There have been 14 GF of which 6 have been won by the team not finishing top. Why do people accept the fact you are valid champions from 2nd but not from 5th!! Your still not the best team over the weekly rounds!!

Any Saints fans complaining about the fact Leeds won the title despite not finishing top should be prepared to hand back there tittles back that they won in 1999 and 2000 as Bradford and Wigan won the League in those 2 years. The same goes for Bradford who should be prepared to hand back there title which they in 2005 as Saints finished top that year.

The fact that Saints are known as the team who lost 5 GF in a row (07-11) rather than the team that won the League 4 years straight (05-0icon_cool.gif shows which is more important!!

Try not to be so tribal dear, who's the sore one.
2011 was a great season for many clubs, Pies, Saints all in their own way, and by far the most competitive for while, a great spectical, especially the DW stadium one, my hands are still sore from clapping.
But a series 27 rounds of games with only a portion being relevant is odd and that's the point of this post isn't it?

Warrington failed, i get that, let's move the debate on
Scrapping the LLS would mean the point of striving to win all your games is gone, then why pay your hard earned pounds to watch a regular match
What if you figure out a few days before your team is not going for a win because the team sheet fields a weakened side.
Unintended consequences such as the Leeds example, they were poor per Playoffs, shows what can be achieved fron 13 points off the top, I wonder if Warrington will prioiritise the GF this season, deliberately fielding weekend sides towards back end of season, if I was the boss, that's what id do, if the top position is irrelevant.
Maybe playing youngsters and taking a loss is a good thing for the team overall ?

Erm, except the point, the real point, is to finish as high in the league table as possible to earn the resultant advantages as you enter the playoffs. Nobody is striving to finish top for a big dinner plate.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or, indeed, if you have one but if you genuinely think Warrington didn't prioritise the GF last season above all else then I'm not sure how you can benefit further from this discussion. Do you really think Warrington prioritised the Leage Leaders Shield ahead of the Grand Final? For real?

Oh, and you might want to look at Leeds results through July to the Grand Final. After the loss at Catalan on July 10th Leeds only lost one more league match the week before the cup final. Leeds were not poor heading into the playoffs or in the playoffs themselves. Leeds were one of the hottest teams heading into the playoffs, something they seem to have perfected over the last seven or eight years.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but why does playing youngsters equate to a loss? In case you hadn't noticed, Leeds and Saints play a lot of youngsters and, guess what, it doesn't necessarily equate to losing.

The point I'm making is that a team can lose a third of its matches and be crowned Champions as Leeds did very well as you say. Does that not then show the irrelevance of 11matches in your season ? Leeds lost 11 matches in 2011.

If as a supporter I'm thinking should I go to the match or do something else with my weekend, or maybe watch it on sky instead of going to the ground because it doesn't really matter so long as your team win 15 games out of 27, then I can see some fans taking the non rugby weekend. Is that good for RL ? I think not.
In these difficult times, its important as many fans as possible think their year supporting their team has been worthwhile.
As a Wire fan, I do for 2011, as I'm sure do Wigan, Saints and a few others who had something to play for.
Wire spent many years winning nothing, I for one don't mind admitting it darn difficult to watch your team if they finish the year trophy less.
I should know we were the best at it.

You're totally missing the point here. What Leeds did was extraordinary, but they didn't choose to do it the hard way.
Those 11 matches were not irrelevant. Leeds didn't choose to lose them. They would much rather have been in Warrington's position at the end of the regular rounds, not to win the hubcap, but to have the massive advantages that league leaders have going into the playoffs.
Leeds and Saints also didn't choose to play youngsters just for the hell of it. They were forced to do so 'cos of pretty severe injury problems. Had Peacock and McGuire been available at the start of the season, or if they could have played first choice centres and props for most of the season, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be talking about Leeds losing so many matches anyway.
The bottom line is Leeds couldn't match the others until they had a settled, relatively injury-free team and got used to a new coaching team and new playing systems. Once that happened they were as good as (and results would suggest better than) the rest.

End of debate

I'm not talking about flipping Leeds, I'm talking about the games as a whole, give me strength !
My point is if 11 games can be lost and you still win the ultimate prize as its regarded, then it follows a third of all results don't matter, I don't think that's good for the game, only my opinion, I see RL as under a serious threat to other distractions, this issue adds to the game's demise or don't you notice the empty seats ?

Except that's not the debate.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but when someone posts two paragraphs, one of which is about Leeds losing 11 games, I assume that they are talking about 'flipping Leeds'!

You just don't get it do you? The championship is won by winning the play-offs. The league determines who will play in and have the greatest advantage going into the play-offs. In this sense no game is irrelevant. They all matter in terms of the greater objective...having that advantage going into, and ultimately winning the play-off series.
The relevance of those 11 games is that Leeds had to play all but one of their play-off games away, and that to win the GF, they had to play and win more games than those above them. This would be true of any team whether it's 'flipping Leeds' or 'blooming someone else'.

