how is just top 2 qualify for GF more complicated? it would mean we keep the GF, a 70k crowd, a big night at OT but we won't ever get a team finishing lower then 2nd being champions.

Champions would always be super consistent and a inconsistent team would never be champions. The regular season becomes meaningful, you HAVE to finish top 2 to be champions.

Then week after GF, the QF's of the Prem Trophy 1v8, 2v7 etc, leading to final at Elland Rd.

Very, very good point.

My only drawback on scrapping the playoffs to decide the Champions is the loss of a 70k crowd at OT every year as it would only be a 30k crowd(IMO going on previous atts). What i have said on my other posts keeps the GF and also includes the Prem Trophy final.

I think Leeds know how to win it when it comes to play offs and credit to them, but Leeds winning it from 5th for the past two years has really questioned the respect for the play off system, how can a team who didn't even finish in the top 4 be champions ? Surely it should be the top 4 clubs that have more of a chance of winning it.I think the RFL made a mistake when they changed it from 6 to 8 there was nothing wrong with top 6 and if it was brought back it would make teams to be a little more consistant threw out the regular season.

Isn't the real problem not Leeds at all but the abject failure of the other clubs to beat them when it counts? Had Cats, Wigan or Warrington beat Leeds this and other similar threads wouldn't exist.

Correct, if you have a play off system in place, then it is irrelivant which club wins the GF, the only discussion should be the number of teams involved and the formatt , and the relative benifits, problems it produces

It's been a long boring season, the weekly rounds have lacked intensity, even the sky team have given up their mantra "it gets better and better every season" Given that there is scant reward for finishing top and a team from a lowly position have become champions, there is no reason for title contenders to go hell for leather in the weekly rounds. Have people forgotten all the titanic battles throughout the season we used to have when it was a league system instead of the last three games of the season.

He's right, though. If supporting a team was just about winning and glory then there'd be no point for about 90% of people who watch any sporting team world wide. You support your team for many reasons, not just because of success. At least I'd hope that was the case.



Does that include us "morons" who watch both "soccer" and rugby league? Or are we slightly less moronic?

My only issues with the current play off system is over half the league get to play in them, the 5th place team get to start the play offs with a home game against a team that lost more games than they won, while 4th have to travel to league leaders. I'd prefer to see a return to top 5 system.

That said, Leeds still deserve a huge amount of credit for winning the games they did, and if there is an issue where Leeds fans start to wonder if there is any point attending regular rounds, then that is an issue for Leeds to perform in the season. Can't imagine they had a plan at the start of the season that involved having to win at Catalans and Wigan to get to the final.

The play-offs produce meaningless games. Too many sides know they'll be in the mix from the start, and a few months later even more teams know they'll probably be there. Coaches are increasingly rotating their squads to protect players for the play-offs. Better to have teams fighting to get INTO the play-offs, rather than just maintaining their position in a pack of 8.

Don't confuse criticism of the format with an attack on Leeds. When a team wins the Grand Final from 1st or 2nd, or even 3rd, it can be argued they've been one of the very best throughout. A team has now won twice from 5th after losing 11 games in the league campaign, which makes the term "champions" a little ridiculous and simply highlights the flaws of the system. That it happens to be Leeds is irrelevant.

The majority of comments I've heard and seen on social media (from fans of different clubs, including Leeds) say the same thing - winning it from 5th is a great achievement but not many agree with the system.


Yes, they did. Care to point out where I said otherwise?

Again, this is NOT an attack on Leeds, but the system.

That isnt down to the play-offs though is it. That is down to the disparity in quality in the league.
And whilst you may argue that clubs who know they are in the 8 have 'meaningless' games (which they arent as they decide the format of the play-offs and the teams they play and the advantages they get) and leads to rotation, any top 8 system would create the same issue, and any play-off system which has fewer than 8 clubs, would increase the amount of 'meaningless' games as we would have more teams, playing for nothing, earlier in the season.

