The complicated relationship between the ladder and finals footy

By Emcie / Roar Guru

Watching the eighth-placed Cowboys knock out both the fifth-placed Sharks and the fourth-placed Eels in succession got me thinking.

The purpose of having a competition ladder is to provide a means of ranking teams from best to worst, so how is it we have a situation where a team that barely scraped into the top eight has disposed of two teams that should be markedly more capable according to their ladder positions?

The other three teams left in the premiership race finished first, second and third which would make sense, even a variance of a ladder position or two would be expected, but the inclusion of an eighth-placed side into that group seems to be a strange anomaly to me.

And it’s not like the Cowboys came into the finals with a run of momentum to explain the gulf between their ladder position and their finals scalps. On the contrary, the only game they won from their last six appearances in the regular season was against the 14th-placed Tigers.

“Sure,” I hear you say, “but sometimes a team just clicks come finals, that’s just footy.”

Well, that was my first impression too, but here’s where it gets a bit weird. The current finals system used by the NRL has been in place for six years now including this season. In three of those seasons (2012, 2015 and 2016) the four teams that survived to the preliminary final week consisted entirely of the top four from the regular season.

In the other three seasons, the four teams left come the preliminary finals consisted of three of the top four and either the team placed seventh (2013 and 2014) or eighth (2017). While six seasons is obviously a fairly small sample size, I find those results remarkably consistent.

Surely a team entering the finals from one of the two weakest positions available shouldn’t be getting within one game of the grand final every other year?

What does this say about the accuracy of the ladder we use to separate which teams get to play finals and what advantages they receive once they get there?

Well, for one thing, the ladder has proved to be an extremely accurate indicator of a teams likelihood of going deep into the finals when they place in the top four. In fact, a premiership winner has not placed lower than third in their respective year since 2012.

At the same time, it becomes a significantly less reliable indicator of success outside of the top four. What could possibly cause this stark difference in reliability to be split right down the middle of the top eight?

Well, let’s have a look at what the ladder actually represents, the draw. What elements of the regular season draw allow the standout teams to clearly rise above the rest, yet muddy the waters of those just below?

Let’s start with a big one, the six or so weeks interrupted by State of Origin. Statistically, the teams most affected by Origin tend to place around the top four anyway, which suggests that having access to rep quality players and their big game experience allows clubs to compensate for any losses over the period with a better success rate over the season as a whole.

Where the imbalance occurs is the benefit that a few lower ranked teams receive by playing depleted top sides, inflating their ladder ranking over teams forced to play them at full strength. While byes somewhat limit this, the problem persists.

Scheduling is another issue that’s raised its head over recent seasons. In particular, the fact that teams can face each other within mere weeks of their first meeting.

This may not sound too disruptive on face value, but a team only has to hit a hot patch of form or a form slump (as most clubs do at some point) for a month to seriously skew the leader board.

For example, with two teams that are evenly-matched, you could expect that in two encounters over a season they would average a win each, and this would be reflected on the ladder with an even distribution of points.

But if one of those teams were to hit a purple patch or a from slump that covered two encounters between the teams, all of a sudden there’s a four-point difference reflected on the ladder that separates two teams that have otherwise performed equally well over the season.

Now, two points here and four points there might not sound like it would have that much of an effect, but when you consider that four points is all that separated seventh from 10th this year, you can see the impact it can have.

Multiply that over 16 clubs and you can see why the mid-table logjam is so difficult to accurately disassemble, and this is without even considering the issues of using for-and-against to separate teams in a season where not every team plays each other twice.

So what can be done to help facilitate the ladder’s ability to fairly sort the middle order based on performance over luck?

For a start, teams will always be unlucky. Weather will affect results and injuries and off-field incidents will disrupt seasons. But we can at least control some of the quirks of the draw.

For instance, the NRL is trialling a standalone weekend for one Origin game next year, but I would go a step further and use it to split the season in half and make it so that each team can only face each other once per half. Two birds with one stone as it were.

The regular season really needs a lot of work before the ladder can be a true indicator of who deserves to enter the finals, but it does at least ensure that the most deserving sides are rewarded.

All this focus on looking into the ladder, its purpose and its effect on finals drew me to a conclusion that I’ve never really considered before. The regular season is basically just an extended selection trail to decide who qualifies for finals, to see the best teams playing the best teams for the ultimate prize.

Yeah, everyone knows that, but what I came to realise was that’s not really how we treat the finals. We approach the finals as if it were an extension of the regular season, with many benefits and liabilities carrying directly over from the last round of the regular season to the first round of the finals and the more I think about it the more I don’t like it.

