You're right, which is why I said I wasn't saying Leeds' path was easy, but if Leeds and Catalans had got to pick their fixture between Wigan away or Wakefield at home, who would they have picked?

That's certainly all I'd ask for. I enjoy the playoffs (though admittedly I'd enjoy them more if every round was a knockout) and wouldn't want to see a return of FPTP for the reasons you've stated. My main gripe is that finishing lower down the top 8 should make your route to the final increasingly difficult, making teams want to avoid doing so at all costs; in contrast finishing higher up should give you a very easy route to the final, making for an exciting race for the top. We don't have that at the moment and nobody really minds too much as long as they finish in the top 8, and most of those places are all but guaranteed, hence why people are questioning the weekly rounds.

It's merely a sign that the teams who have finished top the past two years haven't had the qualities required of a champion team.

Leeds (5th) got to play Wakefield (8th) at home, whilst Catalans (4th) played Wigan (1st) away. If Leeds did have it hard all the way I wouldn't have a single complaint.

The team finishing 4th has a second go. But moreover they have the prospect of a week off if they win. Catalans didn't display champion qualities in that game against Wigan (compared to, say, the team Wigan played last time they were involved in that very 1st vs 4th play off tie). Catalans didn't deserve to win and didn't deserve to be champions based on their play off performances - but that is not to say they didn't have a much easier opportunity with the prospect of one away game followed by one home game, the route Leeds followed in 2010.

Because the French failed to take advantage of that does not suddenly make this Wigan claim that 5th is easier than 4th valid, it just shows that play off systems weed out teams who aren't worthy of the title.

Wigan had a Week off, and faced a Leeds side which had just come back from a bruising encounter in the south of france. To be crowned champions Leeds had to beat 8th, 4th, 1st and 2nd. For Wigan to win it they would have only needed too 4th, 5th and 2nd. Realistically, how much more of an advantage do they want?

If anything would remove the integrity of the competition it would be to make the play-offs a procession, with advantages so weighted in the favour of the top team it becomes pointless playing, The main thrust of the Wigan argument is that the play-offs arent 'fair' or 'rewarding' for the teams finishing top 2, because by the time Leeds met Wigan, Leeds werent so busted up by other teams that is was a walkover for Wigan and they had to face a Leeds team who were better than them.

If Wigan cant beat a Leeds side, when they have home advantage, when Leeds were missing Danny Mcguire, when Leeds were coming off the back of a game away in france, when Wigan were coming off a week off, when Leeds had already played in the 3 more matches that year than Wigan, a WCC, a CC final, and an away play off in france, because Wigan didnt have 'enough of an advantage' then they arent a champion side.

I think that Leeds achievment makes them truly the Champions. To play every game on a win or go home scenario, and, after the Wakefield game, away from home and then to beat the overwhelming favourites, i.e. Wigan and Warrington, one on their home ground and one in the final is an amazing feat. They deserve the tag of champions.

Those who claim they coasted through the regular season sound deluded. I am sure they would have preferred to finish top and have all the home games and pick your own opponent choices that go with that. Do anyone seriously think they coasted in the regular
season so they could go to Catalans and Wigan and have an extra game against Wakefield when they could have played at Headingley and taken all the income that goes with that, bar receipts etc, plus the home field advantage. The odds of them making the final via the route that they did must have been astronomical. How can anyone think they went that route on purpose.?

Playoffs are the norm in most top sports and have been in RL for most of our history. If some team was to win our championship from 8th place, it would be an extraordinary achievment, to be lauded not disparaged. These feats are rare and will continue to be so. The vast majority of the time the winner will come from the top four if not the top two.

This season has been extraordinary in that Sheffield did the same thing as Leeds but the usual order prevailed in CC1 where Doncaster did the double.

