Relegation

[Clogiron]

6 hours ago, Clogiron said:

I haven't voted as I think it's betwen Wakefield and Huddersfield, they both look to be in freefall and lacking in the nous, quality, and fight to turn it around, probably both will go and win today now I have said that, HKR are not the team you would want to rely on as even with Smith there they are rocks or diamonds week to week

Glad I added the proviso

[Dunbar]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The one disturbing factor in this is the teams Saints have put out against London on 2 occasions this season 

Yes we have loop fixtures which can already skew the placings , and to be fair London have shown incredible resilience this year to accumulate a lot more points than myself and most others on here expected 

But , those 2 wins against substandard teams from Saints are what have kept Wakey,Giants and HKR on the edge with 3 games left 

I made the point after the last London Saints game that the teams around London in the table had every right to feel aggrieved about the team that Saints selected. 

The weight of opinion was that Saints had earned the right to select whichever team they wanted. While I agree with that, I was surprised that relatively few people were bothered about the effect it would have on the seasons outcome. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Thought I'd through this in here as I have for the Race for 2nd thread.

I guess this is not the race for survival!

Predictions:

Leeds: WLW 24pts

Wakefield: LLW 22pts

Hull KR: LWL 20pts

Huddersfield: LLL 18pts

London: LLL 18pts

 

Could easily be a number of ways though. Leeds could easily lose every game. A desperate London in London will be very difficult. Salford are in amazing form and Warrington must eventually get out of their slump.

Imagine this:

Leeds: LLW 22pts (lose to London and Salford, beat Warrington)

Wakefield: LLW 22pts (lose to Wigan and Warrington, beat London)

Huddersfield: WLW 22pts (beat Hull, lose to Saints, beat Catalans)

Hull KR: WLW 22pts (beat Catalans, lose to London, beat Salford)

London: WWL 22pts (beat Leeds and Rovers, lose to Wakey)

 

Someone has to finish on 22 points because of the fixture layout. The way this season has gone, they all could! London are the only team to be playing a relegation rival in every match. Huddersfield play no one threatened with relegation. London could be in pole position on the last day and still get relegated!

Leeds are far from safe, ESPECIALLY if they fail to beat London in 2 weeks.

[dkw]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I made the point after the last London Saints game that the teams around London in the table had every right to feel aggrieved about the team that Saints selected. 

The weight of opinion was that Saints had earned the right to select whichever team they wanted. While I agree with that, I was surprised that relatively few people were bothered about the effect it would have on the seasons outcome. 

The teams around London should have won more games then, saints have a squad to pick from and used it. Why bother have a squad then if your not allowed to pick from it. It's a ###### excuse. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

The teams around London should have won more games then, saints have a squad to pick from and used it. Why bother have a squad then if your not allowed to pick from it. It's a ###### excuse. 

Yep, that was typical of the response.

[Davo5]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yep, that was typical of the response.

They picked an under strength team against Leeds on Thursday who weren't good enough to take advantage,don't recall there being much of a fuss made of that.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

They picked an under strength team against Leeds on Thursday who weren't good enough to take advantage,don't recall there being much of a fuss made of that.

I didn't post to start the debate up again, I just pointed out to GUBRATS that the debate has already been had.

I am happy to agree we have different opinions on this.

[dkw]

35 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

They picked an under strength team against Leeds on Thursday who weren't good enough to take advantage,don't recall there being much of a fuss made of that.

Strange that eh, and the young players brought in were excellent. We get people complaining that young players don't get enough chances, yet saints play them and there's complains about under strength teams.

[CanadianRugger]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

1 Tried that , not enough players or money 

2 General concencus is not enough money for less than 13/14 home games 

3 Tried that , just seemed pointless having clubs with more losses than wins being able to win the comp 

I don't necessarily think playing less games overall is the answer.  Rather, the games should be distributed differently.  

Challenge Cup gets changed to a round robin cup competition.  Perhaps there are two or three different Cup competitions?

Challenge Cup/Challenge Bowl/Challenge Shield etc. Sort of like the Euro Champions Cup/Euro Challenge Cup/Euro Shield in Rugby Union.

A larger league also means more teams which means more variety and more home games.  I think P&R should be kept but the Championship should be split in two with the top half moving to Super League and the bottom half absorbed by League 1.  

 

 

 

 

[Chris22]

For the first time, I think this is going to the final day.

Wakefield's win today I think will see them safe and Hull KR should be if they beat London.

Huddersfield are in real danger though. I reckon it'll come down to the final day matches at Huddersfield against Catalans and London at Wakefield.

Whoever goes, I'll be sad to lose them from the league.

[paul hicks]

41 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

For the first time, I think this is going to the final day.

Wakefield's win today I think will see them safe and Hull KR should be if they beat London.

Huddersfield are in real danger though. I reckon it'll come down to the final day matches at Huddersfield against Catalans and London at Wakefield.

Whoever goes, I'll be sad to lose them from the league.

don't take Leeds out of the list as if they lose to London which is quite possible  they have games against Salford and Warrington to finish the season  

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I too think we should not have relegation, but the fact is a club will be relegated this season and voting in a poll isn’t going to change that.

