Yep you're right



Not saying Keinhorst won't be side lined again when Watkins back, but he'll come on a lot better given odd runs in the team 3/4/5 games not an odd game here and odd game there, does no-one any good.

Anyway each to their own Gotcha.

Agreed, and I think this makes sense with all the younger / new players that come into a team, the best situation is that they get 3/4 games at once rather than the odd one here and there. Take Sutcliffe for example.....very poor versus Widness on the defence, enough to warrant being dropped if others were fit but he bonuced back v Giants and picked up a couple of tries, defence looked better, obviously highlighted and worked on in training. Dropping back to U19s he wouldn't have had the same need to focus on it

While I would like us to finish as high as possible I can certainly see the logic of finishing 5th over 4th.
In 5th there is a opportunity to build and improve gradually to win, where finishing 4th and losing the first game you go into a must win game with no momentum. Starting off against lesser teams you can gradually build the momentum

Ah the expected moment tvoc tries to gain the upper hand in a debate by unrealistically asking me or someone else to trawl through loads of threads to find quotes. So are you trying to say nobody in the last 2 years have said getting a comfortable home game is the way to start your playoff run? Because you pretty much say it yourself below.


Joint lowest, 7th has the same record.



Some people will come and point out the results of one team.....thats because it massively changes the results, as a guy who likes stats I'm surprised as your desire to downplay them......why could that be hmmmmm!

Just for balance of course

1st Place
LEEDS P3 W3 L0 = 100%
OTHERS P7 W4 L3 = 57% (all 3 defeats against Leeds)

4th Place
LEEDS P2 W1 L1 = 50%
OTHERS P6 W0 L6 = 0% (3 of the defeats against Leeds)

5th Place
LEEDS P8 W8 L0 = 100% (3 wins against teams placed in the top 2)
OTHERS P4 W2 L2 = 50% (1 win against 3rd and against 8th, also the two placing responsible for the defeats)

Total
LEEDS P13 W12 L1 = 92% (7 of those victories against teams placed an average of 2.7 positions above them)
OTHERS P17 W6 L11 = 35% (7 of those defeats against teams placed an average of 2.8 lower than them)

It's still the format though honest!!!

Leeds don't need momentum.

Look at 2008. Totally thrashed away at saints, then a week later a must win game against a team on a winning run.

That's not just optimistic it's bordering on delusional. We'd be on course for second if we hadn't blown the saints home and wigan MM game. 2 games where a couple of uncharacteristic brain farts have cost us. Still, it just means we'll once again go into the playoffs as underdogs, in 4th or 5th position. Despite the last couple of seasons we'll still be written off on the basis that we can't do it from that type of position every year. Which is true, and I don't really fancy it from either position this year, but we've shown during the season we can match all the other main challengers which we failed to do in previous years. It's still a long way away so it's probably pointless discussing potential scenarios now, as tempting as it is, but if we can get most of our players fit for the playoffs we'll be in with a good shout.

Leeds also finished 4th in 2010, creating another unique record in your dataset by being the only 4th placed team to win away at the LLS winners.

Nobody else has done that. Nobody else has even reached the final from lower than 3rd.

The key common factor is Leeds, not final league positions IMO.

So I take it that's a 'NO' then is it? You imply people say things that they probably don't but when it comes down to it you have no names for these posters.



No, as I've clearly and consistently said throughout this thread and previously whenever we have this discussion but the context is always quite specific as it relates to whether I'd rather start out from =#0000FF5th than 4th. I'd actually rather start the Play-Offs from 1st or 2nd but that's not the issue here despite trying to imply that it is.

If you and others would rather start from 4th than 5th that's fine but it's not a view I share.

I was referring to the general sentiment you regularly express in these discussions (not necessarily the more subtle words you've chosen to go with this time) when you expand on someone's actual comments that simply states that starting the play-offs in 5th is preferable to starting in 4th and because of that, in their opinion, the current play-off format is flawed. You then attempt to turn that into 'some non-specified poster thinks it's better to start in 5th than 1st or 2nd' which I don't believe I've ever said and I don't believe I've ever seen anyone else say it either.

If you think you've seen such comments then instead of the broad brush approach gleefully misrepresenting the above opinion then you should name and shame the posters involved so that we can all have a good laugh at their expense - if they exist.




The team finishing 7th has 1 win from 5 games therefore a 20% win record compared to the teams finishing 4th who, as already stated, have a 1 win from 8 games - 13% win record.



Sorry but I see no reason to exclude =#0000FFany results from the sample.