As i said to your fellow Wigan fan [iYour argument, and your use of supporting evidence is predicated on the premise that were the play-offs in a different format, Leeds wouldnt have won them. If we discount that premise then Leeds victory is evidence of nothing. Now you can say you accept that Leeds could have won the play-offs under any format, but if you did, you would need to accept that means Leeds winning in the play-offs isnt evidence that the play-offs arent hard enough on the club playing 5th. [/i Leeds could have won the play-offs under any system in which 5th qualified. There are few systems which would produce a more difficult run of games than Les Catalans away, Wigan away, Wire neutral. I see no reason to assume any of the teams in play-offs would have beaten Leeds over the last month, so i see no reason to assume that any other play-off format would have produced a different result. So I see no reason to assume that it was the play-off format which led to this result, so i see no reason Leeds victory is evidence of anything other than leeds are the best at winning the comp.



The majority of people i've heard comment on it simply said what an acheivement, what a game, what spirit it was played in and how brilliant it was to end our season that way. Very few, mainly Wigan fans, have complained that they dont like the system or that the system has produced an unfair result.
You said they finished 5th, in the context of your post I thought it important to note that they finished champions, but qualified 5th.
Except it is an attack on Leeds achievement, you may be trying to frame it a different way because out right saying it would make you look bitter, but it is an attack on Leeds achievement.

People who hark on about topping the league forget (or aren't old enough) to remember how few championships went down to the wire, and the fact that even when the top couple of sides were close, the end of season became a procession of meaningless games for over half the sides in the competition.

I have no problem tinkering with the play-off format - e.g. top5 - but the GF is a brilliant end to the season.

As Leeds' wins have proven - the league campaign can be utterly meaningless. The target is simply not to finish 9th or lower. In what possible way is that inspiring an engaging league season? Why should I fork out hundreds of pounds to watch pointless games?


I've not argued anything of the sort and I've not mentioned Leeds not winning the competition under a different format. I've simply said that crowning a team that loses 11 games but wins a short knock-out competition from 5th as "champions" is ridiculous. As almost all the Grand Final winners before 2011 were from 1st or 2nd the outcome has generally been accepted as fair and the hard questions therefore haven't really been asked before.

When Wigan lost to Warrington in August I was disappointed but not that bothered because I knew even if Wire took the league shield, we'd be 2nd at worst and still in a good position. A fan of a team fighting for top spot shouldn't be feeling that sort of apathy.

And I don't care that it's Leeds, I care that the format is flawed. If Warrington had won, they've been one of the best all year and I'd accept it as a fair result.


There's at least one Leeds fan in this thread, I've heard other Leeds, Wigan, Salford, Saints and Warrington fans say it. Various media outlets are asking questions over the format. A glance at various RL pages/sites shows hundreds of comments from disgruntled fans of all clubs. Understandably, Leeds fans are generally pretty happy though many still comment on the flaws of the format.

And why shouldn't fans of the team winning the League Leader's Shield feel the end result is unfair? They've fought hard to be the best team over the season only to lose out on the title in a short play-off competition thanks to a format that over-rewards a team getting a roll-on at the right time.


No I didn't. But now you mention it I seem to recall they did finish the league campaign in 5th.


No it's not, as I've repeatedly stated. Leeds have been outstanding over the last month and are worthy winners of the play-offs. You can choose to be paranoid and call it an attack but I assumed you had the intelligence to look beyond that.

11 out of the 26 seasons that we had FPtP in this country went down (in theory) to the wire. That's 42% - whether you class that as a few or not is up to you.



It wasn't if you wanted to win the Premiership Trophy. (or avoid relegation for that matter)

Leeds win has proven nothing of the sort. All Leeds win has proven is that on the night, they were better than the teams they played and the theoretic possibility that all the teams in the play-offs, can win the play-offs, that is and always will be the case as long as we have play-offs.


