You are 100% Wrong.

Do you honestly think that last year we would have been able to win the grand final via the route that Leeds had to take? I really don't think any other club in SL has the strength to have done that two years on the run. That is why they are Champions.

It goes back to what I said in February about the World Club Challenge. I don't think that any other club in SL could have run Melbourne as close as Leeds did that night. Similarly there is no other club that could get to three successive Cup Finals (the monkey on the back there is a strange one) and five of the last six League finals. That takes some doing, and it is not very often a true Champion side like that comes along in any sport. We are nowhere near that level, however that is no reason to throw the proverbial dummy out of the pram.

The players want to win as much silverware as they can in their short careers, and that includes the shield. We all saw their celebrations at the KC and Halliwell Jones in September 2011. For me the only people devaluing it are the fans who insist on saying it is worthless.

Scratched record and all that I know, but how anyone can think that a top eight helps the excitement of the league is beyond me!!!

No matter what sport you are talking about, if you have a league system, at some point in the season, some teams will have very little to play for.
If you don't have relegation, then the amount of teams with nothing to play for increases.

The answer is not to increase the amount of playoff places though.

What has happened to Super League since we went to 8 playoff spots?
The middle of the road teams are now where all the focus and excitement is at come the end of the season.
Everyone scrambling for them last couple of playoff places.

This would work well, if there was also an incentive for the top for 4 or 5 to be battling for top spot, but they are not, because finishing top of the league has been reduced to nothing but a token gesture.

There is no way that any sport can get away with having a league that lasts several months and there be no reward at the end of that time for finishing above everyone else!!!
The RFL obviously think they are the exception, but they are now starting to see the result of this, and that is fans are starting to question what the point is with the regular season.

The format should be very simple.
Top team wins the league and a big deal is made of that, and then the top 4 go to the playoffs to compete for the ultimate trophy.
It is harsh and seemingly unfair on the other teams in the league, but this way it gives them something they need to strive for. They have to improve because they need to be a top four team. If everyone is trying to be a top four team, it can only lead to improvement.

Also, the excitment is then focused on getting into the top four, so now the focus switches from the middle tier teams to the top teams, and the exciting matches are now the big teams which is what the sport needs.

I know it is difficult and harsh at the moment due to the fact that there is not enough money in the sport and not enough talent for clubs to compete with the top four, but this is sport and it is supposed to be survival of the fittest. Teams need to know that they have to be the best to be in contention and if the talent is not there, then there needs to be incentive to go and find it.
The answer is not to say "the talent is not there so lets allow over 50% of the league to make the playoffs", because when you say that, the mid tier teams have nothing to strive for.

It might mean that for a few years, it is the same 4 or 5 teams winning everything, but isn't that the way it is now?
If you don't give the clubs an incentive to improve and grow, then they never will.

I wonder if people said this when Dewsbury won from 8th under the old system in 1972/3? I really don't understand why people seem to think that play off football is something new or unique to Super League.

Try telling Fergie Man U won't be champions in a few weeks time and that Everton could yet become champions...the hairdryer would be in meltdown.

I think this is people's main problem, we are used to soccer. Before the grand final I was talking to some lads from Canberra in the pub about how some people had a problem with Leeds winning the year before. They couldn't get their heads round how anyone could have a problem with it because play off systems are the norm down under.

The NRL gets better crowds because it's the most popular sport in NSW and Qld. The games are closer because they have more quality players per team because they are the most popular sport and don't lose many players to soccer, union, aussie rules.

We compare ourselves to them but the only thing we have in common is the game we play on the field (and even then the rules are different in some cases!)

It's common that people lose interest when they get to a certain age (distractions of family etc) or when the games they see are often a foregone conclusion. It happened at the Bulls. Our gates flat lined at the peak of our success. It's the price of success.

I don't think there are enough quality RL games to gaurantee close matches every week unless you cut the competition to about 6 teams. Alternatively you can spend heaps of money developing and spreading the game which will in the end produce more talent and raise standards but nobody's got any money to do this and it would take decades to bear fruit.

It's slightly different at Bradford this time as we had a brush with oblivion. The team is on the up and the fans are enjoying themselves. Crowds are down slightly but that's due to the price of season tickets doubling rather than disillusionment. Each game is a "possible win" and no game is a foregone conclusion. When you're at the top like Wire you don't have that.

There are some things that bug me like the lack of biff and and the blow out scores. But would we really want to go back to a 5m PTB to keep teams closer on the scoreboard and headhunting like in the 80s?

I think this pretty much sums up the problem perfectly. As for fixing the problem, not sure a straightforward league campaign would help or that, as a sport, we're strong enough to run it that way any way. Like it or not, the GF makes the sport a fair bit of money (if not the clubs) walk away from that at your peril.

As for the "team finishing top is Champions" and the comparison with Manchester United, well, as pointed out, that's patently wrong. We do have a playoff system. Until we don't, then the team finishing top isn't Champs. I cannot for the life of me understand why people keep banging on about this. Oh actually, yes I can, it's because we finished top and didn't win the Grand Final. If we'd have beaten Leeds at OT, there wouldn't have been a single person on here declaring Wigan as worthy champions.

On the subject of Man United, a mate of mine went to watch them play Reading (I think) the other week and he was bored off his rocker. FPTP isn't the answer.

