The problem with the SL play offs is the context of a weak league. If the bottom 6 were any good then an intelligently coached team like Leeds couldn't get away with picking and choosing which games to turn up for... If the crappy SL clubs in heartland areas developed their local talent and stopped p!ssing away their money on buying their side this 'problem' would solve itself in time.

Until then, someone is going to have to give Wigan an explanation of the system they are playing in which uses shorter words and bigger text. Maybe some pictures might help: a gorilla holding a hubcap and crying...

I personally think that if finishing top of the league was the way of deciding the champions, this group of players would have done it more often.

You can't say that finishing top of the 27 rounds is the sign of a better team, when that is not the measure of the champions, and so different teams place different emphasis on coming top.

Tortoise & Hare springs to mind

Why reward stupidity? Part of winning a game is understanding of the rules.

What did Wigan have to do to get to the grand final this year, iirc it was win 2 games at home against 4th then 5th in the league.

Leeds had to win against wakey at home, then go to the south of france then away to the "best" team in the competition and then face wire in the final.

I think we played 4 more games than wigan this year so managing our resources is what we have done well again

Said it before & I'll say it again - we play far too many games in a season, the elite players in this country are flogged. Does anyone seriously think any team can perform to that level consistently over 38 games? I certainly don't think it's possible.

Therefore, in some games a team will be below par, in some games well below par. It's inevitable. So which games is it preferential to be below par, league fixtures, challenge cup fixtures or playoff fixtures? It's a no brainer really.

The system has been in place for 15 years, and will remain in place. I'm a traditionalist to be honest & would prefer a 'first past the post' system, but there's no point crying over spilt milk. The times they are a changing, and let's be honest the quality of recent Grand Finals is a fantastic way to close the domestic season - and is getting RL good press.

So, jealous Wigan fans, deal with it!

Do you mean league leaders shield winners, Leeds are the League winners

Held in higher esteem by who?, wigan can have an open top bus parade or print it on their shirts if they want

This.

Everyone starts the season knowing perfectly well how the champions will be decided. The league has a primary objective: winning the Grand Final. It's no use failing to do that and then unilaterally deciding that actually you don't much like the system and what you did should be what counts.

The best team in the league is the one that best achieves the primary objective of the competition.

If you changed the goalposts, teams would probably change their targets accordingly. Wigan played more consistently well than anyone else, and if that's what the rules of the competition they signed up for had as priority, that would be a great achievement. As it was, they knew where and when the silverware was dished out, but had no other gear to go to when it mattered. As reward they get a nice little shield (better than nowt, it sits in the trophy cabinet) and the honour of being only the 3rd team in the SL era to win the league leaders' shield and not reach the Grand Final. Kudos.

Just because they are the rules it doesn't mean they are right rules or popular amongst supporters.
As I said I have no beef with Leeds winning; far from it. I don't like the system that's all.
Hypothetically I would say a team that dominated the league (winning the league) for a number of years could be called great, whereas its harder to level that degree of justification to what Leeds have achieved over the last two years.
It may be in the rules, but its a paradox.
If Leeds one the league 10 years on the spin undefeated and were beaten by a team finishing eight losing half of their games each year in a Grand Final, who would have the right to be called a great side?
1) the team unbeaten for a decade thats dominated the league, or
2) the team that's lost half its league games each year, scraped into the play offs but got the knack?

Like the NRL, the NFL, The Champions League, The RU Championship, The Heineken Cup decides the Champions of Europe, like the NHL, the NBA, the World Series.....oh and like the Rugby League used to decide who was Champions until someone changed it in 1972. Leeds would have a lot more Championships if a league based system had been used from the birth of the rugby league.

It's pretty sad that so many seem unable to give any credit to what in any other sport would be seen as a monumental achievement by a special group of players. Sport is about the big day, the big moment and being able to do it when it matters. As great as Wigan were I'm sure they don't see the two seasons where they became Champions on points difference as their greatest moments.

Do you think Wakefield should hand back the two Championships they won in the 60's then?

You can see that there is a huge paradox there.

Making up a bat$h1t crazy scnenario that hasn't happened and is unlilkely to happen as a way to support you argument is pathetic.

If this happens come back and I'll say sorry.

Fair enough.

I prefer the play-offs because the league only measures who can buy the biggest squad (and then go bankrupt a few years later).