Yes maybe you are ! As I said I get it, Leeds are the bees knees, the dog's danglies, whatever you want, great season, Mc Dermott' a genius. I heard all that.
But as you don't get it, I'll give up, I wouldn't want you to have a heart attack.

The LLS is just a precursor to the GF

When i go for an Indian it's not the Prawn Puri i'm looking forward to but the Lamb Madras that comes after, i enjoy both but i can do without the former.

Strange how average crowds have increased massively since 1997 which was the last year where the champions were decided by league position?

Unlike you however I won't attribute cause and effect to one single issue as the whole business of Rugby League is much more complicated than that.

Huddersfield, like Warrington, finished above Leeds and didn't make any finals in 2011.

I doubt people are queuing up to say Huddersfield had a better year than Leeds on the back of final SL standings?

It's Leeds by a street over Wire - 2 finals and SL champions. Not even close.

Seeing as your understanding of irony is clearly as dimunitive as your understanding of how Superleague works, I really think that giving up is probably your best option. You exhibit all the reasoning capacity of Catherine Tate's Lauren. Which bit of my post do you fundamentally disagree with...or is a genuine response beyond you?

Sorry, though, the chance of me having a heart attack on accounts of your peurile resentment is about as great as the chance of Gary Hetherington conceding the Championship to Wire on accounts of they won more games in the League.

What people are forgetting about the current system is that everyone knows the rules before the start of the season. I am not saying Warrington did not deserve their shield, I am not saying they were not the best team throughout the regular rounds, but surely if the format did not include the play-offs then the league would have played out differently.

Clearly saints and leeds both played their games to peak at the right team and managed it. Had the comp been decided by who was top of the league then I am sure they would have chosen to peak sooner.

I don't for a second actually think that Leeds are a better team than Warrington or Wigan to be honest. But all the teams know the rules at the start of the season, we all know that the champions are the team who wins at Old Trafford, like it or not those are the rules.

Any Warrington fans suggesting they are happy to be the current holders of the shield rather than being CHAMPIONS and lifting the super league trophy at Old Trafford, and then getting a chance to compete in the WCC against the top aussie side... well... you are seriously deluded. If you can honestly say you would rather have the shield than be champions, so be it.... go and win the shield every year and let the rest of us compete for the big prize, to become champions.

Lets go back to 2010. Wigan finished top of the league and then went on to become champions at Old Trafford. Lets changed that for a second and say Wigan finished top of the league and then Warrington became champions. Would we have Warrington fans arguing that Wigan had the better season? You must be joking!

Give it a couple of years, nobody will remember that Warrington finished top, but everyone will remember that Leeds won the GF, I hate to say it this year but that is what matters, they did it for the 5th time and it was a superb achievement which I doubt will be overshadowed by a cold night in Hull with a crowd of 16,000.

I don't think many Warrington fans are Odem, quite the opposite most of us are still pig sick, i'd give back our LLS and 2 Wembley visits to get the GF trophy.

Thanks for that! Try make your point without the personals Chief, Now go and have a lie down.

Need to start winning play-off games first



I personally think the title could honestly be wires next season. However, if you don't finish in the top 2 I can't see you going away to top teams and winning in that kind of game after having chances at home for the last few years.

My pleasure. If at any time you'd chosen to address my point, rather than respond with ludicrous denial and childish sarcasm, maybe it wouldn't have got personal.

You seem to believe that I'm a bit wound up, need to lie down, in danger of a heart attack etc. Far from it mate. I'm mildly amused and perhaps a little impatient ... but that's understandable....


... I'm still waiting for a sensible answer.
If you want to see how it's done you need to look no further than Odem and Yed's discussion on this thread.

As with the minority of Wigan fans who tried to defend the same nonsensical position last year (before the GF but at the end of the regular season), most of the minority of Wire fans holding the flat earth view of the value of the LLS will disappear if they win the GF.

TBH I wouldn't be at all surprised if Wire do win it next year. Tony Smith was probably right in saying that they needed more tough games - walkovers are not the best preparation for big games.

I don't buy into this argument at all. They had a week off to prepare for one game against a Leeds side who they outplayed all season. They lost and Leeds were the better team. It all came down to that game in the end, the only lost by two points and their season was over. I don't think it is to do with anything other than Leeds being 2 points better than them on the day.

What an idiotic comment! our sport crowns the team that wins the GF, finishing top only serves to give the fans bragging rights and puts their team in the best position come the play offs

also you cant fluke 5 GF victories in 8 years

Leeds had the better season as their gameplan was better, im not saying that their poor start was deliberate, but how they managed to hit form at the right time (Wembley onwards) was what ultimately won them the GF

If a marathon runner got off to a bad start but comes good at the end and wins, they are said to have had a great race! its the 1st past the post that wins, not the pacemaker

Well you can. You can play four of them against the same team!