50 replies to this topic

[marklaspalmas]

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.

Jeez calm down. Its plausible, but it's not likely to happen. Much more likely is the scenario Ive outlined at the start, or indeed what actually happened in 2009. The difference is patently not "absolutely massive" at all. 4th, 5th place. There shouldn't be much in it anyway. I was just speculating about whether they'd actually got the fine balance quite right. There are plenty of possible scenarios under which 5th could work out quite a bit better than 4th.

Happy to listen to your views on these other flaws.

[Dave T]

Jeez calm down. Its plausible, but it's not likely to happen. Much more likely is the scenario Ive outlined at the start, or indeed what actually happened in 2009. The difference is patently not "absolutely massive" at all. 4th, 5th place. There shouldn't be much in it anyway. I was just speculating about whether they'd actually got the fine balance quite right. There are plenty of possible scenarios under which 5th could work out quite a bit better than 4th.

Happy to listen to your views on these other flaws.

Not sure why you think I need to calm down, my post was perfectly reasonable and I thought well structured.

My point wasn't unlikely to happen at all. Your scenario was much more unlikely. Last season we had a freak season in that (and whatever offence this causes) certain teams over-performed and many under-performed. Leeds will possibly take 4th this year, and will be very good from there.

There are no situations whatsoever that a 5th placed finish ould be more beneficial than 4th. Results could well mean that 5th could do better than 4th, but they will have had to do it in more difficult circumstances than 4th, without question. I'm really a bit baffled as to why you think any situation could make 5th better than 4th. It is impossible no matter what situation you put together. Impossible.

Edited by Dave T, 24 August 2010 - 01:05 AM.

[Finn]

Aussie top 8 works because there are more teams and the difference between 1st - 8th is relatively small, look at the current league tables in terms of points:

Aus (1st - 8th) 34-32-32-30-28-28-28-26 - 8 points between 1st and 8th
GB 42-38-38-33-32-31-29-22 - 20 point diff

Top 5 works in GB but we have to artificially keep the lower teams involved to pander to Sky and because there is no relegation to increase interest lower down.

[marklaspalmas]

Not sure why you think I need to calm down, my post was perfectly reasonable and I thought well structured.

My point wasn't unlikely to happen at all. Your scenario was much more unlikely. Last season we had a freak season in that (and whatever offence this causes) certain teams over-performed and many under-performed. Leeds will possibly take 4th this year, and will be very good from there.

There are no situations whatsoever that a 5th placed finish ould be more beneficial than 4th. Results could well mean that 5th could do better than 4th, but they will have had to do it in more difficult circumstances than 4th, without question. I'm really a bit baffled as to why you think any situation could make 5th better than 4th. It is impossible no matter what situation you put together. Impossible.

Eh? You think it's more likely that 4th would win at 1st in the first round of playoffs, than the much more likely scenario of 1st hammers 4th who then have to play 5th coming off a healthy win themselves.

That's all Im saying. No names, no pack drill. If you can't see that simple point, Im sorry.

[Dave T]

Eh? You think it's more likely that 4th would win at 1st in the first round of playoffs, than the much more likely scenario of 1st hammers 4th who then have to play 5th coming off a healthy win themselves.

That's all Im saying. No names, no pack drill. If you can't see that simple point, Im sorry.

Yep, sorry I got a bit confused with my response about the original post, but I still stand by the fact that 4th is a much, much better position to finish that 5th.

By finishing 4th, you have the chance to put in a good performance and play at home in the major semi.

By finishing 5th, this is impossible.

Take away the first week issue, and the overall three week playoff is heavily seeded in favour of 4th over 5th.

I also think that if you are 4th and take a hiding and collapse at the 1st placed team then you either man up and come back stronger, or you didn't really deserve to be through anyway.

If you finish 5th, the chances are you will need to win two games to even get a chance to play 1st.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Jeez calm down. Its plausible, but it's not likely to happen. Much more likely is the scenario Ive outlined at the start, or indeed what actually happened in 2009. The difference is patently not "absolutely massive" at all. 4th, 5th place. There shouldn't be much in it anyway. I was just speculating about whether they'd actually got the fine balance quite right. There are plenty of possible scenarios under which 5th could work out quite a bit better than 4th.

Happy to listen to your views on these other flaws.

You do realise that 5th got knocked out by 8th in the first week of the play-offs last year, don't you?

Yeah, it's much better to finish 5th!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Also, from a Hull point of view, if we lose next weekend we'll probably be 6th (can't see Huddersfield losing to Catalans). But still, we'll either play Crusaders (a team we've lost to, and only just beat at home a few weeks ago), Castleford (who nearly turned us over last time we played them) or Hull KR (enough said!). If we manage to get through that, we'd then have to play Wigan, Saints, Wire or Leeds away.

Now, if we finished 4th and lost our first game, we'd have to play Leeds, Hudds or Rovers at home. A lot better than playing the above teams away. It's a no-brainer for me which is a better position to be in. In fact, IMO the gap between 4th and 5th is by far the biggest gap in terms of advantage in the play-offs.

[marklaspalmas]

You do realise that 5th got knocked out by 8th in the first week of the play-offs last year, don't you?

Yeah, it's much better to finish 5th!

Irrelevant.

The point still remains.

It was the lower placed team that "got on a roll" by winning their first game, whilst both 3rd and 4th took defeats in round 1 that they couldn't recover from.

