Champions

[Wellsy4HullFC]

10 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

You dont like the GF and full stops or commers in your grammar by the looks of things son....

Roll on the play offs.

Full stops and commas are punctuation issues, not grammar 

They all fit under GPS though (or SPaG), of which you just failed under spelling!

"Let he who is without sin..."

[Bod]

You can praise the play off system all you want but the fact a team can be Champions from fifth place is a joke. This season shows how flawed the system is.

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Imagine the 1994 title race happening these days and what Sky could do with it if they played on the same night with simultaneous broadcasts, a live Sky Sports News switching between the grounds, helicopter ready and waiting with the trophy etc. 

 

This happened in 2015 and was appropriately feted. It didn't need the removal of the Grand Final to make it compelling.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Bod said:

You can praise the play off system all you want but the fact a team can be Champions from fifth place is a joke. This season shows how flawed the system is.

I do agree with this. A team finishing 2nd or 3rd and winning it is just as much of a joke if you have that point of view. Such a system encourages teams to coast for much of the season to then peak at the right time. Training and performance is structured around this. I know this has been the case at Wigan ever since the days of Maguire and Leeds at one time had this down to a fine art too. I don't particularly see how encouraging this is good for the league or game though or the standard and intensity of matches on a weekly basis.

However the fact is that whilst such a system exists teams must play to that system. If we had no play offs and the team at the top of the table were champions then I'm certain that the league table this season, as well as other seasons, would look drastically different. That is why it is never just as simple as saying the team that finishes top should be champions, that is not the system that is in place and not the system clubs are playing to. At the moment finishing top of the pile by loads of points really counts for very little and is counterproductive if it means you aren't peaking at the right time.

[AiredaleMike]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Hi Mike, 

Like I said previously, winning the LLS is all well and good but in the current system is only one measure of success and not regarded as the highest. Not only have Saints played the majority of their games against bottom half of the table sides due to loop fixtures, but other teams haven't had the pressure of having to chase them to be champions. If Wigan or Warrington knew they had to be as good as Saints all year to be crowned champions I'm sure they would have planned and played differently. 

Approaches to the League are clearly different. Wigan have certainly gone down the route trodden by Leeds in 2011 and 2012 of coming good at the right time and building into a season this year - prepared to take losses (not too many) because the eyes are on the bigger prize. By contrast based on the past 2 years Holbrook's philosophy seems to be that he wants his teams to assert themselves in the comp early on as a contender. Each has its merits.

The Leeds example of mediocrity you give is interesting. I assume you're referring to the 2011 and 2012 wins from 5th? Its worth pointing out that in both those seasons Leeds reached the Challenge Cup Final and in the SL playoffs had only not reached the grand final once since 2007 - losing in a semi to eventual champions Wigan in 2010 iirc. So whilst Leeds definitely had a bad patch mid season, JJB's quote about the team being like Meerkats and only wanting to play in the dark comes to mind, they were still far from a mediocre team. 

Sir Alex Ferguson's 2012/13 Man United title winning squad has been described as 'distinctly average' and worse, yet they still won a title under FPTP. 

Hi Tommy,

I understand that teams are obliged to play to the system presented to them, and that doesn't necessarily make it right. imagine if there was no GF and Wigan, Warrington et al had to raise their game throughout the whole of the Season, then that would be great for fans.

Instead we have the situation where Wigan have lost 11 games and other chasers 12 and 13 respectively. perhaps without the GF those chasing teams will have only lost half as many !

Leeds, for example winning from 5th twice is thoroughly demeaning to the standing of the game, and really makes RL a laughing stock to many. The Rhinos lost 11 games in the two seasons when they got to the GF in 2011 and 2012 - they were a mediocre team then. The great Leeds teams were in 2004, 2009 and 2015 - when they were League Champions, losing 2, 6 and 6 games respectively.

Perhaps the compromise way froward would be for the League winners to be the Champions, with a separate Sky Trophy for the top 4 or so. Oh, hang-on Sky wouldn't allow it ! Therefore perhaps the difference of opinion on this situation will just roll-on, and on and on.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, Bod said:

You can praise the play off system all you want but the fact a team can be Champions from fifth place is a joke. This season shows how flawed the system is.

I really don't have a problem with it at all..its the playoffs and that is all part of the excitement.  The team finishing first should get home field advantage and any byes...thats how NA sports work over here in the center of the universe.

