Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Do we need to change play off format?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Wendall

Wendall
  • Banned
  • 6,758 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:09 AM

Well after tonight I am (as a Wire fan) not really fussed about the result. Wire lost to Saints but will get a second bite of the cherry next week. I firmly believe it will be another Saints v Wire rematch in two weeks, so it begs the question is the game we witnessed tonight just a reharesal?

And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Somehow unless we see a miracle win by Leeds on Sunday we will witness a repeat set of games in 2 weeks.

Discuss?





#2 Emosi Koloto

Emosi Koloto
  • Coach
  • 1,194 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:40 AM

I am happy with the format.

Top two get home games, the top four get two bites of the cherry and the bottom half of the playoff teams play sudden death all the way through and if they are good enough to win away from home then they deserve all they get.
Everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon

#3 Hannibal

Hannibal
  • Coach
  • 11,790 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 05:40 AM

QUOTE (Wendall @ Sep 11 2010, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well after tonight I am (as a Wire fan) not really fussed about the result. Wire lost to Saints but will get a second bite of the cherry next week. I firmly believe it will be another Saints v Wire rematch in two weeks, so it begs the question is the game we witnessed tonight just a reharesal?

And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Somehow unless we see a miracle win by Leeds on Sunday we will witness a repeat set of games in 2 weeks.

Discuss?

Maybe we should analyse all the available systems, see which one best suits an over-hyped, over-weight squad, and then just go for that one.

Wire need to start throwing games early in the season in an attempt to avoid Saints in the play-offs. It's the only way they will win anything.

Or maybe the RFL will allow them to play a couple of second division sides early in the play-offs?

#4 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 3,834 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:00 AM

QUOTE (Wendall @ Sep 11 2010, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well after tonight I am (as a Wire fan) not really fussed about the result. Wire lost to Saints but will get a second bite of the cherry next week. I firmly believe it will be another Saints v Wire rematch in two weeks, so it begs the question is the game we witnessed tonight just a reharesal?

And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Somehow unless we see a miracle win by Leeds on Sunday we will witness a repeat set of games in 2 weeks.

Discuss?


That's what Hull KR (3rd) and Hudds (4th) thought last year and they were dumped out of the next round of the play-offs by Wigan and Catalans. The form team may be the one sitting in 6, 7, or 8th (Catalans 2009). If it were my club I would desperately want to win the first game.

If Wire had won they were one 'home' game from the Grand Final. Now they will have to play at home to a side who has just won a sudden-death game and away at either Leeds, Wigan or Saints.

Edited by Scubby, 11 September 2010 - 08:01 AM.


#5 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 3,123 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:14 AM

If Wire play like that in their next game, they certainly won't get to lose to Saints again this season.
People called Romans they go the house

#6 goldcard

goldcard
  • Coach
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:34 AM

I preferred the top 5.
Seemed a more balanced system, to win from 5th you had to really do it the hard way, if you actually finished that high (which Wires didn't)
Wires record breaking 10 match run: L 16-17 ; L 34-36 ; L 24-44 ; L 20-38 ; L 8-46; L 14-26 ; L 20-40 ; L 22-48 ; L 14-20 ; L 8-60. Thanks Jimmy.The Glamour Club. Apparently.
Captain Morgan Trophy Holders.(I still think we have the British Coal 9's trophy hidden somewhere, too...)
Ooooh, the Challenge Cup!!! Thank you Tony.....
And again!!!Posted Image
Tipping Competiton Challenged Shield Winner 2010

#7 East Coast Tiger

East Coast Tiger
  • Coach
  • 3,866 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:50 AM

This system is perfectly okay. It's better and less complicated than the Macintyre system the NRL use and most NRL fans would probably rather it went back to the SL system.

The top 5 system is the best, not doubt. The only problem - it means you can only have 5 teams in the finals. Obviously.

#8 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,554 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:59 AM

QUOTE (Wendall @ Sep 11 2010, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Discuss?



So all games would be sudden death? Where's the reward in finishing high up the table other than a guaranteed home game in the first round? Top five for me. It means less teams have the chance of playing in them but ups the quality. As has been argued before teams with a below 50% win/loss ratio really shouldn't be anywhere near the playoffs.

rldfsignature.jpg


#9 Wilderspoolmemories

Wilderspoolmemories
  • Coach
  • 751 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 09:11 AM

QUOTE (East Coast Tiger @ Sep 11 2010, 09:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This system is perfectly okay. It's better and less complicated than the Macintyre system the NRL use and most NRL fans would probably rather it went back to the SL system.