[East Coast Tiger]

Ask any player or coach whether they'd rather finish fourth or fifth and I reckon I know which they'd choose. I like the SL finals system. It's the way the ARL system worked in 1995 and 96 before Murdoch f'ed everything up. And now the NRL has a more complicated system that isn't really any better and gets everyone all hot under the collar.

[no13benny]

This whole argument is based on what happened last year, the first year we've had 8 teams in the play-offs.

Why don't we wait and see what happens this year before assuming anything?

I for one would love there to be a Hull derby in the first weekend, as a neutral.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Irrelevant.

The point still remains.

It was the lower placed team that "got on a roll" by winning their first game, whilst both 3rd and 4th took defeats in round 1 that they couldn't recover from.

It's totally relevant. The fact that the team that finished 5th was eliminated straight away last year shows that it's better to finish higher so you have MORE CHANCE to progress. 5th had one chance and lost. 4th had two chances, but also lost. The end result was the same, but one had two chances to put it right, the other didn't. Unless you're saying it's better to finish in 7th or 8th as well?

If this "roll on" is so impactful, why don't the team in 3rd and 4th just put out a reserve team for the first game, play a friendly the day after to get the "roll on" and take advantage of a home tie against the winners of the previous game? They could do that if they wished if it was that much of an advantage.

Or maybe they'd rather play to get the extra week off?
Maybe they'd come back stronger after defeat? And the other team become over confident in victory?
How often has the team with the roll on in the old top-6 play-off system beaten the team on the back of a loss to make the GF? Twice in seven years.

[marklaspalmas]

It's totally relevant. The fact that the team that finished 5th was eliminated straight away last year shows that it's better to finish higher so you have MORE CHANCE to progress. 5th had one chance and lost. 4th had two chances, but also lost. The end result was the same, but one had two chances to put it right, the other didn't. Unless you're saying it's better to finish in 7th or 8th as well?

If this "roll on" is so impactful, why don't the team in 3rd and 4th just put out a reserve team for the first game, play a friendly the day after to get the "roll on" and take advantage of a home tie against the winners of the previous game? They could do that if they wished if it was that much of an advantage.

Or maybe they'd rather play to get the extra week off?
Maybe they'd come back stronger after defeat? And the other team become over confident in victory?
How often has the team with the roll on in the old top-6 play-off system beaten the team on the back of a loss to make the GF? Twice in seven years.

Thanks, but I know how the system works.

We've had the system one year, and the only year we've had it it worked out terribly for both 3rd and 4th for exactly the reasons Ive described. Let's see what happens in the 2nd season

[TheObserver]

A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.

Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)

1st place - week off.
A 2nd vs 7th
B 3rd vs 6th
C 4th vs 5th

Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).

C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)
D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)

Week 3

Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.

Edited by TheObserver, 26 August 2010 - 07:15 AM.

[JWAD]

A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.

Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)

1st place - week off.
A 2nd vs 7th
B 3rd vs 6th
C 4th vs 5th

Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).

C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)
D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)

Week 3

Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.

1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.
No chance.

[Lee]

1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.
No chance.

As opposed to them having the 2nd week off anyway if they win

[Wellsy4HullFC]

A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.

Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)

1st place - week off.
A 2nd vs 7th
B 3rd vs 6th
C 4th vs 5th

Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).

C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)
D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)

Week 3

Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.

Bit of flawed system.
Why do 4/5th have to play first? In week one, 7th could beat 2nd, and 6th could beat 3rd. Then in your system, 6th would play 7th and 1st would play 4/5th? 6th and 7th get an easier game? 4/5th get shafted? And why a neutral venue?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.
No chance.

Doesn't all of the play-off money go into a pot and is dished out as prize money anyway? Or something similar...

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Top 7 Play-off

Week 1

1st has bye to Week two
A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)
3rd vs 6th (loser out)
C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)

Week 2

D) 1st vs highest ranked winner of week 1 (winner to GF, loser to week 3)
E) 2nd highest ranked winner vs lowest ranked winner (loser out)

Week 3

F) Loser of D vs Winner of E

Week 4

G) Winner of D vs Winner of F


It's pretty much the same as the Top 6 play-offs, except 2nd don't get a bye to week two (instead they play 7th).

The only potential problem is that it favours the top side tremendously compared to the rest. But in all fairness, it should do! They finished top!

[RP London]

Top 7 Play-off

Week 1

1st has bye to Week two
A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)
3rd vs 6th (loser out)
C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)

Week 2

D) 1st vs highest ranked winner of week 1 (winner to GF, loser to week 3)
E) 2nd highest ranked winner vs lowest ranked winner (loser out)

Week 3

F) Loser of D vs Winner of E

Week 4

G) Winner of D vs Winner of F


It's pretty much the same as the Top 6 play-offs, except 2nd don't get a bye to week two (instead they play 7th).

The only potential problem is that it favours the top side tremendously compared to the rest. But in all fairness, it should do! They finished top!

whats the advantage of finnishing higher.. one off games anyone can beat anyone.. the bonus of finishing in the top 4 is a second bite of hte cherry in the present format which is good.. straight knock out means a poor decision etc could kill off the best team in one swoop... 7th can beat 2nd in any game and does, but for 2nd to mean anything you need a second bite of the cherry..

[JWAD]

Doesn't all of the play-off money go into a pot and is dished out as prize money anyway? Or something similar...

Weird if true.