Teams finishing 5th or 6th SHOULD NOT have a chance to win SL

[DavidM]

Im for the play off system but i dont think teams half way up should be in them . Canberra lost 10 games out of 24 and Salford 13 games out of 27 ( i’m not picking on them ) . Top 4 here and 5 in the NRL is enough , youve had a strong enough season to earn your shot at the title . It can be a bit diluted and convoluted . I also understand the counter that if these teams win it theyve done it the hard way , but i think the bar should  be a bit higher

[wiganermike]

16 minutes ago, Moove said:

Love the play offs, love the Grand Final. Win or lose you can't beat the drama, pressure, elation and heart break. If we can't fill the grounds or maximise commercial opportunities that's on us as a sport not the system.

That said, in a 12 team league I think top five offers a better balance in terms of the work you need to do to qualify. I'd also like to see final positions in the league rewarded better financially. £100k prize money for a 27 round season is pathetic for a professional sport and if a team finishes high enough for a home tie they should get the financial benefits which come with that rather than having to pool the gate receipts. A decent trophy wouldn't go a miss either.

Although as an apparently 'entitled Saints fan' presumably I'll completely change my mind at 3pm if we lose today 

To play devil's advocate a bit, Leeds finished 5th so would have qualified for a top 5 playoff system. They have reached the GF by beating 4th and 2nd away from home. The only difference in their run to Old Trafford is that in a top 5 system that they would also have to beat 3rd place away too (a team that lost to the team in 6th). As far as Leeds getting to the GF is concerned Top 6 vs Top 5 makes very little difference.

[David Dockhouse Host]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

How about 6 from 14?

Better but I prefer 5

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

No, for me the main detriment are the regular league games themselves and by association much of the season. The play offs and Grand Final are directly the cause of that.

The Challenge Cup yes too, and Lindsay is on record as saying what I said that, but I appreciate the switch to summer didn't help there too (as with other things in hindsight). We have also in effect gone from 3 competitions that mattered, in the League, Challenge Cup and Premiership Trophy to just 2 (with one of those majorly declining too).

I've hated the approach to some of the games this year,  the clubs need to get a  grip,  but the alternative is that a team wins the comp early and we see dead rubbers which are in effect the same thing. 

 

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Some people obviously aren't happy that a team that finished 5th out of 12 is in the GF with a shot at being champions and could be playing a team that finished 6th out of 12 to decide it. Whilst I agree that 5th v 6th in the GF (if it happens) would make the regular season and the effort required to finish at the top of the table appear to have less value or point to it Leeds deservedly beat us last night so they earned and deserve their place in the GF. The same will be true of Salford should they beat Saints. We finished 2nd out of 12 over the regular season and should have been capable of beating the 5th placed team, we weren't so our season is done, such things happen sometimes.

Precisely. 5th and 6th isn't an easy route to the final, if you get there, you've earned it.

[Gomersall]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think that is a compelling argument. I think it is useful of somebody is complaining that the Grand Final is rubbish because it isn't traditional,  but that isn't generally the point people are making. 

As per my original post,  there is no right or wrong,  it's pure preference.  There isn't a compelling argument that will make Damien change his mind and think it is the best way to find champions,  and that's fine,  people have their own preferences. 

It was posted to someone who was under the impression we had used FPTP more often than a play off system. It wasn’t an argument one way or the other.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, David Dockhouse Host said:

Better but I prefer 5

I find the 5 team playoffs overly complex tbh. 

[Moove]

Just now, wiganermike said:

To play devil's advocate a bit, Leeds finished 5th so would have qualified for a top 5 playoff system. They have reached the GF by beating 4th and 2nd away from home. The only difference in their run to Old Trafford is that in a top 5 system that they would also have to beat 3rd place away too (a team that lost to the team in 6th). As far as Leeds getting to the GF is concerned Top 6 vs Top 5 makes very little difference.

If it was top five would Salford have downed tools a week early to finish sixth and avoid going to France? Doubtful. We'd have had double the drama on the last game of the season.

[Jughead]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Precisely. 5th and 6th isn't an easy route to the final, if you get there, you've earned it.

Nobodies saying Leeds haven’t done very well winning away at Catalans and Wigan, people aren’t happy that a team that won just a notch over 50% of their games are even in with a shout of winning the Grand Final, as you well know. 

 

[Bod]

It's an end of season knockout cup and should never have been implemented to decide the season long Champions. 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've hated the approach to some of the games this year,  the clubs need to get a  grip,  but the alternative is that a team wins the comp early and we see dead rubbers which are in effect the same thing. 

For me it's not just this season as I have complained of the same in past seasons and I know my team are very guilty of it. It's just been more noticeable this year as practically every team has done it.

[DavidM]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I find the 5 team playoffs overly complex tbh. 