The top 5 system is the best, not doubt. The only problem - it means you can only have 5 teams in the finals. Obviously.

And therefore only the teams that deserve to be in it get into it. A team finishing in the lower half of the league table should not qualify for the play offs in my opinion.
2009 Warrington 25 Hudderfield 16
2010 Warrington 30 Leeds 6
2011 League Leaders Shield Winners
2012 Warrington 35 Leeds 18

Challenge cups and league leaders shields everywhere! We need more silver polish!

#10 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 3,834 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 09:24 AM

QUOTE (Wilderspoolmemories @ Sep 11 2010, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And therefore only the teams that deserve to be in it get into it. A team finishing in the lower half of the league table should not qualify for the play offs in my opinion.


I agree but for a top-8 format - this is fine. The team finishing 3rd and 4th should go all out to win that first game, it is their season. It tells the top two that they are in the driving seat.

Wire will be kicking themselves if Leeds win tomorrow. If they had turned up against Saints they may well have been hand picking their opponents in a home game to get to the final. It will be very tough next round against someone backing up from a good win.


#11 Allan Marsden

Allan Marsden
  • Banned
  • 433 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:01 AM

Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.

#12 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,151 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:05 AM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 11 2010, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.



why is it a ludicrous marketing gimmick, though? what is wrong with creating customer interest in goods or services?

#13 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:17 AM

QUOTE (Wilderspoolmemories @ Sep 11 2010, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And therefore only the teams that deserve to be in it get into it. A team finishing in the lower half of the league table should not qualify for the play offs in my opinion.



I agree in fact lets use that logic and jump to correct conclusion that those finishing lower than 1st, should not be able to be champions, as the 1st placed team are obviously the best over the season.
Super League the only place in the world where people still believe that less competitors and a closed market to new competition will improve the quality of the product.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans gave up on these marxist principles years ago.


SL with a reduced number of competitors and a closed market = North Korea.

#14 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 3,123 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:33 AM

QUOTE (bewareshadows @ Sep 11 2010, 12:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree in fact lets use that logic and jump to correct conclusion that those finishing lower than 1st, should not be able to be champions, as the 1st placed team are obviously the best over the season.

It's going to leave the Play-Offs a little short though.
People called Romans they go the house

#15 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 6,023 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:41 AM

i would go for a top 9 play off. 8 plays 9 giving the top 7 sides a week off. then go with the system we have now. the reason i say that is that having 9th placed team as with no releagtion the teams at the bottom of the table would have a little bit more to play for and take them out the comfort zone.

#16 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,709 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:49 AM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 11 2010, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.


A ludicrous marketing gimmick that most fans are in favour of?

The playoffs are way better than the league system. The premiership was an after thought with no credibility. This way we end the season in the best possible way, like the Super Bowl, like the World Cup etc with the two best sides playing in front of 70,000 odd playing.

The system is fine and Wendall is being extremely presumptuous in thinking that we will end up with a repeat of the two games. It didn't happen last year and it probably won't happen the vast majority of times we have this system.

#17 Allan Marsden

Allan Marsden
  • Banned
  • 433 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:55 AM

QUOTE (JohnM @ Sep 11 2010, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
why is it a ludicrous marketing gimmick, though? what is wrong with creating customer interest in goods or services?


It is actually IMO counter productive and fails to achieve the desired aim. Moreover, it is wrong.

The team that finishes top of the League after playing each team home and away are the true and deserved champions. That is why it is called a League. That is why the winners are called champions / championship winners. A knockout competition is called a Cup and the winners are called Cup Winners.

The desired aim? Apparently this marketing idea was supposed to sustain interest throughout the season and extend it culminating in much higher attendances. Does it do that? Possibly/probably interest. No in terms of attendances IMO.

The system previously sustained interest by having relegation / promotion. Now if sustaining interest is the only criteria you would bring that back would you not. What interest have Quins, Bulls, Reds fans had. I recall a Cas / Wakey relegation dogfight attracting a huge attendance for those 2 teams. We have probably as many dead rubbers or more than we ever did.

In a true Championship every win mattered. Teams played at their best week in week out. Now we have teams at the top virtually throwing fixtures away by resting umpteen players and shortchanging fans. In the past as the regular season reached its climax the quality of rugby got better and better and crowds went off the scale. Do crowds go off the scale in the play offs? No The GF gets a crowd but then in past RL was always able to get crowds for finals so that is nothing new. Indeed, some would argue the marketing for the GF has damaged the Challenge Cup. In the old system you had teams at the bottom fighting for their lives, teams mid table fighting for premiership places and top teams for the championships until the bitter end.

