Playoff system

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

From an attendance point of view for first round games they've come up smelling of roses with 3 of the 4.

[bewareshadows]

From an attendance point of view for first round games they've come up smelling of roses with 3 of the 4.

Maybe Cas v Huddersfield would have been a better result attendance wise.

However if it was a home game for Wrexham I think they would run huddersfield close in terms of attendance. I think it's more to do with both clubs having a poor away following rather than not having a solid home fan base.

[Big Picture]

I'm hoping that the playoffs go to form, in which case we will be looking forward to 2 semis in 2 weeks time, Saints/Wire, Wigan/Leeds, sound familiar?

Hopefully the outcry from such a repeat set of fixtures (what was the point of them playing in week 1) will cause the playoff system to be reviewed, as the current system is ######.

The simple answer to the repeat games is to have the teams cross over in the Preliminary Finals like in the system used by the AFL, as follows:

Week 1

A 6th vs. 7th

B 5th vs. 8th

C 2nd vs. 3rd

D 1st vs. 4th

Week 2

E Loser C vs. Winner A

F Loser D vs. Winner B

Week 3

G Winner C vs. Winner F

H Winner D vs. Winner E

Week 4

I Winner G vs. Winner H

That way the only possible rematch is in the Grand Final.

[Dave T]

Presumably most of those rematches were in the top 5 / 6 systems and occurred in the final which is ok as the best 2 teams gravitate there. What I was winging about are rematches in weeks 1 and week 3 which begs ask what is the point of week 1?

I don't really understand your point here. There is an absolutely clear point to Rd1.

My team Warrington have a clear chance this Friday to tip the scales in their favour if thy beat Saints. It isn;t just a case of going through the motions and there is a guarantee of the same games repeated. Warrington actually have the opportunity to gain home advantage, send Saints into a tough 2nd round game and get the chance for clubcall. That is what teams are playing for in the 1st round.

[RP London]

I think only the American system really justifies a playoff system. However you then have to break up the league into divisional system.

Which would bring on the moans of, there are not enough players there are too many easy beat teams.

However the divisional system allows for almost unlimited expansion of the game without having to sacrifice the traditional clubs. It also justifies the licence system properly. If you tick the boxes your in, if not your out. No need to fiddle the criteria to fit some arbatary league limit of clubs.

Also clubs need not complain about not having enough derbies and no complaining about too many games in a season.

However I think this boat was missed at the Start of SL and as turkeys don't vote for Christmas and SL clubs control how the Christmas pudding is split. I can't see it happening unless SKy pull the plug on the funding or strangely offer a huge increase in funding.

can i please applaud this.. i love the idea of conferences, this helps expansion and you can always have cross division matches if you want the derbies etc.. the less derbies there are in the season the bigger that match becomes..

cross division matches which are derbies in two "magic" venues on one weekend (warm one!) would be great.

[Finn]

I don't really understand your point here. There is an absolutely clear point to Rd1.

My team Warrington have a clear chance this Friday to tip the scales in their favour if thy beat Saints. It isn;t just a case of going through the motions and there is a guarantee of the same games repeated. Warrington actually have the opportunity to gain home advantage, send Saints into a tough 2nd round game and get the chance for clubcall. That is what teams are playing for in the 1st round.

Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.

[Dave T]

Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.

I'd rather we put full effort in and win on Friday. Ok, we have a poor record against Saints, however we also had a shocking record in the Cup until last year and now we are back-to-back winners.

If we were to win, and Leeds were to win at Wigan, then we suddenly become the top seeded team. We get a week off and get to choose who we want to play. Say like last year and we get a shock in rd 2, and we could be picking from the likes of Crusaders at home.

I don't see the benefits of playing the system like you say, as you are pretty much sacrificing any potential benefits that this first round offers.

[RP London]

Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.

what if Wire put out a full team and beat saints.. saints then lose to a Hull side on a roll then Wire dont have to face them again anyway.. or they win, Saitns pick up a couple of injuries in their next match making them even weaker and letting wire win..