I'm pretty sure that you'll find any forum in any subject has more negative posts than positives, for the simple reason that you're more inclined to post when you have a view about something you don't like or you want to see changed. Just like I'm sure the BBC gets more letters of complaint than it gets letters saying " that show was great ". This forum will always have more 'whinges' than it has cheerleading, but that doesn't mean the game or its fans are obsessed with running it down. I think we suffer from poor leadership, but I'd still defend the sport the Nth degree against those who'd say Union or whatever was better. In fact, the people who would claim that us whingers are the pessimists are the ones who I think are the REAL pessimists, because they have an attitude of "we're a small sport, why bother trying to be better?" when in fact we can be so much bigger and better. Nobody will ever convince me that Nigel Wood is the man to take RL close the maximum of what is realistically acheivable with great leadership.

Best way to stop all this moaning about how fair or unfair the playoff system is to scrap it . Let the team that finishes in top spot be crowned champions .
Then let's have an all included end of season knock-out tournament .
Give the champions and second placed team ( or CC winners ? ) a bye into the second week .
Every round fixtures to be drawn randomly out of a bag .
Week one . 12 teams in the bag = 6 games
Week two . 1st and 2nd ( or CC winners ? ) go in the bag with winners from week one . 8 teams = 4 games .
Week three . Winners from week two in the bag . 4 teams = 2 games
Week four is the final contested by winners from week three .

All games to be decided on the day . In the event of any games being level on 80 mins play continues ( no hooter ) until the next score .

Simples .

Now just have to decide what to call the winners of this tournament .

I think the team finishing top are the League Champions and the team winning at Old Trafford are the Grand Final winners.

The League season provides you with an opportunity to finish in the top 8 and entry into the most exclusive Cup competition in Rugby League but it should not determine who is recognised as League Champions.

I totally agree . Even as a Rhinos fan I really can't , in all honesty, agree that we have the right to be called champions after finishing in 5th (again). I will however accept the title because that is the rules .

I really don't get how anyone could be complaining about playoffs to decide the champions after watching both semi finals and the game last night. Three high intensity games with the added drama of all of the teams playing for their seasons. It's a fantastic way of ending the year. Being champions is as much about being able to hold your nerve against the best teams in season on the line rugby as it is being able to consistently beat the weaker teams.

I personally would rather go back to the old top 5 playoff system as teams would have to go all out every game, whether to make the 5 or to hold their place within the 5 in order to maximise their chances of getting to Old Trafford, but if we really have to have an 8 team playoff than it should look like this.

Week 1

qualifying playoffs
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd
elimination playoffs
5th v 8th
6th v 7th

Week 2

elimination semifinals
highest qual po loser v lowest elim po winner
lowest qual po loser v highest elim po winner

Week 3

qualifying final
highest qual po winner v lowest qual po winner
elimination final
highest elim sf winner v lowest elim sf winner

Week 4
preliminary final
loser qualifying final v winner elimination final

Grand Final
winner qualifying final v winner preliminary final

Wait, did you just try to factor in CC matches and the WCC into an argument about the title of [uSuper League[/u Champions?

That's the thing though, in the current format being Champions isn't "as much" about winning the big playoff games as it is about consistency, it's much more.


I think that's exactly the type of convoluted system we need to drop tbh. Seriously, what is wrong with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 straight knockout with home advantage always going to the highest placed side. That way the biggest advantage goes to the side finishing top, with that advantage decreasing in increments the lower down the table you finish.

Does anyone know the financial incentives involved? E.g. In Premiership football finishing a position higher can mean hundreds of thousands of pounds extra. Is there something similar in Super League? They must divvy up the Stobart money somehow.



Also don't players get paid for a win?

No, i was pointing out how pathetic it was to try and pretend Leeds had it easy and Wigan didnt have the odds stacked in their favour enough already.

But we get it, you want more of an advantage because you couldnt beat Leeds.

Why not the team finishing 1st gets 15 men on the field, 2nd gets 14 and everyone else stays with 13?
Or 1st can get an 8 point head start in every game and 2nd 6?

