That's not just optimistic it's bordering on delusional. We'd be on course for second if we hadn't blown the saints home and wigan MM game. 2 games where a couple of uncharacteristic brain farts have cost us. Still, it just means we'll once again go into the playoffs as underdogs, in 4th or 5th position. Despite the last couple of seasons we'll still be written off on the basis that we can't do it from that type of position every year. Which is true, and I don't really fancy it from either position this year, but we've shown during the season we can match all the other main challengers which we failed to do in previous years. It's still a long way away so it's probably pointless discussing potential scenarios now, as tempting as it is, but if we can get most of our players fit for the playoffs we'll be in with a good shout.

Leeds also finished 4th in 2010, creating another unique record in your dataset by being the only 4th placed team to win away at the LLS winners.

Nobody else has done that. Nobody else has even reached the final from lower than 3rd.

The key common factor is Leeds, not final league positions IMO.

So I take it that's a 'NO' then is it? You imply people say things that they probably don't but when it comes down to it you have no names for these posters.



No, as I've clearly and consistently said throughout this thread and previously whenever we have this discussion but the context is always quite specific as it relates to whether I'd rather start out from =#0000FF5th than 4th. I'd actually rather start the Play-Offs from 1st or 2nd but that's not the issue here despite trying to imply that it is.

If you and others would rather start from 4th than 5th that's fine but it's not a view I share.

I was referring to the general sentiment you regularly express in these discussions (not necessarily the more subtle words you've chosen to go with this time) when you expand on someone's actual comments that simply states that starting the play-offs in 5th is preferable to starting in 4th and because of that, in their opinion, the current play-off format is flawed. You then attempt to turn that into 'some non-specified poster thinks it's better to start in 5th than 1st or 2nd' which I don't believe I've ever said and I don't believe I've ever seen anyone else say it either.

If you think you've seen such comments then instead of the broad brush approach gleefully misrepresenting the above opinion then you should name and shame the posters involved so that we can all have a good laugh at their expense - if they exist.




The team finishing 7th has 1 win from 5 games therefore a 20% win record compared to the teams finishing 4th who, as already stated, have a 1 win from 8 games - 13% win record.



Sorry but I see no reason to exclude =#0000FFany results from the sample.

__________



Excluding Leeds from the dataset (which I have no inclination to do anymore than I would exclude any other team's results) would leave the teams finishing 4th with no wins from seven attempts while on the same basis the teams finishing 5th would have had two wins from four but as I've said that's not something I would do and the results are not what forms the basis of my opinion - as expressed over the last few pages of discussion.

Leeds have played a significant role in exposing the flaw where the week one top four losers have to lift themselves both physically and mentally to face the 5th to 8th placed winners in week two as they arrive carrying the momentum from their week one wins.

If it's the case that the regular round campaign is rendered almost irrelevant (bar the teams vying for 8th spot) then that also is an issue and one it appears the game is currently grappling with as overall quality, intensity and attendances are in decline as team owners, coaches and fans realise the regular rounds can be sacrificed on the way to attaining the end goal.

Look at the week two results under this current format and like me you'll find five of the eight winners moving on to week three started the play-offs outside the supposedly coveted top four places. Leeds were one of those clubs to progress from outside the four onto week three but they are not alone as Les Catalans, Wigan and Huddersfield have preceded them. Perhaps we should exclude their results also?

If we are going to stick with the top 8, i reckon we should revert to the old NRL system:

Week 1

4th Qualifying Final: 1st vs 8th
3rd Qualifying Final: 2nd vs 7th
2nd Qualifying Final: 3rd vs 6th
1st Qualifying Final: 4th vs 5th
The organisation of the rest of the finals series is dependent upon whether teams won or lost in week 1 and their final ranking on the ladder before the finals. The two lowest-ranked losers are eliminated from the finals, whilst the two highest-ranked winners progress straight to Week 3.

Week 2

1st Semi Final: 4th highest-ranked winner vs 2nd highest-ranked loser
2nd Semi Final: 3rd highest-ranked winner vs 1st highest-ranked loser
The two losing teams are eliminated, the two winning teams progress to Week 3.

Week 3

1st Preliminary Final: 1st highest-ranked winner (from Week 1) vs winner of 1st Semi Final
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd highest-ranked winner (from Week 1) vs winner of 2nd Semi Final
The two losing teams are eliminated, the two winning teams progress to Week Four.

