Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wendall

Do we need to change play off format?

41 posts in this topic

Well after tonight I am (as a Wire fan) not really fussed about the result. Wire lost to Saints but will get a second bite of the cherry next week. I firmly believe it will be another Saints v Wire rematch in two weeks, so it begs the question is the game we witnessed tonight just a reharesal?

And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Somehow unless we see a miracle win by Leeds on Sunday we will witness a repeat set of games in 2 weeks.

Discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy with the format.

Top two get home games, the top four get two bites of the cherry and the bottom half of the playoff teams play sudden death all the way through and if they are good enough to win away from home then they deserve all they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well after tonight I am (as a Wire fan) not really fussed about the result. Wire lost to Saints but will get a second bite of the cherry next week. I firmly believe it will be another Saints v Wire rematch in two weeks, so it begs the question is the game we witnessed tonight just a reharesal?

And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Somehow unless we see a miracle win by Leeds on Sunday we will witness a repeat set of games in 2 weeks.

Discuss?

Maybe we should analyse all the available systems, see which one best suits an over-hyped, over-weight squad, and then just go for that one.

Wire need to start throwing games early in the season in an attempt to avoid Saints in the play-offs. It's the only way they will win anything.

Or maybe the RFL will allow them to play a couple of second division sides early in the play-offs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well after tonight I am (as a Wire fan) not really fussed about the result. Wire lost to Saints but will get a second bite of the cherry next week. I firmly believe it will be another Saints v Wire rematch in two weeks, so it begs the question is the game we witnessed tonight just a reharesal?

And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Somehow unless we see a miracle win by Leeds on Sunday we will witness a repeat set of games in 2 weeks.

Discuss?

That's what Hull KR (3rd) and Hudds (4th) thought last year and they were dumped out of the next round of the play-offs by Wigan and Catalans. The form team may be the one sitting in 6, 7, or 8th (Catalans 2009). If it were my club I would desperately want to win the first game.

If Wire had won they were one 'home' game from the Grand Final. Now they will have to play at home to a side who has just won a sudden-death game and away at either Leeds, Wigan or Saints.

Edited by Scubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Wire play like that in their next game, they certainly won't get to lose to Saints again this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I preferred the top 5.

Seemed a more balanced system, to win from 5th you had to really do it the hard way, if you actually finished that high (which Wires didn't)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This system is perfectly okay. It's better and less complicated than the Macintyre system the NRL use and most NRL fans would probably rather it went back to the SL system.

The top 5 system is the best, not doubt. The only problem - it means you can only have 5 teams in the finals. Obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And does that mean that the play off format works? Should we not over complicate things and simply go back to the old Premieship stlye of 1v8, 2v7 etc? Or maybe the system the NRL adopts.

Discuss?

So all games would be sudden death? Where's the reward in finishing high up the table other than a guaranteed home game in the first round? Top five for me. It means less teams have the chance of playing in them but ups the quality. As has been argued before teams with a below 50% win/loss ratio really shouldn't be anywhere near the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This system is perfectly okay. It's better and less complicated than the Macintyre system the NRL use and most NRL fans would probably rather it went back to the SL system.

The top 5 system is the best, not doubt. The only problem - it means you can only have 5 teams in the finals. Obviously.

And therefore only the teams that deserve to be in it get into it. A team finishing in the lower half of the league table should not qualify for the play offs in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And therefore only the teams that deserve to be in it get into it. A team finishing in the lower half of the league table should not qualify for the play offs in my opinion.

I agree but for a top-8 format - this is fine. The team finishing 3rd and 4th should go all out to win that first game, it is their season. It tells the top two that they are in the driving seat.

Wire will be kicking themselves if Leeds win tomorrow. If they had turned up against Saints they may well have been hand picking their opponents in a home game to get to the final. It will be very tough next round against someone backing up from a good win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.

why is it a ludicrous marketing gimmick, though? what is wrong with creating customer interest in goods or services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And therefore only the teams that deserve to be in it get into it. A team finishing in the lower half of the league table should not qualify for the play offs in my opinion.

I agree in fact lets use that logic and jump to correct conclusion that those finishing lower than 1st, should not be able to be champions, as the 1st placed team are obviously the best over the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree in fact lets use that logic and jump to correct conclusion that those finishing lower than 1st, should not be able to be champions, as the 1st placed team are obviously the best over the season.

It's going to leave the Play-Offs a little short though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would go for a top 9 play off. 8 plays 9 giving the top 7 sides a week off. then go with the system we have now. the reason i say that is that having 9th placed team as with no releagtion the teams at the bottom of the table would have a little bit more to play for and take them out the comfort zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.