[Dunbar]

I am getting a little bit sick and tired of people saying that games are not worth winning if there is nothing on the line. The Australian leagues have had this system for a long time and every game is played with intensity, even those involving teams that have no chance of the play offs. At the other end of the table, Souths and Roosters had both qualified for the finals and yet knocked seven bells out of each other this week.

Yet here, we describe the season as coasting... it's a poor approach as fans not to want out teams win for sake of winning alone.

It's ironic that every game in the final week of the regular season is meaningful and yet we are still complaining. 

[Liverpool Rover]

2 hours ago, Bod said:

You can praise the play off system all you want but the fact a team can be Champions from fifth place is a joke. This season shows how flawed the system is.

To be champions from fifth you have to beat 4th away, loser of 2nd v 3rd away, loser of 1st v 2nd/3rd away and then the winner of 1st v 2nd/3rd in the GF which would be a monumental effort. I think it would have a bit more legitimacy for a lot of fans them winning trom 5th on the 8 team system did.

[Liverpool Rover]

3 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Your final sentence is partly what I mean though. We’re at a stage where we have artificially created this end of season drama to the extent that, in my mind at least, so many of the Grand Finals and it’s winning sides have merged in to one because we’re resting everything on a 80 minute performance instead of a full season of performances. Yes you might get some years where there isn’t much of a race, but that is exactly what makes the good ones all the more memorable.

Imagine the 1994 title race happening these days and what Sky could do with it if they played on the same night with simultaneous broadcasts, a live Sky Sports News switching between the grounds, helicopter ready and waiting with the trophy etc. 

It might sound daft, but sometimes we need bad games/bad seasons/bad teams or else how do we know when there are great ones?

It's argued on other threads that relegation is needed because of the entertainment it can give and it is the same at the top. When the league finishes the poor teams are weeded out and you are left with the best teams fighting it out in high pressure high stakes games. It doesn't matter how many points you finish top by because in the end you have to be able to show that you can win without the safety net of a big points lead to cushion any loss. In my mind champions are those who can beat their rivals on the biggest stages under the bright lights when it is all on the line. 

If a title race like 1994 happened these days it just probably end up with the top 2 or 3 racing to rack up the biggest score on mid or lower table teams which isn't as exciting IMO.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am getting a little bit sick and tired of people saying that games are not worth winning if there is nothing on the line. The Australian leagues have had this system for a long time and every game is played with intensity, even those involving teams that have no chance of the play offs. At the other end of the table, Souths and Roosters had both qualified for the finals and yet knocked seven bells out of each other this week.

Yet here, we describe the season as coasting... it's a poor approach as fans not to want out teams win for sake of winning alone.

It's ironic that every game in the final week of the regular season is meaningful and yet we are still complaining. 

You may be sick and tired of it but its a fact. The better teams can coast and do and we have seen this in Super League for years. Any comparison with the NRL is meaningless when they have 16 very well funded teams spending up to the cap with tremendous off field and back office setups. We have 3 or so big clubs, probably 3 or 4 more potentials then the rest making up the numbers clinging on with their finger tips due to Sky funding.

[Mattrhino]

The majority of our history the champions have been crowned by a end of season play-off system. It was only for about 20 years between 75-98 of our 120+ year history that the champions were determined by who came first in the league. 

Just because that's how it works in soccer doesn't mean its how we should do it. 

[HawkMan]

The main justification for the play offs and GF is the imbalance in fixtures. I look forward to the play offs at the bottom to decide relegation, oh wait a minute.....there isn't any. Is this fair? If this situation prevailed in soccer they'd be legal challenges to fight this. In fact if RL was awash with money the bottom club of SL could probably make a good case in a court of law citing unfair trade restriction, though of course everyone signed up to the rules, so they'd probably fail.

I would have FPTP to decide the title, and have the Challenge Cup Final as an end of season event, like the FA cup, followed by the World Club Challenge the following weekend at Old Trafford between the two champs of the season just gone, our version of the CL final. Two events to showcase the game, without having to have the GF.

[Mr Wind Up]

People are forgetting that football would implement  playoffs tomorrow if it could avoid the outcry of the Luddites who hold a vice-like grip on tradition. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

How much coin does the Grand Final make for UK rugby league?

Was it a pre-requisite of the last Sky deal?

Is it a thing that can even be changed?

[HawkMan]

5 minutes ago, Mr Wind Up said:

People are forgetting that football would implement  playoffs tomorrow if it could avoid the outcry of the Luddites who hold a vice-like grip on tradition. 

