You still miss the point. It is a separate elimination competition and as such benefits the winners rather than the losers! Despite losing at home Wigan get a second chance at home next week to one of your "dross" sides so no trouble there then?

Because Wigan could not beat Warrington they finished 2nd. Because they could not beat Saints at home they lose home advantage in the semis. If they do not beat the "dross" Catalans they will be out of the competition. How much more advantage do you want them to have for losing?

There has to be some advantage for winning, for the teams below 2nd place otherwise the competition would have no excitment. To date the various play off rules have not produced a Champion from the "dross" And if one of them does overcome the handicap then they will have deserved it.

Much has been said of the number of games that Wigan have played this year but with the exception of the WCC haven't Leeds played the same? So all but Wigan should be fresher than us!

tvoc's point is perfectly valid IMO.

For example, this year Leeds have benefited from finishing 5th, over Huddersfield who finished 4th.

Let's say Huddersfield beat us on Friday, which they obviously could, the prize for that is likely to be a rematch against a team that's just beaten them 47-0. How can they be expected to turn around a 47-0 score line in two weeks, with a rather tasty match vs. the club that finished directly below them in between. They can't. Especially when the team that beat them has had an extra week to prepare.

This playoff system is OK. But only OK. I think it does favour 1st place, as it should. But 3rd/4th, IMO, have a worse time that 5th & 6th. Especially 4th. 4th in this system have a bit of the raw end of the deal. OK, they could upset 1st away (as we did last year) but that's just like prodding a lion with a stick for the almost inevitable rematch. To win from 4th, you're likely to have to "cause an upset", against the team that finished top twice in two weeks. Whereas 5th & 6th are much more likely to have a run to the final playing a different team each week.

If you look at this year:

5th Place Run to the Final:
1. Lowest ranked team left in the comp.
2. Team that only finished one place above us.
3. Best team in Comp.

4th Place Run to the Final:
1. Best team in Comp.
2. Team that only finished one place below them.
3. Best team in Comp.

Beating the best team in the competition is possible in a one off match, upsets, rub of the green, being underestimated, individual error, dodgy reffing, whatever. But still, based on above, I'd definitely rather finish 5th than 4th. Which means it needs improving.

If the RFL are insisting on an 8 team play off, what's wrong with 1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th etc. Then take the winners of each, put them back in a league table and do the same again.

So this year:

Wire vs. Hull FC
Wigan vs. Hull KR
Saints vs. Catalans
Huddersfield vs. Leeds

Then the highest ranked club always plays the lowest ranked club, 2nd highest vs. 2nd lowest, etc. Even if there's an 'upset'.

So let's say Catalans upset Saints, but everyone else the home team won. You'd be left with Wire, Wigan, Huddersfield & Catalans.

Which would set up a Wire vs. Catalans Semi 1, and Wigan vs. Huddersfield Semi 2.

That way, if 8th beat 1st, they'd then have to beat 2nd (unless 2nd lost to 7th, in which case they'd have to play 3rd, and so on and so forth). Meaning the reward for 1st would mean you always had a home tie vs. the lowest ranked club left. The reward for finishing 2nd would mean you always had a home tie vs. the 2nd lowest ranked club left. etc.

It would also mean that winning the GF from 8th would mean beating the highest ranked club left in the competition twice, and then a final too. AND if 1st and 2nd were to continue winning it would always keep them apart until the final.

It's just a simple 1-8 'seeding' based on final league position, with the highest seed left always playing the lowest seed left (2nd highest vs. 2nd lowest), regardless of who beats who, the seedings remain the same. So even if Hull FC beat No. 1 seed in the first match, they're still seeded No. 8, and would have to play seed 2 next round. Knock out from the start. Dead easy.

How much of that is down to the respective finishing form of the two sides and how much down to the play off system though? Had our respective league positions been reversed then it's not too great a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Wire would have beaten us instead of Hudds. Under that scenario, we might then be looking at a home tie versus Hudds. Would you regard that as a huge disadvantage? I wouldn't; I'd be confident of winning and it's likely that the fart owners would be similarly confident, had their back end form been better.

In any case, who's to say that that Leeds have benefitted? They might hammer us next week which would invalidate your argument in any case.

I know exactly what you're saying, and agree in principle. I just think when you look at our likely run to the final, compared to theirs. If you're assuming that the teams finishing 4th & 5th are of a similar standard (they certainly are this season!!!) then:

We've had to play much worse team (8th), play a similar standard team (4th/5th), play a much better team (1st, possibly 2nd).

They've had to play a much better team (1st), play a similar standard team (4th/5th), play a much better team AGAIN (1st, possibly 2nd).

