Who deserves to win a grand final more? Team A: Wins 13 games straight at the start of the season, loses the following 11. Finishs up on 30 points in 8th place, goes on to win the GF. Team B: Loses their first 11 games, then goes on to win their following 13. Ends up on 30 points, in 8th spot. Goes on to win the GF. Team C: Wins 13 games throughout the season, loses 11. Biggest winning streak is 3 games, biggest losing streak is 2 games. Finish on 30 points etc. Just curious as to who you see as 'more deserving' of the premiership.
Seriously though, why is everyone whinging about the possibly of the Eels winning the comp? IIRC no-one whinged when the Tigers won it.
Wasn't targetted at the Eels arguement, more just the general arguement of how 1 team deserves it more despite finishing close to another (sparked by the Broncos-Storm comment actually).
Duder, the Tigers were like never worse than 10th, and lost their last 2 games to get out of the Minor Premiership race... That's why they didn't whinge. As for my point of view, probably C because they've been the most consistent.
C. Shown they can perform all year, all be it having a bad match at times, where as the other too just show purple patches at some point.
Not really sure. Probably equal. As long as you win more than 12 games in the regular season, you deserve to be in the finals. Once in the finals, if you keep winning, you deserve the Premiership.
Team C = Dragons in 08. Probably team A or B, whichever team were losing due to injuries rather than the board just sorting themselves out with some new elections.
B (or A really) shows that you can actually beat the teams that matter, and that you are an actual top team, not a middle of the road sort of team. After all if you can lose 13 in a row there must have been something wrong to cause you to lose so many, and it wasn't a lack of talent. Should have been a fourth option, the broncos, win seven, lose eleven (because your whole firsts team is hit by a case of the origins) and win six to finish up the season.
Consitency is such a farse for a team, its great for individuals but its meaningless to a team. Consitently average, is average, if you were consistently good then you wouldn't lose to all the sides above you (ie. lose about 11 times).
AWTA strongly. DWTA strongly. I'm very much in favour of having a finals system, but it's far too easy to qualify for it ATM.