So I came up with some simple ideas that could be implemented to treat the finals like the epic sudden-death contest it should be.

First, I’d adopt Craig Bellamy’s idea of a week’s break before finals. I didn’t give the thought much attention when he first mentioned it, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. It gives qualifying teams a chance to recuperate and enter finals in top shape.

The week off doesn’t have to be dead air either, the NRL could use the week to celebrate the regular season with a tournament for the fans. Have legends playing against each other, events for the kids and, above all, present the minor premiers their trophy in front of a crowd that isn’t a half-empty stadium.

Use the week to treat the regular season like it meant something, award players for their achievements and celebrate the achievements of retiring players. I’d be a great way to send off the regular season but could also serve to reinvigorate the fans for finals footy and generate interest from the broader community.

Another way to treat the finals like the separate contest it is would be to adjudicate it separately from the regular season. Carry-over points and early guilty pleas work in a 26-round season but the punishments and legal interpretations can have a disproportionate effect in a sudden death series.

I’d personally be in favour of adopting a red card system for chargeable offences, with some qualifiers. Players still serving suspensions from the regular season (for on-field transgressions only) only miss the first match of the finals but any remaining suspension carries over to next season.

Chargeable offences committed during finals will receive a yellow card with a second offence earning a red card and a send-off as well as missing the next game should the team continue on. Yellow cards will carry over to each match played that series with clubs able to fight charges if they have a reasonable case.

This allows the finals to be treated differently without giving the players free reign and it allows referees to call what they see without disproportionate punishments and fan backlash (at least from neutrals) hanging over their heads.

For me, finals is where it’s at. The lift in intensity, the desperation and the raising of the stakes for players and fans alike showcases everything I love about rugby league. Bring on next weekend.

The Crowd Says:

2017-09-20T02:38:31+00:00

Sleiman Azizi

Roar Guru


Premiership round scheduling, I admit, is an issue. In anycase, there are still 8 spots available out of 16 teams...

2017-09-19T10:24:02+00:00

Wayne Turner

Guest


Of course the Cowboys have been disadvantaged in their games - And are suppose to be,because they finished 8th. But,so have their opposition,by NOT getting to play at their proper home grounds (Of course Parra can't be helped,because their real home ground is under construction.),and thus no advantage vs Cowboys.When their opposition should get an advantage for finishing higher on the table,especially the Sharks,cause Parra's ground situation can't be helped.

2017-09-19T03:47:11+00:00

matth

Guest


I hear what you are saying regards Cronulla and Manly. I disagree that the Cowboys haven't been disadvantaged. they have had to travel from Townsville to Sydney for two consecutive weeks and if they go all the way it will be four weeks in a row.

2017-09-19T03:44:20+00:00

matth

Guest


I would have thought 1985 cancels out 1979 anyway. PS It might have been because of my age at the time, but the 1979 finals series was one of my favourites that I'll never forget. Except my bloody soccer club in Brisbane making me play a carnival during the Sydney Grand Final. I remember running off at half time to listen to the radio in the car for five minutes.

2017-09-19T03:38:32+00:00

matth

Guest


I would suggest that the NRL coaches currently would want it, but then if they get it, they won't want it.

2017-09-19T03:36:48+00:00

matth

Guest


The fact that every team still lines up to buy the state of origin standard players implies that all the experts running clubs believe it is more of an advantage to have them than not.

2017-09-18T18:05:36+00:00

Jeff Morris

Guest


Welcome to real life, its not "fair" either. You have to achieve with the hand dealt, that's how it should be.

2017-09-18T12:36:47+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


You can't even spell an acronym you invented correctly you mouth breathing dolt...???

AUTHOR

2017-09-18T11:35:57+00:00

Emcie

Roar Guru


Wait, I see. I meant that there aren't enough teams in the competition as a whole to make the top 8 represent the true top teams. If there were say 24 teams in the comp a top 8 would represent the top third of the comp meaning that teams would have to be better then just average to make the cut. Having half the teams make the cut as we currently do means that you just have to be slightly better then average to play on, which makes the relative difference between the teams that make the cut and those that dont significantly low. This also means that it takes less "luck" to rank higher u then you necessarily deserve

2017-09-18T11:31:06+00:00

BigJ

Roar Guru


What ever you say barry. GFUYSFC

2017-09-18T11:28:00+00:00

BigJ

Roar Guru


Oh for the love of all things sacred i dont support the Broncos!!!! Not for twenty years you dick!!!!

