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

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

The play-off system ensures that the domestic season ends with a firework display, rather than a damp squib.

This weekends semi finals have had BBC Sports News coverage, with live commentary on Radio Five Live, as will the GF itself, extending the exposure of the sport.

I think that come Grand Final day, the negativity of a few fans will be forgotten and the vast majority of us, hundreds of thousands. In fact,  will attend or watch or listen to the game as the fitting finale to the domestic season.

That can't be played down.  We've had 4 superb playoffs,  coverage on Sky,  C4 and BBC and we have a very tasty looking GF next week still to come.  

It's all good. 

[paul hicks]

22 hours ago, Damien said:

Obviously not but that is not the reason we introduced play offs and is certainly not the reason we keep them. If you actually read posts it would be quite obvious that people do not advocate FPTP with an uneven fixture list.

when you look back to the era of premiership finals from the late 1970s till early 1990s, they did not decide the champions and that was because every team in the championship did play each other twice. not 3 times or more just each other twice. while ever the number of games is uneven or indeed if teams don't play each other the same number of times be that 2 ,3 or even 4 times then the league table is uneven which justifies the playoffs for the right to be champions. 

you want to get rid of the playoffs ten its simple every team plays each other the same number of times and then i could be persuaded it was a fair league table 

[Red Willow]

Isn't the system different this year. Last time Salford got to the final 1 V 2 played with the loser having the 2nd chance against the qualifier. This was after week 1 off whilst the other teams played.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Red Willow said:

Isn't the system different this year. Last time Salford got to the final 1 V 2 played with the loser having the 2nd chance against the qualifier. This was after week 1 off whilst the other teams played.

Yeah they tried top 5 in 2019. It was as clear as mud even to the anoraks.

Top 6 is simple on a diagram and simple in the rewards that it provides.

[audois]

From Salford to St Helens this year was great for the competition. Nearly all the top  coaches felt it was an open field with all 6 in the race. What we need now is the other 6 to catch up. The league needs bigger clubs & more of them. That's all.

Edited September 18, 2022 by audois

[Snowys Backside]

Would people support a similar concept should teams finishing 7-12 played off for who went down in their own knockout format ?

Just a thought. 

[johnh1]

8 minutes ago, Snowys Backside said:

Would people support a similar concept should teams finishing 7-12 played off for who went down in their own knockout format ?

Just a thought. 

We had that type of system with the middle 8s. It was great, even though my team were in it twice.

[Dunbar]

I am not in any way knocking the tournament as it is still developing and I have very much enjoyed watching it.

But in the NRLW, the Eels secured their play off spot this morning by getting their first win of the season in the final round.

They finished with 1 win and 4 losses and 4th out of 6 on the table and now have a chance in the play off's to progress to the Grand Final.

[north yorks trinity]

On 17/09/2022 at 00:45, Roy Haggerty said:

 So you reward mediocrity and open the door to a lucky run which makes a bit of a mockery of the whole season. 

 

I actually agree strongly with the rest of the post I've pulled this quote from. However, the occasional "lucky" run creates a lot of the interest in sport. Plus, that luck has to backed up by a tremendous amount of skill, organisation, mental strength etc etc otherwise the odds against that lucky run become simply overwhelming. If we make an assumption that a slight underdog (as opposed to a rank outsider) has a 1 in 3 chance of winning, we would expect a team in 5th or 6th under the current system would win on average each 27 years, enough to create a wide spread of interest without demeaning the competition IMO. 

The fact that Leeds won twice from 5th under a system less favourable to the lower placed clubs probably owes very little to luck and a lot to skill, organisation, mental strength etc etc, exactly the attributes we should be aiming to reward.

[Damien]

41 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

We had that type of system with the middle 8s. It was great, even though my team were in it twice.