Like it or not, right now, and traditionally, Rugby League has found its champions as not only those able to be consistent, but those able to stand the bright lights of the heavyweight showdown, its not just being consistent enough to rack up the points , not only about keeping your motivation whilst facing the lesser lights in midseason, but about standing up when the stakes get higher and the hits get bigger, Wigan were sized up, weighed, measured and found wanting, they lost because they were the inferior team. Whatever format the play-offs take is irrelevant, if Wigan were the better side, they would have won. They werent, so they didnt, so they didnt win the competition, so they arent champions.

Its not complicated or unfair, it just doesnt fit with your narrative that Wigan are the bestests ever.

Mate, if anyone is

it's the sour graped obsessed wiganer

Your not champions, get over it !!!!

As a supporter of a club that comfortably manages to make the play offs i find the weekly rounds very dull, lacking in intensity. I'm sure the teams that are fighting to make the play offs have a much more exciting season.

This is NOT a dig a Leeds - they've played the format perfectly, turned it on in the last month and played some outstanding RL, especially in defence.

But - the current system is badly flawed. No-one can doubt the two best sides [iover the season[/i were Wigan and Warrington, yet to all intents and purposes they finish with nothing. A side that loses 11 games and scrapes into 5th place on points difference should not be labelled 'champions' of the entire 2012 competition when all they've done is win short knock-out competition. But our current format says otherwise and bafflingly, Leeds will go down as 2012 Champions.

Top 8 is too much. The theory was sound (bottom clubs fighting for a place), but what actually happens is too many teams know they'll be in the top 8 whatever happens, and after a few months, a few more teams that are comfortably in the pack. Too many meaningless games. A top 4 or 5 system means more teams fighting it out to get into the play-offs, rather than merely maintaining their position in them.

Yes, the poorest teams are left playing for nothing, but that's what happens in sports leagues, and is perhaps an argument for reintroducing relegation, or a relegation play-off against the Championship winners. Motivation at both ends of the competition.

Further, putting the league winners straight into the final is additional motivation to fight for top spot, with 3-4 teams left to fight it out in a couple of play-offs. Would Wire have rested so many against London if top spot meant an automatic trip to Old Trafford? Teams should not be offered the opportunity to put out sub-strength teams and the fact it happens is testament to the lack of intensity in the fight for league position.

Anyway, well done Leeds, you played it perfectly and got your momentum going at the right time. The spirit in the camp was plain to see.

Gary Hetherington has said something similar to this, I would love it to happen.

If Wigan had been beaten by Leeds having had a path straight through to the final we would have simply heard moaning about how the 2/3 games extra Leeds had played in the build up had left them battle hardened whilst Wigan were rusty after their rest.

Wigan could have done any of the things Leeds did, or Warrington did. They could have rested players, hell they got their hooker banned for three games by going all out in game that under any system made no difference. Thats their fault, their failing.

Might have known you'd turn it into a Wigan vs Leeds argument.

My post is talking about the flaws to the current format, and why there are too many meaningless and low-intensity games, and why I don't (and never have) believe that the winners of a short knock-out competition can be called champions of the entire season. But like I said, our current format says otherwise. If a team wins it from 1st or 2nd, or perhaps even 3rd, at least they've done it as one of the best teams throughout the competition.

Yes, of course if Wigan had lost to Leeds in the final there would be arguments for and against being rested before the final. The same argument happens every year during week 2 of the play-offs. But for me the team that wins the league has been the best over the competition and has won their place on merit.

As this article says, [url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_554-leeds-are-champions-after-a-good-month.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter"Leeds are Champions after a good month."[/url

It is ridiculous that a team with a negative win ratio can win a competition, SL play offs should be top 6 at most

Yes, Leeds are champions. They are champions because they won the competition.

Wigan arent champions even if their fans decide that they would like to claim victory by measuring victory on some other measurement than the one which is in the rules.

I think next season we should decide who wins games on the amount of metres made instead of points scored, and the league on the basis tries scored

It would be a very special set of circumstances which led to a team with no more than 22 points to qualify for the play offs.