Quote Originally Posted by monz6 View Post
I understand what you?re saying but that?s just sport. So many grand finals are lost by the team that wasn?t the best all year, because they had an off day or didn?t get up for it as much as the other team. UFC fighters lose titles because they had an off day, even though they may be a better fighter than the person who beat them. You could also argue it should be three games instead of two. But it?s one. Both teams know that in advance and have the same amount of time to prepare for it. Also, what if the npl team wins game one 3-0 and has a shocker in game two and loses 4-0?
Yes but losing a grand final does not usually have long term ramifications on a club. You come back next season in the same division and you go again.

Relegation however has the potential to completely tear a club apart and I just dont think a club should be at risk of suffering that fate over a one off 90 minute game of football.

And two games traditionally in our sport is the perfect number in this scenario as it does give you the chance to recover from a crazy fluke result.

If an NPL team is leading 3-0 in the first leg and lose the 2nd leg 4-0 then they probably dont deserve to be playing NPL

However if they completely dominate a match for 89mins but just have one of those days where it wont go into the net and go onto concede an own goal in the 90th minute well I think they deserve the chance to come back the following week to try and fix their shortcoming. If lightning strikes twice well thats unfortunate but they can have no complaints.

Overall you cant compare a grand final to a relegation playoff. The whole purpose of a grand final is to give the underdog the best possible chance of succeeding which is what we love to see in this country. A relegation playoff however should be construed so that the superior team has the better chance to advance as you want the best teams playing in the league the following season and making the competition as strong as can be.