How bitter are you.

Maybe putting the first place team straight into the final would be sufficient reward for finishing top, but the argument against that is they'll be sat twiddling their thumbs and losing match sharpness whilst the others battle it out.

I'd never get rid of the play-offs because it gives (nearly) every SL club something to play for, but I do agree topping the table does not bring the rewards or plaudits the feat deserves.

The fixture list is uneven, what makes the person finishing top more worthy than the person who wins the playoffs.

BTW I think it's amazing how the Saints fans come up with this after two grand final defeats and the prospect of no silverware this year...

I can't understand why people think a team should be crowned champions part way through the competition. Do they also think the team that won their semi final match by the largest margin should be declared the challenge cup winners? It makes as much sense.

It would also be crazy to say the champions are a team that failed to win the biggest game in the competition.

The first poster is Spot on ,the team that finishes top in my eyes are the champs they have been the best team all year ,its only Sky that down grade it and its a dissgrace to call it the Hub Cap ,there is no way a team finishing 8th should be anywhere near been crowned as champions.

Unless they win the competition?

What you fail to realise is that the competition doesn't end at the end of the league stage. Next you'll be saying that the Tour de France should be won by the person who finishes the first stage first, or that the person who wins the qualifying in an F1 race should win the race. Both those are ludicrous, just as ludicrous as thinking the person that heads the league after the league rounds should be champions.

Enough with the ludicrous analogies.

As I suspect you and SBR both know very well, no-one, with the possible exception of Damo in a thread a few weeks ago which bordered on the surreal, is suggesting that the league leaders should be champions this season, or 'under the current rules'.

Rather that the rules should be changed.

Not that I necessarily agree, you understand.

Not very.

So how come they dont use this system in Championship 1 ?

I don't know, maybe because it's 'two up-two down' and it would nullify the occasion?

You mean like the Championship GF where both clubs will have already ' Qualified ' to apply for SL in 2012 when they get to the GF

Effectively making winning the semi final more important than winning the final ?

My God, you really do post some misinformed rubbish at times

The play-off system serves, and has done for the majority of RL's existence, served the game perfectly well.

The first-past-the-post system only works in an even fixture list, which Super League isn't.

The league is effectively a qualifying stage. Those who meet the qualifying criteria should compete in the play-offs (although I believe that eight is too high). What happens in the play-off stage will ultimately decide the champions. Should Greece not have been crowned European Football Champions in 2004? After all, they finished second behind Portugal in the "league" system.

Did you complain about the system in 99 and 2000?

Ah, the annual "Saints fan posts a thread about the Grand Final not being the best way to decide the champions, unless, of course, its' Saints that win it from a position other than 1st, as has happened thread".

Must be getting near playoff time.

Using a playoff system to determine the champions is the traditional way in RL and is used in all the main RL playing nations.

One of the main complaints about Super League is that there aren't enough high intensity matches and the playoffs and Grand Final provide that. The best players and teams are able to win when there is no next week to rectify losing a game and when the stakes are at their highest, as well as being consistent in the league.

Spot on.

That was one of the main arguments for keeping promotion & relegation. If were were to do away with the play offs as well, then my god we would have a boring season.

I love the play offs, a proper knockout comp and a good way to finish the season.

Even if my lot seem to be scared of it

It's embarrassing continually bringing this up.

The only thing I'd change about the current system is that finishing top should give you a distict advantage over finishing second to ensure that everyone fights to finish top. The top 5 system did this perfectly and is still the best system we've used IMO.

Also even the great sssociation football uses finals after leagues for the major events such as the World Cup, European Champs, Champions League etc

................


Exclaimed the saints fan who's team had finished top 4 times on the trot and collected just 1 super league title.

''The playoffs are great''. chuckled the leeds fan who's team had finished 2nd twice and won the title.

No way he would.

And as a saints fan he should know they have benefitted as much as anyone from the playoff system.

They won back to back title in 99 and 00 both from 2nd place.

You win some you lose some.

The point some people miss on this thread, although it's been mentioned by some, is that

[size=200THE FIXTURE LIST IN SUPER LEAGUE IS UNEVEN AND LOPSIDED DUE TO VARIOUS EXTRA FIXTURES AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE FIRST GRAND FINAL IN 98, THEREFORE CLAIMING TEAM THAT FINISHES TOP HAS BEEN BEST IS A MUTE POINT[/size.

Saints are probably going to finish top again, theres a number of realistic conmtenders and the playoff structure is more open.

It's just a saints fan with a squeaky bum.

It is a farce given the RL that Saints have played taking them to potentially 5 consecutive top of the table finishes could only bring them one actual championship. And i'm from Wigan.

This whole thread is a farce.

Thems the rules, and they nearly always have been. Deal with it.

Unless you are playing in Championship 1 where the rules are different