Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

adelwire

UK RL needs a more intense league structure. Discuss

67 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

It's far more than just spending up to the cap though. London have proved that this year, and a substantial part of their salary cap spend apparently went on just one player. As for a 'decent' Academy structure to produce your own players, don't all SL clubs have an Academy structure anyway? Some areas just don't produce as many young players as other areas do. And certain clubs can afford to go out and cherry pick young lads from other areas - which brings us back to finances again. Warrington's rise up the pecking order has come from substantial investment in all areas - again, something many clubs just don't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my idea..

a 10 team super league

1. catalan

2. london

3. wigan

4. st helens

5. warrington

6 .huddersfield

7. bradford

8. leeds

9. hull

10. hull kr

the 32 team championship,championship 1..and maybe championship 2

basically all the current 14 championship teams & 9 championship 1 teams plus all of the super league's under 23's teams apart from catalan..

scrap the northern rail cup and bring back the lancashire & yorkshire cups

for all the championship(s) clubs we can have two 16 team comps...2 finals...2 revenue streams...we could also play a "super cup" type game between the 2 winners as either a curtain raiser to the challenge cup final...or on the night before as part of the "friday night lights" concept...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

The phrase "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" springs to mind here.

Leeds winning those grand finals is more to do with the team we have than any changes to the play off system. For example, by the same method could you not argue that Bradford benefitted hugely from the earlier versions of the play off format?

Teams go through cycles of success, it comes and goes and it seems Leeds are in theirs at the moment. Bearing in mind that Leeds beat Wigan (A), Catalans (A) and Warrington (N) during this years play offs show that a top 5 system might not have made a difference as Leeds have beaten those teams above them.

For what its worth I would probably go with a top 6 system as i think 8 is too much, but i disagree that it would make too much difference to the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 6 play off system worked as follows:

Week One

  • Elimination Semi-final A: 3rd vs 6th
  • Elimination Semi-final B: 4th vs 5th

Week Two

  • Qualification Match: 1st vs 2nd
  • Elimination Final: Winners of Elimination Semi-final A vs Winners of Elimination Semi-final B

Week Three

  • Final Qualifier: Losers of Qualification Match vs Winners of Elimination Final

Week Four

  • Grand Final: Winners of Qualification Match vs Winners of Final Qualifier

I would back this version as it does give a bigger advantage to those finishing top 2 as one of them is guaranteed to reach the final.

It does however raise the previous problem of the team finishing in the top two winning their first match, meaning that prior to the grand final they have only played one game in three weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 6 play off system worked as follows:

Week One

  • Elimination Semi-final A: 3rd vs 6th
  • Elimination Semi-final B: 4th vs 5th

Week Two

  • Qualification Match: 1st vs 2nd
  • Elimination Final: Winners of Elimination Semi-final A vs Winners of Elimination Semi-final B

Week Three

  • Final Qualifier: Losers of Qualification Match vs Winners of Elimination Final

Week Four

  • Grand Final: Winners of Qualification Match vs Winners of Final Qualifier

I would back this version as it does give a bigger advantage to those finishing top 2 as one of them is guaranteed to reach the final.

It does however raise the previous problem of the team finishing in the top two winning their first match, meaning that prior to the grand final they have only played one game in three weeks.

I would give the league winners automatic entry to the final.

The weekend before the final club 2 plays club 5, club 3 plays club 4. The winners play in the qualifying final at the home ground of the highest placed club the next Wednesday prior to the final on Saturday.

At least this way, if a club that doesn't win the league still manages to win the final they've bloody well earned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am sick of folk banging on about the intensity in the nrl, when was this certainly not this season i have seen some complete blowouts from nearly every team.

whats wrong with having an exact copy of the nrl ladder 16 teams playing 24 games each including byes, it seems to work for them also because of the byes odd results are thrown up because of teams coming back fresh.

a ten team league would be a disgrace and another nail in the sl coffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am sick of folk banging on about the intensity in the nrl, when was this certainly not this season i have seen some complete blowouts from nearly every team.

whats wrong with having an exact copy of the nrl ladder 16 teams playing 24 games each including byes, it seems to work for them also because of the byes odd results are thrown up because of teams coming back fresh.

a ten team league would be a disgrace and another nail in the sl coffin.

How can you have a dig at the NRL, then back it and tell us to copy them?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not having a dig, i have watched nearly every game and enjoyed them all tight games or big wins mean nothing to me i enjoy my rugby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" springs to mind here.

Leeds winning those grand finals is more to do with the team we have than any changes to the play off system. For example, by the same method could you not argue that Bradford benefitted hugely from the earlier versions of the play off format?

Teams go through cycles of success, it comes and goes and it seems Leeds are in theirs at the moment. Bearing in mind that Leeds beat Wigan (A), Catalans (A) and Warrington (N) during this years play offs show that a top 5 system might not have made a difference as Leeds have beaten those teams above them.

For what its worth I would probably go with a top 6 system as i think 8 is too much, but i disagree that it would make too much difference to the outcome.

Leeds would have (most likely) had to have beaten every team above them in order to win the GF under the other two systems. So replace Wakefield at home with (most likely) St Helens away. I'd say that would be a significantly harder game.

On top of that, Wigan (and Wire in the top 6), would only have had to beat one team to reach the final, not two. They'd have also had two attempts to get to the final, not two attempts to get to the semi. It would be significantly easier for them.

I don't think Leeds would have gotten to the final under these systems, let alone won it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017