And, you never see two NRL teams break the 40 point mark in the first round of the play offs.

Maybe so, but doesn't matter whether it's top six or top eight. Doesn't prevent those results from happening, which is what people are actually whinging about.

Personally, I am just pleased to witness a side as good in defence and attack as Warrington and the challenge is for every side to aspire to be like them. They are the benchmark of rugby league at the moment in most aspects, whether it be off-field and business or onfield.

Even Huddersfield on an off day are a threat - they do have many dangerous players so I think to beat a side as comprehensive as that shows how special Warrington are.

We are not the NRL and we never will be because it's two leagues, in two different countries, in two different sets of circumstances.

We should want to make the English league as good as possible and not aim to be 'like' the NRL.

Like New Zealand Warriors, losing by 40 points to 10 against Brisbane, then going onto to beat Wests in the final three minutes of a very tense match. What a carry on!

Even Eddie and Phil Clarkey said it's crap up to now (paraphrasing here).

I think there should be two play-offs. Top six and then the bottom bunch play off for one wild-card place against a losing team in the top six. Not sure of the mechanics of it (had a few glasses of wine) but at least it will keep the weak ones in competition a bit longer and produce more even matches.

And in the old system, Hudds wouldn't have played Wire - they'd have played 5th - Leeds.

In the NRL play-offs two of the four games in the first weekend were 40+ blowouts. The results of the two matches this weekend were 13-12 and 20-22.

I agree, that's why I was being sarcastic.

I'm not particulally bothered if that happened in Australia or not. I still feel if you lose from a position from outside the top 2 you should be out. I'm not suggestion Huddersfield will definitely lose the next game or whatever, just stating the way I think it should be. Easy mush.

cant be that e if your chairman want into super league

Super League lacks credibility as a 'competition' due to lack of 'competitiveness'. There aren't enough players of requisite quality to sustain a meaningful 14-team league never mind an 8-team play-off system.

The current play-off system is an intentionally structured attempt to manufacture closely contested games in order to provide an illusion of competitiveness, hence why the 5th to 8th placed teams are kept well apart from the Top 4 teams. However, this still hasn't prevented lopsided scorelines of 47-0 and 56-6 which are quite frankly an embarrassment to the sport.

Any meaningful comparison with NRL play-off results would need to take into account the key structural differences between the two. The NRL is competitive enough to cope with an 8-team play off system where 1st plays 8th, 2nd plays 7th, 3rd plays 6th and 4th plays 5th. I wonder what scorelines we'd get in Super League if the same play-off system was applied? It doesn't bear thinking about

I have to confess I am bemused, after all these years of a salary cap surely the comp should be more even by now? Now the cynics may suggestthat some teams salary cap is somewhat more flexible than others but surely not to the extent where we see such a gap in quality difference between teams who are all paying the same amount of salary. There seems to be a lot less movement of players in SL than in NRL and I wonder why that is? In NRL if you are youngat a top team, become a talented player than a lesser team more often than not will come in and offer them more money and they move. This doesn't seem to happen in SL?

For me the min criteria should be that you have to be able to afford to pay full salary cap. Can't afford it? Get out.

For me it's a joke that it became 8 in the first place. POTENTIALLY a team that finishes below mid-table, and loses more games than it wins could called champions. The play-offs should be for the best teams. Ateam that loses more than it wins does not deserve to be in that catergory. Top 6 was fine, but the RFL had to tinker with it. As Phil Clarke as also said many times, in two weeks time we could get the embarrssing situation of Saints v.s Wigan & Hudds v.s Warrington.

Makes sense but on a practical implementation level I can't see why ANY individual club would vote for it - those that can't afford it wouldn't, and those that can afford it would probably rather the porpers remained uncompetitive



The democracy of Super League needs a new dictator to come in and sort it out - all those fans bemoaning Lewis and Wood about licencing etc are clueless, they're just implementing what the SL clubs have voted on - some power needs to be wrenched from their grasp.

Yeah, i agree MjM super leagtue needs some form of evil dictator, which culls all the rubbish clubs.

Maybe send them into their own 'concentration' league or just kill them off altogether.

There needs to be a playoff format that rewards where you finish and also its knockout every game.

Just lose one team go to 7 so you qualify with a top half finish.

1st Straight to week 2

Week 1

2nd v 7th
3rd v 6th
4th v 5th

Week 2

1st at home v clubcall
Highest placed winner plays other qualifier

Winners to Grand final

Week 3 final

No dead rubbers No repeat games One week less for the season and finishing hiher gets you an advantage.

I would also make the bottom 2 play a wooden spoon fixture and make that part of the SL franchise process.

Like that play-off structure, wouldn't say the wooden spoon match is a great a idea- would fans go to watch their dissappointments? should finishing bottom and next bottom have a financial benefit? How could it be woven into the franchise system?

There def needs to be a change. 8 teams is too many.

The Salary cap is pointless if there isnt a minimum spend required. Too many clubs clearly dont get anywhere near the cap.

Their greatest ability is getting away with salary cap jiggery-pokery.

Throw money at a club and pack the team with marquee signings and, if it's competing against teams who are handicapped by actually working inside the cap, then they're bound to do well.

I watched a recording of Brisbane - St George this evening. What a fantastic game of rugby league. As for some of the super league offerings, well they were far from super.

Hull were terrible this afternoon. Some of their play was void of the basic rugby skills. The lack of quality passing from a couple of their players was an embarrassment.

Hmm, and yet no one has actually offered substantial, concrete evidence to suggest such a thing rather than making comments on here.

If they can get players to sign for them on lower wages to build a strong squad capable of winning silverware then I say they have to be praised.

That was a great game. The Dragons defence was unbelievable.

Yeeeees, that sounds feasible......

The play-offs as they stand are baffling. What do in all honesty the winners from the Top 4 gain from winning this weekend, apart from a week off? In theory, Huddersfield and Wigan could win next week, and we'll end up with EXACTLY THE SAME FIXTURES - and we're essentially as we were from the beginning!

Compare this to the Top 5/6 play off of recent years, and the reward for the Top 2 in the first week - a place in the grand final. No wonder intensity has dropped.

nb: the club call is hardly a reward, is it?

The top 6 was a farce.
I suggested the top 7 system mooted above 2 years ago and if you're not going 1v8, 2v7 etc then its the way to go. Originally I liked the AFL system that we're using now but I think you're more handicapped for finishing 4th than 5th