It is necessary for your argument to work. If Leeds could win the play-offs under any format, even one which you deemed sufficiently difficult then the fact that Leeds won, tells us nothing about the difficulty of the format.

To simplify it for you.

Leeds can win under an easy format,
Leeds can win under a sufficiently difficult format.

Leeds win, does this tell us if the format was sufficiently difficult or not?

Why? Why are you bemoaning that you, nor I, ascribed as much worth to qualifying competition? You should be feeling that way, not finishing top isn’t the end of the season, not finishing top still leaves the big prize to play for. That is exactly how I would expect you to feel. It is exactly the same as everyone has said for the past 14 years, the league leaders shield is a nice to win, but it doesn’t define your season like becoming champions does.
That’s just ridiculous.
I think if you are using RL fans moaning about something on RL message boards an in RL papers as a barometer then your method is flawed. We have RL fans moaning about the game setting record attendances, they will moan about anything they can. Especially when it sets a narrative that someone else’s success wasn’t fair and their team was cheated.

Because they weren’t the best team over the season, Leeds were, that’s why Sir Kevin Sinfield lifted that trophy on Saturday night and O’loughlin was doing his hair. Wigan were the most consistent team in the qualifying campaign though, they even got a nice shield for their efforts.
Yes you did, and yes, Leeds finished fifth in the qualifying competition.
You know that you are attacking Leeds acheivement, you are saying it wasnt enough. You are saying it wasnt worthy of champions and you are saying other teams, other than the one who actualy won the competition, should be called champions. If you want to pretend otherwise fine.

Supporters are now openly talking about this and the RFL would be foolish to ignore the dissent. A change needs to be made, no-one wants to feel like a fool for attending the weekly rounds.

If anyone thought at the beginning of the year, that all 8 teams in the play-offs couldn’t win them, then they deserve to be treated like a fool.

Quite correct , a league employing a play off system with the potential to have the lowest placed club win those play offs , is a sign of strength

My issue with the playoffs is not specifically that a team can win it from 5th. It's simply that fans have voted with their feet for all except the GF. The season-ticket thing is a red-herring - if people cared that much, they'd buy a ticket - they don't.

Hopefully we're wrong, but I think quite a lot of us are concerned about the effect of the last two years on interest in the regular season. ( Last year was seen as a 'freak', now I wonder if people will really start to think that the League doesn't matter all that much ).

A 'champions league' would go a long way to fixing this problem - making top 4 (and your position in it) really important, especially if the top two European teams got 3 and 4 from the NRL in their group. But it's not going to happen of course.

Next best I think is the original top 5 system.

exactly, in the NRL it is lauded that anyone can win any game. Last years NRL Grand final was between 2nd and 6th, 2010 between 1st and 6th, 2009 4th and 8th and everyone raves about how wonderful it is and how intense the competition and how that those games are the proving ground for the next generation of antipodean supermen.

Over here, Leeds win it twice from 5th and the entire season is pointless, we should all give up and go home, and most of all, its just not fair on the teams which bottled it.

There's only one of us pretending here mate. I've said it [uwas[/u hard but not hard enough. It's there in black and white so besides making a tit of yourself what are you trying to achieve?


Oh dear, so now you think I've said it should be easier to win from 5th? No wonder you're having trouble keeping up.




"It would be exactly the same" - I don't even think you've read my propsal, let alone understood it.

Top 6 , every game has a definate meaning , either qualification for the GF or elimination , and no team misses more than 1 week without a game

Im embarrased for you.

Top 6 would have been decided about a month before the end of the season. It would have left us with 4 rounds where 8 teams had nothing to play for.

Omg - what an unspeakable tragedy that would have been!

This season perhaps , but then why not have a top 10 , or 12 ?

The more clubs you have in the play offs , the more you dilute what you are trying to achieve , a balance is what you are looking for between retaining interest and having a worthwhile prize