Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Is Tony Smith right about the play offs?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 6,006 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:25 PM

http://www.mirror.co...ss-tony-1859275



#2 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:31 PM

I'd say top 5, 1st automatically GF. 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 home and away games and have an aggregate score like in football. Then both winners of the ties play at a neutral venue to decide who gets to old Trafford, possibly at an expansion area. 1st place also to play a Championship all stars side as warm up game for grand final.

#3 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,039 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:50 PM

He's the Warrington Coach, not the Messiah.



#4 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,343 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#5 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,779 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:19 PM


I'd say top 5, 1st automatically GF. 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 home and away games and have an aggregate score like in football. Then both winners of the ties play at a neutral venue to decide who gets to old Trafford, possibly at an expansion area. 1st place also to play a Championship all stars side as warm up game for grand final.


Think that's a pretty awful idea to be honest. League Leaders won't have a proper competitive game for 3 weeks. I wouldn't call a friendly game against a Championship Select a competitive game.
Posted Image

#6 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 5,995 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:31 PM

I watch RL from Feb to November, and pay to do so.

I try and get pleasure from following my team - happy when they win, sad when they lose, throughout this period.

There is a pre season in Jan, when they play "meaningless" games.

Is it too much to ask for there to be a competitive meaningful set of games between Feb and September? Or at least for those involved to pretend that that is so? Is that so much to ask?



#7 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:46 PM

Think that's a pretty awful idea to be honest. League Leaders won't have a proper competitive game for 3 weeks. I wouldn't call a friendly game against a Championship Select a competitive game.


At least the play offs will be competitive, at the minute they just arnt and finishing top of the table means absolutely nothing.

Maybe they can play an England side from the players remaining picked by Steve McNamara.

Last season Wigan could of played a game consisting of:

Tom Briscoe
Jodie Broughton
Kris Welham
Kirk Yeaman
Keiron Dixon
Rangi Chase
Danny Brough
Eorl Crabtree
Danny Houghton
Andy Lynch
Danny Kirmond
Elliot Whitehead
Joe Westerman

Daryl Clark
Craig Huby
Larne Patrick
John Bateman

That would surely be competitive, players attempting to stake their claim for national selection.

The play offs do need some extra intensity added, as the first couple of weeks just arnt worth watching IMO.

#8 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,779 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:59 PM

At least the play offs will be competitive, at the minute they just arnt and finishing top of the table means absolutely nothing.

Maybe they can play an England side from the players remaining picked by Steve McNamara.

Last season Wigan could of played a game consisting of:

Tom Briscoe
Jodie Broughton
Kris Welham
Kirk Yeaman
Keiron Dixon
Rangi Chase
Danny Brough
Eorl Crabtree
Danny Houghton
Andy Lynch
Danny Kirmond
Elliot Whitehead
Joe Westerman

Daryl Clark
Craig Huby
Larne Patrick
John Bateman

That would surely be competitive, players attempting to stake their claim for national selection.

The play offs do need some extra intensity added, as the first couple of weeks just arnt worth watching IMO.

I'd rather a competitive play-off system be introduced that doesn't have contrived friendlies to fill up some time to be honest. The old top-5 or top-6 system would do just fine rather than what you've suggested. It's just a case of what do the rest play for after say 18 games when it's clear they won't make the play-offs and they can't get relegated?
Posted Image

#9 Manx RL

Manx RL
  • Coach
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:04 PM

Maybe it's Tony's tactics and not the format that needs the change.


- Adepto Successu Per Tributum Fuga -

#10 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,258 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:07 PM

I think he's right, it should be a top 6 play off and there should be promotion and relegation at the bottom.

That way almost every team has something to fight for, look back to 2006 and the Wakefield Vs Cas Million pound game, for all the wrong reasons it was the tensest and dramatic game of the season and the weeks leading up to it were intriguing and engrossing.

What we have now is teams whose whole season is pointless as soon as they’re out of the Challenge Cup.



#11 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,727 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:11 PM

I think he's right, it should be a top 6 play off and there should be promotion and relegation at the bottom.
That way almost every team has something to fight for, look back to 2006 and the Wakefield Vs Cas Million pound game, for all the wrong reasons it was the tensest and dramatic game of the season and the weeks leading up to it were intriguing and engrossing.
What we have now is teams whose whole season is pointless as soon as they’re out of the Challenge Cup.

i'm prepared to bet the grand final had a larger crowd, higher viewing figures, more press coverage and more sponsorship interest than this 'million pound' game.

It is right that we focus on the top rather than bottom.
Agree somewhat about the 6 though - simply because the fans just havent really bought into top 8.

Edited by Dave T, 29 April 2013 - 05:13 PM.


#12 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:16 PM

He's only as right as everyone else.  

