Ladder position

[Guest]

Can anyone shed any light on how ladder positions are determined after 2 or more teams are on the same points? I know that it then goes to points difference but what after that? I thought it went to most points 'for' but looking at the roosters and warriors situation on the ladder it appears i was wrong.

Surely all performance attriubutes must be considered before they go to an alphabetical way of determining who goes ahead. (ie New Zealand before Sydney)

thoughts anyone?

[Spirit of 66]

Surely all performance attriubutes must be considered before they go to an alphabetical way of determining who goes ahead. (ie New Zealand before Sydney)

If that's the case, we're not Sydney, we're Easts. (Or Aardvark United if that helps.)

[Guest]

fark i hope it isnt going on penalty counts

[redwhiteandbluester]

If two teams finish on the same number of competition points and have the same points differential then ladder position is determined by percentages (i.e. which team has the better defence).

That is why the Warriors currently sit above the Roosters on the table. Auckland have scored 513 points and conceded 474 (percentage = 108.2); the Roosters have scored 541 points and conceded 502 (percentage = 107.8).

If two teams have the same points differential, the team that has the better attacking record loses out.

[trippa]

If two teams finish on the same number of competition points and have the same points differential then ladder position is determined by percentages (i.e. which team has the better defence).

That is why the Warriors currently sit above the Roosters on the table. Auckland have scored 513 points and conceded 474 (percentage = 108.2); the Roosters have scored 541 points and conceded 502 (percentage = 107.8).

If two teams have the same points differential, the team that has the better attacking record loses out.

so then it is pretty much who has the lowest defence/highest attack

[redwhiteandbluester]

so then it is pretty much who has the lowest defence/highest attack

Well when two teams share the same number of competition points (wins), then points differential (i.e. points for minus points against) determines who sits higher on the ladder.

If points differential is equal (as in the Roosters and Warriors currently) then it goes to percentages. The team with the better percentage is the team with the better defensive record but the poorer attacking record.

So the Roosters have scored more points than the Warriors, but they sit below them on the ladder because their percentage is poorer.

[Kingbilly]

Thats the way it should be, its sometimes forgotten that defense is more important than attack

[Chook Norris]

Well when two teams share the same number of competition points (wins), then points differential (i.e. points for minus points against) determines who sits higher on the ladder.

If points differential is equal (as in the Roosters and Warriors currently) then it goes to percentages. The team with the better percentage is the team with the better defensive record but the poorer attacking record.

So the Roosters have scored more points than the Warriors, but they sit below them on the ladder because their percentage is poorer.

^ this post is correct, it's decided by percentages which is more a reflection of defence

[Hawkeye]

Don't think you can just say having a better defensive record automatically gives you a better percentage.
Its a mathematical formula, Points For / Points Against x 100 .....so you could have a worse defensive record but still have a better percentage, provided that your attack is proportional better than the other teams

For example:
Team A Against 200 For 400 = Percentage is 200%
Team B Against 300 For 700 = Percentage is 233%

Team B has a worse defence but a better percentage, because their 'points for' is proportionally greater than Team A's.

Obviously having a better defence slants it in your favour, but its not the B all

[Pass the Ball]

But in that example percentages would not come into it because team B has a differential of 400, as opposed to team A with a differential of only 200..

A better example would be

Team A - Against 200 - For 400 = 200%
Team B - Against 300 - For 500 = 166%

[Hawkeye]

But in that example percentages would not come into it because team B has a differential of 400, as opposed to team A with a differential of only 200..

Good point PTB, I was not looking at it from the point of only using it when the differentials are the same.

...geez that Dogs game in round 4 has really come back to haunt us !

[redwhiteandbluester]

But in that example percentages would not come into it because team B has a differential of 400, as opposed to team A with a differential of only 200..

Exactly PTB.

When two sides have the same points differential, the team with the better defensive record will have the better percentage always.

[stephenj]

essentially the 4 points marketing threw away with a cavalier attitude to 2 home games, may now both come back to bight us and also cost the club significant windfall profits, add 4 point were alone on second with a home final!

[Hawkeye]

essentially the 4 points marketing threw away with a cavalier attitude to 2 home games, may now both come back to bight us and also cost the club significant windfall profits, add 4 point were alone on second with a home final!

They'll probably address that issue in 2011 by taking another home game on the road !

[elo]

We'll be taking our Good Friday match against the Broncos to Jerusalem from 2011.