Huddersfield IIRC took the "doenst matter if we lose" view last year and look how far that got them!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Presumably most of those rematches were in the top 5 / 6 systems and occurred in the final which is ok as the best 2 teams gravitate there. What I was winging about are rematches in weeks 1 and week 3 which begs ask what is the point of week 1?

I didn't winge at all with the top 5 system but have winged consistently ever since, even more so with this daft top 8 one which Nigel Wood thought up when he was presumably drunk.

The top 8 system is fine. It is used in the AFL (which does pretty well for itself I'd say). They don't have the club-call thing, which we introduced to remove the flaw in the third week of their fixtures.

So you don't like the Top-8 because there could be a repeat fixture in the third week, but like the Top-5, and hope that this year's goes on form to expose it as ######? OK, let me rip your logic up here..

If this year was a Top-5 system and it went on form...

Week 1 - Saints beat Warrington. Leeds beat Huddersfield.

Week 2 - Wigan beat Saints. Warrington beat Leeds.

Week 3 - Saints beat Warrington.

Week 4 - Wigan beat Saints.

Notice something about week three and week 1?

The string should not be long enough to reward mediocrity.

Which again isn't a finite number. It's an opinion, of which people will have differing ones. How do you measure mediocrity?

Finishing outside the top half of the table and winning less than 50% of ones games hardly deserves a shot at being acclaimed Champions.

But it's possible to finish well inside the top half and have lost more games than you have won.

It is also possible to finish well outside the top half and have won more games than you have lost.

In fact, you can finish as low as 13th and still have won as many as you've lost, and as high as 2nd and have lost as many as you have won.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.

If you think it's that simple then you are being very mistaken.

If Wire lose, they could also run the risk of losing in week 2.

If they manage to win that, they also run the risk of losing in week 3, and they might not even be playing Saints.

On the flip side, they could win in week 1 and get the chance to pick their opponents in week 3. For all we know, Leeds could beat Wigan.

You can't just go "yeah, we'll turn up this week" in the play-offs. If it were that simple, Wigan would just beat everyone and there would be no point.

[Dave T]

Week 1 - Saints beat Warrington. Leeds beat Huddersfield.

Week 2 - Wigan beat Saints. Warrington beat Leeds.

Week 3 - Saints beat Warrington.

Week 4 - Wigan beat Saints.

Notice something about week three and week 1?

Yeah, those bastards beat us twice again!!!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Yeah, those bastards beat us twice again!!!

[Big Picture]

The top 8 system is fine. It is used in the AFL (which does pretty well for itself I'd say). They don't have the club-call thing, which we introduced to remove the flaw in the third week of their fixtures.

Their system doesn't have that flaw. They have the teams cross over in the third week so the only possible rematch is in the Grand Final, as follows:

Week 1

A 6th vs. 7th

B 5th vs. 8th

C 2nd vs. 3rd

D 1st vs. 4th

Week 2

E Loser C vs. Winner A

F Loser D vs. Winner B

Week 3

G Winner C vs. Winner F

H Winner D vs. Winner E

Week 4

I Winner G vs. Winner H

It's simple, but the RFL just made things more complicated than they needed to.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Their system doesn't have that flaw. They have the teams cross over in the third week so the only possible rematch is in the Grand Final, as follows:

Week 1

A 6th vs. 7th

B 5th vs. 8th

C 2nd vs. 3rd

D 1st vs. 4th

Week 2

E Loser C vs. Winner A

F Loser D vs. Winner B

Week 3

G Winner C vs. Winner F

H Winner D vs. Winner E

Week 4

I Winner G vs. Winner H

It's simple, but the RFL just made things more complicated than they needed to.

It is flawed, because if 1st and 2nd win in week 1, and 3rd and 4th win in week 2, then 1st has to play 3rd and 2nd has to play 4th. Why should the team in 2nd get an easier game than the team in 1st?

In this instance, it would be BETTER to finish 2nd. You would have to beat the exact same two teams to reach the GF But if you finish 2nd, you get a lifeline against the harder team so that you get to play the easier team in sudden death, whereas finishing 1st would mean you get a lifeline against the easier team, and then have to play a harder team in sudden death.

It's a pretty big flaw the week before the Grand Final.