www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/st-he ... 4993664.jp Thoughts?

www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/st-he ... 4993664.jp Thoughts?

I always thought that the top 5 system was the best. It rewarded the top team, by only having to win once to get to the Grand Final

Teams two and three had to win at least twice to get there.

Teams four and five had to win three times to get there.

I agree with him partly, the playoffs are somewhat of an excuse for poor performance throughout the season.

I think the point of having an 8 team play off is that it ensures 8+ teams have to play for the whole season. Having 3 involved would just mean that several teams could clock off by April as there would be nothing to play for.

If we did what McManus suggested, it's great for the top 3 sides, but the other sides would need a reason to keep playing, McManus doesn't cover this.

I agree with the fact the top team should get a larger reward, the top team should either go straight to the final or only have to win one game.

The advantage of a larger play-off system is that the 2 form teams are in the final which makes for a great final.

With us not having the chance to qualify for europe like they do in the premiership, there would be nothing to play for later in the year for the teams below the top 3 or 4.

I thought both the top 5 and top 6 were fine but we will see if this new system works.

But I also think the fact that a team could go all the way and win it exciting.

I can see both sides, I would of just stuck with the top 5 if Im honest though.

I agree, it's a double edged sword whichever way you look at it.

I can see why the RFL have gone for a top 8 Play Off. It's similar to the NRL and gives every team a chance of winning the major prize. That is hugely rewarding for the teams low down the table, but for those challenging at the top it is a poor format as it really devalues top spot. Why fight hard for top spot when you know anywhere in the top 4 is highly rewarding?

The idea of 3 is good on the face of it as it'll really make the top teams fight for a spot in the three. In a league of 14 this is tough, which will make the league more competitive particularly at the start and middle period of the year. The problem comes at the middle and end of the year when teams well outside the three cannot make it and therefore have nothing to play for. That's when the pace drops off and there will be no competitiveness.

I'm not sure what the answer is to be honest. 8 is too many, but I feel the top six was also becoming a bit tired to be honest. It needed re-jigging, but I'm not sure the top 8 was the answer to be honest.

I am in agreement with Rogues on this one. The top 5 system was by far the best, as play-offs go.

Unfortunately, however, the scrapping of relegation means that, as Blobby points out, by the halfway stage six or seven of the teams would have nothing to play for.

It's a no win situation basically. In a 5 or 6 (or 3) team system, the league is devalued because half the sides are effectively playing friendlies for half the season. In an 8 team system, the league is devalued because the rewards for finishing top are so diminished. In a first past the post system you have fairness and reward for excellence, but you lose a showpiece event upon which the RFL and the SL clubs are by now no doubt financially dependant.

Why not give a set amount of money for where you finish in the league, the higher you finish the more money your club gets given to pay off debts or what ever. This way, they could have a top 3 or whatever, and thw lower sides would be playing to earn there club more money. Think they do it in football.

The other thing against the first past the post system was the ridiculous playing some teams 3 or 4 times per season and playing others only twice.



Last season for example Wigan played Saints 4 times, Leeds 3 and Catalan 3.

This season with 14 teams it is far better, but until you get all teams playing each other just home and away, the first past the post system cannot be deemed fair.

Top five as others have said is the best.
Top eight is a bit of a p1ss take and definitly devalues the week to week rounds of Super League.
As Blobby has said anywhere in the top four is a good finish,I can see a lot of youngsters getting good game time towards the end of the season.
I reckon key players will be rotated as no club needs to bust a gut to finish top or top two even.

Top 6 with last years system could be enough. Top 8 is too many as it is over half the league.

my views are that we should have the 8 system we will have this year but almost as a seperate competition like the old premiership. The league made still competative by having sky money divided based on league position

The reason the RL went for this is simple, it was a vote of chairmen. The top two or three teams are always going to be outvoted by the rest in such circumstances. It's in the vested interests of the mediocre to want to play with the top teams at the playoffs.

Even if you're knocked out in the first round of the payoffs you're quids in because it's an equal share out of all the money. The teams that get to the final actually end up out of pocket because they get stung for expenses and bonuses.

It stands to reason then if you're a middlin' team you are going to vote for this. The only way Saints and Leeds will get this overturned is for the RL to intervene and make an executive decision which over-rules the vote of chairmen.

Be honest, can you really see the RL having the balls to do this?

No wonder McManus is ed off, he's got every right to be. We've been shafted by these mediocre hopefuls.

I don't think that is correct.

Depending on when you get knocked out actually determines your final position i.e. Leeds first, Saints second Wigan third etc.
The prize money is then divided out as ratio's of where those FINAL positions are.

Well that directly contradicts what I was told by a senior person at Saints (director level). Don't want to mention a name in case he'd got it wrong and it embarrases him.

I'd like to see some corroborating evidence either way.

best thing would be a top 4.

1st vs 4th,
2nd vs 3rd


the rest fight for the highest positions, and earn extra points for the next franchise application or something along those lines.

I think he has a good point. Whilst most of us have come to appreciate the playoffs I agree there should be more reward for the most consistent team over the season. Mind you, my opinion may be clouded by our record of finishing top but not putting the GF to bed.

I've been saying this for years. Why we have to follow the NRL all the time i'll never know. The system they use for their playoffs should have no bearing on what we do with ours.

No doubt some will try to make the suggestion that their league produces better international class players than ours, but i refuse to believe that has anything to do with them having 4,5,6, or 8 teams in the playoffs over the more obvious factors (higher levels of funding, better player development, better environmental conditions etc etc).

For me we should play every team home and away and the team that finishes top would be declared Champions. A bit radical I know but it would mean every single fixture would have value and hey, it might just work.



Top 8, load of nonsense, lose more games than you win and (potentially) end up as Champions. On the other hand a team could be totally undefeated all season until the final day and end up empty handed. If people say it wont happen I would say what is the point then ?!!

The fact that we went 20 odd games last season and lost in the Grand Final, that part was bothering me too.

without relegation and play offs, it would mean that from about july onwards only 1 or 2 games per week would have any meaning.

Last season, Leeds were 8 points clear in July - had it been a first past the post system, I doubt they would have thrown that lead away; and the season would have been petered out into nothingness.

It works in football because you have different European qualification for anything upto the top 7or8; and the bottom 3 get relegated - so half the teams end up with a positive or negative result. In SL you would have 13 teams with nothing.

it also works in football as the higher up the table you are the more sky $$$$$ you get, an idea i think we should look into.

They already do as I alluded to on page one. I'm still trying to find a link as to how the money is shared out.

Chairmaker, any ideas?

I apologise if i'm wrong i was under the impression it is shared out equally. If it is staggered, then all clubs have something to play for all year.

I was under that impression too and was told by a fairly reliable source. Although I can find no further evidence either way.

Agree entirely. Spot on from McManus in terms of his feelings...
Agree with Rogues in terms of a credible format.
Top 8 is another example of RL being used to promote a daft gimmick.