Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Is 4th better than 5th?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,459 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:13 AM

A top 8 playoff from 14 is too many. Hence the possibility of mediocre C*S/Crusaders teams making the playoffs.

Looking at how it pans out, Im wondering if in fact 5th is better than 4th? Now Im quite aware that 4th gets two bites, whilst 5th is on sudden death, but let's say for eg Hull get 4th and Leeds 5th and see how they go.

4th travels away to Wigan, receives a good hiding from the GF favourites & retreats.

5th plays at home to some dross team who just scraped into the playoffs and scores a handsome win.

Then 4th has to pick theselves up & take on 5th at home.

Now of course, being at home is an advantage, but the winning run & momentum counts for a lot in playoff rugby.

Just a thought, obviously.

Maybe Leeds wouldn't eactly be too heartbroken if Hull beat them the week after WEmbley??


 

A Fev Blog

 

 

 

 


#2 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:21 AM

QUOTE (marklaspalmas @ Aug 23 2010, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A top 8 playoff from 14 is too many. Hence the possibility of mediocre C*S/Crusaders teams making the playoffs.

Looking at how it pans out, Im wondering if in fact 5th is better than 4th? Now Im quite aware that 4th gets two bites, whilst 5th is on sudden death, but let's say for eg Hull get 4th and Leeds 5th and see how they go.

4th travels away to Wigan, receives a good hiding from the GF favourites & retreats.

5th plays at home to some dross team who just scraped into the playoffs and scores a handsome win.

Then 4th has to pick theselves up & take on 5th at home.

Now of course, being at home is an advantage, but the winning run & momentum counts for a lot in playoff rugby.

Just a thought, obviously.

Maybe Leeds wouldn't eactly be too heartbroken if Hull beat them the week after WEmbley??


it worked that way last year so certianly an argument..

but depends on how confident you are.. i would say leeds may be quite confident they would turn over wigan, they are 3 times champs and challenge cup finalists, its a one off game etc.. i cant see leeds thinking they are going to lose to anyone..


#3 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,985 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:22 AM

With my flatcap firmly in place.
I think the play-off structure is a nonsense. If you want an end-of-season play-off to decide the champions, at least be realistic. Top 8? Give over! Why should 8th place be given a chance at all? And why should any team be given a second chance? Straight knock-out - first v fourth and second v third, followed by a final. We already have our international players knackered before going into the 4N or WC, why extend the season unnecessarily? Fifth to eighth don't have a chance anyway.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#4 John Rhino

John Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,504 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:26 AM

QUOTE (tonyXIII @ Aug 23 2010, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
With my flatcap firmly in place.
I think the play-off structure is a nonsense. If you want an end-of-season play-off to decide the champions, at least be realistic. Top 8? Give over! Why should 8th place be given a chance at all?


I think Brian Noble may have an answer to that. Probably not printable though. cool.gif

Derby City - proud to be flying the flag for Rugby League in the Midlands for over 24 years.
 

Visit:  http://www.derbycityrlfc.co.uk and see the progress being made.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @derbycityrlfc


#5 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,554 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:28 AM

QUOTE (tonyXIII @ Aug 23 2010, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
With my flatcap firmly in place.
I think the play-off structure is a nonsense. If you want an end-of-season play-off to decide the champions, at least be realistic. Top 8? Give over! Why should 8th place be given a chance at all? And why should any team be given a second chance? Straight knock-out - first v fourth and second v third, followed by a final. We already have our international players knackered before going into the 4N or WC, why extend the season unnecessarily? Fifth to eighth don't have a chance anyway.


Give over tony. With your playoff system there's minimal reward for finsihing high up the table. Playoffs are nothing new to RL in this country. It's not something Super League brought to the game. Maybe the way the playoffs work is different but we've had playoffs in some form or another for decades. I agree that any team finishing below half way down the table (at least) shouldn't be anywhere near a playoff place.

rldfsignature.jpg


#6 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,939 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:33 AM

The top 8 play off system is a joke.

