NRL is going along nicely. Packer did allright with WSC.
While these idiots are in charge the actual sport itself is in trouble.
The game itself is what needs saving.
10 Finals Teams
- Thread starter rdhopkins2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
NRL is going along nicely. Packer did allright with WSC.
While these idiots are in charge the actual sport itself is in trouble.
The game itself is what needs saving.
I remember a time when saying you made finals a few years in a row actually meant something.
Remember from 1978 to 1988 my team made 11 finals series in a row, which was the top five then.
Making the 8 is lame enough. Making a 10 to make finals in farcial.
I remember Malthouse trying to talk himself a few years back as a coach that made finals many years in a row. Given it has been a final 8 for some time and sometimes 8 of 16, just making the 8, in itself is not something to talk yourself up about. Making multiple prelim finals would at least have some credibility to it.
When the final five existed, 5 out of 12 teams felt right as someone following the league back then. The top 3 got a double chance out of that.
So about 41% of teams made the finals and 25% got a double chance reward..
With 18 teams, the top 8 means about 44% of team make finals and 4 of 18 getting a double chance is just over 22% for double chance.
For 18 teams, a final 8 is the best number.
Remember from 1978 to 1988 my team made 11 finals series in a row, which was the top five then.
Making the 8 is lame enough. Making a 10 to make finals in farcial.
I remember Malthouse trying to talk himself a few years back as a coach that made finals many years in a row. Given it has been a final 8 for some time and sometimes 8 of 16, just making the 8, in itself is not something to talk yourself up about. Making multiple prelim finals would at least have some credibility to it.
When the final five existed, 5 out of 12 teams felt right as someone following the league back then. The top 3 got a double chance out of that.
So about 41% of teams made the finals and 25% got a double chance reward..
With 18 teams, the top 8 means about 44% of team make finals and 4 of 18 getting a double chance is just over 22% for double chance.
For 18 teams, a final 8 is the best number.
5th and 6th never do anything either, in fact 4th has never won the flag under the current system either so how about a top 3? I think top 8 is perfect, North finished 8th last year and made the prelim. Too many dead rubbers at the end of the year if it's anything less than 8 anyway.
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #54
The problem with all of these systems is that for teams with the double chance, the finals have no meaning under any system apart from our current one. That's why we got this one.
This is pretty much it.
One thing I'd like though is an odd number of finalists, giving 1st a genuine advantage similar to the greatest ever finals series, the final 5. Extra week off while 2nd and 3rd would bruise each other up.
What problem are you talking about ?
Hard to make sense of what you are meaning.
Final Five was a good system. My favourite of all the ones we used as you had to earn your way to be number one ranked and you also got truly rewarded if you had a good long home and away season.
However with 18 teams now a top five is too small a number to keep interest up for most fans during home and away season so 8 makes more sense as a decent compromise. The draw back of the final 8 is we lost that element of earning a new rank. In the old final five system if you were 5th you had to beat 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st to win the premiership. There was no skipping teams or a side of a draw to have some element of luck to avoid any team. However that is the price we pay to have a final 8. The biggest benefit of the final 8 has always been having two preliminary finals and 4 sets of supporters still having their club dream of a premiership with only one more week to go.
The top 4 all getting a double chance sits ok with me considering 3 of 12 got a double chance in the past.
Think the final 8 is the best system they can use for 18 clubs.
They could have gone with a final 7 two decades ago but a final 8 is way better than a final 6 or final 10.
The final 6 system they tinkered with was a bit of a joke.
Last edited:
Trying to remember how a final 7 worked.
Think it was 2 v 7, 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 as Elimination Finals but the catch was for the highest ranked winner they earned a double chance to make the grand final.
Then it would have worked like the final five system last 3 weeks
1 v 2
3 v 4 in second week with the winner of 1 v 2 into the grand final and getting 3rd week off
The loser of 1 v 2 got their second chance to reach grand final by playing the winner of 3 v 4 in the preliminary final.
Would have been interesting if they trialled this in early 1990's. For some reason they tried a final 6 but that proved to suck big time.
Think it was 2 v 7, 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 as Elimination Finals but the catch was for the highest ranked winner they earned a double chance to make the grand final.