Not really. In the middle 8s everyone played each other once and it wasnt a case of a single bad day at the office. What Snowy is alluding to is more like having a system where 7 end up playing 12 and then losing a single one off game and getting relegated.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Damien

[Mr Frisky]

2 hours ago, paul hicks said:

when you look back to the era of premiership finals from the late 1970s till early 1990s, they did not decide the champions and that was because every team in the championship did play each other twice. not 3 times or more just each other twice. while ever the number of games is uneven or indeed if teams don't play each other the same number of times be that 2 ,3 or even 4 times then the league table is uneven which justifies the playoffs for the right to be champions. 

you want to get rid of the playoffs ten its simple every team plays each other the same number of times and then i could be persuaded it was a fair league table 

So less games (less income) for the hard up clubs and get rid of magic.... Great stuff you should apply for Rimmers job.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

 

The fact that Leeds won twice from 5th under a system less favourable to the lower placed clubs probably owes very little to luck and a lot to skill, organisation, mental strength etc etc, exactly the attributes we should be aiming to reward.

Exactly, its not like getting to the Grand Final, let alone winning it, from 5th is easy. It is specifically intended to be hard in fact.

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Exactly, its not like getting to the Grand Final, let alone winning it, from 5th is easy. It is specifically intended to be hard in fact.

My view is that it should be harder to win than it is from 5th or 6th. 

To win from first you have to win 2 sudden death games and from 5th you have to win 3 sudden death games.  That is not enough of a difference for me.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

My view is that it should be harder to win than it is from 5th or 6th. 

To win from first you have to win 2 sudden death games and from 5th you have to win 3 sudden death games.  That is not enough of a difference for me.

But, if you're first, you're at home, had a week to get injured players back, playing a team further down the ladder than you who have already played a knock out round the week before.

Not to mention from 5th and 6th there are no home matches.

To compare this years Grand Finalists in the playoffs:

Leeds have played Catalans Away, then Wigan Away. Saints have played Salford at home. Salford were also without Croft, injured in their previous gruelling playoff game. And Leeds have lost Gannon and Sezer just in the playoff matches - nearly losing Oledski too.

Ask 100 people and 100 people would tell you the second route is significantly easier and preferable.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Tommygilf

[koli]

On 17/09/2022 at 21:35, Damien said:

The Premiership regularly got around 35k at Old Trafford, considerably more than the Regal Trophy normally got, and was shown on Sky. If that was a 3rd or 4th rate cup then the game would kill for it now. Instead people now get excited about 35k for 3 games at Magic.

Of course FPTP is fairer. A league system in which every game counts equally over the course of a season is certainly fairer than one in which an entire season rests on one game at a particular moment in time. I'm happy to agree to disagree as there is little point in going round in circles.

I think a bit of rose tinted glasses here.We got a couple of of 30k plus gates when we combined with div 2 final and Saints met Wigan.

We got plenty of sub 20k ones -Saints v Warrington in ‘77 was 11k,Saints v Hull KR in ‘85 around 15k for instance.

 

 

 

[GUBRATS]

If the rules at the start of the season state they can , then they can , simple as 

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, koli said:

I think a bit of rose tinted glasses here.We got a couple of of 30k plus gates when we combined with div 2 final and Saints met Wigan.

We got plenty of sub 20k ones -Saints v Warrington in ‘77 was 11k,Saints v Hull KR in ‘85 around 15k for instance.

I think its you cherry picking here and it's really disingenuous to purposely pick out dates from before the Premiership Trophy was played at Old Trafford, which was the debate as that is the event that the Grand Final directly replaced. 

As for your assertion of couple of just a couple of 30k gates when it was Wigan v Saints. The first final at Old Trafford was Wigan v Warrington in 1987 and got 38,756. Widnes v Saints the year after got 35,352. Widnes v Hull FC then got 40,194 in 1989. Widnes v Bradford got 40,796 in 1990. Hull FC and Widnes got 42,043 in 1991. That takes us to the first Wigan v Saints game in 1992 that actually got a comparatively poor 33,157.

No rise tinted glasses there, if anything I was being conservative.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Damien

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

But, if you're first, you're at home, had a week to get injured players back, playing a team further down the ladder than you who have already played a knock out round the week before.

Not to mention from 5th and 6th there are no home matches.