Week 4

Grand Final: winner of 1st Preliminary Final vs winner of 2nd Preliminary Final

Now that is a fair system rewarding the top teams and all the games have something riding on them.Cant understand why the Aussies changed it to our system.

I never suggested excluding anybody from the dataset. My point was about how you interpret the results. In other words, it's a question of what conclusions your data can support. The truth of the matter is that we have both looked at the same data and drawn two quite different conclusions, both of which are quite reasonably defensible. Would you not agree?

So my point was not to try to tell you that you are wrong, are that I am right. Just to point out that the evidence is not conclusive and that I personally (hence the IMO) find a different interpretation to yours more persuasive.

I also suspect that the momentum you allude to is important, but I further suspect that it is something which is often carried from well before the play-offs. In 2011, for instance, Huddersfield looked a spent force before the end of the season and hung on to 4th place. If they'd come 5th and Leeds 4th I don't believe the outcome of their meeting would have been any different.

I can't quantitatively prove that any more than you can prove the contrary.

I mention this last point because I wouldn't want you to think I was dismissing your claims. Your arguments are well constructed and reasoned and based on the best evidence available, or I wouldn't bother engaging with them in such detail. In fact you're much more satisfying to debate with than a lot of people around here because no matter whether I agree with you or not it seldom seems to end in you branding anyone who doesn't agree with you as stupid or making completely unwarranted claims of "fact."

So there.

its an interesting debate. For me, the top 8 play-offs are far from perfect. However, I'm not certain that 5th is better than 4th. There have been some positive results from 5th, and not many from 4th, but I think that looking at stats is a bit misleading from such a small sample. The oportunity to build momentum from 5th could be good for a team making a late run, but the advantages of a second chance and home advantage could also be good in different scenarios.

I don't thinks Leeds' results should be expelled from any analysis, but there has to be some significance to the fact that its been Leeds making the 5th place look rosy. Its not like a Hull KR, or Huddersfield have come from nowhere to win the title from 5th, its a team that is already proven to have big match pedigree, and know what it takes to win the play-offs.

After 2009 and 2010 people were saying the play-offs were getting boring as the grand final was always 1 vs 2.

We are now saying that the scheme is broken, because 5th has won it. I honestly think this is more to do with the overall levelling up at the top of the league. On any particular day any of the top 5 or 6 can turn any of the others over. Thats what I want from the play-offs is the best teams playing each other, and not being sure who will come out on top

I don't particularly like the top 8, but the real and most obvious flaw of the play offs has been the complete lack of ambition and fight shown by most of the teams that make them by whatever route. There's no excuse at all for putting up a limp lettuce display once in the mix.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the system is broken because 5th and 6th have an easier opening fixture than 3rd and 4th - and that has resulted in the higher ranked team going out in five of the eight week two fixtures.

The play-offs for me are all about momentum and you're given that to the teams finishing 1 and 2 (and rightly so - that's their reward after the regular rounds) but also to the teams finishing 5th and 6th which surely can't be right.

If a case can be advanced that the 3rd and 4th placed finishers have a harder task than the 5th and 6th placed finishers then I think the system is indeed flawed.

The reward for the 3rd and 4th place finish is an away trip to the top two with a high probability of a hard contest and likely defeat, an inevitability only enhanced by the second chance element allowing teams once they fall behind on the scoreboard to stop competing as their focus at least sub-consciously shifts to week two - while the reward for the 5th and 6th place finish is a home tie V lesser opponents as determined over the regular rounds and a likely win.

In these circumstances I'm somewhat unsurprised by the week two results favoring the lower ranked teams and the whole concept of the second chance has been an issue for me since the play-offs were introduced in 1998. Even if my team had the second chance it felt like the kiss of death to need it.

1 V 2 : 11 (Format: 5 team 4, 6 team 5, 8 team 2)
1 V 3 : 1 (Format: 6 team)
2 V 3 : 1 (Format: 6 team)
2 V 5 : 1 (Format: 8 team)
3 V 5 : 1 (Format: 8 team)

This thread is no longer related to the subject....please head to the exit

Wow! So apparently I go around accusing people of saying 5th is better than 1st or 2nd.....and you accuse me of twisting peoples words or coming up with inaccurate claims. Once again you carry on with this ridiculous suggestion that i need to list and quote everybody who has said something otherwise what i've suggested simply cannot be true......erm no I'm just not trawling through over 12 months of threads to find quotes, if you get thrills by spending your free time doing that then so be it.