I take it Mr Wind Up that that's a wind up! Football has no desire to have play offs deciding the title. There's six teams with genuine title ambitions in the EPL and the title race is usually close. Play-offs for promotion,yes, even though the actual winners of the lower leagues is decided by FPTP.

From Europe to Africa, to South America to Asia, FPTP prevails, the only exception is the U.S.because that system is ingrained in the culture, which soccer rightly bought into to gain popularity.

[Mr Wind Up]

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

I take it Mr Wind Up that that's a wind up! Football has no desire to have play offs deciding the title. There's six teams with genuine title ambitions in the EPL and the title race is usually close. Play-offs for promotion,yes, even though the actual winners of the lower leagues is decided by FPTP.

From Europe to Africa, to South America to Asia, FPTP prevails, the only exception is the U.S.because that system is ingrained in the culture, which soccer rightly bought into to gain popularity.

No wind up at all. Football is fine with the status quo cos it's the biggest sport, it doesn't need to think about ways of making things better. It also has plenty of other cups which fill that knockout finals-type hole. But that's not to say that the Premier League wouldn't want playoffs. It'd guarantee more money, more interest, and more of everything. 

I'll say it another way. If football started tomorrow, they'd implement a playoff system. 

[HawkMan]

16 minutes ago, Mr Wind Up said:

No wind up at all. Football is fine with the status quo cos it's the biggest sport, it doesn't need to think about ways of making things better. It also has plenty of other cups which fill that knockout finals-type hole. But that's not to say that the Premier League wouldn't want playoffs. It'd guarantee more money, more interest, and more of everything. 

I'll say it another way. If football started tomorrow, they'd implement a playoff system. 

Another chortling wind up! Two seasons ago Man City were about thirty points ahead of the rest, do you seriously think that anyone of sane disposition would think, " it would really be better for our sport if the top four decided the title in a knockout tournament, I'll give Pep a ring" Maybe, just maybe it's the biggest sport because it doesn't have daft ideas like play offs to decide the champions.

Lower down the pyramid then that's fine, it.breathes life into the competition but the Champions, the standard bearers of any sport have to be there as deserved champs.

It is possible this season that the following sentence could be said. Wigan are champions but they were not the best team, St Helens were the best team easily but aren't champions. That doesn't seem right.

It doesn't mean the title winners have necessarily to play the most attractive football /rugby league, when Leicester won the EPL they IMO and that of pundits didn't play the best football but no one, thought they didn't deserve the title, they finished top ipso facto they deserved it.

[Mr Wind Up]

Just now, HawkMan said:

Another chortling wind up! Two seasons ago Man City were about thirty points ahead of the rest, do you seriously think that anyone of sane disposition would think, " it would really be better for our sport if the top four decided the title in a knockout tournament, I'll give Pep a ring" Maybe, just maybe it's the biggest sport because it doesn't have daft ideas like play offs to decide the champions.

Lower down the pyramid then that's fine, it.breathes life into the competition but the Champions, the standard bearers of any sport have to be there as deserved champs.

It is possible this season that the following sentence could be said. Wigan are champions but they were not the best team, St Helens were the best team easily but aren't champions. That doesn't seem right

You're talking about it from the fans point of view. I'm talking about it from the point of view in the boardrooms of the big premier league teams owned by arabs, russians, americans and all sorts. You're kidding yourself if you dont think they'd implement playoffs tomorrow. Like in every other sport that has playoffs, it would instantly become its most prized part of the season.

[HawkMan]

22 minutes ago, Mr Wind Up said:

You're talking about it from the fans point of view. I'm talking about it from the point of view in the boardrooms of the big premier league teams owned by arabs, russians, americans and all sorts. You're kidding yourself if you dont think they'd implement playoffs tomorrow. Like in every other sport that has playoffs, it would instantly become its most prized part of the season.

you've heard of the saying if it ain't broke don't fix it, soccer, particularly the Premier league is admired all over, a cash cow for owners, the last tv deal.was worth about 5 billion pounds plus the overseas rights, play.offs would utterly destroy what it has now, the season would meander in the final months as play off berths would be secured. Imagine a Manchester derby in April, nah don't matter both are in the play offs, who cares. Foreign owners are taking over, so If play offs happen I'm wrong, if they don't you're wrong.

 

Finally it's worth pointing out that only the top European leagues are cash rich, possibly China, the rest you would think if you're right, would introduce money making play offs to decide their champions, THEY DONT. I wonder why.