Wel, this season would have been really interesting with no relegation, at least 6 clubs would have had nothing to play for from June, and don't give me that sh-ite that they can blood youngsters, there are those who believe that our players are not good enough anyway and foreigners should play in our national team. 

[redjonn]

If watching RL is as good as some suggest whether their is something to play for from a league competition perspective shouldn't matter. If the entertainment is good enough it should excite sufficient interest in watching.  If it depends upon what a club/team position is playing for then it don't say a lot about RL entertainment.

Thats not to say their may well be a few less, but if significant then obviously the entertainment level must be poor.  Myself I watch a game of rugby league because I enjoy watching, the higher the level of Rugby the more expectation as to the level of excitement.

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, redjonn said:

If watching RL is as good as some suggest whether their is something to play for from a league competition perspective shouldn't matter. If the entertainment is good enough it should excite sufficient interest in watching.  If it depends upon what a club/team position is playing for then it don't say a lot about RL entertainment.

Thats not to say their may well be a few less, but if significant then obviously the entertainment level must be poor.  Myself I watch a game of rugby league because I enjoy watching, the higher the level of Rugby the more expectation as to the level of excitement.

If that's the case we might as well revert to the old RU situation of playing endless friendlies , it would be much cheaper 

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If that's the case we might as well revert to the old RU situation of playing endless friendlies , it would be much cheaper 

Media interest as well as general fan interest will be a lot more - not saying this wouldn't be. I was talking purely from the narrower aspect of attending the game to watch a game as entertainment as distinct from wider awareness and interest generated by wider public/fan base - of course this is good from a wider sport perspective.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, redjonn said:

If watching RL is as good as some suggest whether their is something to play for from a league competition perspective shouldn't matter. If the entertainment is good enough it should excite sufficient interest in watching.  If it depends upon what a club/team position is playing for then it don't say a lot about RL entertainment.

Thats not to say their may well be a few less, but if significant then obviously the entertainment level must be poor.  Myself I watch a game of rugby league because I enjoy watching, the higher the level of Rugby the more expectation as to the level of excitement.

Then I believe you are misguided John, I have watched hundreds of games at all levels pro and amatuer since 1960, and I have always maintained that at whatever level this great game is contested if you have two teams of equal abillity the end result for those spectating is a usually a joy to watch. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wel, this season would have been really interesting with no relegation, at least 6 clubs would have had nothing to play for from June, and don't give me that sh-ite that they can blood youngsters, there are those who believe that our players are not good enough anyway and foreigners should play in our national team. 

In 2012 we had 14 clubs and no relegation, the Super League average attendance that year was 10,151 

I take it with 5 clubs in a relegation dog fight and the other 7 chasing a play off spot this seasons average attendance figure will be significantly higher?

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

In 2012 we had 14 clubs and no relegation, the Super League average attendance that year was 10,151 

I take it with 5 clubs in a relegation dog fight and the other 7 chasing a play off spot this seasons average attendance figure will be significantly higher?

You really do spout some garbage, go back and look at the days and times when those games were played compared to what has happened since the linception of the Sky Contract we are presently subject to, Sky in 2015 gave the RL 200M big ones, in return they demanded and expected to air the games  to suit their broadcast schedules, We back then had far more Sunday games which delivered better crowds and non of the attendance avoidance Thursday night games. 

Irrespective, do you honestly envusage tgere woukd have been as much interest this season if we had no relegation?

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So expand SL by one team per year ? , For how long ?

I am not Mistig Meg and you are clearly not Robin Day.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I am not Mistig Meg and you are clearly not Robin Day.

But yes you are , essentially you are suggesting expanding SL just to accommodate your 2 favoured expansion clubs , then end relegation 

Don't be afraid to admit it , it isn't murder you're confessing to 

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wel, this season would have been really interesting with no relegation, at least 6 clubs would have had nothing to play for from June, and don't give me that sh-ite that they can blood youngsters, there are those who believe that our players are not good enough anyway and foreigners should play in our national team. 

For generations  there was no relegation in the RL. 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

For generations  there was no relegation in the RL. 

Yes , and I'll bet it was boring as hell at the bottom 

[Rupert Prince]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But yes you are , essentially you are suggesting expanding SL just to accommodate your 2 favoured expansion clubs , then end relegation 

Don't be afraid to admit it , it isn't murder you're confessing to 

I do not have favoured clubs. You are overloading in speculation.  I clearly pointed out there are others. 

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I do not have favoured clubs. You are overloading in speculation.  I clearly pointed out there are others. 

But you cannot fit them all in SL , you cannot have promotion and no relegation , you cannot have what you want , for every positive , there will be a negative 

[Rupert Prince]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , and I'll bet it was boring as hell at the bottom 

That's condescending.  

The game needs consolidation and there needs then opportunities to those who can expand onto SL.

And having 13 clubs is no problem, the Sydney competition had (I think) 13 teams. The had a bye every round.