What I've tried pointing at in these playoff format threads is how it is actually the teams and not the format but because you're a supporter of the flawed format concept you kick off and accuse me of saying 5th is better than 1st and saying I need to start naming and shaming and quoting left right and centre......you might actually realise that you're the one who gets worked up because someone doesn't share your opinion, but well done for trying to promote it the other way......gotta keep your pedestal on here as the King of Balance



Its interesting how you were quick to point out the 7% difference between 4th and 7th even though they still read 1 win in 4 years......yet don't want to exclude the Leeds results even though they show over a 50% difference.......balance



And you and others (sorry not written down everyones quotes in a notebook) keep going on about this momentum thing. What happened in the last league game of the year between Hudds and Leeds, they thrashed us with 12 men yet we beat Wakey whilst Hudds put up possibly the most pathetic playoff showing ever (Crabtree excluded) vs Hull. When we had top 5/6 and would end up seeing 1st vs 2nd so often in the GF.......this was after these two teams would already met in the playoffs and the loser had to go again against a team that just won. Leeds in both 2004 & 2008 suffered bad defeats and came back to not only reach the GF but win it. Why didn't this 'momentum' rule not apply when Wire beat Hull in last years playoffs? Why haven't 6th won or reached a GF, it's effectively the same route.....home game vs lower ranked team, away to a team who surely can't be expected to lift themselves after defeat, followed by away to top team who has had a week off?

Seems that this 'momentum' rule only applies to Leeds and i would ask you if you'd feel so strongly about the playoff format being flawed had a team NOT coached by Brian McDermott kwon from 5th.......but I already kNOw the answer to that question..........

Balance!

Yes before 2011 they were all saying "the salary cap is working.Soon we will see a team win after finishing 5th or 6th"but Leeds did it twice and they couldn't hack that

Thread drift, it happens - not necessarily a bad thing.

If there were no thread drift we'd probably never get to the most important issues. Like cake, churns, midgets and coffee tables.

All in good time, I hope.

Do you know what I think tvoc's big problem is here?

He has all this data and all those stats.

But none of it seems to relate to cake.

Not even a lemon drizzle count. Or a Victoria Sponge ratio.




What's all that aboot?

I think tvoc sticks to the recipe book but delivers a cake that can look good on the surface but has a bitter after taste. Perhaps he uses too much lemon drivel (sorry drizzle) but he can usually cook up a classic upside down take (sorry cake) that really takes the biscuit!

Quite. Every team should attack the playoffs to win, not just make up the numbers.

Then we will have an intense competition.

Fans need to lose their obsession with league finishing places.

Why is it ridiculous to expect someone to justify their claims?



I pointed to the results - that's all the results not some self-selected sub-set.



Play-off momentum, yes. Which is why =#FF0000I'd rather finish 5th and 6th than 3rd or 4th

I have no issue if others take an alternative view, no issue whatsoever.

6th is better than 3rd now?

How many teams have made the Grand Final from 6th?

Indeed.Probably the same amount as have reached the final eliminator.

Can't say i would fancy us finishing 5th or 6th this year.The prospect of playing Saints or Hull on the first weekend looks a bit tougher than years gone by.

How many teams have reached or won it from 5th, as its apparently so easy

If we finished 5th we could feasibly have

Saints (h)
Catalans (a)
Huddersfield (a)
Wigan (final)





FWIW I think we'll finish 4th.

5th and 6th have a similar path to follow - home V lower ranked opponent in week one followed by away V higher ranked opponent (coming off a loss) in week two.

Under this current format it's five to three in favour of the lower ranked teams prevailing in week two.



None.

___________

I perfectly understand that the two 'top four' losers in week one are guaranteed a home game in week two V a lower ranked opponent and you'd expect that should offer a clear advantage to the higher placed team but that is to ignore the physical battle/battering they've been through in week one and the psychological blow of losing.

I've rarely seen a team take a physical battering and shattering loss as the Leeds team took at Knowsley Road in 2008. How did they react to that?

Are rugby league players really such delicate wall flowers these days?

Psychological blow???

Seen as the 4th place team in the last 2 years (Hudds @ Wire & Catalans @ Wigan) played like a team who had already accepted and expected defeat I doubt they were too 'crushed'. I would actually say that the 2nd place team in the last 2 years (Wire & Wigan both against Saints) would've felt more of a 'psychological blow' when they lost as they weren't expected to......yet both returned the next week to win........what was the key difference???.......Oh yeah 2 of those teams had to play Leeds the next week and 2 didn't.

......its still the format though