 

But then he would be saying this now that Warrington are a shoe in for the playoffs.

 

A few years ago Warrington may have been struggling to make the playoffs, so they may have been more open to the idea of a top 8.

 

In the end the rules are decided by the clubs and there are more clubs who will hedge that they are likely to end up in slots 7 and 8. Than there are in 1-6.


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.

#13 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 06:25 PM

I'd rather a competitive play-off system be introduced that doesn't have contrived friendlies to fill up some time to be honest. The old top-5 or top-6 system would do just fine rather than what you've suggested. It's just a case of what do the rest play for after say 18 games when it's clear they won't make the play-offs and they can't get relegated?

 

Pride? Or am I just having a senior moment? :)


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


#14 Rugby League Wiki

Rugby League Wiki
  • Players
  • 18 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 06:43 PM

If they ever do change the format, I hope it doesn't include one team on a bye the week before the final. Then the yearly, boring discussion about whether the team benefitted from a rest or were not battle-hardened.



#15 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

i'm prepared to bet the grand final had a larger crowd, higher viewing figures, more press coverage and more sponsorship interest than this 'million pound' game.

Just to be clear, 152k watched Wakefield vs Castleford, less than half of the 349k who watched Hull vs St Helens in the Grand Final. And a last day of the season relegation decider is very rare so it also had a novelty value going for it.

#16 yanto

yanto
  • Coach
  • 2,076 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:33 PM

When the twelve team SL comes in :-) clubs will play 22 regular season matches.

Grand Final competition then becomes a mini league of the top four playing six high intense games.
Three home three away with the top two at the end of the group playing in the GF.

This gives a 28 game season.

To go further you could introduce a full play off system keeping all teams interested until Grand Final night.

Middle four teams play the same format for the Cup and the bottom four compete for the Plate.

The three competitions should give every team an extra six games at "their level" which may also keep the interest going until the final regular season games, as teams look to make the higher play off competition.

Supporters of individual clubs love their teams to have the chance of winning something and could get behind this concept.
Plate and cup final played at Salford the night before the GF making a weekend in Manchester.

Will it cheapen the Grand Final??
I dont think so and could give some exciting matches at the end of the season.

#17 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:52 PM

I always liked the top five play offs. It seemed to me to heavily reward those teams that had earned their position in the league. To win it from fifth meant that teams had to effectively do it tough, really tough, and likewise from fourth and so on. Some say it was too complicated, but it rightly rewarded the top teams and made a playoff place something that deserved respect.  It made teams fight for their true position and treat the league with more respect on a week for week basis than some have accused Leeds of doing.

 

I was pleased when Trinity made the playoffs last season, but it wwas devalued somewhat by there being over half the sides in the division in the same club. Trinity's reward for a seven sequence winning streak was a visit to Headingley to play their part in a brilliant game, however in truth I don't think they should have been contesting the playoffs from eighth. It didn't feel as valuable to me as when we made it to Wigan under John Kear to take part in another do or die game, simply because too many sides are in the playoffs.

 

One thing I do contest in part though is that playoff crowds are as low as some would believe. I visited Headingley with Trinity last year, the atmosphere was pulsating, and the ground was thronged with supporters from both sides, Leeds however reported the shared gate as under 10,000. So once legitimate Leeds' expenses were deducted, what was Wakefield's reward for finishing in a playoff spot, at a guess the equivalent of a 4000 home gate.

 

In fairness the paragraph above is a little off topic, but I think a top five or six is the way to go, with the RFL or another independent body actually making sure that the rewards are shared to those clubs that have earned them. A reward for finishing eighth, no thanks. I'd also say that some people criticised the five/six team play off system as it was difficult to explain, but no more difficult than explaining the validity of having eight out of fourteen in the playoffs.  


Edited by Larry the Leit, 29 April 2013 - 08:00 PM.


#18 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,079 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:14 PM

Moving the dividing line doesn't prevent meaningless games it merely changes which games are meaningless.


Edited by Padge, 29 April 2013 - 09:14 PM.


Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#19 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,069 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:29 PM

My ideal play-off format would be top 5 with the top side going straight to the Grand Final and the four other teams play a semi and a qualifying final. However, this has the major flaw of the two week gap for the league leaders, and I don't see any way around that, the other 4 playing Friday then Tuesday would solve it but wouldn't be my choice at all.


On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#20 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,797 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:11 PM

i'm prepared to bet the grand final had a larger crowd, higher viewing figures, more press coverage and more sponsorship interest than this 'million pound' game.

It is right that we focus on the top rather than bottom.
Agree somewhat about the 6 though - simply because the fans just havent really bought into top 8.


How did the relegation decider against the other playoff games though in terms of BARB figures and crowds?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users