Yes sometimes playoffs seem designed to be complicated . In a 12 team league what’s wrong with 1v4 and 2v3

[moorside roughyed]

I'm not keen on the playoff thing,never have been. To me it's just a way of getting more games played. The team that's top at the end of the season wins, simple. That's what a league is. How can a team that's finished 5th or 6th expect to playoff for the title? 

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Precisely. 5th and 6th isn't an easy route to the final, if you get there, you've earned it.

Thats not the point though. What you are citing is essentially a team winning a Challenge Cup quarter final and then semi final against two good teams. The issue is the 27 rounds leading up to that.

[Jughead]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

For me it's not just this season as I have complained of the same in past seasons and I know my team are very guilty of it. It's just been more noticeable this year as practically every team has done it.

Definitely more noticeable this year and I think heightened by the head injury protocol, which rightfully renders players unavailable, and injuries catching up with teams after a particularly strenuous schedule, which has resulted in some, simply, farcical events like Hull KR naming a sixteen man squad for a game and a number, my own club included, unable to name twenty-one men squads. 

 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Yes sometimes playoffs seem designed to be complicated . In a 12 team league what’s wrong with 1v4 and 2v3

But what is the point of finishing higher than 4th? Yes, home advantage but that's hardly a huge thing. At least the top 5 McIntyre system gives a proper advantage and weighting for league position.

Edited September 17, 2022 by Damien

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

For me it's not just this season as I have complained of the same in past seasons and I know my team are very guilty of it. It's just been more noticeable this year as practically every team has done it.

I think the additional 'double'  weekend is new and has ruined the end of the regular season.  It was always just Easter,  but having one at the end of August was bizarre and an example of poor leadership again. 

I know its a freak WC year,  but we should have seen it coming. Thankfully they are coming to an end. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Dave T

[The Future is League]

Do i recall many years ago the play off system was just the top 4. 1st at home to 4th and 2nd at home to 3rd, and the winner met in the Premiership final or what ever is was called years ago. It nice and simple to understand and explain to people who are not followers of our game if they ask how the final work.

[Dunbar]

If we are to have a play off system then I think we need to provide significant reward for finishing higher and that includes home advantage in the play offs and the second chance following a loss. 

This is why I liked the top 5.  The further down the table you finish the proportionally harder the job to win it.

I think something like 1st vs. 4th and 2nd vs. 3rd is far worse as you can finish top, have one bad day and be out.

[Just Browny]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Union and cricket and supplemented by internationals and a range of other club competitions.

In rugby league, there's just the SL and the Challenge Cup. If we had a short SL season, there'd literally be no RL to talk about for most of the year and we'd fall even further behind.

I think we are confecting an argument here, I dream of us supplementing our domestic competitions with more internationals. I also think I am talking of losing perhaps 4-6 fixtures, not cutting the season in half.

[Jughead]

I’d prefer a four team play-off. No disrespect to Leeds and Salford, who have turned in impressive performances and runs of results to get to where they are but 5th and 6th in a Grand Final isn’t a great look. Finishing mid-table and winning the competition is daft, really. 

The thing I don’t like about what we have now is that we don’t really reward the top two with much beyond a week off, compared to old formats where we did give them second bites at the cherry. 

Week One:

1st v 2nd

3rd v 4th 

Week Two:

Loser of 1st v 2nd v Winner of 3rd v 4th

Week Three - Grand Final:

Winner of 1st v 2nd vs Winner of Game in Week Two. 

 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If we are to have a play off system then I think we need to provide significant reward for finishing higher and that includes home advantage in the play offs and the second chance following a loss. 

This is why I liked the top 5.  The further down the table you finish the proportionally harder the job to win it.

I think something like 1st vs. 4th and 2nd vs. 3rd is far worse as you can finish top, have one bad day and be out.

This essentially the current system once we get the winners of 3 v 6 then 4 v 5.

[DavidM]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

But what is the point of finishing higher than 4th? Yes, home advantage but that's hardly a huge thing. At least the top 5 McIntyre system gives a proper advantage and weighting for league position.

Yes that’s fair . It’s still an improvement to now 

[redjonn]

The underlying problem has always been the lack of esteem or regard and reward celebration/respect given to finishing top of the league.

It been treated as joke with words like hub cap, no promotional efforts to build it as a exemptional achievement.   Thus the only focus is on GF.  As distinct from play offs following the remarkable achievement and reward of finishing top.

Maybe a break between winning title and associated celebration and reward of a week or even two before going into play-off rounds.

Edited September 17, 2022 by redjonn

[Just Browny]

20 minutes ago, moorside roughyed said:

The team that's top at the end of the season wins, simple. That's what a league is. 

You'll need to update the folk who write the Cambridge dictionary as their definition is far more permissive:

league noun [C] (SPORT)

 

B1

a group of teams playing a sport who take part in competitions between each other: