In that situation you wouldnt expect them to win though would you.


This season was no different to last season, which was no different to the year before. The NRL has provided winners from lower down the league, they had a grand final which was 4th v 8th only two years ago, Last years superbowl winner had a lower winning percentage than Leeds did, in 2008 New York won the superbowl with a 62.5% winning percentage, against a New England side who lost only one game all season which was the superbowl. Were the regular season for those competitions pointless? Are the NFL and NRL substandard competition.

You do realise it is all there for people to read dont you? Lets leave it to them.

Do you really think people are that stupid? Do you really think that dropping the 'too' part of the sentence 'too easy' was subtle enough to catch anyone at all out. Once again, 'it wasnt hard enough' and 'it was too easy' are the same thing.

Exactly, where has this myth suddenly come from that the top teams were purposely picking which games they were going to show up in this season, really is just bizarre. Especially as Pro RL players anything less than 100% is going to get you hurt and I don't know too many who'd not want to win, they're just not hardwired that way.

Like you say the teams playing in the CC final have just about always rested players etc in the game before to make sure their 100% for the final.

You're not comparing like with like though.

For starters, a play off series in both the NRL and NFL is a practical necessity. This is down to ambiguous nature of their regular seasons. There is no clear-cut clarity to who was the most consistent team since none of the teams barely even reach playing each other twice. In the NFL (from what I gather anyway, since I'm not a huge fan) there are 32 teams playing in 8 conferences, and each team plays 16 fixtures. How can anyone be certain to who was the best team that year when dealing with such vagueness?

In the NRL - 16 teams each play 22 fixtures. There's 8 lacking fixtures of ambiguity right there. Most Sydney teams play each other twice, which tend to be more intense (due to the rivalry), so the non-Sydney teams may have a slight advantage. Plus, during State of Origin games, most of the players from the top teams go missing, and they have to contend with that disability. There is no logic in having regular season champions in these prestigious organisations.

Super League - we have one extra game, which hardly creates any uncertainty or what ifs. Certainly not to the scale when Rugby League previously had a play off system (pre-74). This again was necessity - 30 teams couldn't play each other twice, as it would have taken FOREVER.

My god you cannot be serious.

Indeed it is.


Do [iI[/i think people are stupid? As you say, it's all there in black and white.


So despite nobody saying Leeds had it easy (check the thread), and despite the fact that I said they "had it hard" (again, check the thread), you've insisted, for page after page, that my argument was that it was "easy". It was you who added the "too" to add some credibility to your strawmannery, but since I've spelled out in black and white what my argument is, insisting its something else only makes you look a bit desperate. The lengths you've gone to to misrepresent my argument simply highlights your complete lack of any counter-argument.

Saying something is hard but not hard enough for their league position isn't the same as saying something is easy, any more than saying 6 feet is tall but not tall enough to be a basketball player is the same as saying "6 feet is small".



But hey, since you haven't even grasped the use of an apostrophe it's no surprise that you've got yourself in such a muddle with the English language .

I honestly don’t know why you are struggling with the concept that hard and easy are relative concepts.

Like in the context of Basketball players, 6ft is small, because relative to most basketball players (who are much taller) it is.

Saying something isn’t hard (which you also did, which is what I was responding to when I put that, you then backed away quickly from that argument, which I allowed you to do Here: among other examples) Is the same as saying something is easy, saying something isn’t hard enough, says it is too easy (like something not being wet enough, means it is too dry).

So now you understand relative concepts, maybe you will understand what you said, and also why you weren’t being as subtle as you thought, and just how obvious your bitterness was to me and other people.

Class thread this

Outstanding. This is one of the funniest breakdowns I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing.

I, for one, don't know personally any fellow Wigan fans who begrudge Leeds their title. As far as this competition is concerned they were the best team. I don't think we were the best team just because we won the regular league. If the regular league was the main title, and *then* we'd won it, I'd think we were the best team.

Perhaps one or two are moaning specifically because Wigan didn't win this year, but I think most are simply questioning whether the balance is right, or more specifically, whether we're in danger of diminishing the importance of regular season games too much. That's a legitimate question whoever you support. In fact, one of my close friends is a Leeds supporter and himself raised the point that whilst he loves winning the title, he's not particularly happy to watch his team play rubbish in the middle the of season and is even more concerned that next year he might have to sit through poor stuff because "it'll be allright in the end". I've got no problem with the playoff concept, and in fact, the actual number of teams in the playoffs is only an issue insofar as its a factor in addressing the main challenge, which is trying to make as many games as we possibly can - throughout the season - 'big games'. As I say, something like a Champions League would be excellent, but sadly unlikely.

Despite my friend's concern I accept the point that 99% ( if not 100% ) of the time, all teams on the day turn up to do their best ( though his concern could still be valid when it comes to signing players and selection I suppose). But even if we accept that teams always try their best, there's *still* a piece missing - as a fan *I* care more, like it or not, if the game is significant. I want to leave games elated if we win and gutted if we don't ( ideally more of the former, but hey ). There's no perfect way to achieve this for every game, but it shouldn't stop us striving to get the balance right. And ultimately, making games as significant as possible has to be an important component of trying to increase attendances. Playoffs can be helpful versus just a straight League, but counter-productive if you take them too far.