Then it would have worked like the final five system last 3 weeks
1 v 2
3 v 4 in second week with the winner of 1 v 2 into the grand final and getting 3rd week off
The loser of 1 v 2 got their second chance to reach grand final by playing the winner of 3 v 4 in the preliminary final.
Would have been interesting if they trialled this in early 1990's. For some reason they tried a final 6 but that proved to suck big time.
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #58
Top 7 system.
Week 1: (A) 2 v 3, (B) 4 v 5, (C) 6 v 7
Week 2: (D) 1 v Winner A, (E) Loser A v Loser B, (F) Winner B v Winner C
Week 3: (G) Winner D v Winner F, (H) Loser A v Winner E
Week 4 (Grand Final): Winner G v Winner H
Week 1: (A) 2 v 3, (B) 4 v 5, (C) 6 v 7
Week 2: (D) 1 v Winner A, (E) Loser A v Loser B, (F) Winner B v Winner C
Week 3: (G) Winner D v Winner F, (H) Loser A v Winner E
Week 4 (Grand Final): Winner G v Winner H
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #59
Never had one in AFL, one from ARL above.
Do away with finals and give everyone a ribbon.
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #61
2v3 both stay in regardless of the result, and are both likely to play 3 games to get to the grand final.
Yeah, I knew we never used one but was trying to remember how a proposed 7 would work.
Did not know ARL had one once.
It is different to one I outline above.
Strange to see 4 v 5 in first week is a meaningless match of sorts.
If you win or lose you still play on with no real consequences.
I guess that is why it did not last.
Every game needs to have some meaning I believe.
That looks a flaw in the one ARL used.
Last edited:
- Mar 5, 2016
- 792
- 2,453
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Doesn't look right to me man. You've got the loser A playing in match E and then you've got match H where loser A plays winner E.
Something might need to change, only 6 games in and looks like the 8 is set. Maybe an even draw first, where everyone plays eachother once.
You would hope teams that finishes second and third of 18 teams get some sort of reward so looks ok to me.
2 v 3 in old final five had the double chance. If you won you then earned an upgraded double chance to reach grand final. If you lost you then used up your double chance and had to then play 3 cut throat finals from then on to win a premiership.
It was a good system. A few teams would have won premiership that way. Usually though the teams ranked 1 and 2 in second week of finals held all the aces and won of them won the premiership majority of seasons.
In the present final 8 if you win 2 v 3 you get a week off and once chance to make the grand final via preliminary final week.
If you lose you face same path as the loser of 2 v 3 in old final five of winning 3 cut throat finals in a row. The only difference is you can possibly skip playing the team again, you lost to in week one which you had to beat in old final five to win premiership.
we would need to finish 11th more than other clubs first, nice try.
Yeah, middle of road teams need to step things up to become better and break into the top 8.
That is what needs to change. Dockers have fallen away badly with Fyfe and Sandilands gone and Bennell not playing.
Richmond have been found out and Port also look to not have the depth you would hope of a club aspiring to be a contender. That gamble to only have a list with a couple of rucks and one be a guy WADA were chasing to suspend is biting them hard on the ass. Gold Coast form stinks when they should be improving.
Looks like the race this year is more about the double chances than making the 8. Should prove more interesting actually.
In an 18 team comp, 8 is the right amount. More than half the comp making it even by wildcard is dumb.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
I think thats supposed to be the loser of D plays match H
- Mar 5, 2016
- 792
- 2,453
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Y
yup that would fix itit
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
No side outside the top 4 has made the Grand Final under the current system, I don't think adding more irrelevant teams is a good idea.
When the next team does make a grand final via Elimination Final path they are more than likely to lose badly.
Although come to think of it, now coming via Elimination Final path might be easier.
I thought last season when North rested most of their players in last round it was the only club coming via Elimination Final path that was a legitimate contender if a few things went their way like get Wells back during finals series.
Although now all clubs have a rest before finals the old habit of sides making grand final via Elimination Final getting thrashed may not hold up.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #74
Well, it does make it easier to deliberately plan to make finals but not win a flag.
- Jul 20, 2010
- 8,179
- 10,822
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #75
If pies finish 16th I'd like a 16 team finals... hehe.