__________



Excluding Leeds from the dataset (which I have no inclination to do anymore than I would exclude any other team's results) would leave the teams finishing 4th with no wins from seven attempts while on the same basis the teams finishing 5th would have had two wins from four but as I've said that's not something I would do and the results are not what forms the basis of my opinion - as expressed over the last few pages of discussion.

Leeds have played a significant role in exposing the flaw where the week one top four losers have to lift themselves both physically and mentally to face the 5th to 8th placed winners in week two as they arrive carrying the momentum from their week one wins.

If it's the case that the regular round campaign is rendered almost irrelevant (bar the teams vying for 8th spot) then that also is an issue and one it appears the game is currently grappling with as overall quality, intensity and attendances are in decline as team owners, coaches and fans realise the regular rounds can be sacrificed on the way to attaining the end goal.

Look at the week two results under this current format and like me you'll find five of the eight winners moving on to week three started the play-offs outside the supposedly coveted top four places. Leeds were one of those clubs to progress from outside the four onto week three but they are not alone as Les Catalans, Wigan and Huddersfield have preceded them. Perhaps we should exclude their results also?

If we are going to stick with the top 8, i reckon we should revert to the old NRL system:

Week 1

4th Qualifying Final: 1st vs 8th
3rd Qualifying Final: 2nd vs 7th
2nd Qualifying Final: 3rd vs 6th
1st Qualifying Final: 4th vs 5th
The organisation of the rest of the finals series is dependent upon whether teams won or lost in week 1 and their final ranking on the ladder before the finals. The two lowest-ranked losers are eliminated from the finals, whilst the two highest-ranked winners progress straight to Week 3.

Week 2

1st Semi Final: 4th highest-ranked winner vs 2nd highest-ranked loser
2nd Semi Final: 3rd highest-ranked winner vs 1st highest-ranked loser
The two losing teams are eliminated, the two winning teams progress to Week 3.

Week 3

1st Preliminary Final: 1st highest-ranked winner (from Week 1) vs winner of 1st Semi Final
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd highest-ranked winner (from Week 1) vs winner of 2nd Semi Final
The two losing teams are eliminated, the two winning teams progress to Week Four.

Week 4

Grand Final: winner of 1st Preliminary Final vs winner of 2nd Preliminary Final

Now that is a fair system rewarding the top teams and all the games have something riding on them.Cant understand why the Aussies changed it to our system.

I never suggested excluding anybody from the dataset. My point was about how you interpret the results. In other words, it's a question of what conclusions your data can support. The truth of the matter is that we have both looked at the same data and drawn two quite different conclusions, both of which are quite reasonably defensible. Would you not agree?

So my point was not to try to tell you that you are wrong, are that I am right. Just to point out that the evidence is not conclusive and that I personally (hence the IMO) find a different interpretation to yours more persuasive.

I also suspect that the momentum you allude to is important, but I further suspect that it is something which is often carried from well before the play-offs. In 2011, for instance, Huddersfield looked a spent force before the end of the season and hung on to 4th place. If they'd come 5th and Leeds 4th I don't believe the outcome of their meeting would have been any different.

I can't quantitatively prove that any more than you can prove the contrary.

I mention this last point because I wouldn't want you to think I was dismissing your claims. Your arguments are well constructed and reasoned and based on the best evidence available, or I wouldn't bother engaging with them in such detail. In fact you're much more satisfying to debate with than a lot of people around here because no matter whether I agree with you or not it seldom seems to end in you branding anyone who doesn't agree with you as stupid or making completely unwarranted claims of "fact."

So there.

its an interesting debate. For me, the top 8 play-offs are far from perfect. However, I'm not certain that 5th is better than 4th. There have been some positive results from 5th, and not many from 4th, but I think that looking at stats is a bit misleading from such a small sample. The oportunity to build momentum from 5th could be good for a team making a late run, but the advantages of a second chance and home advantage could also be good in different scenarios.

I don't thinks Leeds' results should be expelled from any analysis, but there has to be some significance to the fact that its been Leeds making the 5th place look rosy. Its not like a Hull KR, or Huddersfield have come from nowhere to win the title from 5th, its a team that is already proven to have big match pedigree, and know what it takes to win the play-offs.

After 2009 and 2010 people were saying the play-offs were getting boring as the grand final was always 1 vs 2.

We are now saying that the scheme is broken, because 5th has won it. I honestly think this is more to do with the overall levelling up at the top of the league. On any particular day any of the top 5 or 6 can turn any of the others over. Thats what I want from the play-offs is the best teams playing each other, and not being sure who will come out on top