66 replies to this topic

[terrywebbisgod]

No, Hull just weren't good enough to challenge. I wouldn't call them a "Champion" team or even close to competing at the moment.


They probably did raise their game. But they also probably did in the play offs. So how come Leeds get battered during the season but pull it out in the play offs? How come they don't dig deep in the regular season?


It's a criticism that many have about the current system, and a just one. It's not a moan. A moan would just be a complaint without reason. It's easy to point the finger and say people are moaning when your team are clearly doing well in the current system.

Leeds also did quite well under the old system.
A question I would ask every other supporter,would you still criticise the playoff system if your team won it from 5th or lower.

[Gav Wilson]

We certainly need a structure whereby our top players aren't waiting until two weeks after the end of the season before they play some properly intense football.

They won't even get that this year.

[Exiled Wiganer]

it amazes me that you should be amazed

It amazes me that you're so profligate on here - oh no it's October.

[terrywebbisgod]

I would have 2 SLs of 10, with a higher cap in the top division, with all teams being able to sign a marquee player from union without its counting on the cap.

Would you have a playoff system for each league,or would the league leaders be champions.
If you did have a playoff system how many teams and what format.

[Bostik Bailey]

So Leeds just coasted did they,could it be that other teams have actually improved and made the top half of the table at least,more intense.

Leeds did coast Sinfield comment proved this ( we really had to dig deep this last month) if we reduced the play off to top five Leeds may have still won but they wouldnt have had a easy training fixture in the first round.

We need to make the play offs hard to get into and stop rewarding mediocraty.

[terrywebbisgod]

Leeds did coast Sinfield comment proved this ( we really had to dig deep this last month) if we reduced the play off to top five Leeds may have still won but they wouldnt have had a easy training fixture in the first round.

We need to make the play offs hard to get into and stop rewarding mediocraty.

Saying they have had to dig deep hardly admits to coasting,could it be a case of we have had to dig deep after a difficult season.As with most statements it can be taken in many different ways.
Yes the playoff system does need to alter but the RFL seem content with it,what can we do.Arguing on here doesn't get it changed.
After all most of us were happy with the top 5 system but the RFL changed it.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

you quote games against other top 8 sides as if leeds should be knocking them over regular but surely if we have an even half decent league then theres no disgrace loseing to any other top 8 team .

I'm not saying they should be beating everyone. That wasn't my point at all. My point was clearly that a champion side doesn't get embarrassed 6 times in the season as well as put in other abject performances. It's not that they lost those games, it was the manner of the defeats.

by the way all the teams you quote have also had bad defeats this season .

How many bad defeats have Wigan had this year that weren't circumstantial? They lost by one point to Widnes with a second team playing, and were convincingly beaten by Wire away in the league but were hardly embarrassed.

Wire suffered heavy defeats by Salford and London away after resting most of their team. They were embarrassed away from home by Catalans though.

The rest don't really matter as I wouldn't consider them champion sides. If anything, the fact that three of the five defeats above involved fielding extremely weakened teams goes with my point that not every game matters in the regular season.

now if you want a more even comp then there are 2 things that need to be mandertory

1 every team MUST have at least 7 of there academy produced payers in the 19 each week although i would prefer the number to be higher

I don't see how this would make it more even. The academy products might be poor, resulting in a less even competition. I aren't saying we shouldn't have academy products, but they need to be of quality, not of quantity.

2 every team must spend to within 5% of the salary cap max each season no excuses for not doing so

Agree with this. Whilst paying players doesn't make them better, you need to be able to show you can afford to pay for quality to compete.

teams unable to meet these standards should be removed from the league as they would have no real chance of completing to the required standard

There has been a real lowering of the bar in order to have more teams, which is entirely my point. There needs to be a line in the sand moment with the next administration I feel.

[gingerjon]

They won't even get that this year.

Bad phrasing, I meant two weeks after the end of the qualifying league and into the play offs - so into the SL semi final week.

But, agreed, there won't be much for England to do this winter.

Which is disappointing on plenty of levels.

[EastLondonMike]

personally i think a league of 12 teams with a top five play-off is the way to go. i think for SL to truly be a league where intensity is something akin to that of the NRL more clubs need to sort themselves out off the pitch as well as on it. its no surprise that the teams at the top are the teams who have got their act together off the pitch.

get the set-up right and working off the pitch and the rest will follow.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Leeds also did quite well under the old system.
A question I would ask every other supporter,would you still criticise the playoff system if your team won it from 5th or lower.