To put it into perspective, the team currently in 8th has a 42% win ratio.

So in effect you can lose more often than you win and still have a chance, however slim, of being champions.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#7 Saint Toppy

Saint Toppy
  • Coach
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 11:26 AM

I'd prefer a top 5 play-off.
1st place go straight to the GF whil 2nd play 5th and 3rd play 4th in a straight knock out.

The only possibe down side to this is that the team finshing top will have not played for 3 weeks by the time of the GF.

#8 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 11:36 AM

QUOTE (Saint Toppy @ Aug 23 2010, 11:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd prefer a top 5 play-off.
1st place go straight to the GF whil 2nd play 5th and 3rd play 4th in a straight knock out.

The only possibe down side to this is that the team finshing top will have not played for 3 weeks by the time of the GF.


personally i would keep 6 in the play offs but would make it top 5 with the 6th team being the challenge cup winners (if in the top 5 then would be 6th place in the league).. then gives something else to play for with the challengec up for the middle table teams.. spicing it up a bit..

#9 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,869 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 11:44 AM

4th has a massive advantage over 5th. If Leeds finish 4th and go to Wigan and win, then they go straight through to the major semis and have a week off. They will then get home advantage in that major playoff.

Massive difference between 4th and 5th.

#10 East Coast Tiger

East Coast Tiger
  • Coach
  • 3,866 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 11:54 AM

Yep 4th is clealrly better than 5th. That's why this system is not too bad actually. Eight teams might be too many but who cares. If the bottom couple really are that bad they won't last long. The top eight means more teams and more fans are involved in the action and there's more teams for TV etc. Does it really matter? If you're going to start worrying about where to draw the line based on theoretical nonsense you won't be able to escape the fact that anything other than first past the post is unfair or whatever.

#11 JWAD

JWAD
  • Coach
  • 14,332 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 12:03 PM

QUOTE (tonyXIII @ Aug 23 2010, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why should 8th place be given a chance at all?

More games so more revenue from TV rights, endorsements and attendances etc.
Also in there to try and prevent the same teams winning the comp each year by adding one more that they could fluff up ie. a quarter-final.

Can see where the logic is. I'd say there are more pros than cons, to be honest.

#12 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,985 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 01:34 PM

I'll answer a couple of points.
Firstly, the old-style play-offs were there because not every team played every other during the course of the season. Because of this 'lop-sided' system, it was possible, though unlikely TBH, for the top team to have played the weakest teams twice and the second team to have played the strongest teams twice. The play-off system compensated for this possible imbalance.
Secondly, the extra games means extra revenue argument is fine. So, let's play 52 weeks of the year and really burn our players out ph34r.gif . We often hear about the players playing too many games when it comes to the regular "What's the excuse for losing to the Aussies this time?" competition. I'd say an extra week of play-offs immediately before we play them is just what we don't need.
Of course, this is just my view and should not be taken too seriously wink.gif .

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#13 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 01:44 PM

Two points.

1. The current system only looks flawed because the team in 8th isnt that hot (whoever it is in the end), but by that token they wont get anywhere.

However what if the team in 7th/8th was only a handful of points away from the top 4, having been extremely competative and only lost games by a score or two due to poor luck or contentious reffing decisions? Would it then be so flawed?

2. People are viewing the playoffs entirely in the wrong way, now this is due to Sky pushing it in the wrong way but the race for the league leaders trophy is like the qualification rounds for something like the World Cup Finals (soccer wise)

Through the regular season the competition is to get into the finals, the finals then decide who is champion and the playoff scheme weights the rankings accordingly, like a seeding process in pretty much every other competion in the world.

#14 Hannibal

Hannibal
  • Coach
  • 11,790 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 01:59 PM

QUOTE (Ant @ Aug 23 2010, 02:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Two points.

