If Wigan had been beaten by Leeds having had a path straight through to the final we would have simply heard moaning about how the 2/3 games extra Leeds had played in the build up had left them battle hardened whilst Wigan were rusty after their rest.

Wigan could have done any of the things Leeds did, or Warrington did. They could have rested players, hell they got their hooker banned for three games by going all out in game that under any system made no difference. Thats their fault, their failing.

Might have known you'd turn it into a Wigan vs Leeds argument.

My post is talking about the flaws to the current format, and why there are too many meaningless and low-intensity games, and why I don't (and never have) believe that the winners of a short knock-out competition can be called champions of the entire season. But like I said, our current format says otherwise. If a team wins it from 1st or 2nd, or perhaps even 3rd, at least they've done it as one of the best teams throughout the competition.

Yes, of course if Wigan had lost to Leeds in the final there would be arguments for and against being rested before the final. The same argument happens every year during week 2 of the play-offs. But for me the team that wins the league has been the best over the competition and has won their place on merit.

As this article says, [url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_554-leeds-are-champions-after-a-good-month.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter"Leeds are Champions after a good month."[/url

It is ridiculous that a team with a negative win ratio can win a competition, SL play offs should be top 6 at most

Yes, Leeds are champions. They are champions because they won the competition.

Wigan arent champions even if their fans decide that they would like to claim victory by measuring victory on some other measurement than the one which is in the rules.

I think next season we should decide who wins games on the amount of metres made instead of points scored, and the league on the basis tries scored

It would be a very special set of circumstances which led to a team with no more than 22 points to qualify for the play offs.

Ah, I see what's happened here. You've confused me for someone who didn't say "I'm not saying Leeds had it easy", and whose argument is that Wigan should have won it rather than that the playoff system is flawed in some of its fixtures, and then, in your haste to have a pop, you've gone and made a tit of yourself. Never mind, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll be able to find someone with views that do actually facilitate your counter-argument.




Ignoring your puerile attempt at baiting, since if we're honest it's pathetic, the problem I have with your assessment is here: "Rugby League has found its champions as not only [uthose able to be consistent[/u, but those able to stand the bright lights of the heavyweight showdown." Leeds weren't consistent. That isn't to say that a team who suffers some inconsistency should be barred from becoming champions, or only the teams who finish 1st or 2nd should ever win, but if you are that inconsistent the title should be extremely difficult to achieve, hence my suggestion of 1v8 and so on. Quite simply, the playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that.

Yes, they are. They won the title according to the current format, by winning four games at the end of a very average league campaign by their standards.

Now, if you can look past the fact it's Leeds, and stop banging on about Wigan, perhaps we could have a sensible discussion and look at why the current format is producing so many meaningless games, and why having a team be crowned "Champions" from 5th position is a little ridiculous.

I will pick and choose my games this season as I did this season. The only ones that have any intensity is when we play Wigan or Saints.

You contradict yourself within two paragraphs. You seem to want to avoid saying you think Leeds had it easy (because you know how stupid that argument is) but then you go on to make that same argument by just phrasing it as [ithe playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that[/i. Its the same argument.

Your whole complaint and argument is predicated on the assumption that had Wigan faced Leeds at some other point in the play-offs they would have been more likely to win. Your whole argument that championship lacks credibility is because you believe that when Wigan faced Leeds, after Leeds had played 35 games, after Leeds had just played an extra game in the south of france and Wigan had a week off, at Wigans home ground, Wigan didnt quite have the advantage they needed and Leeds werent quite 'beat up' by previous games enough.

Your premise is flawed, we dont have that many meaningless games. Had we crowned the champions from the league season it would have been won in front of 9k on a sunday afternoon in Hull. We would have then been left with an entire round of meaningless games, for everyone. Most teams would have been playing meaningless games from August, and some from June. The playoffs protect us from meaningless games.

The team who are champions didnt finish 5th, they qualified 5th and finished champions.

Explain?

Wakefield qualified this season with a negative win ratio

The won 13 and lost 14 and would have needed to win 4 on the trot to be champions. Meaning they would have won 17 and lost 14.

Just to mention, Wakefield only qualified because of Bradfords points deduction. The 26 points Wakefield got wouldnt have been enough to qualify on points gained.

Fair point, I should have ' phrased ' it differently, no club with less than 50 % of the available points should be able to win the competition IMO

A clearer way of stating it would be no club with a less than 50% win ratio should be in the play-offs. But had it gone on points scored, they wouldnt have this year.

