1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New finals format

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by winnyason, Mar 5, 2012.

  1. winnyason

    winnyason Well-Known Member

    1,040
    265
    Ratings:
    +508 / 37
    Listening to caller on 2ky there is no advantage for 1st or 2nd under new system as long as you finish top 4 you get shot at preliminary final in the 1 v 4 and 3 v 4.
     
  2. ads

    ads Well-Known Member

    1,633
    26
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1
    1 and 2 get a home final first week.
     
  3. winnyason

    winnyason Well-Known Member

    1,040
    265
    Ratings:
    +508 / 37
    Except us have to play at sfs:s
     
  4. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    1,828
    643
    Ratings:
    +990 / 7
    Ignoring the non-Brookie issue (which is a factor in any finals setup in our case) the benefit of the new system is that 1 and 2 will maintain a home final in the second week, despite a loss.

    This could have been adopted in the old system and would have been well received as well, but they've decided not to take a bit from (a) and a bit from (b) in this case.
     
  5. simon_eagle

    simon_eagle Well-Known Member

    615
    191
    East Sydney
    Ratings:
    +315 / 7
    Am I wrong in assuming that 1st and 2nd can not play in the GF under this new system?

    In the case of 2007 and to a lesser extent, 2008, the clear first and second teams made the GF.

    Surely that's a shame in the new system.
     
  6. Masked Eagle

    Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

    3,939
    919
    Ratings:
    +976 / 0
    Yes you are wrong. They won't play if either loses in the first week though.

    There are elements of the new system which I'm not fond of, most of which were covered by the BSB caller this morning.
     
  7. simon_eagle

    simon_eagle Well-Known Member

    615
    191
    East Sydney
    Ratings:
    +315 / 7
    Thanks for that M.E.

    What are the elements that you're not fond of? I think it's very similar to the McIntyre, really.

    Here is the final series explained for anyone who is interested:

    http://www.nrl.com/NRLHQ/ReferenceCentre/FinalsSystemExplained/tabid/10635/Default.aspx
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    1,828
    643
    Ratings:
    +990 / 7
    Just as many weren't fond of elements of the old. But it appears that the vast majority of fans are either very happy, or at the very least not fussed, by the change from the McIntyre system.

    And unlike the AFL situation, I doubt we'll see the same consistancy they suffer with 5-8 not capable of making it past week three. IMO, the new system is a better fit for League than the old.
     
  9. simon_eagle

    simon_eagle Well-Known Member

    615
    191
    East Sydney
    Ratings:
    +315 / 7
    Yeah fair enough. I think it's much of a muchness, not fussed at all really. I suppose it favours the top 4, but is that right? If team 1-4 lose in the first week they probably lose their home ground advantage in the next week which they don’t. Will see what people think around finals time..
     
  10. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2016 Tipping Competitor

    7,015
    2,671
    Gold Coast
    Ratings:
    +3,742 / 57
    Its made it much easier for teams 7 and 8 now. They only have to play teams 5 and 6 instead of 1 and 2. This system is not fair on the top 2 teams who should get all the advantages seeing as how they proved to be the best over 26 rounds instead of late season bloomers.
     
  11. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    1,828
    643
    Ratings:
    +990 / 7
    After week one, 7 and/or 8 are guaranteed to play a top four team to get into week three.

    The old system meant that if results went the way of the ladder order in week one, then 4th would be rewarded ahead of 3rd, by playing the team that finished 6th.

    There were/are quirks between the old and new setups. Neither is 100% perfect, but I believe that the new system better rewards the top four for a seasons work, instead of the old system removing all advantage for a single loss.
     
  12. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    4,334
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,338 / 60
    This system is far superior. If authority had stayed in Gallop's hands, we'd be under McIntyre for eternity.

    Makes sense that the bottom four teams have to win to make it to the second round. And that the top four teams can't be knocked out round 1. Plus every game in round 1 becomes a genuine contest, like v like. These are good changes.

    It was ludicrous that Warriors finished 6th last year, got thrashed by 30 points in the first round, and were then rewarded for that thrashing under the McIntyre system with a saloon passage to the GF. Conversely under the McIntyre a team could finish 3rd, lose by a point in extra time in the first round, and be entirely out of the competition without another shot.

    McIntyre wasn't a footy finals system, it was a lottery system.
     
  13. simon_eagle

    simon_eagle Well-Known Member

    615
    191
    East Sydney
    Ratings:
    +315 / 7
    Perhaps, but if team 7 or 8 had of won in week 1 last year, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think NZ had to do it the hard way to make the GF, and deserved to be there, even though the notion of them surviving after their performance in Brisbane is a little odd.

    You make some very points though mate, especially the "like for like" match-ups in week 1. This is a lot fairer and should produce better quality, closer matches.

    I don't think the McIntyre was a lottery in the way that you speak of though, almost every season the two teams who either finish 1 and 2 or at the very least, the two in form teams heading into the final series end up in the GF (with a few exceptions here and there).
     
  14. Masked Eagle

    Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

    3,939
    919
    Ratings:
    +976 / 0
    The thing with finals formats and saying that 3rd doesn't deserve to be knocked out early over say 5th or 6th when it doesn't take into consideration the vagaries of the draw. When the Dragons won the Minor Premiership in 09 they only played 8 games against other top 8 teams all year. We finished the season 5th but had 12 games against other top 8 teams. The draw isn't even and finishing positions in the 8th can depend on the luck of the draw as so much the quality of the team.

    Of course there were problems with the previous system, but I think round 1 games are harder for the top 4 teams and easier for the bottom 4 teams in this format and I'm not sure if that's a good thing.
     
  15. Jono

    Jono Well-Known Member

    1,419
    175
    Ratings:
    +176 / 5
    I don't get why people have a problem with the new system. It is by far the better option. Check this out:

    - 1st and 2nd get home finals in the first week with a potential of getting the week off.

    - whoever loses between 1st vs 4th and 2nd vs 3rd gets the a 2nd chance, and gets to HOST that 2nd chance

    - 5th - 8th must win all their games to win the premiership

    - Even if you come in the lower half, and win the first week, you don't get a home final in week 2.

    I personally don't think there is anything wrong with this. There is a guaranteed 2nd week for the top 4, the top 2 are guaranteed a "home" final in the first week, the bottom 4 don't get a home final in the 2nd week.

    These were everyone's arguments and they have been resolved. However, everyone continues to complain. I just think a lot of people complain just for the sake of it around here sometimes.

    The only problem with the system is no home final for us, but that isn't a problem with the new system itself but the decision for no more suburban finals. The new finals system is exactly what we need.

    PS: Why should 5th - 8th win the GF? They weren't good enough to be in the top 4 so, why should they win the whole thing?
     
  16. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    4,963
    494
    Ratings:
    +494 / 0
    The problem I have with this system everyone refers to it as the afl one.
    Ahh no it's the old one
     

Share This Page