Sorry Ganson's that's gibberish, he might just have been bored because the game wasn't exciting rather than because of the system under which it was played, it does happen

And likewise people were bored on Monday because it was cold and we played a poor side with no away support, not because we have a play off system? That is what I am getting at. Even in the super dooper NRL there are a lot of mind numbingly boring games.

lets not forgot, since the start of the premier league, with the exception of about 5 seasons, most people have been complaining about it being a one team league, with man u dominating with massive leads on the top of the table, its only in recent years with city's and chelsea's financial boosting it's become slightly different,

....and there were loads of boring RL games before the play off system too when the top team were miles in front and the relegation places were settled. The games for everyone else were dullsville.

The solution to this problem was to have the Challenge Cup, Regal Trophy, County Cups and Premiership Play Offs to introduce a bit of interest. It gave teams something else to play for. It worked to some extent but was ruined a bit by Wigan often winning the lot. It might have been different had we had the salary cap back then.

Trouble with that is that extra games = less intense poorer quality games and player burnout. Mind you players will never stop moaning about burnout IMO.

The response by the Premier League was to say to the other contenders currently about 6 other teams, hey roll your socks up improve your game and catch up. What it didn't say was let's make it 'fairer' give everyone a chance and after 38 games we will have another round of games, a knockout between the top 8 and BTW West Brom are currently 8th 33 points behind United just to make it interesting

Dead right. I've lived down here for over 2 years. My mates down here have never once hinted at wire been the real champs in 2012. Even football has play off's in Aus. People attitudes in the uk are totally influenced by football. But don't kid yourselves, a lot of wire fans moaning is sour grapes. If wire won it from 2nd to 8th there wouldn't be a bleet. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with some but it's true.

To be fair under either system the London game on Monday would have been 'so'. I'm not saying that FPTP is a panacea for all our games ills, but I think that it is a fairer system, something to be built on, properly rewarded with inclusion to other competitions and fully recognised as a real achievement instaed of almost being mocked hub cap this and minor prem that

I suppose it must be 100% true because you've said it?

Lots of different takes on the set-up in this thread. As one of the earlier contributors, it's been interesting to see the thread move from this specific game to the more general state of Super League. I think we are in danger of talking ourselves into a poor competition here. I tend to agree with those who say that there will always be games which are less interesting and that if we go for a Play Off system (which I support), then those almost guaranteed a high finish will get more "meaningless" games. I don't see them as meaningless though; I see our coach managing the squad over 27 rounds to ensure we have the best possible chance of winning the Challenge Cup and the Grand Final. Coming top of the league ladder is good, but nothing like winning the other two. I quite like the format (not really worried whether it's 8, 7, 6 or 5 teams as each will have problems) as it allows some mid-table excitement before the real deal starts in the last round of play off matches. And if one year, a Salford or a Wakefield gets lucky and wins it from 8th, well so be it. Them's the rules.

BUT Monday was an awful game.

I think alot of the answer to this is to manage your expectations. Some people seem to be expecting every match to be as thrilling and atmospheric as a Cup Semi or a Cup or Grand Final. Reality is most games are not - they never have been nor will they ever be, regardless of what format you are playing under or how good the opposition are.

I enjoy watching RL whatever the standard, however meaningful the game, however noisy the crowd. Sometimes that enjoyment is just an appreciation of the play, other times it provides a real buzz and excitement. Many people enjoy watching the kids games at halftime and there is always a bit of a thrill if one of them scores a brilliant try - but there is no need to understand what the game means to enjoy that!

That's not to say we don't need some changes, far from it. I think we urgently need to look at the following:
- Reduction of top 8 to maybe 5 or 6;
- Introduction of u23s side (allowing 3 overage players per game) for every SL club;
- Return of Promotion and Relegation through the leagues;
- Increase central funding for Championship to reduce the gap to SL;
- Something to replace the unsustainable and not completely fit for purpose Exiles concept.

I'm a big believer in not fixing things if they aint broke whilst ignoring the real issues. For me the above are the current urgent issues, we shoudn't be worrying too much about other things.

Football is completely different because in the top division you have Champions League and Europa Leage places to play for, as well as three relegation spots to avoid at the other end.

In the lower divisions play offs were introduced for the same reason we have them in RL - to increase the number of teams with something to play for and stop crowds trailing off as much as possible.

If there was no European football the Premier League would now be completely irrelevant for every team other than Man United and the handful who are looking over their shoulders. Even with all those extras to play for though there are still plenty of meaningless games. They happen in every league, but in a smaller sport like RL a first past the post Championship system will significantly increase them, as well as decreasing play off generated TV revenue dramatically.

People always say "Make top champions then have a play off system for a second trophy like the old Premiership". Well I can't be bothered digging them out now, but it's been posted here before that when Wire were last in the Premiership final there was about 10,000 people there. At Old Trafford last October there was over 70,000. What does that tell you about the value of the two tournaments?

Rugby League is not big enough to sustain first past the post, which is why in the history of the game it has been play offs more times than not. As said above, it is only an issue here because it is automatically compared to football, but what works in one sport doesn't automatically work in another. The majority of sports do use play offs to decide their champions.

That's 100% the response I thought sours grapes would serve up.

I can say with 100% saftey is that: "If you win the weekly rounds then without doubt you are the champions" is 100% wrong. Fact.

This thread has deviated somewhat from the original post (probably my fault in part!) but there are some really interesting opinions. Keep it up!

All I can add is that if Monday's game was the first time Wires71 has EVER been bored watching Warrington, he should count himself pretty lucky.

Oh and the last time Warrington were in the Premiership Final, the attendance was nigh on 40000.

87 Prem final vs Wigan? I was bored watching that game......