many other posters on the Pie Board find this very embarrasing.

There really are some very bitter people around, especially in Wigan. Unfortunately the Wigan club seem to think they are just entitled to win each year, and whenever they don't either someone has cheated or the system is "killing the game".

I too hold the view that the playoffs is over hyped. It's not sour grapes. I was of the view when Saints beat Bradford in the GF many years ago that we were lucky to win it after not finishing top.

All year long there are ongoing debates about the validity of the system we play under.

If you feel it's sour grapes then fair enough, but I did start a thread on my own board posing the question that the current Leeds team could be the greatest SL team in it's short history.

Whether I feel you have a good or a great team does not stop me thinking the system we are playing is flawed. Not just in the sense that has been posted above, but in the sense that if the playoffs are all that matter and some teams such as Saints, Leeds, Hull, Wigan can pretty much garuantee getting in the top 8. What if the fans of those clubs give up on league matches as they hold little influence over the last 3 games of the year???

Leeds have had some great years and so this debate is not particularly relevant to Leeds fans, but finishing top now only has a down side. You can only lose. Everyone else below can only improve their position in the playoffs.

Or you can go on and win the Grand Final from pole position. Crazy idea.

Sorry but thats not at all the impression I have. It only emerges (almost) every year after we win the GF (again)

I have said this on the other boards... For every winner there are 13 losers.

Why should finishing 1st or 2nd give those teams any automatic right to contest the play-off final.

The league is designed to decide the order of contest for the right to play for the title of SL Champions and is therefore deemed to be a minor trophy,

The play-offs are not a new and funky format these days. Everyone is well aware of how the title is decided. More teams need to follow Leeds' brilliant example of getting the job done in the play-offs.

If Wigan are so good why did they not beat us in the play - off, after all they had home advantage . I am becoming tired of this myth that it is easy to win the grand final from fifth place. We had to overcome Catalan in France and then travel to Wigan for a game we were expected to lose.
The simple fact is by and large we are a damn good team with some battle hardened players in the squad.
I will wager that it will be years and possibly it will never happen for a team to win back to back wins from fifth position .

Exactly. Champions win when it matters.

It would be interesting to see if there was the same sense of 'injustice' around these boards back in 2005, when a Bradford side who were similarly inconsistent for most of the year overtook us and Saints to take the title.

I read a thread on totalrl it was "when is a team called great"and one post said "despite leeds wins in the GF Leeds can never b called great because unlike great teams like Bradford!Wigan!and Saints! Leeds have never blown away top teams in games"I anwsered about our scoring average in 2004-2005 and of course 2007 Grandfinal.Couldnt make up some of this make believe.tell the bigger the lie ,the more they'll believe it

Exactly.

This team is special.

I hate playoffs deciding the Champions, it's so untraditional. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Championship_(rugby_league)

I hate playoffs deciding the Champions, it's so untraditional. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Championship_(rugby_league)

To me it's the system that's wrong or perhaps the value of it.
League winners should be held in higher esteem than what is effectively an end of season knockout.
I've no complaint with Leeds domination in recent years in the GF, it's the system and they deal with it the best clearly.
The thing is I don't see them as the best team in SL over the last couple of years certainly and that to me devalues the competition as a whole.
I think the game needs a re- think.
As for Wigan, I think they thought they had a divine right to win this year and after the comments attributed to Wane and Tomkins regarding the McGuire incident and their smug delight at his ban, I was beside myself with joy (well as much as a wakey fan can be) when you kicked their back doors in, in the semi!!!!
The thing that does confuse me is this, Leeds fans will say we are the best because we've won (and its hard to argue with facts) but how many have been calling for the coach to go over the last couple of "great" seasons?
This would never be the case if Leeds were actually winning the league.

The problem with the SL play offs is the context of a weak league. If the bottom 6 were any good then an intelligently coached team like Leeds couldn't get away with picking and choosing which games to turn up for... If the crappy SL clubs in heartland areas developed their local talent and stopped p!ssing away their money on buying their side this 'problem' would solve itself in time.

Until then, someone is going to have to give Wigan an explanation of the system they are playing in which uses shorter words and bigger text. Maybe some pictures might help: a gorilla holding a hubcap and crying...

I personally think that if finishing top of the league was the way of deciding the champions, this group of players would have done it more often.

You can't say that finishing top of the 27 rounds is the sign of a better team, when that is not the measure of the champions, and so different teams place different emphasis on coming top.

