Same here.

I still don't think we've done enough this year for it to be called a good one - the WCC, one decent performance in the Challenge Cup and one play off win HAVE to be balanced against too many dire perforances during the weekly rounds and another poor cup final effort. I'd probably think differently had we not been humiliated more than once this season, but to ignore those results as somehow irrelevant would be a mistake.

IMO we need a decent performance against Wigan (at the very least a narrow loss) to be able to say the season was a good one.

Judging by GH's comments that would seem to be his train of thought as well.

I don't disagree with the above posts but I can't fault the coaching teams ability to get the side prepared for the important stages of the season. The way the top 8 system works if that involves performing well below par for stages of the season but peaking for the games that matter then so be it.
If we reverted to a top 5 playoff we would be forced to perform at a higher level on a weekly basis or risk scraping in every season.

It would seem the whole competition has been diluted this year. Our weekly rounds season has been widely criticised (& rightly so), yet with 2 weeks remaining we were still in the running for 3rd. Are the standards dropping as a whole in SL, or are our expectations too high?

Unless the league reverts to first past the post format, I don't think the regular season will ever be a true reflection of a team. Or cut the number of games. Top Australian players rarely play more than 25 games in a season (SOO included), yet Sinfield et al had a whopping 50% more. In a season of 40+ games (over 10 months) it doesn't surprise me that there are some distinctly average performances

I disagree. Its only skewed by Leeds' win last season. Before that the grand final had been won by a team from the top 2 from every season bar one since its inception. The most consistent team over the season still tends to take the main prize

Shouldn't that read - one of the two most consistent teams?

SL Grand Finals:

1 V 2 - 11 (with 1 winning 7)

1 V 3 - 1 (with 1 winning)

2 V 3 - 1 (with 3 winning)

3 V 5 - 1 (with 5 winning)

The argument is that the current Top 8 play-off system dilutes the regular season fixtures and renders them meaningless. It's about re-establishing the importance of the regular season fixtures in order that league positions actually matter a lot more as opposed to rewarding mediocrity throughout the regular season. A Top 5 play-off system would be my preferred option.

Taking Leeds as an example, all they need to do during the regular season is pick up sufficient points against mainly whipping boy SL rabble and the rest takes care of itself. It doesn't matter how they perform against the top sides during the regular season as they are still going to finish 5th, and by doing so, they are rewarded with two more fixtures against whipping boy SL rabble in the play-offs.

I never had any doubts that Leeds would progress to the Semi Finals under this current play-off system. All that is required of them is to beat whipping boy opposition twice (that's a given) and then peak for 2 games against meaningful opposition at the end of the season, just like last year.

The reward for finishing 5th is way too cushy under this play-off system. The reward for finishing as lowly as 5th ought to be having to peak for 4 games against teams that finished higher on the ladder (all away from home) - a daunting prospect, but if it were to be achieved, there could be no doubting the validity of the 5th placed team being crowned worthy SL champions.

Agree with this above.



How would that play-off system be organised?

It's the previous Top 5 play-off system... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_five_play-offs[uTHIS ONE[/u[/url. I included the Grand Final as a fixture away from home which technically it is, even though it's a neutral venue for both Grand Finalists.

I think its obviously best to have the top 5 system. In reality though the only difference is 1 game which is harder for 5th team. With the GF against the top team probably easier at a neutral venue.

If all goes to form, you'd have to beat 4th, then 1st then 2nd under the current system, assuming you dispose of the warm up team in 8th.

In the old system, you get progressively harder games. I don't see that much difference.

Lest year's league sucess was based more on the fact that 4th was a woeful Hudds teams, and the both 1st and 2nd teams bottled it in their semi finals. The system isn't that bad, just other teams couldn't handle the play off experience of Leeds and Saints. In the end it was them at fault for being flat track bullys, and not having the minerals to do it in a series of tough games.

Don't get me wrong, its easier to win from 5th than it was under the 5 team system, but the odds are still stacked in your favour if you finish top 2

Ah yes my personal favourite. Every league position counted for something and to climax the season your next game is your most important. How does the saying go, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
_____________

Under the current top 8 format the team finishing the Regular Rounds in 4th have won 1 from 8 and all have ended their seasons with a home defeat. In three of those four years the season ending home defeat coming at the hands of a team finishing the Regular Rounds beneath them on the table.

Under the current top 8 format the team finishing the Regular Rounds in 5th have won 8 from 10 and of the two losses only one was at home to a team finishing lower.