This 1st V 2nd game you speak of was not guaranteed under that far superior system, which I agree was far and away the best we've had and have stated so on numerous occassions on here. What was guaranteed however if such a game took place in week two was that the loser would receive home advantage in the subsequent GF Eliminator giving them the best opportunity to fulfil their hard earned seeding over the Regular Rounds.

That is where I take particular issue with the current format where there is no real reward (other than a 2nd crack) for the better League placings to a losing team in week 1 from a 1st or 2nd finish.



You state it's not the RFL's aim and yet the evidence of 13 GF's might suggest that it never-the-less is the outcome in the vast majority of seasons which have resulted in 11 - 1 V 2, 1 - 1 V 3 and 1 - 2 V 3 (under whichever format) and so it should be, IMO.

This may not be the best playoff system but a 4th place finish gives you a home advantage over 5th place. IMO this is a big advantage.

This year the 5th and 6th place teams have come into better form than the 4th place and could both reach the semi finals. So the most important aspect is form in the playoffs.

Last year from 4th place we beat Wigan in 1st place on their ground and gained a home semi and a week off. But form still beat the handicap when Wigan had to play the extra game and then they still came and beat us at Headingley.

This year Wigan have shown cracks in confidence and a loss of some form coming into the the playoffs. They were lucky at Wembley, well beaten by Warrington for the "Hub Cap" Now they have been well beaten by Saints and lose the week off and home semi again. Unless they recover some form they will not get to Old Trafford.

With Warrington and the ever consistent Saints looking good and now Leeds and Catalans finding some form we have the prospect of some exciting matches to come.

Obviously I'd love to see Leeds in the final, but if not, I'd like to see Warrington vs. Saints.

IMO this would be a win, win situation for me.

1) Either way, it preserves the 3 in a row for another 3 years at least.
2) I'd enjoy laughing at Warrington if Saints won. Mainly because they're discussing being the best SL team of all time, and it would prove that winning it wasn't as sure fire as they all hoped.
3) I'd enjoy laughing at Saints if Warrington won. Losing in 5 consecutive Grand Finals to 3 different teams would certainly be great banter material when the Saints get a bit big for their boots.

Yes yes. I'm the sort of person that likes to laugh at the misfortunes of others, despite them clearly being better than us for getting to the final in the first place. So sue me.

All very good and fair points and ones I share entirely but club bias aside I still think this play-off format is deeply flawed.

Top 5 is as far as it should have gone, why have a top 8 when your only 6th from bottom ?

Let me get this straight.

Are telling me that wigan haven't had a week off, what with their cup run and WCC?

That's fair enough. But in most of those seasons, there's only been 2, sometimes 3, sides with the necessary quality to make the final in any case. I know it's impossible to be sure but in most years the teams finishing first or second would have won regardless of the play off format used. There simply hasn't been the depth of competition to suggest otherwise. Looking at this year's comp, the 7th and 8th placed teams are gone already; next weekend they'll most likely be followed by 6th and 4th (hopefully) or 5th. Us or hudds will still be the outsider if that happens.

So, if it's the case that the top 2 or 3 don't generally need any greater advantage, why not maximise the interest/financial spin offs by adopting the current system (or any other that incorporates the same number of games)? I'm not saying I agree with this line of argument necessarily, I'm just pointing out that there is some logic to it.

Don't forget they played a midweek game too!

Well, I'm pretty sure that's what Eddie said. There was a chance of me misconstruing the specifics of his statement the first five times. But by the 6th, 7th and 8th times of him mentioning it I was pretty sure I'd heard him right. If not, certainly the 9th, 10th and 11th times he said it I heard him loud and clear. The 12th, 13th and 14th times must've just been for clarity. Why he mentioned it a 15th time I have no idea.

IMO the current format is fine. Except for the club call.

Everyone knows the goal posts at the start of the season. Under the old system the scenarios were too predictable. The system provides more unpredictability.

I think people fall in danger of trying to make it too easy for the top 2 to make the grand final. Look at the old system. Top 2 only had to win 1 game to get there. They'd get at least one opportunity at home to do this. And a second bite at the cherry.

Difference is now they have to win 2 instead of 1 and if they lose the first game they lose home advantage for the semis.

People mentioned what advantage is it for huddersfield finishing 4th when we have it better finishing 5th.

It's not the systems fault huddersfield played f*cking sh*t and blew their chance. They could have gone to warrington won, and now be 1 home game away from the grand final!!! Whereas we'd still have to win 2 away games to get there.

I just think people want to compensate for choking too much. If a team finishes top and is the real deal, they should be able to win 2 games to get there.

Look at us in 09. Played tough hull kr team, won, club call - catalans, won, bish bash bosh no messing around.

If we'd bottled it and lost to kr, I can imagine people beefing about the system. The system is fine theres just alot less room for error for teams nearer the top.