I have no problem with the playoffs. Except the club call thing.

I don't see that. The ability to win big games is what makes the eventual last club standing worthy champions.

It used to be a truth in Oz, back when it was NSWRL and top 5!

, that for a team that is new to those big games that they had to lose a few to learn how to win them. Same deal.

There is always logic to the argument of course, but it's not like Warrington ran out of steam or succumbed to the pressure of the occasion (as per the year before, losing to saints away and then putting in a horrific performance against Huddersfield), it was quite simply a superb game of Rugby League between two evenly matched teams - literally either team could have won it, if Leeds had lost that game rather than won, would people be putting that down to Leeds' lack of experience of those games? (Challenge Cup final 2010, for example). I think not.

No, because Leeds have plenty of experience of those games and Warrington are relatively new at it. When Leeds were losing those big games it's when that group of players were new together and new at that level. It took them several years of losing out and making dumb decisions in big moments to become the team they became.

I'm not saying necessarily that Warrington lost last year because they couldn't hack the pressure - good teams can lose games too. But teams in general do need to learn how to win pressure games.

What I am saying though is that it's not an insult to Leeds to say that Warrington have less experience of that kind of situation. The cup is different, even the final. Your entire season isn't on the line in the cup.

They do - but I don't buy that that's the reason why Warrington last that specific game last season, not when it was decided by a single penalty. The year before however, with the implosion of blowing away an early lead vs. Saints and the subsequent non-performance against a very good Huddersfield side, I would absolutely agree was down to a lack of experience.



That depends entirely on your league position surely? If you're out of the playoffs and not looking likely to make an impression in them even if you make it, but somehow get in to a cup final - I'd say your season is entirely on the line

Go back to the league meaning something then the premiership at the end as a seperate comp

I don't think it's as simple as that though. It doesn't really matter what the deciding factor is in any given game. You made a good point recently in another thread. I can't remember what the incident was but there was a contentious decision that someone was claiming had cost their team the game. They argued that if the ref had got that right they could have won. You said, correctly in my view, that if the ref had got it right then the restart would be different and the whole rest of the game would have taken a different path. It was a decision point in the game.

I don't see why this is different.

Again, I'm not saying Warrington lost that game last year because they weren't mentally tough enough. I'm saying the margin is no guide to that.

The truth is none of us know outside Warrington's mental state. The pressure's higher to deliver this year though so I hope for your sakes it's good enough.



I'd assumed that was a given.

If you're out of the play offs your season is over, not on the line. Barring something special it's over if you're outside the top two or three.

Leeds are (reluctantly) a special mob who have previously won the title several times. They are the only ones who could have won it from 5th.

Wigan gave it a good bash from outside the top 4 on a three occasions, only winning it when finishing top.

Saints have failed to win it from first, second and third, so I doubt if they can do it from outside the 4.

When Wire dismantled Leeds at Wembley 2010 was it because Leeds did not have enough experience /big game mentality?

Anyway getting back to the point. The current format completely diminishes the weekly rounds and something needs to be done. Ideally bring back top 5/6 or, in my opinion, if you manage to finish top, you deserve to win the damn thing more than any other side - then have a Premiership playoff comp.

This top 8 system is simply reducing the week to week intensity because winning weekly rounds isn't that important and players can't lift themselves to quite the same heights when in the back of their minds its worth nothing if they have bad luck in the playoffs.

All of the above comments don't hide the fact that Leeds lost 10 out of 27 weekly games last year and are Champions. The weekly games particulary the big ones are of less significance than they should be, which can't be good for the game.

All of the above comments don't hide the fact that Leeds lost 10 out of 27 weekly games last year and are Champions. The weekly games particulary the big ones are of less significance than they should be, which can't be good for the game.

The good thing about the top 5 system was that if you finished 4th or 5th, you had to bear everyone in the play-offs to be Champions. If you finished 2nd or 3rd, you had to beat everyone above you (and a team below you if you lost). If you finished top, you had to beat one of the top two twice, or once and the best of the rest. It pitted the best against the best throughout.
The current play-offs don't. You have to beat a mediocre team if you're in the bottom half of the draw, lower top team after that, and then the best of the rest the next two weeks. You don't have to be on top of your game for 4 weeks. The early rounds can be a bit of a cruise.

I'd love for the top 5 to return, however, there needs to be incentive for the rest of the league. And without a Champions League/Europa League place to aim for like in football, as well as no relegation, it would deem the weekly rounds even more pointless than they are now for the majority of the league.

