Wellsy4HullFC

Yeah, 15 teams it quite frankly a logistical nightmare for little gain. We're either going to bin Magic Weekend, move it to the Cup, have 2 Magic Weekends, remove home fixtures from teams to counterbalance Magic (who's going to give up their biggest home game?). The season then either extends to 30 weeks (3 weeks longer), or we don't play everyone twice. I'm surprised the NRL want to rush London in, given that they usually like to announce ahead of time new additions will be made. I'd be insisting that they're added in 2028 or 9, and that one poorly graded team be removed by that season's end.

Is it not an option for Huddersfield to play 1 or 2 event games at the Accu a year to try and get a big(ger) crowd in and still engage with the local Huddersfield population that can't/won't travel to Dewsbury? They used to get 10-15k at times against Leeds. Do they not think that can achieve that for a one off?

If Herman ends up going there, then Lisone has basically tried to manufacture a move back.

Is this confirmed anywhere?

In fairness to our last World Cup, it was greatly affected by the pandemic. The one we held before that is probably the most successful RLWC in history. The last 2, and increasingly likely this next one, that Australia have held look to be complete afterthoughts with convoluted groups. It appears that don't want the diversity of the WC and want to reduce it to a few nations to be more competitive. Perhaps Australia could hold a World Premiership of the 8 best teams every 4 years, and we could hold a World Cup of the best 16 teams every 4 years? 2 markets getting what they actually want then.

I get why we have systems like they have. They want to reward finishing higher with things like a bye and second chance. I don't mind that concept. But it has to actually reward finishing higher! This system punished Oldham for finishing 3rd over 4th, and as a result of the harder fixture, they lost and Doncaster got a far easier fixture (and another one) against 6th. Simplicity should be at the heart of a system though. I think SL have it perfect now (though we don't describe it well!). We essentially have a quarter final, semi final and a final, and the top 2 get a bye to the semis. Easy to explain. Everyone gets it. When SL were discussing extending the playoffs, I'm surprised they never discussed going to 7 and just having the top get a bye to the semis? Simple format.

And yet, they chose this 5 week convoluted process that rewards finishing 4th over 3rd and 2nd over 1st?

Are you sure?...

Which is why it was a terrible system. At least that way, it was based on merit. You now have a system not based on merit that still has repeat fixtures. Like I say, there were alternative options for a 10 team play off had they thought for more than a few moments. If this is the result of thinking for a long time, then I despair at the leaders. Well no, everyone that actually looked for more than a glance at this format realised it was ridiculous. The fact it didn't even avoid repeat fixtures because of ONE unexpected result just demonstrates further how poor it was.

If the aim really was to reduce the chance of repeat fixtures, they could have had a much better system that still rewarded ranking AND took 4 weeks instead of stretching out to 5. Week 1 (qualifiers): SF Qualifier (winner to SF, loser to QF) 1st v 2nd QF Qualifiers (winners to QF, highest ranked loser second chance, rest out) 3rd v 10th, 4th v 9th, 5th v 8th, 6th v 7th Week 2 (quarter finals): Winner of SF Qualifier receives bye. Loser of SF Qualifier vs highest ranked other loser 1st ranked winner v 4th ranked winner 2nd ranked winner v 3rd ranked winner Week 3 (semi finals): Winner of SF Qualifier vs 3rd ranked winner 1st ranked winner vs 2nd ranked winner Week 4 (Grand Final): Winner v Winner Do I think this is the best system for a 10-team playoff? Well... I wouldn't have a 10 team playoff! But it was better than their system! Similar to the 8-team playoff in that it lasts 4 weeks, 2 teams are rewarded a second chance, but different in that only 1 team can get a bye to the semis (2 in Top 8 system). Think the only way there can be a repeat fixture is in the final (and only of a week 1 fixture).

In fact, if one of the away teams wins in the next round, there will be yet another repeat fixture. If Oldham and Doncaster win, Doncaster will play London again. If Widnes and Barrow win, Widnes will play Newcastle again. Shambles.

Now that we have 2 repeat fixtures in the next round (albeit, one has the home advantage reversed), do you still believe they've chosen correctly? They've not achieved a structure sooner at avoiding the thing that wished to avoid, and created an imbalanced playoff structure in the process. Oldham have been screwed over here really.

The issue is that the initial rounds had fixtures that didn't reward ranking higher (3rd has a harder fixture than 4th), and the excuse given was it was done was to avoid repeat fixtures. The fact it didn't actually achieve this despite the making illogical matchups in the initial rounds it's definitely grounds for binning it. There is no defending this structure.

Wait... I thought the whole point of having 3rd vs 5th and 4th vs 6th was to avoid repeat fixtures? Are we saying that the system not only doesn't reward ranking higher, but it also doesn't avoid repeat fixtures anyway?! You couldn't make it up.

Some fair criticisms. However, what the NRL have shown that can do better than most is generate TV income and develop players. That's 2 things we're desperately in need of and have shown we are very much behind the times in. Not to mention they have the ability to arrange international fixtures for us against desirable opposition.