Yes I knew how the system worked, its similar (albeit with fewer fixtures) to the NFL where it is not a case of everyone plays everyone in the league. However in the NFL every game counts and is huge for the fans.

What I was asking was before 1973 did fans regard the league fixtures as pointless and just start watching in the playoffs? Not sure if Rogues actually is old enough for that one, but he could surely answer if he was.

It seems that Wigan fans are still so bitter because Leeds stuffed it up them, massivley against the odds, they are blaming the competition, rather than their own team. You have no evidence whatsoever that teams or players are taking it easy as the top 8 is a stroll. I played a lot of amateur RL at various levels, also pro at a crap level, & not once did we go out to give less than we could. The idea that 'fans' are not attending as games don't matter I also dismiss. If they can't get up for Wigan v Wire then the game is better off without them. They just don't want to see their team get beat.

Sally, sadly I am "old enough" to go remember those days.
There was a reason for the top four play off back then.

Because there were so many teams every team didn't play each other in the league games.

The Lancashire based teams would play every team in Lancashire plus three or four from Yorkshire on a home and away basis.

The Yorkshire based teams would play every team in Yorkshire plus three or four from Lancashire on a home and away basis.

From the final League table the top four system was 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 with the two winners going through to the final.

What you must also realise is that the Championship Final played second fiddle to the Challenge Cup as the competition most clubs wanted to win.

The other thing to remember is that there wasn't the same season ticket culture then as today. Most people were used to paying on the gate, so playoffs and Cup games were better attended.

True, yet due to the departure of the tourists, the 1950 Championship Final win over Huddersfield is considered by many 'experts' as one of Wigan's finest ever victories.

Since that isn't the argument, you don't have a point here.

The argument that lead to this thread being started was that the league is a 27 round qualifier is of no meaning. That is the league in our current play off format is in its entirety, meaningless.

So given in the old system a league is [inever[/i meaningless for [iany[/i of the clubs for quite some time it must be by your own criteria of "meaningfulness" the better system.

Of course if you want something to be meaningful for all the clubs using your criteria you ought to be arguing to include all the clubs in the competition not just 8, 6 or 5. So that would be a 14 team play off at the end of the season. I'd be interested to know why you think that might be a bad idea (assuming you do). It's the logical extension of what you are saying.



Given the play offs extend the season for two clubs by a grand total of one game you really are stretching it a bit by saying they are a means to keep it interesting for most clubs. The most games a team can play is four games by which team interest has ended for all bar one other club. Fans are also not thick and know if they finish seventh or eighth the can't expect to be extending their season much longer. The idea a short end of season play off does any better at extending the season in a meaningful way is crazy.

Sport goes out of the window because we have to "keeps things interesting for more clubs". And you know very well a league decider could be the result of any two clubs facing each other.

What is funny though is you forget that league decider v HKR last year saw Wigan under the cosh and losing the game. It was in many ways akin to Man City's epic last gasp winner in Premiership soccer as Wigan had to come from behind and bust a gut to win the game and secure top spot. One of the most exciting games of the season so a pretty poor example to pick on. What that lead to of course was complaints we had tried too hard to win a meaningless competition and tired ourselves out just prior to the playoffs. Such is the negative impact of the current system.

We also have the Challenge Cup (which has also suffered devaluation IMO in the face of the GF PR machine) that gives us the 70K+ crowds so that is not really a big argument in favour either..

It's quite obvious a league can and does deliver exciting competitions and that are the most legitimate way to decide who are the champions. However if you want a playoff and you don't want people to start thinking of the league as a waste of money and effort you need to change the system from what it is now to one that has far greater value on where you finish in the league not because someone says so but because it actually does.

Some of the league games in the old system - ie Wigan v Huyton, Leeds v Bramley may not have set the heart racing. But a club could play almost 60 games in a season so there were plenty of big games to go around.
The real big crowd pullers were the cup rounds - 30,000 would be drawn to Central Park for a decent tie and some of the smaller grounds would see all ticket sell outs.

They still have a system that means a play off is more sensible way to decide matters so there isn't the conflict we have here where we play home and away in the league. They have also always used better play off systems using the top 5 system for years meaning the league games did matter as there was the well understood benefits of finishing higher in the league. Their top 8 version as not as much liked as the older system.



I know what you were asking and I know why you were asking it. Although I am not old enough to comment as to how fans regarded the league fixtures, like anything else historical, context is all important when you ask that kind of question. You can't say just because the fans may not have thought the league back then wasn't meaningless the same should apply now because the system back then and the circumstances were different.

BTW just out of interest I was under the impression the 1973 playoffs were between the top 16 teams out of 30. Not a top 4.

