You are not FA and you are definitely not sweet in my book.

You'll always be AA!

Spot on.

Can't argue with any of that analysis.

The only reason I referred to Cas is they are one of your Whipping Boy Rabble gang

.

Have they really improved that much over the last twelve months or has the Big Four sunk to their level, probably a bit of both TBH.

I am with William - it could be argued that Leeds have won the GF 5 times in a time when the team has been in decline. Leeds reached a peak just before the infamous Hokey Cokey in Peripignan in 2005!! The team has never been the same again and the standard of play has fallen too. The falling standards and the winning of the GF can only point to one thing - the general falling of standards across the board.

Firstly I take issue with that no Saints fans found it funny. I found it funny.

Secondly saying it makes us look like WWE. Oh please if only we could get the crowds they get paying the money they pay for the pre-scripted dross they serve up for the peanuts they pay to the performers. It's a wonder of modern day pantomine. On a more serious note it's what the punters want. Interactive TV.

As for no incentive to finish top. Saints had the first real insentive in years to finish top. They would be the first team in the UK certain to play in next years WCC. That's money, exposure, all the things players say they want more of from RL. If Saints finish second, they will need to make the GF. Which I think we can all agree is close to zero chance. Or hope Cas make the GF.

Warrington outplayed us. But it was not the lack of halves that did us last night. We did not even get the chance to play one out rugby.

I don't even know why anyone would be surprised that most teams don't give a shiit about finishing top, the game including the clubs bought in to the "One Big Prize" namely the GF from the outset, indeed for a while there wasn't even a hubcap, so at least they were being honest then, in that finishing regular season top was nothing. It was deliberately nothing, as nothing was to detract from Sky's supreme prize. Even the Challenge Cup was sacrificed on that altar.

The thing that has developed is teams have gradually twigged that peaking to finish top and gain some perceived advantage in the playoffs is considerably outweighed by NOT peaking in the regular season but being properly ready for the knock-out stages.

You reap what you sow. The whole regular league is, competitive teams now realise, a long pre-season.

So cruel and yet still quite funny.

Sky get a fair amount of justifiable stick for some of the stuff they have done with out game, but that will be replayed for years.

I can't believe some people still haven't got over the fact that the champions come from a play-off situation.

Firstly It happens in about 90% of sports nowadays apart from European football.

And secondly it's hardly a new thing in English RL in fact over 2/3rds of our history the champions of England has been decided over a play-off history.

The Old Trafford show piece has been invaluable in the preservation of our great sport. And long may it continue.

It'd be great if it comes down to Cas vying for the League Leaders in the south of France live on Sky. I like how finishing top secures a place in the World Club Series too. If that's expanded into a 2 or 3 week tournament (unlikely at this stage, I know) as opposed to just a series of fixtures it would give some real importance to that top spot.

The reason why some of us don't see the playoffs as an equal match to a league system is because a league system due to it's length tests a whole squad and allows for injuries and freak results.

The playoffs by being knock out in nature are subject the vageries of chance far more than a league covering 6-8 months.

If a team loses 2 or 3 key play makers before a playoff game down to the random chance of say a virus or food poisioning. Does that automatically make them a poorer team than those who finished say 8th, but just manage to have a full compliment of players and a bit of luck of the green. No it does not.

I agree the playoffs have been a success and I agree that all the club agree that the champions crowned are the winners of the GF. But when you talk about who is the best club in SL. I don't think the GF is a fair reflection of this.

Just as say if Usain Bolt was struck down with injury before the Olympics or World Championships it does not mean the winner of the 100m's is the fastest runner in the world.

Knockout is great for entertainment but a poor measure of ability.
Just as I'm sure most people on here would not accept a knockout principle when being assessed at their jobs. Being the best at your job for the whole year, only to be marked as a poor performer that year because on the day everyone gets assessed you happened to have the flu.

What I'd do is perform half heartedly most of the year then put all my effort into peaking for the assesment.