Tortoise & Hare springs to mind

Why reward stupidity? Part of winning a game is understanding of the rules.

What did Wigan have to do to get to the grand final this year, iirc it was win 2 games at home against 4th then 5th in the league.

Leeds had to win against wakey at home, then go to the south of france then away to the "best" team in the competition and then face wire in the final.

I think we played 4 more games than wigan this year so managing our resources is what we have done well again

Said it before & I'll say it again - we play far too many games in a season, the elite players in this country are flogged. Does anyone seriously think any team can perform to that level consistently over 38 games? I certainly don't think it's possible.

Therefore, in some games a team will be below par, in some games well below par. It's inevitable. So which games is it preferential to be below par, league fixtures, challenge cup fixtures or playoff fixtures? It's a no brainer really.

The system has been in place for 15 years, and will remain in place. I'm a traditionalist to be honest & would prefer a 'first past the post' system, but there's no point crying over spilt milk. The times they are a changing, and let's be honest the quality of recent Grand Finals is a fantastic way to close the domestic season - and is getting RL good press.

So, jealous Wigan fans, deal with it!

Do you mean league leaders shield winners, Leeds are the League winners

Held in higher esteem by who?, wigan can have an open top bus parade or print it on their shirts if they want

This.

Everyone starts the season knowing perfectly well how the champions will be decided. The league has a primary objective: winning the Grand Final. It's no use failing to do that and then unilaterally deciding that actually you don't much like the system and what you did should be what counts.

The best team in the league is the one that best achieves the primary objective of the competition.

If you changed the goalposts, teams would probably change their targets accordingly. Wigan played more consistently well than anyone else, and if that's what the rules of the competition they signed up for had as priority, that would be a great achievement. As it was, they knew where and when the silverware was dished out, but had no other gear to go to when it mattered. As reward they get a nice little shield (better than nowt, it sits in the trophy cabinet) and the honour of being only the 3rd team in the SL era to win the league leaders' shield and not reach the Grand Final. Kudos.

Just because they are the rules it doesn't mean they are right rules or popular amongst supporters.
As I said I have no beef with Leeds winning; far from it. I don't like the system that's all.
Hypothetically I would say a team that dominated the league (winning the league) for a number of years could be called great, whereas its harder to level that degree of justification to what Leeds have achieved over the last two years.
It may be in the rules, but its a paradox.
If Leeds one the league 10 years on the spin undefeated and were beaten by a team finishing eight losing half of their games each year in a Grand Final, who would have the right to be called a great side?
1) the team unbeaten for a decade thats dominated the league, or
2) the team that's lost half its league games each year, scraped into the play offs but got the knack?

Like the NRL, the NFL, The Champions League, The RU Championship, The Heineken Cup decides the Champions of Europe, like the NHL, the NBA, the World Series.....oh and like the Rugby League used to decide who was Champions until someone changed it in 1972. Leeds would have a lot more Championships if a league based system had been used from the birth of the rugby league.

It's pretty sad that so many seem unable to give any credit to what in any other sport would be seen as a monumental achievement by a special group of players. Sport is about the big day, the big moment and being able to do it when it matters. As great as Wigan were I'm sure they don't see the two seasons where they became Champions on points difference as their greatest moments.

Do you think Wakefield should hand back the two Championships they won in the 60's then?

You can see that there is a huge paradox there.

Making up a bat$h1t crazy scnenario that hasn't happened and is unlilkely to happen as a way to support you argument is pathetic.

If this happens come back and I'll say sorry.

Fair enough.

I prefer the play-offs because the league only measures who can buy the biggest squad (and then go bankrupt a few years later).

If it's always the same team, the latter. The undefeated record would be nice to have in the history books, but can you really call a team great if it hasn't won any meaningful silverware. In your hypothetical example, Leeds have won very littel of meaning having focused their effort in the wrong places, the other side (if you do mean always the same team)has just won an unprecedented 8 league championships.

You might argue that the unbeaten record itself would mark the team out for greatness I suppose, but it wouldn't detract form the achievements of the champion side. To me that unbeaten record for no silverware would be a bit of an embarrassment. A decade of choking.

As said above, change the rules and you might well find that this Leeds side changes what it does. But the rules are there and everyone has to play to them. Playing to some different ones because you don't like the actual ones doesn't make you great. It makes you foolish.