Leeds got to one GF and lost in 4 years of the top five system.
They reached four GFs in 7 years of the top six, winning 3.
They've now reached and won three GFs in 4 years of the top eight.

They've clearly done a lot better under the new system than the other two, so I'd understand why you wouldn't moan about it.

If Hull won the GF from 6th this year, it'd emphasise my point about the "champion" side not being the the real definition of the word. I'd be delighted that they did, but it wouldn't change the point, would it?

[terrywebbisgod]

Leeds got to one GF and lost in 4 years of the top five system.
They reached four GFs in 7 years of the top six, winning 3.
They've now reached and won three GFs in 4 years of the top eight.

They've clearly done a lot better under the new system than the other two, so I'd understand why you wouldn't moan about it.

If Hull won the GF from 6th this year, it'd emphasise my point about the "champion" side not being the the real definition of the word. I'd be delighted that they did, but it wouldn't change the point, would it?

I've never called Leeds champions,as you can see from my signature i state they are the team that has won the GF.
If you my response to Bostik you will see i prefer the top 5 system but as I posted on the GF thread,if team X won from 5th would people still be calling for it to be changed.I'm sure they would.one thing I have learned in nearly 40 years of following RL is people are never,ever satisfied.

Edited by terrywebbisgod, 07 October 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Saying they have had to dig deep hardly admits to coasting,could it be a case of we have had to dig deep after a difficult season.As with most statements it can be taken in many different ways.
Yes the playoff system does need to alter but the RFL seem content with it,what can we do.Arguing on here doesn't get it changed.
After all most of us were happy with the top 5 system but the RFL changed it.

How come when others talk about changing the play offs it's moaning?

As for arguing about it on here, isn't a message board for discussion? Just because its being discussed on here doesn't mean people think it'll get changed. They're just discussing that they think it should be, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[terrywebbisgod]

How come when others talk about changing the play offs it's moaning?

As for arguing about it on here, isn't a message board for discussion? Just because its being discussed on here doesn't mean people think it'll get changed. They're just discussing that they think it should be, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes it is,you are correct.

[southstand loiner]

Parra will lose and, in 2012, NZ Warriors are likely to lose. Storm likely to win. Other than that its anyone's game.

check the results and see if your right

[southstand loiner]

It amazes me that you're so profligate on here - oh no it's October.

thats right the rugby league season .
im a big fan of winter rugby league which just also may explain why leeds play well in sept and october and of course feb this year . there holding up the banner for winter rugby league .

hey i know its daft but why not join in as they say if you cant beat em join em.

[Johnoco]

I don't think we will get a season full of GF style intensity in every match but 8 teams qualifying for the play offs is resulting in poor matches both in the play offs and in the regular season.

[southstand loiner]

I don't think we will get a season full of GF style intensity in every match but 8 teams qualifying for the play offs is resulting in poor matches both in the play offs and in the regular season.

back to my point in getting teams to spend up to the cap limit as all the top 5 teams did this season . if you want more teams to be better then they have to either spend more money and sign better players or get a decent academy structure in place to produce the players themselves .

[Wellsy4HullFC]

back to my point in getting teams to spend up to the cap limit as all the top 5 teams did this season . if you want more teams to be better then they have to either spend more money and sign better players or get a decent academy structure in place to produce the players themselves .

The problem is we're stuck between improving the quality (and therefore reducing the SL realistically to about 10 teams if that) and increasing exposure (trying to get SL into as many areas as possible).

Is there a way to achieve both? And by that, I don't mean a bit if one and a bit of the other, because that isn't achieving both that's achieving neither.

[eal]

It really isn't a good look for Rugby League to have the first rounds of the playoffs have the intensity of a training run. The semi finals and grand final were a great advertisement for the game, seeing Wigan and Leeds put 40 odd points up against Catalans and Wakefield is not.

It seems that almost everyone here can agree that a top 5 playoff system with a league of no more than 12 teams is the way to go.

[Johnoco]

It really isn't a good look for Rugby League to have the first rounds of the playoffs have the intensity of a training run. The semi finals and grand final were a great advertisement for the game, seeing Wigan and Leeds put 40 odd points up against Catalans and Wakefield is not.

It seems that almost everyone here can agree that a top 5 playoff system with a league of no more than 12 teams is the way to go.

I'm all for the top 5 but not so sure that reducing teams is the answer. Someone will still lose/be rubbish however many teams we have in the top flight. What is missing is something to keep the lower teams going for it all year, but then I don't get paid to come up with the answer.