We had that hymn at my dads funeral back in 1991, always makes me very emotional when I hear it, I'll probably have a few tears in the old eyes on the 24th (and I'm not ashamed to admit it), just another piece of tradition that makes me cherish the Cup Final.

--good post--bout sums it up for me as well! i did not like the whole occasion at last years grand final,not because we got beat, it just did not have the *wembley factor* and the atmosphere was less friendly than the atmosphere you get at wembley.

Sorry mate, but that's garbage.

For a comparison, let's look at Manchester Utd *spit* from last season.

They were crowned champions, having lost only 5 games, but those 5 include Spurs, City and Chelsea at home.

They also lost to Chelsea in both the League- and FA-Cups.

Therefore, they played the 5 teams who finished below them 12 times.
7 wins
5 losses

Does that mean that they should not be crowned champions, and should insted have been forced to play the 11 teams below them to "prove" that they deserved it?
(I'm equating 8 of 14 in SL to 12 of 20 in EPL).

Top of the league should be crowned CHAMPIONS, after a straightforward 1 home, 1 away, against every other team in the league.

And if we'd held out for 2 more mins against leeds (A Big if) and beat Wolfs making it 1 from 3 would that make us a Champion team?

If we'd have lost EVERY game against the other top 5 that season - But won 3 games in the Play offs (Maybe down to other teams injuries/suspensions etc. etc) would that make us a champion team.

Unfortunately comparing any system based on results from a year when a different system was used is flawed.

Well it's not [igarbage[/i is it? It's just a different opinion to yours, I'll wager that there are plenty who share it or there would be no such thing as play offs. As fans, many of us like our champion team to be able to beat the best teams in knockout games.

If there were no play offs, as there aren't in the premiership, then obviously the team that finishes top are the champions, because every single team goes out there with that singular goal and tailors their approach to match.

Quick question, in a league game in June '12, we ran with a depleted team and still stuck 50 points past Leeds, then a month later we had a full strength side and they still knocked us out of the Challenge Cup. If Leeds had to finish top to be crowned champions, do you think we would have seen the same results? Or do you think that perhaps Leeds didn't finish 5th because they were the 5th best team, but because they tailored their approach so they were fresh come the business end of the season? If you accept the premise that the top teams aren't going all out to finish top, it's very hard for the team to finish top to call themselves champions.

If we had lost every game against the top 5 then we would have finished 6th. I don't think there should be more than 5 teams in the play offs so no, I wouldn't call us champions. Having said that, we would likely have had to beat Huddersfield, St Helens, Warrington and Leeds in four consecutive weeks in the play offs, which would be a hell of a feat.

That's why the league seems so boring these days cos half the teams don't give a damn until September. A complete waste of everyone's money.

Yep. Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Les Catalans, Huddersfield and St Helens know they'll almost certainly make the 8; Hull FC, Hull KR, Bradford and Wakefield will fight it out to get in there, then get knocked out in the first week of the play offs; Castleford, Widnes, Salford and London will be whipping boys. Almost exactly the same story every year.

If we had a top 5 system with a 12 (if Toulouse come in and Cas, Widnes and London exit) team league there wouldn't be that same security amongst the top teams IMO, and the standard of the average game would be higher with us not having to sit through the regular hammerings of London, Widnes and Castleford. We could probably raise the cap a bit too with us not having to worry about it being too high for the poorest teams, who would be playing in the Championship anyway. There is the argument that Bradford, Hull KR, Toulouse and Wakefield would get beat most weeks with little chance of making the 5 (I've excluded Hull FC and Salford from that as they're both sleeping giants IMO given Hull's recent boost and Salford's newly acquired wealth), but there's always going to be winners and losers in sport, it's up to them to seize the opportunities in front of them.

The CC lost what ever magic it had left about a decade ago. I'd go so far as to say i'd rather lift the Hub Cap than the CC. At least the hub cap can't be won on an easy draw or a fluke.

I'm sorry but there's only on trophy that's worth any sort of recognition and it's won at Old Trafford in October.

