Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
marklaspalmas

Is 4th better than 5th?

51 posts in this topic

Jeez calm down. Its plausible, but it's not likely to happen. Much more likely is the scenario Ive outlined at the start, or indeed what actually happened in 2009. The difference is patently not "absolutely massive" at all. 4th, 5th place. There shouldn't be much in it anyway. I was just speculating about whether they'd actually got the fine balance quite right. There are plenty of possible scenarios under which 5th could work out quite a bit better than 4th.

Happy to listen to your views on these other flaws.

You do realise that 5th got knocked out by 8th in the first week of the play-offs last year, don't you?

Yeah, it's much better to finish 5th!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, from a Hull point of view, if we lose next weekend we'll probably be 6th (can't see Huddersfield losing to Catalans). But still, we'll either play Crusaders (a team we've lost to, and only just beat at home a few weeks ago), Castleford (who nearly turned us over last time we played them) or Hull KR (enough said!). If we manage to get through that, we'd then have to play Wigan, Saints, Wire or Leeds away.

Now, if we finished 4th and lost our first game, we'd have to play Leeds, Hudds or Rovers at home. A lot better than playing the above teams away. It's a no-brainer for me which is a better position to be in. In fact, IMO the gap between 4th and 5th is by far the biggest gap in terms of advantage in the play-offs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realise that 5th got knocked out by 8th in the first week of the play-offs last year, don't you?

Yeah, it's much better to finish 5th!

Irrelevant.

The point still remains.

It was the lower placed team that "got on a roll" by winning their first game, whilst both 3rd and 4th took defeats in round 1 that they couldn't recover from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask any player or coach whether they'd rather finish fourth or fifth and I reckon I know which they'd choose. I like the SL finals system. It's the way the ARL system worked in 1995 and 96 before Murdoch f'ed everything up. And now the NRL has a more complicated system that isn't really any better and gets everyone all hot under the collar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole argument is based on what happened last year, the first year we've had 8 teams in the play-offs.

Why don't we wait and see what happens this year before assuming anything?

I for one would love there to be a Hull derby in the first weekend, as a neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant.

The point still remains.

It was the lower placed team that "got on a roll" by winning their first game, whilst both 3rd and 4th took defeats in round 1 that they couldn't recover from.

It's totally relevant. The fact that the team that finished 5th was eliminated straight away last year shows that it's better to finish higher so you have MORE CHANCE to progress. 5th had one chance and lost. 4th had two chances, but also lost. The end result was the same, but one had two chances to put it right, the other didn't. Unless you're saying it's better to finish in 7th or 8th as well?

If this "roll on" is so impactful, why don't the team in 3rd and 4th just put out a reserve team for the first game, play a friendly the day after to get the "roll on" and take advantage of a home tie against the winners of the previous game? They could do that if they wished if it was that much of an advantage.

Or maybe they'd rather play to get the extra week off?

Maybe they'd come back stronger after defeat? And the other team become over confident in victory?

How often has the team with the roll on in the old top-6 play-off system beaten the team on the back of a loss to make the GF? Twice in seven years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's totally relevant. The fact that the team that finished 5th was eliminated straight away last year shows that it's better to finish higher so you have MORE CHANCE to progress. 5th had one chance and lost. 4th had two chances, but also lost. The end result was the same, but one had two chances to put it right, the other didn't. Unless you're saying it's better to finish in 7th or 8th as well?

If this "roll on" is so impactful, why don't the team in 3rd and 4th just put out a reserve team for the first game, play a friendly the day after to get the "roll on" and take advantage of a home tie against the winners of the previous game? They could do that if they wished if it was that much of an advantage.

Or maybe they'd rather play to get the extra week off?

Maybe they'd come back stronger after defeat? And the other team become over confident in victory?

How often has the team with the roll on in the old top-6 play-off system beaten the team on the back of a loss to make the GF? Twice in seven years.

Thanks, but I know how the system works.

