Let me get this straight.

Are telling me that wigan haven't had a week off, what with their cup run and WCC?

That's fair enough. But in most of those seasons, there's only been 2, sometimes 3, sides with the necessary quality to make the final in any case. I know it's impossible to be sure but in most years the teams finishing first or second would have won regardless of the play off format used. There simply hasn't been the depth of competition to suggest otherwise. Looking at this year's comp, the 7th and 8th placed teams are gone already; next weekend they'll most likely be followed by 6th and 4th (hopefully) or 5th. Us or hudds will still be the outsider if that happens.

So, if it's the case that the top 2 or 3 don't generally need any greater advantage, why not maximise the interest/financial spin offs by adopting the current system (or any other that incorporates the same number of games)? I'm not saying I agree with this line of argument necessarily, I'm just pointing out that there is some logic to it.

Don't forget they played a midweek game too!

Well, I'm pretty sure that's what Eddie said. There was a chance of me misconstruing the specifics of his statement the first five times. But by the 6th, 7th and 8th times of him mentioning it I was pretty sure I'd heard him right. If not, certainly the 9th, 10th and 11th times he said it I heard him loud and clear. The 12th, 13th and 14th times must've just been for clarity. Why he mentioned it a 15th time I have no idea.

IMO the current format is fine. Except for the club call.

Everyone knows the goal posts at the start of the season. Under the old system the scenarios were too predictable. The system provides more unpredictability.

I think people fall in danger of trying to make it too easy for the top 2 to make the grand final. Look at the old system. Top 2 only had to win 1 game to get there. They'd get at least one opportunity at home to do this. And a second bite at the cherry.

Difference is now they have to win 2 instead of 1 and if they lose the first game they lose home advantage for the semis.

People mentioned what advantage is it for huddersfield finishing 4th when we have it better finishing 5th.

It's not the systems fault huddersfield played f*cking sh*t and blew their chance. They could have gone to warrington won, and now be 1 home game away from the grand final!!! Whereas we'd still have to win 2 away games to get there.

I just think people want to compensate for choking too much. If a team finishes top and is the real deal, they should be able to win 2 games to get there.

Look at us in 09. Played tough hull kr team, won, club call - catalans, won, bish bash bosh no messing around.

If we'd bottled it and lost to kr, I can imagine people beefing about the system. The system is fine theres just alot less room for error for teams nearer the top.

Huddersfield blew it.

They had a chance to get within one home game of the grand final and they let it pass them by.

Of course you will have to play a tougher team to win that kind of opportunity.

It's not the systems fault huddersfield were shocking. That's their fault.

As do you when a season of attaining the highest qualifying position is reversed with the advantages that were hard earned shifting directly to a team who entered the Play-Offs in a lower finishing position. Most crucially the loss of home advantage for the Elimination Semi-Final. Prior to this flawed model has this happened before over the period 1998 to 2008?

What is the reward for finishing 2nd under this format? A game against a very dangerous opponent who only finished one place lower on the ladder with a reasonable probability of coming unstuck and finding yourself up against it. If that's the case why bother during the Regular Rounds, makes more sense to toss it off, short-change the public and have an easier run from lower down with less expectations. Is that what the RFL are trying to achive, to undermine the integrity of the Regular Rounds?

For the Play-Offs to work fairly IMO the League placings should matter and for as long as we have home advantage throughout to qualify for the final that should go with seedings just as it did from 1998 to 2008.

The fact you are now tipping a team finishing 6th to knock out a team finishing 2nd in week 2 shows we are using a dysfunctional format invented only to reward momentum and create the possibilities for upsets.

In fact i think huddersfield have had a pretty cushty time of things.

Get the opportunity to be one home game away from grand final.

Lose.

Now they get another chance and a home game to get to the semi again.

I think the great thing about the current playoff system is that there are pretty good positives for all teams in the top 5.

Well this systems been in place 2 seasons.

We've has 1st vs 2nd.

and err... 1st vs 2nd

And guess what?

This season will be 1st v 2nd/3rd.

You get 2 bites at the cherry and a home game to begin with.

Unfortunately for once R_R downplayed the significance as he failed to mention that Wigan also supplied every player (for both sides incidentally) in the mid-season England V Exiles match as well as having to fit the re-arranged Castleford game in mid-week also.

Put that one down to Jamie Peacock bizarrely suggesting starting the SL season with a bang rather than a whimper. What the heck was he thinking of other than to disadvantage the reigning Champions even further obviously. Don't recall his suggesting this to open the '08, '09 or 2010 seasons. Strange that.

__________



By finishing 2nd you should have earned the right to a home semi-final over 27 rounds, otherwise what's the reward or point beyond qualifying where it's harder not to qualify.

You shouldn't then have to put that at risk by playing the 3rd placed team - not when there are cushy formalities given to the teams finishing 5th and 6th.

You can still get that. You just have to win a home game against a team that placed lower than you.



5th and 6th have knockout games right from the start and will have to win away from home to get there, that's a certainty.

Cushy formality is complete opinion and not fact.

I believe to be crowned champions a team needs to be able to win high pressure games against their rivals as well as consistently beating teams week in week out. I think the current format balances those reasonably well.

Try as I might, I'm afraid I just can't get upset about any perceived iniquities in the present play off formulae. Nor I suspect are the players and coaches of the other teams who are in the mix.

