Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Agreeing with the comment above, we all have answers to making the game better but the RFL don't listen, if they did then you'll get the NRL sticking their oar in.

The simple answer as we all know is reduce the playoffs, reward 1&2 with a semi final game for the final with the loser playing in the other semi.
Give the league leaders regardless of a GF win a place in a 4 team WCC. All that implemented and 99% of us would shut up BUT will the RFL listen to us the simple fans....

Sorry mate - You're talking crap.
















(But only because it makes so much sense to us fans that the RFL couldn't see it if it was biting Nigel Wood in the ass)

I'm not really missing the point. What this all boils down to is how do you get to the end of the season in the best 'state and form'?

Those who claim that league points don't matter so much are basically advocating that Wigan throw matches. Like it or not, that is what they are saying. You can spin it as 'rotating resources' - which all good clubs should do anyway - but if, by that, you mean playing lots of club juniors in fixtures that you earmark as easy, because you want to rest seniors, you are risking - as Shaun Wane did at Widnes last year - losing games that you would normally win. But then that doesn't matter because league fixtures are unimportant.

I can't agree.

There are other factors at play here. 'Getting on a roll' and 'losing can become a habit' are phrases we don't seem to hear very much these days, possibly because they pose a counterargument to this notion that league games are unimportant. Wigan have a very young side this year. Can we guarantee that if they lose a couple of matches it won't affect their confidence? That they won't lose a lot more matches? That they won't finish, not fourth or fifth, but out of the top eight altogether? (Please don't scoff at that notion - on paper Ian Millward's side was good enough to make the play-offs, but events conspired to send it to the bottom of the table).

It's a big assumption that Wigan failed to make Old Trafford because they tired themselves out trying to win every league fixture. What about Tommy Leuluai's injury? Was he ever the same for us again? What about Brett Finch and Jeff Lima? - as soon as they got their new deals sorted out, they were on the boat. That was three key players who were no-shows for us at the business end of the season. We also learned that both Hock and Sam Tomkins were carrying injuries.

People point to Warrington and level the same argument - high-flyers in the league but losers in the play-offs, must have been tired. And yet Wire have a long track record of choking in the play-offs. In addition, they've won the Challenge Cup three times in the last four years. We know from our own experience in 2011 that winning the Cup makes the play-offs seem a little less important.

It would be a very dangerous policy to assume that 'not trying to win certain games' - because that is what this boils down to - is the way to conserve energy for the play-offs. You might not even make the play-offs, or if you do you might be in the wrong state of mind. You might still have lost players to injury, because not trying very hard never equates to everyone staying fit and well.

We've had 3 years under the top 8 and in those 3 the team in 5th have made the semi final without earning it in the manner that a 5th placed finish should require. Go back to the top 5 or even the top 6 imo.

But thats the point. These games DO matter as the teams are jockeying for what position they will be in come the end of the qualifying rounds!

Quote ="django"But thats the point. These games DO matter as the teams are jockeying for what position they will be in come the end of the qualifying rounds!'" Looks like Leeds are deliberately saving themselves for September again it would seem. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21325250

Quote ="django"But thats the point. These games DO matter as the teams are jockeying for what position they will be in come the end of the qualifying rounds!'" Looks like Leeds are deliberately saving themselves for September again it would seem. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21325250

Quote ="MattyB"Looks like Leeds are deliberately saving themselves for September again it would seem. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21325250'" Don't be daft. We were beaten by a fired up local rival. How dull it would be if the matches were a forgone conclusion!

Quote ="MattyB"Looks like Leeds are deliberately saving themselves for September again it would seem. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21325250'" Don't be daft. We were beaten by a fired up local rival. How dull it would be if the matches were a forgone conclusion!

Its all part of their plan to finish 5th again!

Bored of this argument now.

The fact this keeps getting brought up shows the problem. Did pre-playoffs we had these same debates in pubs and clubs?

There is an argument for the above. I disagree, but it's completely unrelated to the point I quoted.




You are making a connection between league position and progress to the GF. Given I and others have argued that league position is less and less relevant, the point you are making is redundant.

