The 1st week of the Finals has shown...

[TigerFlag2017]

Just how important big men still are to winning finals football.

Franklin kicked 7. Rocca kicked 6. Mooney kicked 5.

I hope Messrs Wallace, Miller and Jackson are taking notice, and the mosquito fleet with 2 bookends gameplan has been shelved. We look like we're getting some taller players up front, but I'd really love to see a big gorilla style forward to compliment them.

Likewise, I'd like to see us get a defender sometime very soon, to play on the big gorilla style forwards.

Yep.
That's the first thing that hit me.
The goals were kicked by the 195+cm forwards.

Amazing how when finals hit that the big forwards come into their own.
But long-time Richmond supporters should know this from our history anyway.

Don't disagree, however we've had Richo for what 12 years, and haven't been anywhere close to being competitive over a sustained period. Talls are obviously a key piece of the puzzle, but not the be all and end all.

How about skills, tackling, key talls, tight backline, premium midfielders, fast flankers....

Most enjoyable to watch game I thought was Crows-Hawks, although the crows at times were frustrating. But it did point out how enjoyable it is to watch a direct team play the way the hawks did.

 

[IanG]

at least we arent as bad as the arl where the 5th placed side could lose in the first week and still play in a final.

6th (Canterbury) lost last week and are still alive.

In fact, their 'punishment' for losing last week is a final on their own home ground against a team who won last week! :hihi

Oddities like that are the reason why the AFL got rid of that system, Dunno why the NRL then decided to use it.

 

[tigerdave]

A quality big forward and ruckman will win you flags.History has proven that.Look at Adelaide,no quality forward or ruckman.They were never going to win the cup!

 

[YinnarTiger]

at least we arent as bad as the arl where the 5th placed side could lose in the first week and still play in a final.

6th (Canterbury) lost last week and are still alive.

In fact, their 'punishment' for losing last week is a final on their own home ground against a team who won last week! :hihi

Oddities like that are the reason why the AFL got rid of that system, Dunno why the NRL then decided to use it.

The final 5 system is the best but if they must have a final 8, the old system was fairer and that's why the NRL uses it.
These graphs show the difference.


The advantage offered to the 4th team over the 5th team is huge.
The graphs show the chances for a premiership assuming all games are 50/50 and then allow a 1%, 2% and 3% advantage for ladder finishing position difference. Eg 1 vs 4 with 2% difference would be 56/44.

 

[IanG]

Oddities like that are the reason why the AFL got rid of that system, Dunno why the NRL then decided to use it.

The final 5 system is the best but if they must have a final 8, the old system was fairer and that's why the NRL uses it.
These graphs show the difference.


The advantage offered to the 4th team over the 5th team is huge.
The graphs show the chances for a premiership assuming all games are 50/50 and then allow a 1%, 2% and 3% advantage for ladder finishing position difference. Eg 1 vs 4 with 2% difference would be 56/44.

Disagree about the Final 5, the possibility of having 2 weeks off during the finals is too much.

As for the the NRL being fairer, to whom? I would say the top 4 deserve more of an advantage.

 

[YinnarTiger]

As for the the NRL being fairer, to whom? I would say the top 4 deserve more of an advantage.

They already have an advantage.
The diffference is that the advantage that 1st has over 2nd is roughly the same as 2nd has over 3rd which is the same that 4th has over 5th etc.
In the AFL system there is less rewards within the top 4 and if you finish outside the top 4 you have a relativel easy game the first week.

 

[jb03]

I reckon the old finals 4 and 5 were great systems. While the NRL system may be statistically fairer, it throws up too many oddities which is why the AFL current it a better system (not necessarily fairer).

I favour two final fours within the 8: 1, 4, 5 and 8 in one and 2, 3, 6 and 7 in the other with the winner of those two groups playing off in the grand final (the grand finals of each subset of 4 would act as the preliminary finals). Each position has a advantage over the position immediately below. Similar to now but without the crossover that occurs after week 2 - the AFL don't like this system as it precludes a lot of grand final combinations.

 

[Harry]

I reckon the old finals 4 and 5 were great systems. While the NRL system may be statistically fairer, it throws up too many oddities which is why the AFL current it a better system (not necessarily fairer).

I favour two final fours within the 8: 1, 4, 5 and 8 in one and 2, 3, 6 and 7 in the other with the winner of those two groups playing off in the grand final (the grand finals of each subset of 4 would act as the preliminary finals). Each position has a advantage over the position immediately below. Similar to now but without the crossover that occurs after week 2 - the AFL don't like this system as it precludes a lot of grand final combinations.

What happens if teams 1,2,3 and 4 lose in the first week? This will mean 3 and 4 are eliminated. In effect finishing 3rd does not give you a second chance. Slim chance I know. It gets a bit messy when other games affect whether you have a second chance or not. I think the current system is the best as you know from the beginning which game will have the loser bowing out..

 

[YinnarTiger]

I reckon the old finals 4 and 5 were great systems. While the NRL system may be statistically fairer, it throws up too many oddities which is why the AFL current it a better system (not necessarily fairer).

I favour two final fours within the 8: 1, 4, 5 and 8 in one and 2, 3, 6 and 7 in the other with the winner of those two groups playing off in the grand final (the grand finals of each subset of 4 would act as the preliminary finals). Each position has a advantage over the position immediately below. Similar to now but without the crossover that occurs after week 2 - the AFL don't like this system as it precludes a lot of grand final combinations.

What happens if teams 1,2,3 and 4 lose in the first week? This will mean 3 and 4 are eliminated. In effect finishing 3rd does not give you a second chance. Slim chance I know. It gets a bit messy when other games affect whether you have a second chance or not. I think the current system is the best as you know from the beginning which game will have the loser bowing out..

I think jb has the two final fours that would be like our old final four so you couldn't have 1,2,3,4 all losing because it would be 1vs4 and 2vs3 with the losers going to prelims against the winners of 5vs8 and 6vs7

 

[YinnarTiger]

I also liked the system suggested in a letter to one of the newspapers this week. 1st team chooses which other team from the 8 they want to play. 2nd chooses from those left then 3rd chooses and the last 2 left play off. The lowest 2 get eliminated, the top 2 go to prelims and the new rankings determine who chooses who for the semi-finals.

 

[Tango]

thats an interesting concept..... i choose ballarat U13s :hihi

 

[jb03]

I reckon the old finals 4 and 5 were great systems. While the NRL system may be statistically fairer, it throws up too many oddities which is why the AFL current it a better system (not necessarily fairer).

I favour two final fours within the 8: 1, 4, 5 and 8 in one and 2, 3, 6 and 7 in the other with the winner of those two groups playing off in the grand final (the grand finals of each subset of 4 would act as the preliminary finals). Each position has a advantage over the position immediately below. Similar to now but without the crossover that occurs after week 2 - the AFL don't like this system as it precludes a lot of grand final combinations.

What happens if teams 1,2,3 and 4 lose in the first week? This will mean 3 and 4 are eliminated. In effect finishing 3rd does not give you a second chance. Slim chance I know. It gets a bit messy when other games affect whether you have a second chance or not. I think the current system is the best as you know from the beginning which game will have the loser bowing out..

I think jb has the two final fours that would be like our old final four so you couldn't have 1,2,3,4 all losing because it would be 1vs4 and 2vs3 with the losers going to prelims against the winners of 5vs8 and 6vs7

Thanks Yinnar, you are quite correct.

Sheesh, I thought Harry was smarter than that. My apologies.