1989/90 Wigan last 3 fixtures

Tue 10 Apr Leeds Home Won 16-12 24462
Fri 13 April St Helens Away Lost 10-35 17176
Mon 16 Apr Leigh Home Won 34-06 19641

1990/91 Wigan last 6 fixtures

Mon 1 April Oldham Away Won 10-04 7399
Thu 4 April St Helens Home Won 28-14 17580
Sun 7 April Castleford Home Won 24-04 13948
Tue 9 April Widnes Home Won 26-06 29763
Thu 11 April Bradford Northern Home Draw 18-18 19112
Sat 13 April Leeds Away Won 20-08 15313

Here we are in 2010 and fans are saying 14K for Wire having just won the CC and Saints in their final games at KR is a good crowd rolleyes.gif Whatsmore some of those fictures were 2 or 3 in 7 days and far more walk up fans.

So maybe we should stop swallowing rhwetoric and think for ourselves

#18 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,709 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:05 PM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 11 2010, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is actually IMO counter productive and fails to achieve the desired aim. Moreover, it is wrong.

The team that finishes top of the League after playing each team home and away are the true and deserved champions. That is why it is called a League. That is why the winners are called champions / championship winners. A knockout competition is called a Cup and the winners are called Cup Winners.

The desired aim? Apparently this marketing idea was supposed to sustain interest throughout the season and extend it culminating in much higher attendances. Does it do that? Possibly/probably interest. No in terms of attendances IMO.

The system previously sustained interest by having relegation / promotion. Now if sustaining interest is the only criteria you would bring that back would you not. What interest have Quins, Bulls, Reds fans had. I recall a Cas / Wakey relegation dogfight attracting a huge attendance for those 2 teams. We have probably as many dead rubbers or more than we ever did.

In a true Championship every win mattered. Teams played at their best week in week out. Now we have teams at the top virtually throwing fixtures away by resting umpteen players and shortchanging fans. In the past as the regular season reached its climax the quality of rugby got better and better and crowds went off the scale. Do crowds go off the scale in the play offs? No The GF gets a crowd but then in past RL was always able to get crowds for finals so that is nothing new. Indeed, some would argue the marketing for the GF has damaged the Challenge Cup. In the old system you had teams at the bottom fighting for their lives, teams mid table fighting for premiership places and top teams for the championships until the bitter end.

1989/90 Wigan last 3 fixtures

Tue 10 Apr Leeds Home Won 16-12 24462
Fri 13 April St Helens Away Lost 10-35 17176
Mon 16 Apr Leigh Home Won 34-06 19641

1990/91 Wigan last 6 fixtures

Mon 1 April Oldham Away Won 10-04 7399
Thu 4 April St Helens Home Won 28-14 17580
Sun 7 April Castleford Home Won 24-04 13948
Tue 9 April Widnes Home Won 26-06 29763
Thu 11 April Bradford Northern Home Draw 18-18 19112
Sat 13 April Leeds Away Won 20-08 15313

Here we are in 2010 and fans are saying 14K for Wire having just won the CC and Saints in their final games at KR is a good crowd rolleyes.gif Whatsmore some of those fictures were 2 or 3 in 7 days and far more walk up fans.

So maybe we should stop swallowing rhwetoric and think for ourselves


Talk about selective figures.

What were Warrington's attendances when they challenged for the title during the same period?

You can't go back to the past because the world is different. We used to have a variety of trophies well supported, now we can barely sustain the Challenge Cup. The premiership would be rubbish.

As a sport the league wasn't that important for the vast majority of our history, the Challenge Cup always had far more prominence.

#19 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,191 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:14 PM

i thin a top 8 is too big for a comp of 14 teams. top 6 all the way for me, even if the comp did get bigger in numbers.


Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#20 Allan Marsden

Allan Marsden
  • Banned
  • 433 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:29 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Sep 11 2010, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Talk about selective figures.

What were Warrington's attendances when they challenged for the title during the same period?

You can't go back to the past because the world is different. We used to have a variety of trophies well supported, now we can barely sustain the Challenge Cup. The premiership would be rubbish.

As a sport the league wasn't that important for the vast majority of our history, the Challenge Cup always had far more prominence.


Do you not like hard facts and figures. How about this 1 for a Widnes fan

1988/89

Sun 16 Apr Widnes 17323

17K watching Widnes at Widnes ohmy.gif






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users