AUTHOR

2017-09-18T11:15:22+00:00

Emcie

Roar Guru


Well, it sounded good in my head... thanks for ruining it

2017-09-18T10:57:16+00:00

Craig

Guest


sorry I wrote that wrong. I mean, anything worth 1 week can be carried over to the start of the next season. However, anything more serious and worth more than 1 week - you serve all but 1 week in the finals . ie: 3 week suspension sees you miss 2 weeks of finals and 1 week the following year. 2 week suspension sees you miss 1 final and 1 week the following year. 1 week suspension miss no finals and you miss 1 week the following year as it carries over. Ultimiately we want our best players featuring in finals, but we need a balance. Something like the above could work.

AUTHOR

2017-09-18T10:54:17+00:00

Emcie

Roar Guru


I think we may be on different pages... I don't want to change the system at all. I like the top 8 and the current finals system the way it is. I just think that if we can fix some of the things in the draw, the ladder will be a more accurate representation of how teams should be ranked, making it less likely for unconvincing teams to rank higher thanks to favourable draws while teams that play better overall rank lower or miss out due to a rough draw. I used the cowboys as an example because they barely scraped into the 8 yet outplayed two teams that were safely inside the 8. It just so happens that the Cowboys had the hardest draw of the top 8 while Parra and Cronulla had two of the easiest draws in the top 8. To me this suggests that there are elements of the draw that can artificially inflate the ranks of teams and can cause the middle order of the ladder (which seperates who makes the 8 and who doesn't) to missrepresent where teams sit relative to each other.

2017-09-18T10:52:35+00:00

Craig

Guest


Maybe. Puts a lot of pressure on the tribunal if dishing out a 3 or 4 week sentence though, makes a big difference. Perhaps any suspension incurred during the finals or in round 26 worth more than 1 week carries over to the start of the next season rather than being served in the finals? I'd be happy with that.

2017-09-18T10:24:26+00:00

Wayne Turner

Guest


The problem with the "two teams they ousted both earnt home finals" - It's exactly NOT true ie: Cronulla did not get to play at their true home ground.Forced to play at Allianz or ANZ. While of course Parra's home,for now is the under crowded ANZ,that has no home ground advantage at all.

2017-09-18T10:13:25+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


Big time of year for you Big JC... Only four teams left and you're mad for three of them. Probably the only upside I can see in the Roosters winning...

2017-09-18T10:09:50+00:00

Wayne Turner

Guest


Also add in:- Sharks got no home ground advantage in the first week.They did NOT get to play at their real home ground.Eg: Forced to play at Allianz or ANZ. Same deal for Manly in week one.Banned from playing at Lottoland,where they are better than at Allianz or ANZ. While of course Parramatta currently can't play at under reconstruction Parra Stadium.Instead playing at under crowded no advantage ANZ. Plus look at the advantages of Brisbane and Melbourne getting to truly play at their home grounds. Finally,North Queensland haven't played at home in the play offs,but they haven't been disadvantaged playing at another teams really home ground.This next game will be the test,at Allianz vs Rooster..

2017-09-18T10:07:25+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


I'm not a big fan of the week off. Say you're minor premiers. You play your round 26 game. You don't play the next week and then come into the first round of semis. It's actually two weeks (or the best part of) since you've played (same for everyone). You win that first round semi and then get another week off. By the time you get to the GF qualifier you've had another two weeks off. So you've played one game in a month heading into a GF qualifier. I'd hate that preparation as a coach or a player. I think the interruption would do more harm than good.

2017-09-18T10:00:25+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


I get where you're coming from but I don't know there's a better system. Year to year there will be inequities - and with 16 teams, 24 rounds and the impact of Origin being different for every team we'll never get it perfect - but you'd like to think over time they will cancel themselves out. I think the fact we have a top 8 is the 'reward' for some teams that have a bit of bad luck during the season. Cowboys are a good example of that. They're clearly a very good team but had a tough draw, lost superstars with season ending injuries, lots of players involved in Origin. If we had a top 5 they wouldn't have a crack. But we have to draw the line somewhere...we can't then say "well what about ninth and tenth...they might be better teams than they've shown and deserve a chance at a premiership." I like this top 8 system and I can't think of a better way of determining the end of season games. 1 gets an advantage over 2 in that they play a lower ranked team. 1&2 get an advantage over 3&4 in that they get a home semi. 3 gets an advantage over 4 as they play a lower ranked side, the whole top four get an advantage because they get a life in the first round....and so on. So I get what you're saying (I think) that say 3 doesn't always 'deserve' their advantage over 4 but all teams get an opportunity to make their case and make a run despite where they might have finished the regular season. One season to the next there may be anomalies but over time it will balance out (I think).

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar