What relevance does your NRL V SL analogy have with regard to the issue of the SL regular season being a waste of time where results and performances aren't that important?

As per usual, you jump in with both feet with a totally inappropriate analogy.

Nobody is talking about who deserves to be champions in any given season apart from you.

Because whenever you have a play off system to determine the winner you will reduce the importance of the regular rounds - I would have thought that was pretty obvious even to you. SL is no different from the NRL in that respect. A similar percentage of games in the NRL have as little relevance in the big picture as you have in SL. Do you really think Melbourne are in little more than cruise control when they playing all but 3/4 sides? In the 10 games this year they have scored more than 30 in six games - this isn't just a SL problem.

I can't predict with any reliable certainty the vast majority of qualifiers for the Top 8 in any given NRL season and neither can you. Teams finishing near the top one year can be near the bottom a season later or vice versa.

I can however predict with absolute certainty at least half a dozen (if not more) of the qualifiers for the Top 8 in any given SL season. In fact, I predicted all 8 last season.

That's the difference (lack of competitiveness between clubs in SL) and that's why the regular rounds in SL lack importance and are an opportunity for a club like Leeds to amble through the regular season without much risk to their overall chances. And no, Melbourne do not cruise through most games... they have to play well to ensure any winning streak or else they'll come unstuck, just like any other NRL club.

Feel free to knock out another ridiculous NRL analogy demonstrating your ignorance any time you feel the need to do so.

Keith cares so little about the Rhinos that he doesn't buy a season ticket.

But he does find time during his holidays to post about them.

I'll agree unreservedly with that. In a game when Saints ran away at the end and we have two 34 year old front rowers given significant game time whilst two substitutions and one substitute are un-used then criticism of the players from the coach doesn't sit too well with me this morning.

I'll agree though the aforementioned opposite centre was aided by a poor decision by Hall to stop sliding out and come in. That said, Hall can't have much confidence in who is defending inside him as the identity of that player changes by the minute during the game due to our defensive "tactics".

I have always had a season ticket up till 2011 because I am now at present out of the country,But I bought my season ticket to see RL at Headingley every other week and went to quite a few away games too.

Wish I still was on my holidays. I return to a forum full of knee-kerk reactions to a few defeats that mean absolutely nothing. Have you all learn't nothing from last year?

Didn't realise you were back. Couldn't have timed it better. The forum will be very lively, as usual, about now.

Just a couple of doom mongers revving up their engines in eager anticipation of defeats in the next few games and Substandard will be in overdrive again and you'll have plenty of fair game.

St Helens were running the ball on the fifth play of the set, Hall had half dropped back covering the potential of an early kick. Where I think he went wrong was in backing off and not moving forward to support the inside defence once it became apparent St Helens were running the ball on the play, which invited Shenton to take on and effectively beat Sinfield on the outside - this is the point 'Gilder' makes well with regards Sinfield's vulnerability on defence.

Arrived back on Sunday evening after a long flight from Melbourne. For the first time ever, I've not suffered any jetlag. This forum is only ever interesting when Leeds are on a losing streak so yes, good timing.


There's a certain irony insofar as I used to be castigated on here for being an eager doom-monger after regular season defeats. Leeds will turn it around when it really counts, etc. Now that I've changed my opinion on regular season defeats on the basis that they matter far less than they once did - due in the main to the current play off system which is intent on rewarding mediocrity - I'm now castigated by the same people for refusing to criticise the team and join in with the knee-jerk doom-mongering.

Leeds can win SL this year from a mediocre 6th place IMO so there's really no need for any panic or knee-jerk reactions.

I disagree entirely with your interpretation of events. Sinfield was tracking Shenton and would have had him. Hall was sliding out, and at the last minute made the decisionto come in on Shenton.

If it rained yesterday, does that mean it will rain every day for the rest of eternity? A sample size of, lets see, exactly ONE, is a useless basis to make a case about league position not being important, when there is actually a significant data set suggesting the exact opposite.

Since the play-offs started, only Leeds last year managed to win from such a lowly position. The statistical evidence is very clear - finishing in the top two is by far the best way to give yourself a decent chance of winning the SL competition.

All last year 'proved' was that it is possible to win from as low as 5th - not that it is likely. That, IMO is a good thing - otherwise why not go straight to a GF between the top 2 without any need for play-offs at all?

You'd need several years of teams outside the top 2 winning the comp for the basic premise of 1st/2nd having the best chance of winning to be dented.

Comparison with the NRL is irrelevant.

Someone appears oblivious to the changed play off format which now rewards mediocrity and renders the regular season as practically meaningless. Might explain why the same person has collated non like-for-like evidence for comparative purposes to include all previous play off formats which actually rewarded the higher placed teams in a more appropriate manner whilst also maintaining a level of integrity during the regular rounds.

Or you may be mathematically illiterate. NRL comparisons in a SL data set? I'll let others decide.

Fair enough.



Is it your position that Sinfield would have caught Shenton had Hall stayed drifting out to cover Makinson?

Had Hall initially moved forward in to the defensive line rather than backing off his chances of closing down the play of Shenton would have had a far higher chance of success. If not preventing the pass then perhaps getting a touch on it deflecting it off course. As it was Shenton had dealt with Sinfield with footwork and had burned him for pace on the outside before timing the pass to perfection having been allowed the room to do so by Hall backing away until it was too late.

I suspect those 'others' may decide that you lack comprehension skills. Feel free to take up your comparative NRL concerns with Sal Paradise who introduced the absurd NRL analogy in the first place.

PS: Citing data set evidence from Top 5 and Top 6 play off results doesn't strengthen your argument. It actually weakens it. But you already know that.

<failure to quote your post entirely intentional BTW>

Keith no one is oblivious to the changed playoff format as all you seem to write about on several threads after most games is ''how 8 team playoffs reward mediocrity''. Most people, myself included think 8 is too many and a return to 5/6 would be better, but we don't need to read it on several of the post match threads hijacking discussions people were having about the actual game that took place and views on the team and individual performances. We all understand that Leeds winning the Grand Final last year won't of pleased you but constantly bemoaning the playoff system is never going to alter the fact that it happened. Its a perfectly good opinion and one many share, but come on stop repeating the same thing over and over again.

have

Yes.

Yep, it was a lovely piece of centre play. excellent footwork and well timed pass. It's a pity though, that Shenton has only rarely displayed his full range of abilities in his RL career

Shenton displayed that on a weekly basis at Cas.

At Saints has been another matter. But interesting how after Monday the Saints fans have a change of view, and are now, like us funny enough with Watkins, saying just look what can happen if you actually pass to the right and use Shenton.

Appears they haven't been utilising him as often as they should have.

From my view Sinfield had Shenton locked on.

Sinfield would have had Shenton. Hall should have held on.

Brilliant finish from Makinson.

He may have had him locked on with his eyes, but he wasn't getting there with his hands. Shenton had got him squared up then did him for pace on the outside.

I disagree and share Bloodbath's view. It happened right in front of me. Sinfield comfortably had him. IMO.

Of course, we will never know because Hall came in and didn't slide out. Had Hall slid out and Shenton beaten Sinfield to score there would be little to discuss and little doubt where the blame lay.