Christ on a bike! So, I make a specific reference to the Week 1 fixture 5th v 8th and say that 5th didn't have it "hard all the way" (you know, by playing 8th at home!), that they "had it hard but not hard enough for their league position" and you respond to that by saying I was pretending "Leeds had it easy". Sorry, I just can't take you seriously.

1st had it really easy though didn't they - 4th then 5th at home. For a champion team that's a piece of surely.

Should be, but they obviously weren't capable of peaking at the right time.

Did they misunderstand the concept of the competition?

Surely a league placings deciding the champions is as flawed if not more flawed than playoffs.

Lets say Leeds and Wigan are fighting it out for top spot, Leeds play a full strength Huddersfield one week, then Wigan play them the week after, difference is Huddersfield are in the challenge cup final the next week and as they have no chance if becoming SL champions they play a weekend side resting players for wembley.

Now how is that 'fair'.

WOW

Its called the Challenge CUP
Cup competition = Knockout
Winner stays in, loser goes home.

There is an issue if teams finishing the regular season in a lower position consistantly win the GF but, for now, we should just congratulate Leeds.
They beat Wakefield (h), Catalan (a), Wigan (a) and then beat Warrington in the final.
They certainly deserved to lift the trophy, whether we should decide the champions by having an end of season play off is a different matter.

I can't be bothered to go through all 24 pages, but surely there's no point in having a playoff to decide the champions and then complaining when a team placed 5th win it?
I don't like the current playoff schedule, but Leeds beat 3 of the 4 teams that placed above them in the league (away from home). The only team higher up that they didn't beat were Saints and, let's face it, they've never worried about knocking them out before.
In the majority of years, the GF winners have been from one of the top couple of places, we've had two years (out of what, 13?) where a team has won it from 5th, but this happens to be a group of players that, even before their 2011 victory, had achieved a pretty special record. As long as they've got Sinfield leading them and can manage to get Peacock taped back together for the final, they'll continue to impress on the big day.
Don't deny the achievement, or indeed the romance of what they've done over the last 6 years. To do so would make you look like a bitter, whinging, sore losing misery guts.
Its other teams jobs to take the trophy from them. Saints, Wire and Wigan have all beaten Leeds plenty of times in the weekly rounds, but fall short on the big day. You can't tell me that Leeds "just aren't trying" during the weekly rounds.

Very true.
Would it be fair to say Leeds struggle to get themselves up for the "less important" weekly rounds though? The pressure of a do or die situation seems to improve their performances 10 fold.

The reality is it means nothing for the weekly rounds. We've had 15 years of the grand final and on only 3 occasions has someone outside the top 2 won the competition.

Teams will still try to finish as high as they can because if you finisng in the top 2 you have - 2 home games to get to the grand final with a week off. If you finish lower it is more tricky.

Finishing in the top 2 will be still be the main priority for title challengers and that will give them the best chance of winning the competition.

Leeds have an exceptional record in the grand final, it's the same spine that won 3 grand finals on the trot, an unprecedented achievment and they've managed to overcome the handicap of a lower position to win the trophy again. They are worthy of the tag champions.

Top 8 is too much, but we have what we have and that's the way it's going to. It's nowhere near as detrimental as people are making out.

Amazing how the people can be negative about the 5th placed team winning the competition while at the same time people can be negative about the competition being too predictable (in fact, if I could be bothered to search I am sure I would find people who have expressed both opinions)

For those employed:

If you were paid based on your performance in just one month of the year, would you struggle to work your hardest for the other 11 months?

Well said. More people should read that. You might as well say the team that wins the FA Cup in football should be the Champions. Thats a better comparison to the structure of the NFL and the NRL than the SL is!

I imagine they will, and whilst not suggesting teams would aim for 5th I do think Leeds twice winning it from 5th has exposed an anomaly within the playoff system, vis, that whilst the top 2 teams are potentially only 2 games from the final, 5th place can get there in 3 games including a Week 1 home fixture against 8th. When you add to this the fact that their Week 2 opponents will have come back from an away fixture against 1st (unless they beat them) it suggests, to me, that coming 5th isn't as disadvantageous as it should be in order to encourage a real race for the top.

The league element accounts for 90% of the competition, after all, so I think league position should affect your playoff structure in a way that it currently fails to; none of this 5v8 or 2v3 nonsense.

Once again you show you have no idea about how elite athletes are conditioned or the nature of sporting form and confidence. Given that Hetherington said the Leeds team would have been dismantled and many players released had they not at least got to the Grand Final during the poor mid-season run it is implausible to claim that they were not "working their hardest". Unfortunately they were not, at that time, able to win as many games as they wanted.

perhaps its you who has no idea. Elite athletes cannot force there bodies through the pain barrier when the end result has no consequence on whether you win the title or not. Could you bash your body to its absolute limit for 27 weeks when you know its only the last 4 games that matter? Its psychological more that physical.

You could certainly push your body further if you knew that every single game counted at the season's end. Every single victory mattered, every single try scored mattered - but they don't, not until week 1 of the playoffs anyway.

That's why this season has been the worst as a spectacle since SL began. It could get progressively worse unless the playoff format is changed.