-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* NRL 2012 Season thread
- Thread starter Ausage
- Start date
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This.
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
Pretty much. They've done extensive changes to the scoring system over the last year. In the past the scoring has favored defensive workhorses and goalkickers (Corey Parker was amazing). This year the bonuses for big attacking plays (scoring tries, line breaks, tackle busts etc) are larger, while penalties for mistakes (knock ons, missed or innefective tackles etc) are also larger. The idea being that you can look for more in a winger than just if he's a good goal kicker.
A good explaination can be found here.
Still tons of spots left folks. Here is a direct link.
Last edited:
howardj
International Coach
The McIntyre system has been scrapped!
The AFL system will be adopted
It's about time!
This is good news as:
- Team 8 should never get a free shot at 1 in the first week of the finals, nor should 7 get a free shot at 2
- You can now watch every finals game knowing the consequences of a win or loss (under McIntyre, in the first week of the finals, you never knew what each game meant until the whole weekend was finished). ANd sometimes the 4 v 5 and 3 v 6 games meant essentially nil as on some occassions the winner and loser both had to play sudden death the next weekend.
The AFL system will be adopted
It's about time!
This is good news as:
- Team 8 should never get a free shot at 1 in the first week of the finals, nor should 7 get a free shot at 2
- You can now watch every finals game knowing the consequences of a win or loss (under McIntyre, in the first week of the finals, you never knew what each game meant until the whole weekend was finished). ANd sometimes the 4 v 5 and 3 v 6 games meant essentially nil as on some occassions the winner and loser both had to play sudden death the next weekend.
Last edited:
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
I've been a supporter of McIntyre for a long time. Might as well have another go at explaining why.
You don't have to wait till the end of the week to know what's happening. The Dragons were safe when Manly beat Cowboys for example. Warriors fans still had to sweat, but if they wanted more security their team should have finished higher.
The question of whether it's a fair system or not depends on whether you define fair as all 8 teams having a better chance of making the final, or if you define it as your chance at making the final (and at surviving week 1) being directly proportional to your position on the ladder. The former is the AFL/ARL/New NRL system, the latter is McIntyre.
To illustrate you only need to look at the possible outcomes and weigh them against the risks in both scenarios. The big winners out of the change are positions 7-8, while the big losers are positions 1-2. There are pros and cons for teams 3-6 but for the most part the benefits for these positions are mixed. That's why it bothers me so much when I read the argument that this benefits the teams that performed better over the season. It is actually the exact opposite.
The only problems with McIntyre is that it theoretically set up less competetive matches in week 1 (offset by the fact that the NRL is structured to be more even) and that people didn't understand it. I truly believe that the second problem is the reason the system has been canned. People cbf actually thinking about something.
You make it sound like team 8 would want a "free shot" at team 1 in the first round. There is absolutely nothing good about coming up against the top team away from home in a sudden death match. That is the absolute toughest task you could possibly ask for to ensure survival. Now 7-8 don't have to deal with that.
That's not a bad thing. I'll bet Warriors and Dragons fans couldn't take their eyes away from the remaining games, while Broncos and Tiger supporters would have been cheering the Knights and Cowboys every bit as hard as they cheer their own team. It adds another dimension to every contest.
You don't have to wait till the end of the week to know what's happening. The Dragons were safe when Manly beat Cowboys for example. Warriors fans still had to sweat, but if they wanted more security their team should have finished higher.
And sometimes 4v5 becomes a contest for a week off. Sometimes they become sudden death games. What is clear about those positions is that you're always better placed the higher up you finish, and you're always rewarded for winning and punished for losing.
The question of whether it's a fair system or not depends on whether you define fair as all 8 teams having a better chance of making the final, or if you define it as your chance at making the final (and at surviving week 1) being directly proportional to your position on the ladder. The former is the AFL/ARL/New NRL system, the latter is McIntyre.
To illustrate you only need to look at the possible outcomes and weigh them against the risks in both scenarios. The big winners out of the change are positions 7-8, while the big losers are positions 1-2. There are pros and cons for teams 3-6 but for the most part the benefits for these positions are mixed. That's why it bothers me so much when I read the argument that this benefits the teams that performed better over the season. It is actually the exact opposite.