1. The current system only looks flawed because the team in 8th isnt that hot (whoever it is in the end), but by that token they wont get anywhere.

However what if the team in 7th/8th was only a handful of points away from the top 4, having been extremely competative and only lost games by a score or two due to poor luck or contentious reffing decisions? Would it then be so flawed?

Catalans Dragons were woeful last season, and ended up in 8th place, 9 points off the top 4.

However, they ended up losing to Leeds by 7 points, in a game that would have got them to the GF.

I honestly think it's crazy that you can have a team that loses more games than it wins, and could still get that close to being crowned SL Champions.

Top 8 is way too many.

#15 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 02:55 PM

I dont know about you but I thought it was great to see, and ultimately, the didnt get to the final.

And the fact that they did was as much to do with how bad Huddersfield's shape was at the end of what was otherwise a great season for them

#16 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,939 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE (Hannibal @ Aug 23 2010, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I honestly think it's crazy that you can have a team that loses more games than it wins, and could still get that close to being crowned SL Champions.

Top 8 is way too many.


That's my point exactly, as I said Crusaders/Cas have a 42% win ratio yet one of them will get a shot at winning the competition. Nobody will ever convince me that that is an acceptable scenario.

FWIW, I think in a 14 team competition it should be a top 6 play off.

Week 1

1st and 2nd get a week off

A 3rd v 6th
B 4th v 5th

Week 2

C 1st v 2nd - winner to GF
D Winner A v Winner B

Week 3

E Loser C v Winner D

Week 4 Grand Final

Winner C v Winner E

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#17 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,656 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 03:27 PM

I didn't see anything wrong with the old top 6 play-off. With a top 8 you've got a team from the bottom half of the table who could win the competition. It'll probably never happen, but it would make it all look a bit farcical.

I thought the top 8 was introduced so that more teams in the bottom half of the table had something to play for. Other than professional pride and new contracts that is.


#18 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,459 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 04:11 PM

I thought both the top 5 and the current top 6 system (in our league) work quite well. Top 8 just seems too many. I understand about the extra games/extra revenue idea, but outside of the GF the playoffs are actually badly undermarketed anyway, and having weak teams in it devalues the achievement and rewards mediocrity.

I take the points about 4th v 5th, though to say the difference is massive is an absurd exaggeration.

Let's see what happens. I'd suggest Leeds may well be an atypical 4th placed side, given their playoff pedigree. Look what happened last year to 4th placed Hull KR.

 

A Fev Blog

 

 

 

 


#19 GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES
  • Coach
  • 1,595 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 04:49 PM

I am perfectly happy with what we have, and that's because i recognise it for what it is, A end of season knockout comp for TV, raising money, and a show piece final for rugby league, For me it doesn't really matter all that much who wins it, I just want to see some great games ( hopefully ) As far as I'm concerned Wigan are this years champions, the playoffs are a separate thing altogether, I dont say everyone sees it that way but i do.
Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

#20 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,869 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 05:08 PM

QUOTE (marklaspalmas @ Aug 23 2010, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I take the points about 4th v 5th, though to say the difference is massive is an absurd exaggeration.

Not absurd in the slightest. Let's put a couple of scenarios together.

Leeds finish 4th - they win at Wigan, they get through to the major semi at home. 1 game from the final at home. Brilliant.

Leeds finish 5th, they beat Crusaders (8th) at home. They then have to play Warrington or Hull away, and then Wigan or Saints away.

You honestly think that there isn't a massive difference in those scenarios?

There is also the fact that if they lose their first game from 5th they are out, whereas 4th will always get a second chance.

The difference is absolutely massive, probably the biggest difference in the playoffs, and it surprised me you actually picked these two places as your example, as there are much better examples to show flaws in the system.

By the way - I don't disagree that the top 5 or 5 playoff system may have been better, just focussing on this on point.

Edited by Dave T, 23 August 2010 - 05:09 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users