A ludicrous marketing gimmick that most fans are in favour of?

The playoffs are way better than the league system. The premiership was an after thought with no credibility. This way we end the season in the best possible way, like the Super Bowl, like the World Cup etc with the two best sides playing in front of 70,000 odd playing.

The system is fine and Wendall is being extremely presumptuous in thinking that we will end up with a repeat of the two games. It didn't happen last year and it probably won't happen the vast majority of times we have this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why is it a ludicrous marketing gimmick, though? what is wrong with creating customer interest in goods or services?

It is actually IMO counter productive and fails to achieve the desired aim. Moreover, it is wrong.

The team that finishes top of the League after playing each team home and away are the true and deserved champions. That is why it is called a League. That is why the winners are called champions / championship winners. A knockout competition is called a Cup and the winners are called Cup Winners.

The desired aim? Apparently this marketing idea was supposed to sustain interest throughout the season and extend it culminating in much higher attendances. Does it do that? Possibly/probably interest. No in terms of attendances IMO.

The system previously sustained interest by having relegation / promotion. Now if sustaining interest is the only criteria you would bring that back would you not. What interest have Quins, Bulls, Reds fans had. I recall a Cas / Wakey relegation dogfight attracting a huge attendance for those 2 teams. We have probably as many dead rubbers or more than we ever did.

In a true Championship every win mattered. Teams played at their best week in week out. Now we have teams at the top virtually throwing fixtures away by resting umpteen players and shortchanging fans. In the past as the regular season reached its climax the quality of rugby got better and better and crowds went off the scale. Do crowds go off the scale in the play offs? No The GF gets a crowd but then in past RL was always able to get crowds for finals so that is nothing new. Indeed, some would argue the marketing for the GF has damaged the Challenge Cup. In the old system you had teams at the bottom fighting for their lives, teams mid table fighting for premiership places and top teams for the championships until the bitter end.

1989/90 Wigan last 3 fixtures

Tue 10 Apr Leeds Home Won 16-12 24462

Fri 13 April St Helens Away Lost 10-35 17176

Mon 16 Apr Leigh Home Won 34-06 19641

1990/91 Wigan last 6 fixtures

Mon 1 April Oldham Away Won 10-04 7399

Thu 4 April St Helens Home Won 28-14 17580

Sun 7 April Castleford Home Won 24-04 13948

Tue 9 April Widnes Home Won 26-06 29763

Thu 11 April Bradford Northern Home Draw 18-18 19112

Sat 13 April Leeds Away Won 20-08 15313

Here we are in 2010 and fans are saying 14K for Wire having just won the CC and Saints in their final games at KR is a good crowd :rolleyes: Whatsmore some of those fictures were 2 or 3 in 7 days and far more walk up fans.

So maybe we should stop swallowing rhwetoric and think for ourselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is actually IMO counter productive and fails to achieve the desired aim. Moreover, it is wrong.

The team that finishes top of the League after playing each team home and away are the true and deserved champions. That is why it is called a League. That is why the winners are called champions / championship winners. A knockout competition is called a Cup and the winners are called Cup Winners.

The desired aim? Apparently this marketing idea was supposed to sustain interest throughout the season and extend it culminating in much higher attendances. Does it do that? Possibly/probably interest. No in terms of attendances IMO.

The system previously sustained interest by having relegation / promotion. Now if sustaining interest is the only criteria you would bring that back would you not. What interest have Quins, Bulls, Reds fans had. I recall a Cas / Wakey relegation dogfight attracting a huge attendance for those 2 teams. We have probably as many dead rubbers or more than we ever did.

In a true Championship every win mattered. Teams played at their best week in week out. Now we have teams at the top virtually throwing fixtures away by resting umpteen players and shortchanging fans. In the past as the regular season reached its climax the quality of rugby got better and better and crowds went off the scale. Do crowds go off the scale in the play offs? No The GF gets a crowd but then in past RL was always able to get crowds for finals so that is nothing new. Indeed, some would argue the marketing for the GF has damaged the Challenge Cup. In the old system you had teams at the bottom fighting for their lives, teams mid table fighting for premiership places and top teams for the championships until the bitter end.

