Yes, Stephen Kearney. Was it his last match for them as well?

Personally I think the only two teams that have the potential to in the grand final this year other than Leeds & Saints are Huddersfield and Hull.

If Hull can find that form that got them in their last Grand Final appearance then there a formidable team and a team I really like to watch. Injuries seem to curse that team though.

Huddersfield have just had a head coach that overstayed his stay. But Huddersfield in 07 at the start of the season where just losing games by little points and had one of the best point differences in the league despite been at the bottom of the table.

If both these step up to the plate then yes it will make an interesting top four. But the rest are out of it for me as well although it gives others a chance.

Warrington are going to be rubbish again. Wigan won’t come up with the good at the end of the season and Bradford are on a downward spiral who are dark horses in my mind to not get a SL liesence in 2012 if they keep going how their going.

It was.

I don't suppose it's difficult to remember the referee involved?

Given that it involved a sending off I'd have to hazard a guess at Stevie G.

It's impossible to claim that as a guess given the circumstances behind the question.

Never shy at being the centre of attention our Stevie.

As you've ably demonstrated, teams beyond 3rd and 4th place virtually always find their level in the playoffs, ie out after round 1, so what's the harm in letting them have a little hope?

Is no hope the same as a little hope?

To me it's an extra round of (all pay) meaningless fixtures where the lower ranked team gets knocked out away to a superior side as determined by the regular rounds.

I really liked the old top 5 format (where every place really made a difference) rather than any they've come out with since.

IMO the top 4 teams should be part of the playoff series. Any more is just a money making scam.

Now it's virtually a level season with home/away fixtures, and the extra Edingburgh game thrown in, why not scrap the play offs and give the SL trophy to the team that finishes top?

Extra space at end of season for internationals?

Sensible in my book, which means it aint gunna happen.

As long as 8 teams are in the play offs, tty little teams, which include our RL friends in Wankey and the RL family in Cas, can get giddy in the misguided belief that they can win the title if they scrape into play offs

Get rid of the GF - the biggest game of the year - are you serious Chris?

Next year the coffin-dodgers at Red Hall have devised a new revolutionary and innovative play-off systems that involves multiplying your final league points by the number of red Ford Fiestas there are parked in the club car park during the second game in March – then rolling a 6 with a giant die which enables you to choose which team the and how many point start you have.

Obviously there aren’t enough clubs in the Super League to accommodate this new play-off system so it will be extended to the first 4 clubs in NL1 who can name all the capital cities in the Northern hemisphere.

Infallible.

I think the RL have got it wrong, it devalues the meaning of superleague. They might as well go one step further and have a top 14 play off and call the league games friendlies, can you imagine one day someone from 8th place actually being champions.

For me league leaders straight into the final because they have earned it, then 2nd plays 3rd to join them.

Won't that be great......to see a team pull it all together at the right time, and go on a run of successive victories, away from home, and carry that run all the way to the trophy. What a great event that would be.

Wasn't there a Bradford v Salford massacre also?


IMO the original top 5 system was the best we have had.

Covered on page 1 of the thread, take a look there's more.

I remember that we had it, but it was quite complex, and I have forgotten how it goes again now

Should have done 7 IMO if they were to expand it.

Week 1:

4 v 7
5 v 6

Week 2:

2 v 3
4 or 7 v 5 or 6

Week 3:

Game 1: 1 v 2 or 3 (Winner)
Game 2: 4, 5, 6 or 7 v 2 or 3 (Loser)

Week 4:

Loser of Game 1 v Winner of Game 2

Week 5:

Winner of that v Winner of Game 1

Only the league leader earned the week's rest.

Week 1:

Game 1: (QPO) 2 at home to 3
Game 2: (EPO) 4 at home to 5 (Loser OUT)

Week 2:

Game 3: (QSF) League Leader home to Winner Game 1 (Winner through to GF)
Game 4: (ESF) Loser of Game 1 home to winner of Game 2 (Loser OUT)

Week 3:

Game 5: (FE) Loser Game 3 home to winner of Game 4 (Winner through to GF, Loser OUT)

Week 4:

Game 6: (GF) Winner Game 3 V Winner Game 5

or something like that. From memory you understand so probably a bit long winded but you get the gist.

It really mattered where you finished with a real battle to finish as high up the 5 as possible as each position was better than the one beneath. I also really liked how one team each week was eliminated over the play off series.

That sounds familiar, but from what I remember, we usually beat Cas or someone week 1, then lost to whichever of Wigan/Saints/Bradford were least dominant

I think it would.

Did we?

Wasn't that far away from happening last year with Wigan, was it?

Lost to Cas one year, to end Graham Murray's Leeds career the same way it began

i personally think the best system was the top 5.

Having a top 8 is just silly.

I dont however agree with McManus suggestion of merely a top 3 as it then ceases to be a competition.

they still came up short in the eliminator no matter how close they ran us. Thats 2 whole games that they were away from winning the final. Also, they finished 4th last season, so got at least 1 home game. They were clsoer the season before but got stuffed by Leeds in the eliminator.