No one ever really kicked off about it when we had a different playoff format and the winner was pretty much always 1st and 2nd because it basically struck the best of both worlds because the structure was far harder to come from lower down which was punishment for not being consistent enough.

The grand final is fine and here to stay, what needs to change (for the billionth time and every rl fan knows) is the playoff format.

That half hearted performance all year would lead to a loss of productivity for the company and therefore a loss of sales. Fine for you short term a disaster for the overall health of the company.

But in addition to that playing half heartedly does not negate freak events such as the flu effecting your performance.

As for people not complaining when there was a top 5. I'm assuming you are saying this as you missed the complaints from other teams who lost the GF after finishing top.

The problem is that the league structure is too even. You need a more uneven league structure to justify a playoff. So the older league structure in the UK that had a playoff was because the league was too big to have home and away every game.

I think (I maybe wrong) but the old league structure was play everyone once, then the top teams played again and the bottom teams played again. Actually very similar to the 'new' structure but without the pretense of the league starting as 2 separate leagues.

The top 5 was the best system we've had but we'll never return to anything like that because it would mean less games for SKY. SKY are the ones lurking in the shadows pulling all the strings with the RFL as mere puppets. Everytime theres been a major change in the structure of the league it has resulted in more games. Who do you think orchestrated the latest shift? The new structure will once again result in more games overall. The game as a whole pretty much has no control over the direction it takes because without SKY there would be no game, it would go bust.

I can see where you are coming from but the bottom line is the Grand final has grown to a stage where RL simply couldn't afford to go without it. It's the biggest day in the rl calender and draws more attention from the media and floating supporters than any other RL game. It's what the CC final used to be. No other RL game get's as much attention from other top sportsmen/women and high profile people in general, you only have to circulate twitter on grand final day.

Great post FlexWheeler

And while all of the changes keep happening, the fans of the spot are expected to smile and nod their heads, like a certain insurance company's give away toy,
oh yes.

I agree the GF is the top game and we need the exposure. But financially we need a league system the fans can follow as without it the game is a basket case.

Yup, agreed. Which is why the top 5 system was good because in reality if you didn't finish high up the table your chances were alot slimmer, so the week in week out games carried alot more weight but you still had the big end of season show piece.

Also, if you finished 5th you were not rewarded with a home fixture in week one to ease you in.You had to play 4th away, followed by 3rd away then the loser of 1st vs 2nd away. A much harder route, which is why it was probably never done but if it had been, would have been seriously earned.

if your top after 27 games youve earned it. i'd say a lot of you are forgetting how good saints were before they lost key players. many teams in the past have won the league but been poor in end of season games(the old premiership and old challenge cup finals) due to decimated squads

Not under the current system.

they'll have earned the league leaders shield

Which means nothing under the current system.

QED: don't bother going to watch RL, as it means nothing.

Sounds like a plan to me. Seriously though, I don't mind hearing the arguments of the keep the cap low brigade, but any talk of great teams and/or the expectation that we might see one (e.g. If we only make yet another change to the league system or whatever) is ridiculous. We've decided, for better or worse, that UK (and France) RL is a relatively low rent sport. We'll see average teams with scattered stars here and there. That's all we're prepared to let people pay for.

how can the LLS carry any weight when the fixture list is uneven and most of the teams competing for the title don't really care about it. It means nothing.

Talking about jokes and the top of the league, I never get bored of reading Phil Clarke's predictions for this year:

SALFORD RED DEVILS
Dr Marwan Koukash is about to find out if his financial clout can help bring Salford back to life after a turbulent 2013. Coach Brian Noble's squad, led by local lad Adrian Morley, will be expected to challenge for honours this year, a far cry from the situation they found themselves in 12 months ago.
Phil Clarke predicts: 1st

CASTLEFORD TIGERS
Castleford have added plenty of new faces during the winter months as head coach Daryl Powell, who took over midway through last season, looks to get the Tigers roaring again. A big season lies ahead as they aim to retain their top-flight status beyond 2014.
Phil Clarke predicts: 11th