Agree for exactly the same reason as you twoseven

That could happen in the playoffs too though. Take Leeds in 2011. Two easy ties, a big win and then a final that they were out of until an injury (fluke?). In 2012 they did it tough just as we did with the cup in 2011 and Hull will if they beat us.

The toughest one to win is the lls without doubt but thanks to sky means the least. The problem with the cup is that the lower teams have little or no chance of causing an upset so most ties are a joke. That doesn't take away the magic of Wembley though.

As I said, the cup is my personal favourite but the toughest to earn is the shield.

I don't think you can say any play-off run to the GF is either easy or a fluke. Your always guaranteed to play top sides in the play-offs and you normally find the matches are high intensity as well.

How can you say Leed's 2011 run was easy - Hudds & Wire away followed by Saints in the final! Hardly the same as playing potential championship sides or London in the semi's like you can get with the cup.

I have to hold my hands up and don't see the magic about Wembley as well.

GF, has to be ... Occasion wise the CC still has it's magic. Hub cap is minor but we all know that anyway

They played a poor Hull side. A Hudds side that at that time would struggle to beat St Pats. Toughed it out against Wire I agree and then got past Saints because of a freak set of circumstances. If Saints don't lose the players they lost then Saints win the game.

Not to mention of course you can lose a game and still win the playoffs (always fun explaining that one) and we have a first round that means nothing. Look at the scores from last year and the year before and tell me they're high intensity games. Off the top of my head there's a 47-0, 40-0 and a 30+ hammering. Maybe the rugby union top 4 idea is best?

The playoffs are the big thing at the minute I agree but they're far from the prestige they should be.

The hub cap is like the Europa League.

If you're in the Champions League you see the Europa League as a bit of a mickey mouse and don't want to really think much about it. But then if you get knocked out, you have to look forward to the rest of the season and so you may as well target it.

I'm not sure why it would surprise Wigan fans that the hub cap is more of a priority to Warrington than it was last week. If Wigan had lost the semi thats how you would be viewing it too.

Also, after the final, win or lose, the hub cap will move up your priorities list too....

I will say it one more time the team that win the hubcap are the most consistent side the team that win the Grand Final are a champion side

Grand Final by an absolute mile.

Tackling your nonsense one step at a time...

Two easy ties? Just because we won convincingly doesn't make the ties easy.

A final we weren't in until an injury? Did you watch that game? It was a final Saints wouldn't have hada hope in hell in if they hadn't been wrongly awarded two tries, and the last time I checked being ahead after 60 minutes had never won a trophy.

You talk abouta fluke and then mentiona cup final you were second best in for all but 20 minutes as an example of doing it tough? No fluke there I take it?

Finally the LLS is not the hardest to win, because it's not the trophy any team sets out to win. If it was the be all and end all you can guarantee you'd see Leeds on there more often.

Other than that yeah.

It would be interesting to see a season where to win the Championship you had to finish top. Just to see if the intensity would go up a level week on week. I think it would do, and IMO the playoffs are the reason regular season games don't seem as good as they used to.

Ok then. Two convincing wins against a poor Hull side and a Hudds side that would struggle to beat St Pats.

Yes I watched the game and I saw how Saints were in control until their back line was decimated and you took control to win it.

What was flukey about a game in which you were never ahead?

Winning GF is brilliant when you also (win) finish top of the league. 2010 was incredible! Finishing 5th isn't credible enough for me, GF or no GF. CC is just great if your in the final, otherwise it's sadly sidelined. Obviously holds a special place for Wigan though! I for one felt the magic when the final hooter went in the semi. She wore, she wore...

You had a brief spell where you almost got back into the game, that's literally it

The intensity would lift initially, but once a team knows they're out of the running, which would happen to some before halfway through the season, where's their motivation? I'd be releasing the guys who we weren't keeping for next season early and giving the fringe players lots of game time. That doesn't exactly make for a high intensity game

Maybe if 2 were relegated and there was money at stake dependant on league positions?

Then we're back into the problem of yo-yo clubs. Might not be as much of an issue in Championship I suppose. Having said that, it still wouldn't fix it. There will be plenty of clubs that know fairly early they won't get relegated and won't finish top.