Yes it is.

you contradict yourself in the same sentence. The league campaign has meaning, it is a qualifier for the play-offs. That is the meaning of it.

that seems a ridiculous conclusion from your previous sentence. There is actually no logic behind it just two statements which dont really bear much relation to each other. And again you contradict yourself. You state firstly that in a league system a game is never meaningless for any clubs, then go on to admit that for some clubs (in the majority of seasons that would be the majority of clubs) games are meaningless for some of the time (in the majority of seasons this would be for the majority of the time, for a sizeable proportion of the clubs)

No, because that would make the league season 'meaningless' and possibly make your argument make sense. But as it isnt my argument, simply a nonsensical straw man you have created to strengthen your argument it isnt the logical extension of my argument.

It is quite obvious that there is a difference between having a qualifying competition that means most clubs, have a chance to qualify for the next stage of the competition, and keeps them interested in the competition and having a qualifying competition from which everyone has already qualified. You know there is a difference, its why you invented that ridiculous straw man.

have a look back at the Wakefield, Bradford, and Hull KR forums over the last couple of weeks of last year and see if qualifying for the competition wasnt the primary focus. Look at their forums now, and see if the minimum aim for this year isnt qualification for the play-offs. You are demonstrably wrong.

a league campaign deciding the champions isnt the default situation for deciding champions under 'sport' outside of European football it is infact a minority way of deciding champions.

And nobody cared, and nobody watched it. The league had a round left which without the play-offs, would have been entirely pointless and meaningless for the whole entire league and would have been entirely pointless and meaningless for all clubs bar two for a month and the season for all but 4 clubs would have ended in may.

Quite honestly, that is the poorest argument I have seen on anything, ever. Just because the challenge cup gets 70k+ attendances doesnt, in any way, mean that it isnt a very good thing that we get one for the GF too.

Except it doesnt. If you want to judge the league by a different criteria to everyone else, that is fine, nobody is going to stop you. If you want to judge it by points scored, metres made, most 40/20's whatever that is fine, you are entitled to do so. But just because you say most consistent=best doesnt make it so. And just because you think that a league is the most legitimate way to decide champions, in spite of most of the rest of the world, including 7 out of the 10 biggest sports by average attendance and all 5 of the top 5 by total attendance, doesnt make it so.

How many times. You, George, Jukesays, Rogues and Jennings sat round a table in the Anvil are not classed as experts.

This is almost certain to happen among the top 4 which is what makes it so tough to reach the GF. It's tough to beat any of the top teams twice on the way to the final whereas finishing outside the four still leaves a Herculean task but without having to face someone twice. Apologies for going o/t..

Deliberately losing the first game should easily stop that problem then.

to be fair AC they are pretty much experts of their field

Unfortunately nobody knows what their field is

Fields we are experts in - Rugby not so much!



But I'll get you a pint anyway

I'm sure Jukesy will be well chuffed that you have bundled him in with.......should I say it........"our more seasoned supporters"..!!

Talk of the devil.

I was going to leave him out but I didn't want to make the others feel too old so I lowered the ave age a little

Talking of the Anvil and sitting round a table.....

And raise the average I.Q at the same time!

Allow me to check my diary

You're not comparing like with like though. For a start, we are in Europe so perhaps the public will respond to it, but most sports have playoffs out of necessity, but we have playoffs because it makes money and not for sporting reasons.


It doesn't make sense to play every other team home and away then have a playoff to decide the championship.

Imagine in Formula 1 the top 8 drivers have one final playoff race to decide the champion? 'its about doing it on the big occasion'

Imagine each match of tennis being decided on who won the 5th set, with the previous 4 sets just to determine who serves first.

imagine an Ashes series where only the 3rd test matters and not the first 2 tests.

imagine a work colleague receiving a bonus and you not, because he produced more in the last month of the year, even though you produced more in the first 11 months. you wouldn't bother working hard for the first 11 months would you? well players may start doing that in SL. we'd have a proper crap tournament then wouldn't we.

it doesn't make sense when you have a complete even home and away round robin tournament to decide with a playoff.

the entire season just becomes a cup tournament when we already have one and that has lost its glamour because of Sky's playoffs too.

I agree. Most sports which have a play off, ours included historically, do so because not everyone plays each other the same number of times. We won the league last year. Which was a great achievement, whether acknowledged by others with a vested interest or not.
I was reading Schofield in League Express the other day, who was complaining about Leeds' crowd while simultaneously praising them for being able to win they want to, but not be bothered prior to September. I am not sure he is capable of spotting the link.
I don't know how others support, but I follow my team every week. How Wigan go in the last game affects how the next 7 days go. That investment is why I follow sport, and as a supporter I subscribe to one game at a time approach. Surely it's more natural than some disengaged one eye shut approach for 7 months?

I won't be missing this that's for sure! If people can't get up for this game we have problems. Wigan are being written off which should fire your team up.

I totally agree