[AiredaleMike]

23 minutes ago, Mr Wind Up said:

You're talking about it from the fans point of view. I'm talking about it from the point of view in the boardrooms of the big premier league teams owned by arabs, russians, americans and all sorts. You're kidding yourself if you dont think they'd implement playoffs tomorrow. Like in every other sport that has playoffs, it would instantly become its most prized part of the season.

HawkMan stated:

It is possible this season that the following sentence could be said. Wigan are champions but they were not the best team, St Helens were the best team easily but aren't champions. That doesn't seem right.

 

I think that the above two points are really significant to this debate.

It is absurd to try and argue against HawkMan's comment, and in response, Mr Wind Up points out the commercial interests being not necessarily shared with (many) of the fans. I would agree with both these points, so where do those disenchanted fans go from here ?

I suggest direct action. If not happy then say so, but more importantly vote with your feet, don't attend the play-offs and boycott the less than GF. Interestingly, attendance figures over recent years seem to suggest that fans are not bothering with the play-offs, as attendances are 20-50% down on the corresponding League fixture. Empty seats at the play-offs sends a message to the RL and their commercial sponsers, so make your lack of presence count.

[M j M]

4 hours ago, AiredaleMike said:

 

Perhaps the compromise way froward would be for the League winners to be the Champions, with a separate Sky Trophy for the top 4 or so. Oh, hang-on Sky wouldn't allow it ! Therefore perhaps the difference of opinion on this situation will just roll-on, and on and on.

Said it before and will say it again, no matter what you tinfoil hatters believe, Sky don't care what Rugby League decides to do, as long as it isn't crazy.

As for dismissing winning from fifth - just look back and work out how hard that was to do and then you realise why no-one else has done it, or will do it again any time soon. That was a champion team digging themselves out of a hole, like champion teams do (St Helens take note).

[Bod]

If the team finishing top went straight to the Grand Final that would make the play off system slightly more acceptable.

[Dunbar]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

You may be sick and tired of it but its a fact. The better teams can coast and do and we have seen this in Super League for years. Any comparison with the NRL is meaningless when they have 16 very well funded teams spending up to the cap with tremendous off field and back office setups. We have 3 or so big clubs, probably 3 or 4 more potentials then the rest making up the numbers clinging on with their finger tips due to Sky funding.

I used the NRL as an example but the comparison was not my main point.

My point is why do Rugby League fans (or the sport as a whole) always need something to be on the line for games to matter.

Other sports have mid table fixtures with literally nothing riding on the outcome of the game with passionate fans travelling the length of the country to attend and support their team.

When we play international games outside of tournaments, we are embarrassed about calling them 'tests' when other clubs celebrate them.

If a 3 test series in Rugby League is 2-0 after two games we call the last game a 'dead rubber' while other sports will play the series through with passion.

As a sport we need more of an attitude on winning for the sake of winning rather than demanding every game means something or we are not bothered. 

[Damien]

29 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I used the NRL as an example but the comparison was not my main point.

My point is why do Rugby League fans (or the sport as a whole) always need something to be on the line for games to matter.

Other sports have mid table fixtures with literally nothing riding on the outcome of the game with passionate fans travelling the length of the country to attend and support their team.

When we play international games outside of tournaments, we are embarrassed about calling them 'tests' when other clubs celebrate them.

If a 3 test series in Rugby League is 2-0 after two games we call the last game a 'dead rubber' while other sports will play the series through with passion.

As a sport we need more of an attitude on winning for the sake of winning rather than demanding every game means something or we are not bothered. 

I actually agree with much of your general point and it's one I've made myself.

However I do disagree in the context of Super League. I think it's fundamentally different when a team in a weak League knows from the off that it can coast to the business end of the season and aim to peak at the right time. This just doesn't happen in other sports. 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I actually agree with much of your general point and it's one I've made myself.

However I do disagree in the context of Super League. I think it's fundamentally different when a team in a weak League knows from the off that it can coast to the business end of the season and aim to peak at the right time. This just doesn't happen in other sports. 

Maybe you are right.

But I don't think the bottom 5 have been coasting though as they have had a huge relegation cloud over their heads all year.

Maybe the teams 2 through 7 have been coasting but the way the top 5 play off's work massively favours the team who finish first and then 2nd and 3rd have a big advantage over those finishing 4th and 5th.

If we stick with this play off system for a while (I know, a big if) I think teams will see the value of a higher placed position and wins in the regular season will be more valuable.