Like that play-off structure, wouldn't say the wooden spoon match is a great a idea- would fans go to watch their dissappointments? should finishing bottom and next bottom have a financial benefit? How could it be woven into the franchise system?

There def needs to be a change. 8 teams is too many.

The Salary cap is pointless if there isnt a minimum spend required. Too many clubs clearly dont get anywhere near the cap.

Their greatest ability is getting away with salary cap jiggery-pokery.

Throw money at a club and pack the team with marquee signings and, if it's competing against teams who are handicapped by actually working inside the cap, then they're bound to do well.

I watched a recording of Brisbane - St George this evening. What a fantastic game of rugby league. As for some of the super league offerings, well they were far from super.

Hull were terrible this afternoon. Some of their play was void of the basic rugby skills. The lack of quality passing from a couple of their players was an embarrassment.

Hmm, and yet no one has actually offered substantial, concrete evidence to suggest such a thing rather than making comments on here.

If they can get players to sign for them on lower wages to build a strong squad capable of winning silverware then I say they have to be praised.

That was a great game. The Dragons defence was unbelievable.

Yeeeees, that sounds feasible......

The play-offs as they stand are baffling. What do in all honesty the winners from the Top 4 gain from winning this weekend, apart from a week off? In theory, Huddersfield and Wigan could win next week, and we'll end up with EXACTLY THE SAME FIXTURES - and we're essentially as we were from the beginning!

Compare this to the Top 5/6 play off of recent years, and the reward for the Top 2 in the first week - a place in the grand final. No wonder intensity has dropped.

nb: the club call is hardly a reward, is it?

The top 6 was a farce.
I suggested the top 7 system mooted above 2 years ago and if you're not going 1v8, 2v7 etc then its the way to go. Originally I liked the AFL system that we're using now but I think you're more handicapped for finishing 4th than 5th

Agreed the Broncos/Dragons match was the game of the season so far.

Maybe Hull's terrible afternoon might have had something to do with their director of rugby deciding to take the sky pound at Wigan rather than assisting his own team.

The top five system was by far the best that we've had. It gave appropriate advantage to those teams that finished higher, had (IIRC) no chance of generating 'repeat' fixtures until the final itself and it lent itself to much more competitive matches.

Unfortunately, Super League has become very much a "everyone can take part" and "everyone gets a trophy" environment. The fact that you can fail to win more games than you do win and still be in contention for the play-offs, never mind actually in them, sums up the problem.

How can standards improve when the "goal" for so many is to be just below average? We need to get back to a 12 team league and a five team play-off format.

better be careful there tonto...i don't wanna have to get legal on your ass.

It aint simply a case of there not being enough players. The difference between the two comps is that the top clubs sign and retain the best players in the UK. The problem with our sport is that when one team overpowers another, one sided games are not entertaining.

The NRL is structured so that the clubs have similar budgets, there certainly aint the difference that our clubs operate with. The successful sides in the NRL are the teams who recruit sensibly, are well coached and perform as a team.

You are a pot head pixie and I claim my free flying teapot

I'm not sure I fully understand your logic on this one. Granted, a team can make the play off’s with a negative win/loss ratio but I’m not sure that would therefore have a negative effect on standards

Take this scenario. With half a dozen rounds of Super League season to go, if two teams playing each other were in with a chance of making the play off’s then that game would surely be of a higher intensity than if the same two teams were floundering around in mid table mediocrity with nothing to play for?

It could be argued that HKR got beat at the weekend because they were pushing hard in the last 3 or 4 rounds of Super League for that last playoff spot and those matches would have been played out in a very different way if they meant nothing

The first few playoff games have been disappointing but equally it was a good end to the regular season with a number of teams fighting for spots in the top 8

I think the current system is absolutely ridiculous if I'm being perfectly honest - I think alarm bells should be ringing when Wigan-Saints only pulls in 12,000 which is purely down to a) knowing there could be several more games to come at full whack and b) neither side being eliminated despite losing. Realistically, you gain no more huge advantages from finishing first as you do fourth.

I also think it's not seen as as much of an achievement for actually getting in to the play offs when it's a top 8 - clubs need to miss out every now and then to realise the true value of achieving a play off spot. a 1v4, 2v3 straight play off for the Grand Final would potentially be epic, but there's no way the RFL would allow it because of the loss of revenue by giving up umpteen play off games.

That's why English RL will never amount to anything. We're always putting money [ibefore[/i the game, rather than [iin[/i the game.

Top eight is ridiculous. As someone posted, the league table is basically a drawn out way of deciding whick teams are too to qualify, rather than who are the best. The 8 team system is long and confusing.

I skyplussed friday and saturday's game in order to have a day long rugby marathon on Sunday which i was really looking forward to. I was very dissapointed, with 3/4 games.

Apart from only rewarding top finishers, the top 5 system has the following advantages:
The advantage between is league finish position is clear, but at the same time, because the average standard of team is better (obviously), meaning the 5th placed team probably has the quality to at least trouble the top teams (see cas in '99). Was there ever a chance that HKR were going ot do anything against the big teams?
There are fewer fixtures, so from the off there is a big game feel which I don't think can be said about some of the fixtures we've just seen.

Sky will want more teams in to have more matches, but if the quality is low then its a poor advert and therefore a false economy.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with much else you posted, this bit is wrong. Wire got to play the 4th placed team at home. Hudds had to go to the best team in the comop and play them at their ground. That is a pretty big ask for starters. Us playing Hudds at our place instead of the Galpharm, was a huge advantage!

4th can never get the advantage of Clubcall (although tbf it will probably never be used tactically anyway).

But you still get another chance so it means clubs can basically write off week one and concentrate on instead winning their home game in week two. All of these second chances just complete removes the sudden death aspect which is surely the big selling point of the play offs.

So let's assume Hudds 'wrote off' week 1. They now need to play Leeds (a tough game for them) and if they win that their reward is an away tie at Warrington (most likely). Surely they will have gone all out in Week 1 to pull off a shock and have a nice tie back at the Galpharm in two weeks?

The benefits to Hudds beating Wire the other night were pretty massive tbh.

Do you think there has been the same intensity to play off games where teams know they have a second chance versus those with sudden death elimination?

If we're sticking with the top 8 lets at least go 1v8th and so forth. Maybe a couple of one sided scorelines in week one but at least tough games arent artificially created and doing it from 8th would become a monumental task whereas 1st and second would be much more rewarded

The Wigan v Saints game had the highest level of intensity of all four games.

The Catalans v Hull KR game or the Leeds v Hull had no intensity and they were knockout.

Like I say, I don't disagree, but the fact is there have just been some freak games this year.

Last year Leeds beat Wigan by 1 point, and the Saints v Wire game was a cracker in Rd 1. The least intense game was the Hull derby which was knockout. The next four knockout games were not particularly close (apart from the Wire v Hudds game which looked like a cakewalk for Hudds at one stage).

I am slowly coming round to the opinion that we should potentially go back to top 5, but not because of these couple of things that you have highlighted.

The problem I've had with the 5v8 and 6v7 games that I've seen since the top 8 came into force is that some teams have looked to me to be trying to avoid losing as opposed to going out to win. You would think that these games would be the most intense of the first week playoff games as the teams involved are trying to stay alive but it hasn't been the case.