8 replies to this topic

[The Orford Postman]

Its bye bye to the controversial Mcintryre system as the new commission has scrapped it in favour of the same system used in SL.

If only our administrators had the sense to do the same and get rid of club call!

Edited by The Orford Postman, 22 February 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Its bye bye to the controversial Mcintryre system as the new commission has scrapped it in favour of the same system used in SL.

If only our administrators had the sense to do the same and get rid of club call!

It's the same system they use in AFL I believe.

IIRC, there was a flaw in the 3rd round stage. Basically if all the highest ranked teams won, then at round 3 1st would play 3rd and 2nd would play 4th (this gives 1st a harder game despite finishing higher). This was to avoid repeat fixtures, as 1st vs 4th and 2nd vs 3rd already happened in round 1.

The SL have decided that one way around this issue is to get the clubs to decide who they'd like to play. It's got a bit of attention, but only as a gimmick. Not much credibility. I think they'd be best just scrapping it and going for highest ranked vs lowest ranked (as essentially that's all that happened at club call anyway).

[The Orford Postman]

I also think we should go back to a 5 or 6 team play off in SL as week 1 is often a drab affair for the top 4. It needs a good shake up!

[DeadShotKeen]

Glad to hear this as I wasn't keen on Macintyre. I'm a broken record on this one but I'll keep saying it because I'm passionate about it - our current system is perfect. Fewer than 8 teams doesn't stretch the season enough or create enough post-season excitement. "Please sir, can I have fewer games of dramatic intense RL that create exposure and revenue for the game?" File under: bizarre. I couldn't care less if the 8 side "deserve" to be there or not based on wholly subjective reasoning as to how strong the league is overall. They got there and they're in. The system slightly better fits a league of 16 than a league of 14 so this gives us room to grow. In the meantime, let's stop whingeing and enjoy a truly great post-season format.

"Club call" I have no problem with. It's a bit of a red herring because I find it highly unlikely that if you run the format forward even 50 years anyone would ever pick the higher ranked side. The only really solid reasoning would be a glut of injuries to a top side. Tony Smith was a bit hysterical with his whole "staying away" thing last term. It's truly odd to imagine that any lower ranked side would take the hump at being picked and use it as motivation. They finished lower! "Oh wow! They've picked us over a team that finished higher than us! Grrr! Let's get 'em!" anyone? No, me neither. So I think it's largely a moot point but why shouldn't the highest placed winning week 3 side get that choice? I think it's inventive and interesting and creates a bit more buzz and excitement about the final week. We lose nothing by having it. Keep it.

[petero]

Glad to hear this as I wasn't keen on Macintyre. I'm a broken record on this one but I'll keep saying it because I'm passionate about it - our current system is perfect. Fewer than 8 teams doesn't stretch the season enough or create enough post-season excitement. "Please sir, can I have fewer games of dramatic intense RL that create exposure and revenue for the game?" File under: bizarre. I couldn't care less if the 8 side "deserve" to be there or not based on wholly subjective reasoning as to how strong the league is overall. They got there and they're in. The system slightly better fits a league of 16 than a league of 14 so this gives us room to grow. In the meantime, let's stop whingeing and enjoy a truly great post-season format.

"Club call" I have no problem with. It's a bit of a red herring because I find it highly unlikely that if you run the format forward even 50 years anyone would ever pick the higher ranked side. The only really solid reasoning would be a glut of injuries to a top side. Tony Smith was a bit hysterical with his whole "staying away" thing last term. It's truly odd to imagine that any lower ranked side would take the hump at being picked and use it as motivation. They finished lower! "Oh wow! They've picked us over a team that finished higher than us! Grrr! Let's get 'em!" anyone? No, me neither. So I think it's largely a moot point but why shouldn't the highest placed winning week 3 side get that choice? I think it's inventive and interesting and creates a bit more buzz and excitement about the final week. We lose nothing by having it. Keep it.

Going off that diatribe I suppose the case that we " lose nothing by retaining it" could also equally be applied. Could it not?

[The Orford Postman]

Bin the club call whats the need!

[deluded pom?]

"Please sir, can I have fewer games of dramatic intense RL that create exposure and revenue for the game?" File under: bizarre.

You seriously believe all of the playoff games last year were "dramatic intense RL"?

Warrington 47 v Huddersfield 0
Catalans 56 v Hull KR 6
Leeds 42 v Hull FC 10
Wigan 44 v Catalans 0

[DeadShotKeen]

You seriously believe all of the playoff games last year were "dramatic intense RL"?

Warrington 47 v Huddersfield 0
Catalans 56 v Hull KR 6
Leeds 42 v Hull FC 10
Wigan 44 v Catalans 0

Those games you highlight weren't, no. The ones in the 2 preceding years were though. And the excitement of the build-up to those games was obviously on a par, as I'm fairly sure were the crowds, TV viewing figures etc.

Do we make a knee-jerk change on the basis of a few blowouts then? Do those results in some way prove that the system is in need of change? Is there evidence of fan clamour for change?

Also, did you predict those results in advance? Apart from maybe Leeds over Hull I'd say the bookies had all of those rated pretty tight. We won at Catalan just 2 weekends earlier, for example, so who saw that scoreline coming?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 22 February 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[deluded pom?]

Those games you highlight weren't, no. The ones in the 2 preceding years were though. And the excitement of the build-up to those games was obviously on a par, as I'm fairly sure were the crowds, TV viewing figures etc.

Do we make a knee-jerk change on the basis of a few blowouts then? Do those results in some way prove that the system is in need of change? Is there evidence of fan clamour for change?

Also, did you predict those results in advance? Apart from maybe Leeds over Hull I'd say the bookies had all of those rated pretty tight. We won at Catalan just 2 weekends earlier, for example, so who saw that scoreline coming?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

By the same virtue have the fans seen through the initial changes? The crowds at the games I have highlighted were mainly poor compared to the regular season attendances.

WW V HG 10,006
CD v HKR 8,413
LR v HFC 9,075
Wig v CD 6,790

Also in the first round was a Wigan v Saints game which attracted just 12,893.

The rest of the games outside of Old Trafford didn't fare much better. The chance of week three mirroring week one is too great, even with Club Call, and I think that's what puts a lot of people off.