You know what the SuperLeague set up is before the season's kickoff, and I prefer to expend my energy on supporting my team, rather than than attempting to rewrite the rule books.

Personally, I'm delighted with our weekend result, and look forward to our clash with Hudds, which could be an outstanding match, although I think we'll get a very harsh reality check the week after.

You could look at all the playoff formats we've had and put in decent arguments for and against aspects within them.

Look at the old format and the massive weight in advanatge from 2nd place to 3rd place when theoreticallythe placing could decided on just points difference yet 3rd would have to win 3 knockout games (one away from home) to make the final and 2nd had 2 bites at the cherry and needed to win just one game.

I think bar the club call the current format is the best we've had and generates the most money as theres more games involved.

Is it true that Wigan have not had a week off since the start of the season?
Maybe tvoc would kindly confirm that for me.
Plus has it ever happened before?

Well according to Eddie Hemmings, correct me If i'm wrong tvoc, but they haven't had a week off all season, what with the CC and WCC.

Les Catalans 56 Hull KR 6

Leeds Rhinos 42 Hull FC 10

Yes I can see your point.

Hindsight.

I can see tvoc's point. The playoff format seems to have been designed with a close competition in mind, there are only small differences in finishing a few places up or down within the eight but the league table often shows massive differences between those clubs as we do not have a close competition

Top 5 from 12 teams would be my preference

So where's the advantage for finishing 4th over 5th?

Getting a 2nd bite at the cherry isn't exactly a positive when it's almost inevitably going to be needed, and 5th get a home game (which you've said is a positive thing for 2nd) whereas 4th don't? 5th also get the privilege of playing the lowest ranked team left in the competition, at home. A team that's lost as many games than they've won, at home.

Huddersfield were always going to have to play 3 games to reach the final. If you'd have asked them which 3 games they'd have preferred...

Hull at home, Leeds away, Warrington away (if they'd finished 5th)
Warrington away, Leeds at home, Warrington away (now they've finished 4th)

I'd much rather have our option.

Look at last year... We were capable of a performance that beat the eventual champions. We just weren't capable of it TWICE. If we do the same this year (i.e. play out of our skin and beat the league leaders on their own patch) we're in the Grand Final. Last year, even though we finished in the "better" league position, doing that very same thing still wasn't enough to get us to the final, because we had to do it twice.

If we'd have finished 5th last year (not 4th), we'd have played Crusaders at HQ, then Huddersfield away, then that winning performance at the DW would've been the only time we played Wigan, we all know what happened there, and we'd have been in the final.

It's probably going to be 1st/2nd/3rd in the final anyway, so it's all irrelevant, but finishing 5th is much better than finishing 4th in my opinion. And it shouldn't be.

And for that reason there was a tangible reward for finishing 1st and 2nd under both previous systems (top 5 and top 6) that ended with reaching the Grand Final at the 1st attempt or having home advantage with the 2nd chance.

Earned over the course of the Regular Rounds keeping them meaningful.



In large measure those extra games this season have arguably been an embarrassment to the sport and called into question the worth of putting 100% commitment into the 27 weekly rounds that preceded them. Hopefully Warrington and Wigan will still prevail and give the sport a fitting finale at Old Trafford.

If they don't then the RFL should reconsider the positioning of the Challenge Cup within the calendar so that it doesn't continue to negatively impact what should be the pinnacle achievement in the domestic game.

Unfortunately, I seem to recall that during the SL licence announcements Richard Lewis said that the Challenge Cup will stay as it is for the foreseeable future.

Win 2 games to get to the final instead of 3. 2 bites at the cherry. The opportunity to get a home semi final. That's alot of advantages right there.



Leeds didn't need it last year. They won to make and put themselves in the best possible position to make the grand final. Wigan showed what worthy champions they were by playing an extra game then de-throning the 3 times champs on their own patch.



5th have a knockout home game. 2nd places game isnt knockout and if they win it they go through to a home semi whereas 5ht place if they win have to go away from home and win 2 more times to make the final

Yes. That's a positive. Should it all be suicidal misery unless you finish in the top 2 at which point you get an armed escort straight to old trafford?



That's opinion not fact. The facts were they could have made the final in 2 games, one being at home. That's a definite advantage over 5th.





Complete and utter speculation. Didn't we lose to crusaders last year? Whos to say we'd have won? and we'd have been playing wigan after 2 tough playoff games.

You might as well just say if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.



I respect your opinion but the facts show that it's wrong.

Does any of this even matter anyway?

Every season bar 1 the winner has come from the top 2, no matter what system we've had. If a team ever wins it from lower down, i thin their peformances over the playoffs will warrant it.

1st-3rd = Good Teams
4th-6th = Average Teams
7th-8th = Poor Teams

To make the final Huddersfield (4th) will have had to play two good teams and one average team.
Leeds (5th) will have had to play one poor team, one average team and one good team.

I would 100% rather finish 5th than 4th. Which is just crazyness!! Either way... the fact that we're even debating, and that some people will agree with me, even if others don't proves my point.

There should absolutely no question at all, that under no circumstance it would be BETTER to finished lower down the table. Whether you agree with my theory or not, the point is, at the moment, it's DEBATABLE (because here we are debating it!), and there should be 100% no doubt, no debate, no argument that every position higher you finish is better for you.