We've had the system one year, and the only year we've had it it worked out terribly for both 3rd and 4th for exactly the reasons Ive described. Let's see what happens in the 2nd season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.

Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)

1st place - week off.

A 2nd vs 7th

B 3rd vs 6th

C 4th vs 5th

Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).

C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)

D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)

Week 3

Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.

Edited by TheObserver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.

Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)

1st place - week off.

A 2nd vs 7th

B 3rd vs 6th

C 4th vs 5th

Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).

C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)

D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)

Week 3

Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.

1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.

No chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.

No chance.

As opposed to them having the 2nd week off anyway if they win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 7 team finals series could work for both Super League and NRL. That would involve only the top half of the competition.

Week 1 (Highest place at home, losing teams eliminated)

1st place - week off.

A 2nd vs 7th

B 3rd vs 6th

C 4th vs 5th

Week 2 (losing teams eliminated).

C 1st v winner Game C (4th/5th) (1st at home)

D Winner A v Winner B (2nd/7th vs 3rd/6th) (neutral venue)

Week 3

Grand Final - Winner C vs Winner D.

Bit of flawed system.

Why do 4/5th have to play first? In week one, 7th could beat 2nd, and 6th could beat 3rd. Then in your system, 6th would play 7th and 1st would play 4/5th? 6th and 7th get an easier game? 4/5th get shafted? And why a neutral venue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st place team loses out on sponsorships, live TV rights and attendance revenue.

No chance.

Doesn't all of the play-off money go into a pot and is dished out as prize money anyway? Or something similar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 7 Play-off

Week 1

1st has bye to Week two

A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)

B) 3rd vs 6th (loser out)

C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)

Week 2

D) 1st vs highest ranked winner of week 1 (winner to GF, loser to week 3)

E) 2nd highest ranked winner vs lowest ranked winner (loser out)

Week 3

F) Loser of D vs Winner of E

Week 4

G) Winner of D vs Winner of F

It's pretty much the same as the Top 6 play-offs, except 2nd don't get a bye to week two (instead they play 7th).

The only potential problem is that it favours the top side tremendously compared to the rest. But in all fairness, it should do! They finished top!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Top 7 Play-off

Week 1

1st has bye to Week two

A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)

B) 3rd vs 6th (loser out)

C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)

Week 2

D) 1st vs highest ranked winner of week 1 (winner to GF, loser to week 3)

E) 2nd highest ranked winner vs lowest ranked winner (loser out)

Week 3

F) Loser of D vs Winner of E

Week 4

G) Winner of D vs Winner of F

It's pretty much the same as the Top 6 play-offs, except 2nd don't get a bye to week two (instead they play 7th).

The only potential problem is that it favours the top side tremendously compared to the rest. But in all fairness, it should do! They finished top!

whats the advantage of finnishing higher.. one off games anyone can beat anyone.. the bonus of finishing in the top 4 is a second bite of hte cherry in the present format which is good.. straight knock out means a poor decision etc could kill off the best team in one swoop... 7th can beat 2nd in any game and does, but for 2nd to mean anything you need a second bite of the cherry..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't all of the play-off money go into a pot and is dished out as prize money anyway? Or something similar...

Weird if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As opposed to them having the 2nd week off anyway if they win

There shouldn't be a week out.

Its a play-off. A big-deal. And in the eyes of the franchise in question, a possible three rounds of guaranteed revenue in all those areas I pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There shouldn't be a week out.

Its a play-off. A big-deal. And in the eyes of the franchise in question, a possible three rounds of guaranteed revenue in all those areas I pointed out.

Franchise? Which franchises will be in the play-offs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Franchise? Which franchises will be in the play-offs?

Those teams aren't franchises? I was under the impression they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whats the advantage of finnishing higher.. one off games anyone can beat anyone.. the bonus of finishing in the top 4 is a second bite of hte cherry in the present format which is good.. straight knock out means a poor decision etc could kill off the best team in one swoop... 7th can beat 2nd in any game and does, but for 2nd to mean anything you need a second bite of the cherry..

