Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:28 pm  

Cronus wrote:

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 over the season 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.

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.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: 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, "Leeds are Champions after a good month."

SmokeyTA wrote: 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, "Leeds are Champions after a good month."

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:42 pm  

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

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:46 pm  

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

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:49 pm  

Starbug wrote:

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

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.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:54 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

Ah, I see what's happened here. You've confused me for someone who didn't say "I'm not saying Leeds had it easy", and whose argument is that Wigan should have won it rather than that the playoff system is flawed in some of its fixtures, and then, in your haste to have a pop, you've gone and made a tit of yourself. Never mind, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll be able to find someone with views that do actually facilitate your counter-argument.

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.

Ignoring your puerile attempt at baiting, since if we're honest it's pathetic, the problem I have with your assessment is here: "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." Leeds weren't consistent. That isn't to say that a team who suffers some inconsistency should be barred from becoming champions, or only the teams who finish 1st or 2nd should ever win, but if you are that inconsistent the title should be extremely difficult to achieve, hence my suggestion of 1v8 and so on. Quite simply, the playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:01 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

Yes, they are. They won the title according to the current format, by winning four games at the end of a very average league campaign by their standards.

Now, if you can look past the fact it's Leeds, and stop banging on about Wigan, perhaps we could have a sensible discussion and look at why the current format is producing so many meaningless games, and why having a team be crowned "Champions" from 5th position is a little ridiculous.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:02 pm  

I will pick and choose my games this season as I did this season. The only ones that have any intensity is when we play Wigan or Saints.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:05 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Ah, I see what's happened here. You've confused me for someone who didn't say "I'm not saying Leeds had it easy", and whose argument is that Wigan should have won it rather than that the playoff system is flawed in some of its fixtures, and then, in your haste to have a pop, you've gone and made a tit of yourself. Never mind, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll be able to find someone with views that do actually facilitate your counter-argument.
Ignoring your puerile attempt at baiting, since if we're honest it's pathetic, the problem I have with your assessment is here: "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." Leeds weren't consistent. That isn't to say that a team who suffers some inconsistency should be barred from becoming champions, or only the teams who finish 1st or 2nd should ever win, but if you are that inconsistent the title should be extremely difficult to achieve, hence my suggestion of 1v8 and so on. Quite simply, the playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that.

You contradict yourself within two paragraphs. You seem to want to avoid saying you think Leeds had it easy (because you know how stupid that argument is) but then you go on to make that same argument by just phrasing it as the playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that. Its the same argument.

Your whole complaint and argument is predicated on the assumption that had Wigan faced Leeds at some other point in the play-offs they would have been more likely to win. Your whole argument that championship lacks credibility is because you believe that when Wigan faced Leeds, after Leeds had played 35 games, after Leeds had just played an extra game in the south of france and Wigan had a week off, at Wigans home ground, Wigan didnt quite have the advantage they needed and Leeds werent quite 'beat up' by previous games enough.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:10 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Yes, they are. They won the title according to the current format, by winning four games at the end of a very average league campaign by their standards.

Now, if you can look past the fact it's Leeds, and stop banging on about Wigan, perhaps we could have a sensible discussion and look at why the current format is producing so many meaningless games, and why having a team be crowned "Champions" from 5th position is a little ridiculous.

Your premise is flawed, we dont have that many meaningless games. Had we crowned the champions from the league season it would have been won in front of 9k on a sunday afternoon in Hull. We would have then been left with an entire round of meaningless games, for everyone. Most teams would have been playing meaningless games from August, and some from June. The playoffs protect us from meaningless games.

The team who are champions didnt finish 5th, they qualified 5th and finished champions.