For all people saying finishing higher up the league will improve your chances and perhaps in theory it should there is mounting evidence that suggests finishing 4th is a harder road than finishing 5th and that surely can't be a desirable outcome ?

Even teams finishing 6th have faired better than those finishing 4th under this system winning 4 from 8.

Good stats, but I personally think that some teams just don't have the minerals or enough left in the tank to compete with the big boys.

I was chatting to a mate about this the other day. Has anyone got stats about away wins since the play off started. Given when you play away you are playing a higher team, I would like to see how many there are, and who has most. I can think of the following:
Leeds at KR in 2005
Leeds at DW in 2010
Leeds at HJ in 2011
Leeds at Galpharm in 2011
Leeds at Catalans in 2012
Wire at Leeds in 2006
Wigan at Bradford in 2007
Bradford at Saints in 2005
Saints at Wire in 2012
Saints at Wigan in 2011

I'm sure there are more, but probably not that many

Since the SL Play-Offs began in 1998 there have been 99 games played including the 14 finals. That makes Wigan V Leeds game number 100 but that's beside the point.

Excluding the Finals the remaining 85 matches have finished with 57 home wins and 28 away wins. So statistically that's 1 away win to 2 defeats in every 3 matches. Surprised?

List of all Away Play-Off wins:

09-Oct-98 ….. SL 3 - ESF ….. Halifax V St Helens ….. 30 - 37
19-Sep-99 ….. SL 4 - EPO ….. Wigan V Castleford …..10 - 14
24-Sep-99 ….. SL 4 - ESF ….. Leeds V Castleford ….. 16 - 23
29-Sep-00 ….. SL 5 - QSF ….. Wigan V St Helens ….. 16 - 54
28-Sep-01 ….. SL 6 - ESF ….. Hull V St Helens ….. 20 - 24
05-Oct-02 ….. SL 7 - QSF ….. St Helens V Bradford ….. 26 - 28
10-Oct-03 ….. SL 8 - FE ….. Leeds V Wigan ….. 22 - 23
24-Sep-04 ….. SL 9 - EPO ….. Hull V Wakefield ….. 18 - 28
02-Oct-04 ….. SL 9 - QSF ….. Leeds V Bradford ….. 12 - 26
24-Sep-05 ….. SL 10 - EPO ….. Warrington V Hull ….. 6 - 40
30-Sep-05 ….. SL 10 - QSF ….. St Helens V Leeds ….. 16 - 19
07-Oct-05 ….. SL 10 - FE ….. St Helens V Bradford ….. 18 - 23
22-Sep-06 ….. SL 11 - EPO ….. Leeds V Warrington ….. 17 - 18
21-Sep-07 ….. SL 12 - EPO ….. Bradford V Wigan ….. 30 - 31
29-Sep-07 ….. SL 12 - ESF ….. Hull V Wigan ….. 18 - 21
20-Sep-08 ….. SL 13 - ESF ….. Les Catalans V Wigan ….. 26 - 50
19-Sep-09 ….. SL 14 - EPO ….. Wakefield V Les Catalans ….. 16 - 25
25-Sep-09 ….. SL 14 - PSF ….. Huddersfield V Les Catalans ….. 6 - 16
26-Sep-09 ….. SL 14 - PSF ….. Hull KR V Wigan ….. 16 - 30
11-Sep-10 ….. SL 15 - EPO ….. Hull V Hull KR ….. 4 - 21
12-Sep-10 ….. SL 15 - QPO ….. Wigan V Leeds ….. 26 - 27
18-Sep-10 ….. SL 15 - PSF ….. Warrington V Huddersfield ….. 22 - 34
25-Sep-10 ….. SL 15 - QSF ….. Leeds V Wigan ….. 6 - 26
18-Sep-11 ….. SL 16 - QPO ….. Wigan V St Helens ….. 18 - 26
23-Sep-11 ….. SL 16 - PSF ….. Huddersfield V Leeds ….. 28 - 34
30-Sep-11 ….. SL 16 - QSF ….. Warrington V Leeds ….. 24 - 26
15-Sep-12 ….. SL 17 - QPO ….. Warrington V St Helens ….. 6 - 28
21-Sep-12 ….. SL 17 - PSF ….. Les Catalans V Leeds ….. 20 - 27

In terms of which teams have achieved the most away wins in the Play-Offs -

Wigan 6
Leeds 5
St Helens 5
Bradford 3
Castleford 2
Catalans 2
Huddersfield 1
Hull 1
Hull KR 1
Wakefield 1
Warrington 1

I love you.