Top 6 play off gives every game real meaning you either make the final or are eliminated

Am I missing somthing here? where have all these meanigless fixtures people keep going on about been played? I will give you that there have been some poor games (not poor but maybe lacking skill at times) the only side I recall supposedly fielding a below par side is Warrington as they were supposedly pacing the season & that got them the cup & into a grand final. If the detractors on here think the games are pointless then maybe the game is in real trouble if 80 minutes rugby on a Sunday is not good enough. Not even the morons who watch soccer expect to win every game or see spectacular skill packed thrill a minute games every time they turn up, in fact most supporters know trhat thier teams seasons are about over & we are only 10 weeks into the season.

Absolutely, the whole point of a playoff system is surely that anyone can win it, if you're good enough to do so.

The harder it is to get in, and the more you have to work to get into the playoffs, the more credibility the regular season games are afforded.

I'm no fan of Leeds, but if I hear one more person saying 'you shouldn't be able to win if you're 5th best after 27 games', I'll scream.

I don't think they had it hard enough. I'm sure you realise that isn't the same as saying they had it easy.


I haven't even mentioned Wigan v Leeds. You've decided my argument is "Wigan should have won" and you're gonna keep going with that aren't you? If you'd bother to actually read my posts rather than just quote them as a platform to make a counter argument you've decided you're going to make no matter what, you'd see that my argument is predicated on Leeds playing Wakefield in Week 1, whilst Catalans played Wigan in Week 1.


Serious question: do you want to discuss this or are you just going to keep arguing with yourself? Take a step back, stop telling me what I believe, and respond to what I'm actually saying.

I think its clear that saying 'it wasnt hard enough' is the same as saying 'it was too easy'.
Your argument is that Wigan should have won. If you want to pretend '1st' makes it sounds like your not talking about Wigan and '5th' and you arent talking about Leeds then fine go ahead. We can all pretend you slipped it by us with your subtlety.
Les catalans lost, they got home advantage, Leeds won, they had to play at Les Catalans. That seems like a fair advantage to Les Catalans, Leeds then won again, they then went to Wigan who had a week off, that also seems like more of an advantage to Wigan.

Which team do you think was hard done to by being knocked out in these play-offs? Wigan who lost after a week off? Saints who lost after a week off? Les Catalans who lost 2 games in a row including one at home? Hull who lost away at wire? Wakefield?

What a ridiculous point that is!

The top 2 teams SHOULD have it weighted in their favour as they have EARNED that right by performing in the weekly rounds!

I'm shocked that you believe that people lower down the play-offs should have equal advantage to those towards the top!

i dont.

There is some serious butt hurt in this thread, by Leeds putting yet another cherry on top of the cherry that we had already put on the cake by winning 5 SL's in 6 years and 6 in 9 years. Putting Leeds in the history books as one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport

I'm glad its only a minority though

Pretty sad that you have to change what I actually said in the interest of petty point scoring. Giving Leeds a ticket straight to the GF would have been easy, taking the path they did was hard, just not hard enough to reflect their league position. Disagree with that all you want, but if the only counter-argument you can provide is to the non-existent argument "Leeds had it easy" then you might as well not bother.


Where have I said either Wigan or 1st should have won? As I said, you're determined to have this argument aren't you, regardless of whether anyone is actually making the points you want to argue against. I've even pointed out, in as basic a way as I can, what the crux of my argument is. I refuse to believe that anyone can be as dense as you're pretending to be. Please tell me you [uare[/u pretending.


If you genuinely haven't understood my argument at this point then I can only advise you to read my posts and try again. Take my advice and stop jumping in head first with preconceived arguments and take the time to actually read and understand what others say before you post.

That article is a classic example of why the internet doesn't make fans equal to journalists.

The whole premise is flawed. Leeds did have a good season - making both finals. To suggest otherwise is pure bitterness.

My stance on the merits of scrapping for sixth place have changed. Week in, week out - Eddie and Stevo banging on about clubs fighting for sixth or a play-off spot. What's the point, I thought? Not anymore though. It's not a futile excercise as Leeds have proven. It's all about making the impossible possible. I remember Balmain and Hanley scorching through the Winfield Cup in 1988 and almost lifting the shield from fifth. It really rocked that competition to the core - in a good way.

It's still (in theory) advantageous to finish top of the pile and "home win" your way to the GF. If you can't do that then you haven't completed the rquired task set out before you. They say the game is an eighty minute game. It's also a 30 match a season game.

Congratulations Leeds.