1989/90 Wigan last 3 fixtures

Tue 10 Apr Leeds Home Won 16-12 24462

Fri 13 April St Helens Away Lost 10-35 17176

Mon 16 Apr Leigh Home Won 34-06 19641

1990/91 Wigan last 6 fixtures

Mon 1 April Oldham Away Won 10-04 7399

Thu 4 April St Helens Home Won 28-14 17580

Sun 7 April Castleford Home Won 24-04 13948

Tue 9 April Widnes Home Won 26-06 29763

Thu 11 April Bradford Northern Home Draw 18-18 19112

Sat 13 April Leeds Away Won 20-08 15313

Here we are in 2010 and fans are saying 14K for Wire having just won the CC and Saints in their final games at KR is a good crowd :rolleyes: Whatsmore some of those fictures were 2 or 3 in 7 days and far more walk up fans.

So maybe we should stop swallowing rhwetoric and think for ourselves

Talk about selective figures.

What were Warrington's attendances when they challenged for the title during the same period?

You can't go back to the past because the world is different. We used to have a variety of trophies well supported, now we can barely sustain the Challenge Cup. The premiership would be rubbish.

As a sport the league wasn't that important for the vast majority of our history, the Challenge Cup always had far more prominence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thin a top 8 is too big for a comp of 14 teams. top 6 all the way for me, even if the comp did get bigger in numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about selective figures.

What were Warrington's attendances when they challenged for the title during the same period?

You can't go back to the past because the world is different. We used to have a variety of trophies well supported, now we can barely sustain the Challenge Cup. The premiership would be rubbish.

As a sport the league wasn't that important for the vast majority of our history, the Challenge Cup always had far more prominence.

Do you not like hard facts and figures. How about this 1 for a Widnes fan

1988/89

Sun 16 Apr Widnes 17323

17K watching Widnes at Widnes :O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i thin a top 8 is too big for a comp of 14 teams. top 6 all the way for me, even if the comp did get bigger in numbers.

why not have a top 14 playoff.

It's all abitary. Made just for what ever seams to market the game the best.

It's not about a true test of a team but keeping up the interest.

Also it's not comparable to any American style playoff system as that is a true playoff system where the conferences don't give a true measure of the best team and have cross divisional games and stronger and weaker conferances. The playoffs then take the winners and runners up from the conferances and allow the top teams to compete.

It was primarly a distance measure as a full league fixture would be impossible to maitain in the usa in the erly 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not like hard facts and figures. How about this 1 for a Widnes fan

1988/89

Sun 16 Apr Widnes 17323

17K watching Widnes at Widnes :O

You only like hard facts and figures that you can pick. 17k for a Championship decider, this year the Championship decider will get something like 70k at it.

What was the Super League average the last year that the league winners were crowned champions and we still had promotion and relegation.

What is it now?

Also what was the last attendance for the Premiership final between Saints and Wigan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why not have a top 14 playoff.

It's all abitary. Made just for what ever seams to market the game the best.

It's not about a true test of a team but keeping up the interest.

Also it's not comparable to any American style playoff system as that is a true playoff system where the conferences don't give a true measure of the best team and have cross divisional games and stronger and weaker conferances. The playoffs then take the winners and runners up from the conferances and allow the top teams to compete.

It was primarly a distance measure as a full league fixture would be impossible to maitain in the usa in the erly 20th century.

Does the American system not crown a champion from a single game after a selection of knock out games?

I honestly don't think it is just about marketing. I always found the league system quite boring and I do now in Football. A team can make a bad start and their season is effectively over. Then you have the situation where one team runs away with it. Bradford comfortably won it in 1997 but it was boring and resulted in a lot of nothing games at the end of the season.

No system is perfect, even a league system doesn't necessarily truly define who are the best. It will still come down to individual moments, individual errors and one off games. For instance Wigan topped the league this year but I'm not 100% that they are the best team in the league this year. To be called so they will have to prove it by playing the rest of the teams around them.

Not perfect but much more exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the American system not crown a champion from a single game after a selection of knock out games?

I honestly don't think it is just about marketing. I always found the league system quite boring and I do now in Football. A team can make a bad start and their season is effectively over. Then you have the situation where one team runs away with it. Bradford comfortably won it in 1997 but it was boring and resulted in a lot of nothing games at the end of the season.

No system is perfect, even a league system doesn't necessarily truly define who are the best. It will still come down to individual moments, individual errors and one off games. For instance Wigan topped the league this year but I'm not 100% that they are the best team in the league this year. To be called so they will have to prove it by playing the rest of the teams around them.

Not perfect but much more exciting.

I have no doubts that it's more exciting, that's it's purpose. But it does not give a truer test of a team or a squad, lets say wire get beat next week by huddersfield, I could not argue that because of a one off game they are poorer than Wire.

For the same reason I can't argue that Leeds are as poor as the CC final made them look. They may not be the best team but they were not that poor.

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.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017