Well it's always difficult to know what your particular issues are.

But my post dealt with the main argument, I feel.

And you can't make a judgement on the importance of this game before the near end of the season. Here's to the point being of potential significance rather than your view that it doesn't matter one bit.

I'm looking forward to supporting the team and wanting to win rather than your apparent view that it just doesn't matter.

Are you really saying that? If so, then you effectively arguing that whether you play at home or away, makes little difference!

"Less and less" is a comparative - it is much less important under the current system than it was previously.

Given a choice of dominating all season, the wheels coming off with a month to go and limping into the playoffs in top spot, or hitting some form with a month to go and making 8th, then there is only one serious winner.


The point I and others are making is that under alternative systems, say for example the top 5, there is much more reward to the teams that finish higher up the league.

The play off system as it is doesnt suit wigan because our away form is better than our home form. Last season we beat saints, catalan and leeds away but lost to them at home, thus it is pointless us finishing top (unless you factor in the week off you get and the clubcall which havent helped us in previous years). Making the DW a fortress should be a top priority and would certainly help us in the playoffs.

So, if you are talking comparatively, you accept then that the final position is still relevant. And if the final position is still relevant, why wouldn't you try throughout the year to end up in the best position possible?

As for the size of the playoffs, I would rather we stuck with the top 8 as it gives more clubs something to play for towards the business end of the season. If those team "aren't good enough" then don't worry, they'll get beaten. However, by being involved they will gain experience and in ten years time, who knows, perhaps we'll have a competition good enough for the team that finishes 8th to win it.

If you're going to stick with a top 8, at least make it fair (particularly to those who finished 3rd and 4th).

Play the 1v8, 2v7. 3v6, etc. system, instead of making 3rd and 4th go away to the 2 best teams, while 5th get a much easier tie at home to 8th.

I can't stand the play-off system, but if we truly MUST have 1, then my vote would be for the old top 5 or 6, as it rewarded 1st (or 1st + 2nd) far more highly than this cock-eyed mess that we currently have, does.

My playoff would be 1st straight through to GF
2nd play 5th
3rd play 4th
on a straight knock out basis winners of the above matches play each other to determine who plays in the GF .

The disadvantage (From the clubs point of view) with your top 8 is that there are less rounds played.

With the current set up, although 3rd & 4th must play the top 2 teams they are rewarded by receiving a second chance, "a much easier tie at home".

the problem with the current system is 1st and 2nd get no 2nd chance if they win in week 1 where as 3rd and 4th get a 2nd chance for losing..

That is statistically not the case. For one thing your sample is too small to draw any conclusions based on what has actually happened. We just have not had this format in operation long enough to decide. You can though do some statistics that compete the chances of winning it from whatever position a team finishes in.

Statistically if all teams are considered equally capable of winning it then 1st and 2nd have an equal chance of winning it under this system which is wrong in itself (club call makes no difference to the stats).

They are both slightly more likely to win it than 3 or 4 and a bit more likely still to win it then the other sides.

However the point is, statistically, there is virtually nothing in it and the current play off is almost identical to a knock-out competition meaning there is very little reward for finishing top in terms of how much advantage you get by doing so. The old top 5 system meant the 1st placed side had a 37.5% chance of winning it. It drops to 18.75% with the old Ausie top 8 system (still better than ours) so IMO that is just not enough of an advantage for finishing top.

The best way would be a top 3 play-off system. 1st goes straight to the final and has a week off. 2nd & 3rd play-off in a semi-final to decide who joins then. That gives 1st a 50% chance of winning the competition.

Thats a fair point. But at least the highest placed winner gets to choose who to play!

Now I'm confused, you start your post with a statement that there's not enough of a sample to be of statistical significance and then go on to make some statements about the statistics seemingly based on an assumption that all teams are equal and so the club call means nothing. And describe that 3th/4th have the same chance to win, however without the weight of capability (8th not as capable as 1st for example) your analyses is pointless. Maybe some kind of weighting based on the league points would help?

I would argue that the sample, while low does have significance. Indeed we can clearly see that over the entire of the GF formats it's only the last two years that 5th even gets into a final.