Very interesting results. Didn't think there would be that many.

Interesting though that since the new system, the number of away wins has increased to 40% with 12 from 30 games. Is that the system, or is it the new kids on the block not being up to the standard yet as most winners are traditional play-off teams

If you look closer at each one though...

2009 - Hull KR (4th) lost to =#FF0000Leeds (1st) and then to =#FF0000Wigan (6th)
2010 - =#FF0000Leeds (4th) beat Wigan (1st) and then lost to =#FF0000Wigan
2011 - Hudds (4th) lost to Wire (1st and then lost to =#FF0000Leeds (5th)
2012 - Catalans (4th) lost to =#FF0000Wigan (1st) and then lost to =#FF0000Leeds (5th)
The 4th placed team has had to play either =#FF0000Leeds or Wigan in 7 of the 8 games. Two of the three strong playoff teams. The only game won was when =#FF0000Leeds finished 4th.


2009 - Wakey (5th) lost to Catalans (8th)
2010 - Hudds (5th) beat Crusaders (8th) and then Wire (3rd) and then lost to =#FF0000Saints (2nd)
2011 - =#FF0000Leeds (5th) beat Hull (8th) Hudds (4th) Wire (1st) and Saints (3rd)
2012 - =#FF0000Leeds (5th) have beat Wakey (8th) and Catalans (4th)

Note which teams are in red again, Hudds run stopped as soon as they faced the other of the big 3 =#FF0000Saints. Whilst =#FF0000Leeds broke the mould. If 5th is so easy and rewarding then why didn't Wakey or Hudds win or at least get to the GF???


2009 - =#FF0000Wigan (6th) beat Cas (7th) and KR (4th) then =#FF0000lost to Saints (2nd)
2010 - Hull (6th) lost to KR (7th)
2011 - Catalans (6th) beat KR (7th) then =#FF0000lost to Wigan (2nd)
2012 - Hull (6th) beat Hudds (7th) then lost to Wire (2nd)

The only team to beat a higher ranked team from 6th place, one of those big 3 again =#FF0000Wigan. The other 3 wins coming against the 7th place team at home which you would probably expect.

I'll even do 3rd placed teams
2009 - Hudds (3rd) lost to =#FF0000Saints (2nd) and then Catalans (8th)
2010 - Wire (3rd) lost to =#FF0000Saints (2nd) and then Hudds (5th)
2011 - =#FF0000Saints (3rd) beat Wigan (2nd) twice, away and than at home, lost GF to =#FF0000Leeds (5th)
2012 - =#FF0000Saints (3rd) beat Wire (2nd) and will face them again at home this week.

So an 0 and 4 record when Wire and Hudds finished 3rd. Put one of the big boys in =#FF0000Saints there and it's a 3 and 1 record with the only defeat coming against......=#FF0000Leeds. Whether it's from finishing 2nd or 3rd, Saints have dominated the 2nd v 3rd clash winning 4 from 4.

Anybody following a pattern here???

Leeds record in Top 8 Playoffs -
Total = W10 - L1
vs Wigan or Saints = W3 - L1
vs Other opposition = =#FF0000W7 - L0

Saints record in Top 8 Playoffs -
Total = W7 - L3
vs Wigan or Leeds = W3 - L3
vs Other opposition ==#FF0000 W4 - L0

Wigan record in top 8 Playoffs -
Total = W7 - L4
vs Leeds or Saints = W2 - L4
vs Other opposition = =#FF0000W5 - L0

Leeds, Saints & Wigan vs Other opposition in Top 8 Playoffs = =#FF0000W16 - L0

In fact if you exclude matches and losses against former big playoff team Bradford then only on 3 occasions have those 3 teams lost to 'other opposition' in the SL Playoffs history going back to 1998.
Leeds - 1999 vs Castleford....2006 vs Warrington
Wigan - 1999 vs Castleford
Saints - Have never lost to any other team in the playoffs except Leeds, Wigan and Bradford.

I see a lot of difference.

Being rewarded with a [uhome game[/u against the 8th placed whipping boys for starters.

Then being rewarded with an away game against a team that's been beaten up the week before by the team finishing 1st.