1 - You get a home game and an easier tie.

2 - You have the opportunity for a second bite of the cherry (rather than just given one). If 2nd wins, they'll get two bites of the cherry. If 2nd lose and 3rd win, they'll get two bites of the cherry. If 2nd and 3rd lose and 4th win, they'll get two bites of the cherry. Even 5th could get it.

I think it's good to reward those finishing higher in the table. But I think the team at the top should get the bigger advantage between positions (i.e. there's not much difference between finishing 1st and 2nd, but there's a huge advantage between 4th and 5th).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 - You get a home game and an easier tie.

2 - You have the opportunity for a second bite of the cherry (rather than just given one). If 2nd wins, they'll get two bites of the cherry. If 2nd lose and 3rd win, they'll get two bites of the cherry. If 2nd and 3rd lose and 4th win, they'll get two bites of the cherry. Even 5th could get it.

I think it's good to reward those finishing higher in the table. But I think the team at the top should get the bigger advantage between positions (i.e. there's not much difference between finishing 1st and 2nd, but there's a huge advantage between 4th and 5th).

2- erm no you dont read your week 1 again

Week 1

1st has bye to Week two

A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)

3rd vs 6th (loser out)

C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)

loser out.. 2nd loses to 7th they are out.. there is no second bite of the cherry..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top six is ideal for a 14 team comp.

Five playoff games over 3 weeks before the GF should be properly promoted, played to full houses, rather than the decent 10k ish crowds they get now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2- erm no you dont read your week 1 again

Week 1

1st has bye to Week two

A) 2nd vs 7th (loser out)

3rd vs 6th (loser out)

C) 4th vs 5th (loser out)

loser out.. 2nd loses to 7th they are out.. there is no second bite of the cherry..

2 - erm, yes they do. Read the rest of it...

If 2nd win, they play first in week two. If they lose week two, they play the best of the rest in week three.

No team in the first week gets a second go if they lose, granted. But if they win, they win not only a straight game to the Grand Final, but also a second bite if they lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 - erm, yes they do. Read the rest of it...

If 2nd win, they play first in week two. If they lose week two, they play the best of the rest in week three.

No team in the first week gets a second go if they lose, granted. But if they win, they win not only a straight game to the Grand Final, but also a second bite if they lose.

erm thats the point i'm making.. the second bite comes from their first match.. one off match and 7th goes through ahead of 2nd without a 2nd chance.. no dont think thats very good..

and i dont think you should get a second bite later on.. the only reason you have it is becuase of the large gap between 2nd and 7th and the possible upsets in one off matches..

2nd gets no added advantage if they are out in the first round.. the advantage is a first round cock up reprisal..

Edited by RP London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erm thats the point i'm making.. the second bite comes from their first match.. one off match and 7th goes through ahead of 2nd without a 2nd chance.. no dont think thats very good..

and i dont think you should get a second bite later on.. the only reason you have it is becuase of the large gap between 2nd and 7th and the possible upsets in one off matches..

2nd gets no added advantage if they are out in the first round.. the advantage is a first round cock up reprisal..

I do see what you're saying, but it's the only way you can really get it to work with seven teams. It's essentially just the same as the Top Six playoffs, but with an extra game in week one.

In the NRL playoffs, 3rd and 4th could be out in the first week. They could also get a second bite. It just totally depends on the results around them. Same sort of thing in this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th is clearly better than 5th for the simple fact that they get a second bite of the cherry and at home.

The 'roll on' idea doesn't work as it can be easily countered by an equally likely alternative. Say Leeds finish 4th and narrowly lose to Wigan and then go on to play Hull at home who have easily beaten the Crusaders. Who is better prepared in the Leeds Hull game?

The RFL should resort back to 6th and I think most people would agree with that. I think they are keeping it because they are worried about clubs having nothing to play for with the taking away of promotion and relegation. However I don't think the race for 8th stirs up particularly much excitement because the chances of winning are so remote and most people realise that 8th isn't a great achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.