the table compete in the semis for a chance at a title it's way too many. The NRL have sacrificed the integrity of a finals series for the cash. Granted, this year we are seeing a giant killer run from the Cows and did so in 09 but as far as I recall the bottom four tend to drop out of sight pretty quickly

Yes, and wouldn't it add even more to the drama if they could choose where to play that team. Although logistics would probably prevent it happening, a higher-placed Sydney team could choose to play their chosen opponent at their own home ground (in the case of Manly, Cronulla, etc...) or at Allianz. That may also go some way to boosting those lower crowd figures from Finals Week 1. Like I said, it won't happen, but its hypothetically a great reward for finishing higher up the ladder.

Looks like the simple-minded arrangement that soccer reckons is just right - for it. Most other sports competitions have finals / playoffs, partly because they are more challenging contests, and partly because fans of each sport agree with that assessment.

Professor McIntyre's Final Four, Final Five and Final Six worked well, and the mathematical chances of reaching the GF related closely to end of H&A ladder positions. It was his Final Eight where things got murky, because Finals Wk 1 was essentially a combination of a seeding round for the Six who went through to Wk 2, and an elimination round for the two who didn't. It was a waste of time trying to work the likely matchups before the four Wk 1 games, except that clubs 1 and 2 could not be eliminated. All that said, what an interesting idea to let "the highest-placed qualifier each week . . select the team they play" the next week - probably drive organisers crazy; a bit like a Test cricket captain having to choose between batting and bowling, while look for omens from the heavens.^ But would it be any more uncertain than how each succeeding week's clubs qualify? ^ Any administrator who wants to get rid of this tradition should be made a target for quickies in the nets. FFS, leave [the essentials of] the game alone.

It is fair to say that what I was writing about has become more apparent overnight. The minor premiers have to play the third placed team to make the Grand Final whilst the team who finished second need to defeat the team who finished 8th. Quite simply the reward for Melbourne finishing first is not enough. Based on rankings they now face a far more difficult side. This may prove to be inconsequential as North Queensland may very well beat the Roosters but it still brings forward an important discussion point for the NRL.

Not much wrong with the current system, however I do like the idea of the highest placed side choosing who they play. I think they used this idea in the Engish Superleague a while back (they might still do) in their finals series so seeing how that worked might be an idea. That said, there is little wrong with the current system in my opinion.

Yep.

Finish 5/6 you can get a week off. Weird old system that was.

Geewillikins, a veritable plethora of overly complicated syntax juxtaposed with a ludicrous solution. I love this website.

This system is fine. If all semi final games go to the highest ranking team then both 1 and 2 have to beat both of 3 & 4 to qualify for the GF. I don't know how it gets much fairer. Non-solution to a non-problem.

be a dumb idea to have teams select who they play - the only flaw is that the two winners from week 1 - 1v4 and 2v3- don't get a second chance as the losers of these games do - would have to extend the final series to 5 weeks in that case i,e Storm play the Roosters in week 3- winner to the GF week 5 - loser then plays the winner of the other week 3 game - i.e (Brisbane vs the winner of Parra/Storm) in week 4 - winner of that week 4 game then advances to the GF in week 5

The solution to this conundrum is realising that the finals have no relation to the regular season, it's merely a tack-on to artificially generate interest. The shuffling of deck chairs is merely to give the illusion of relevance. So once you've internalised this, who plays who really doesn't matter, so long as it's tension-inducing, and all your consternation is dissipated. What works for me is 1v8,2v7 knockout all the way, every single result means something.

that was the end of the mcintyre there - so bad

I think the current set up is quite fair. You can't have winners of first qualifying finals (Storm and Roosters) potentially playing the same team they beat in that game in the prelim final (Eels and Broncos). Save those rematches for the grand final. Although the Broncos finished above the Eels, its debatable who the Storm would rather face in the prelim out of the two given the Eels strong recent form.

There is nothing wrong with the current system. If anything, there are too many teams in the semis! But for the sake of keeping the game afloat, if you're good enough, you'll be there on the day - no matter what your club circumstances.

2011 rings a bell there. Warriors finished 6th, got slaughtered week 1, ended up qualifying for the grand final. Brisbane finished 3rd, smashed the Warriors, still had to play the next week. It was a pretty average system really.

Haven't thought it out completely, but I think it's guaranteed you have to beat at least two top 4 teams to win the premiership. I like that if you finish in the bottom four, there's only one week of beating out the rest of the bottom teams and then you're up against top 4 teams the rest of the way. And a top 4 team that loses week 1 gets to play a bottom four team next week; they're essentially getting two lives instead of just one. There's issues but I feel they're a tad overstated here. No system is perfect.