TVOC's stats above back this up... the superior play-off results of the team finishing 5th in comparison to the poor results of the team finishing 4th. It's no fluke. Finishing 5th is an easier ride than finishing 4th under the current system, mainly because there's only 4 credible teams in the competition who can win it. Therefore, any of the 4 genuine competitors for the SL title might be well advised to take it easy and finish 5th rather than 4th if finishing in the Top 3 is proving too much for them over the course of the regular season. Wakefield at home in week 1 or Wigan away in week 1? That's a no brainer of a choice.

The key issue for me remains the reintroduction of some credibility and meaning to the SL regular rounds where finishing position counts for all. This will only happen when we return to a Top 5 play-off system, reduce the number of teams in SL to 12 and reintroduce P&R.

As ThePrinters rather detailled analysis shows quite well, its the teams not the positions which seem to have more influence.

For the 4th placed team, going to 1st, they can rest their entire team, and take on 5th place (at worse) at Home, followed by a trip back to 1st (or potentially 2nd).

how is that harder than having an extra week of knock out, even if it is a weaker team. And if you do win in week 1, then you have a week off and a home game the next. Switch Leeds and Catalans around, and I still think the games this week would be the same

Absolutely, that's because these games are played by players, on the field, rather than determined by mathematical formulae or finishing position.

That Leeds attack the playoff with gusto, regardless of position, is to be applauded. If all other teams attacked the playoffs with the same effort the games would be much more intense. Too many teams just happy to make up the numbers, and not just those finishing below 5th.

How do you feel about the way Leeds attack the regular season fixtures? Do you applaud that and consider it worthy of your investment in a season ticket?

Meh.

Exactly

Far more to do with the teams than the system. If (and it was possible pretty much up to the penultimate round) Leeds had pipped the Dragons to 4th, who believes it would be the Dragons and not Leeds travelling to Wigan this weekend? It's all speculation (all of it) but I certainly don't believe that.

I'd rather see Leeds do better in the regular season, but not at the expense of peaking at the right time for the play-offs.

For the record, I'd rather see the top 5 system brought back, but I still don't think 5th is an easier ride than 4th.

As for Leeds regular season performance....

If the Playoffs were 5 or 6 teams would Leeds have finished higher than 5th this year? I don't know, maybe.

If Leeds didn't have to play a WCC, CC Semi, CC Final and fit in Wakefield at home 2 days after the first Exiles game, compared to the teams around us, =#FF0000Saints, Catalans and =#FF0000Hull who didn't have to do ANY of those 4 things (=#FF0000Huddersfield had to do just 1, the CC Semi) and don't have the tag of beating the current SL & WCC Champions around their necks motivating the opposition especially when we travel, would we have finished higher/more points clear of those 4?.........Most definately IMO.

Have to agree with Jeff on this one. Leeds have had steady season with not that much to get the heart pumping.

It makes me wonder of our coach isn't as daft as his Neanderthalic expression portrays - ramble through the season without breaking too much of a sweat, aiming to get the 5th spot.

Beat 8th (not too hard)- beat the team that just got beaten by the top side 6 or 7 days earlier (a little harder but not a massive ask) then you're 2 games away from being Champions. Put in two top draw performances a season and your Billy Big Bollox.

You sum it up so much better

.....but sadly have to agree. The present system is broke.

Credit to Leeds for taking full advantage, but anybody who invests in a season ticket is definitely being short changed.

Can they do that without exposing one of the obvious flaws in the current format? That's probably the approach they should take but it'll never happen.

The Play-Offs are supposed to represent the climax to the season and from week two/three onwards (depending on your point of view) they do but I simply cannot understand the logic behind week one.

The original top five format worked better because at least it consistently produced the Grand Final the Regular Rounds predicted it would - 1 V 2. People moaned about that but I saw it as due reward for the effort over the Regular Rounds maintaining their relevance and integrity. That system was also flawed though judging by the results as the team finishing 3rd only won 1 from 8 just as we see today from 4th. IMO it's the effect of having a second chance in your back pocket that results in a loss of focus and underperformance in week 1 leading to a loss of momentum that results in an almost automatic exit at home in week 2 to a team that finished lower but crucially one with momentum coming off a win.

That's why I'm currently favouring a top 7 format as outlined earlier in the thread over a return to the original top 5. Straight-forward knock out to ensure 100% concentration and committment to what should be the pinnacle of the season.

Week 1 - League Leaders - bye, 2 V 7, 3 V 6, 4 V 5
Week 2 - 1 V Lowest survivor, highest placed winner V next highest
Week 3 - GF