To compare this years Grand Finalists in the playoffs:

Leeds have played Catalans Away, then Wigan Away. Saints have played Salford at home. Salford were also without Croft, injured in their previous gruelling playoff game. And Leeds have lost Gannon and Sezer just in the playoff matches - nearly losing Oledski too.

Ask 100 people and 100 people would tell you the second route is significantly easier and preferable.

I am not saying that the Leeds route to the Grand Final was easy.

I am saying that, in my opinion, a play off system should make it harder.

If we are to have a play of system then it needs to disproportionately favour the higher placed teams.  More so than it does now.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Dunbar

[bobbruce]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am saying that the Leeds route to the Grand Final was easy.

I am saying that, in my opinion, a play off system should make it harder.

If we are to have a play of system then it needs to disproportionately favour the higher placed teams.  More so than it does now.

I think it’s harsh to say Leeds route was easy. The top 5 system though gave a clear advantage to each team as you went up the league. Which is the system I’d go with if it was up to me. 

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I think it’s harsh to say Leeds route was easy. The top 5 system though gave a clear advantage to each team as you went up the league. Which is the system I’d go with if it was up to me. 

That was a typo (I was in a rush).  I meant I am not saying Leeds route was easy.  It is corrected now.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am saying that the Leeds route to the Grand Final was easy.

I am saying that, in my opinion, a play off system should make it harder.

If we are to have a play of system then it needs to disproportionately favour the higher placed teams.  More so than it does now.

I do think there is something in what you say with regards to the overall seeding,  and there was something nice about the Top 5 that did seem to proportionately reward clubs for their finishing position.  However, top 5 did have some flaws in that it could be a touch complicated to understand and articulate,  and that it could throw up repeat fixtures (the last year of this had 2 x Wigan v Salford games over 3 weeks). 

I quite liked the fact the top 2 got a 2nd chance (IIRC)  if they lost the first game. 

But I don't think Leeds' route was easy.  They had to travel to France to play Catalans and then had to travel to an unbeaten at home Wigan. They were two great wins for them. 

But I do think there is someting in what you say,  I'm just not sure what the best solution is. 

[Jughead]

For context, Catalans lost two at home all season and Wigan hadn’t lost a home league game under Peet and went over a year without losing a home league game. To say Leeds’ run to the final was easy is plainly incorrect. 

 

[bobbruce]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

That was a typo (I was in a rush).  I meant I am not saying Leeds route was easy.  It is corrected now.

Fair enough. My second part still stands top 5 is the best system we’ve had. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I do think there is something in what you say with regards to the overall seeding,  and there was something nice about the Top 5 that did seem to proportionately reward clubs for their finishing position.  However, top 5 did have some flaws in that it could be a touch complicated to understand and articulate,  and that it could throw up repeat fixtures (the last year of this had 2 x Wigan v Salford games over 3 weeks). 

I quite liked the fact the top 2 got a 2nd chance (IIRC)  if they lost the first game. 

But I don't think Leeds' route was easy.  They had to travel to France to play Catalans and then had to travel to an unbeaten at home Wigan. They were two great wins for them. 

But I do think there is someting in what you say,  I'm just not sure what the best solution is. 

As I say above.  That was a typo, I am saying I don't believe Leeds route was easy this year.  But I also believe that the route for 5th and 6th should be more disproportionately harder than it currently is.

[bobbruce]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do think there is something in what you say with regards to the overall seeding,  and there was something nice about the Top 5 that did seem to proportionately reward clubs for their finishing position.  However, top 5 did have some flaws in that it could be a touch complicated to understand and articulate,  and that it could throw up repeat fixtures (the last year of this had 2 x Wigan v Salford games over 3 weeks). 

I quite liked the fact the top 2 got a 2nd chance (IIRC)  if they lost the first game. 

But I don't think Leeds' route was easy.  They had to travel to France to play Catalans and then had to travel to an unbeaten at home Wigan. They were two great wins for them. 

But I do think there is someting in what you say,  I'm just not sure what the best solution is. 

Sometimes those repeat fixtures created the story line. Certainly with a top 5 as competitive as it is now. With hopefully more clubs to push on next season.