I'd say there's an argument that it's just shifted the importance of the weekly rounds away from the top 5 or so teams and shifted that pressure to those scrapping for 7th and 8th. It's now more important for those teams to beat the ones around them rather than put everything into a game against the better teams. This should produce more intense games between those teams while letting the top teams get away with coasting in some games.
If this is the case then it's a leveling down but while there is such a disparity between the quality of squads at the top and bottom of the league you can't blame the clubs scrapping for the last couple of play off places for targeting 'winnable' games.

I disagree.

It took a mammoth effort for leeds to do it from 5th. I don't think some people fully appreciate it really. Hence this thread and the consensus among some that teams can just toss it off, wangle their way into the playoffs then magically win the title.

No.

Leeds have won grand finals from 1st, from 2nd, and from 5th. They have won more grand finals than any other team. They do this because of their quality and because they go out to win every game they play, which generally results in good top 2 finishes.

Let's turn this on it's head. I'd suggest some teams fail [ibecause[/i they don't plave enough importance on the weekly rounds. Look at wigan. For years under noble they were inconsistent then would come good for the playoffs, and time and again they would try all they could and couldn't make the grand final. Madge comes in, makes them consistent week in week out and they win a title.

It's a balance thing.
There has to be a finale of the season ( of course the CC used to be the finale, but Sky dont have that so its no longer as important) and the weekly rounds must provide motivation for players and supporters.
Either way, it's not quite right for many, so it needs tweaking.

Hammer. Nail. Thwack.

bang on and the reason why the GF was created by Sky.

Quite simply, how can a 4 week tournament determine the champions of a 8 month long league competition?

Why should players put their bodies through tough games when the league doesn't matter?
how can they be expected lift themselves that extra few percent?
why should fans pay £250 for season tickets to watch players who subconciously can't give their all cos it means nothing when it come to September?

It needs sorting sooner rather than later.

The cup isn't important.

Depends how much £250 means to the individual is my guess. It's still a bargain as far as I'm concerned. Usually good entertainment, good banter with home and away fans and the feelgood factor that comes from the occasional good contest, win or lose. Then there's the serious business at the end of the season to look forward to.

In any case, this is my 37th year of watching Leeds. There may have been a golden age where they gave 100% commitment in every game of the season but I'm f***ed if I can remember it. And if there was, it certainly didn't coincide with times where there were no play offs or when play offs were of lesser importance than today.

Where does this myth that Sky created the play off series and Grand Final come from? You would have thought Rupert Murdoch was sat in at every meeting of the Super League clubs if you believe some of the stuff that gets posted on here.

Yeah. Bit of history behind it - the decision was actually done to try and attract a sponsor after Bass Brewery (Stones Bitter) used an escape clause to pull out of sponsoring the league for a 13th consecutive season in 1998. That decision by Bass came as a bitter blow, because their decision to pull out a year early came right off the back of the group stages of the both financially and image damaging 1997 World Club Challenge Tournament.

Bare in mind also that most attendances in 1997, bar champions Bradford (15,159), were terrible also, For example averages of 11,005 at Leeds, 8,866 at Wigan, 8,824 at Saints - with the rest of the heartland teams all having lower average crowds than Paris!!! We also had Paris and Oldham folding at the end of that season.

So the game was in a mess then and thats why, unanimously, all 12 clubs voted for the play off system.

So neither Wigan nor Wire really care about the weekly rounds then? Could've fooled me...

Champion sides - or sides who have any desire to be champions - play every game to win and hate losing. To suggest anything else is a bit of a nonsense.

To be honest, as a Wigan fans, that game tonight should have meant everything. I walked away not that bothered because I know we can still win the big prize winning a couple of games in the play-offs. Warrington showed last year that it means nothing playing well in the weekly rounds if you can't produce the same in the play-offs.

If it really didn't matter to fans then 21,000 wouldn't have turned out for a televised game, if it didn't matter to the coaches they'd have told their players to calm it down in the second half, and if it didn't matter to the players then they wouldn't have tried to kill each other throughout.

Being philosophical after a defeat is understandable, and this is certainly not the sort of defeat that should concern a fan, but the idea that last seasons Leeds triumph has rendered the weekly rounds null and void has been made a mockery of more than once and was again tonight. Only one team has ever managed winning from outside the top 3 and they seem to be taking the weekly rounds pretty seriously - and I know it matters to me whether Leeds win or lose every single game they play.

They turned out (including myself) because it is one of the best games on the super league calendar. The coaches obviously want to win the game, winning is a habit. The players obviously wanted to win, they are naturally competitive.

BUT...

The fans know we can still win the GF, the coaches also know it, and so do the players. The game didn't mean as much as it should have, despite the entertainment.