The only problems with McIntyre is that it theoretically set up less competetive matches in week 1 (offset by the fact that the NRL is structured to be more even) and that people didn't understand it. I truly believe that the second problem is the reason the system has been canned. People cbf actually thinking about something.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think eight teams is at least two too many in a final series for a sixteen team comp, so I've always favoured the McIntyre system for that reason (well actually I favour a top five system - but if we must have a top eight..). If you're going to allow the farce that is seventh and eighth making the finals then you should at least make it exceptionally hard for them to progress; letting them build momentum slowly against lower ranked sides is terrible idea IMO.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
They're going to win even more now though.
The reason seventh and eighth shouldn't be involved in the finals is not because they aren't good enough to win on their day or you could probably make an argument for including about twelve teams every season; it's because they don't deserve the chance to after only being slightly better than average throughout the year.
You have to draw the line somewhere and everyone is going to have a different idea as to what constitutes a good season but AFAIC finishing halfway down the latter is not good enough.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
In other news, the NRL have signed a deal to have their games telecast in colour, instead of black and white.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Was it still the case where if you finish top (or top few) and lose first round, you lose the home final advantage?
That's a crock.
At the time when it changed in the AFL, I preferred the McIntyre system, but now much rather the system we have now. It also suits the administrators from a planning point of view, you have a better idea where the games are going to be the week after, and at what time as there are less permutations.
EDIT: also think its a bit silly that one year, you can lose when finishing fifth and make it through to the next week of finals, and the next year the team that finishes fifth can go out because of other results.
That's a crock.
At the time when it changed in the AFL, I preferred the McIntyre system, but now much rather the system we have now. It also suits the administrators from a planning point of view, you have a better idea where the games are going to be the week after, and at what time as there are less permutations.
EDIT: also think its a bit silly that one year, you can lose when finishing fifth and make it through to the next week of finals, and the next year the team that finishes fifth can go out because of other results.
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
They're not though. One team has a home game against a team that is by definition in poor form (lost the last game). 3 also had a very real chance at a week off simply for beating a team that finished 3 places below them at home.
If the better teams win (2 beating 3 and 6 beating 7) 3-6 have the exact same scenario in the new system as McIntyre. They're both in sudden death, with 3 at home and 6 away. Difference is in the new system 3 copped a beating and 6 has momentum after a victory.
If you played one of the two worst teams left in the competition, after being one of the best teams for an entire year, at home and still managed to lose you don't deserve your home ground advantage any more. You should be grateful you're still in the competition and try to focus on the problem your team has with choking.
Bennetts bleating over having to come up against a red hot Parra team in 09 ignored the fact that we were watching one of the most red hot streaks in RL history, a scenario that will occur 1 out of 100 times. It was a freak occurrence that had nothing to do with the validity of the system but people got up in arms about it. Didn't hear him whinging when the Dragons crushed a hapless Manly team and stroll into a Prelim in '10. I'm sure he would have preferred to play a team 4 places higher to get where he was.
The argument that the top two teams are hard done by in McIntyre is the only crock here.
Last edited:
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
You know that deep down you want to.
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
Another very good point that often gets lost. In '09 Parra had to beat Dragons (1st), Titans (3rd), Bulldogs (2nd) to make the GF where they played Melbourne (4th) and frankly had nothing in the tank after taking out the top 3 teams (theoretically) in the comp (though I think they ended up playing the best team in the GF).
I think eight teams is at least two too many in a final series for a sixteen team comp, so I've always favoured the McIntyre system for that reason (well actually I favour a top five system - but if we must have a top eight..). If you're going to allow the farce that is seventh and eighth making the finals then you should at least make it exceptionally hard for them to progress; letting them build momentum slowly against lower ranked sides is terrible idea IMO.
In the new system they would have had a far easier matchup in the first round, Manly (5th) before theoretically playing Titans (3rd), Bulldogs (2nd) then Dragons (1st). They difficulty is weighted in the later games meaning they would have even more momentum and more in the tank if they made it.
It's all theorycraft, and these discussions usually devolve as such, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the first scenario is easier on a team that has the talent to win from 8th but left their run as late as Parra did that year.
Edit: Actually in the second scenario they'd play 4th instead of 3rd I think.
Last edited:
uvelocity
International Coach
Yeah I prefer McIntyre too. It's not perfect, but if you win you ain't got nothing to worry about.
All academic as the mighty tigers will make a mess of everyone regardless of system!