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.

Huddersfield blew it.

They had a chance to get within one home game of the grand final and they let it pass them by.

Of course you will have to play a tougher team to win that kind of opportunity.

It's not the systems fault huddersfield were shocking. That's their fault.

As do you when a season of attaining the highest qualifying position is reversed with the advantages that were hard earned shifting directly to a team who entered the Play-Offs in a lower finishing position. Most crucially the loss of home advantage for the Elimination Semi-Final. Prior to this flawed model has this happened before over the period 1998 to 2008?

What is the reward for finishing 2nd under this format? A game against a very dangerous opponent who only finished one place lower on the ladder with a reasonable probability of coming unstuck and finding yourself up against it. If that's the case why bother during the Regular Rounds, makes more sense to toss it off, short-change the public and have an easier run from lower down with less expectations. Is that what the RFL are trying to achive, to undermine the integrity of the Regular Rounds?

For the Play-Offs to work fairly IMO the League placings should matter and for as long as we have home advantage throughout to qualify for the final that should go with seedings just as it did from 1998 to 2008.

The fact you are now tipping a team finishing 6th to knock out a team finishing 2nd in week 2 shows we are using a dysfunctional format invented only to reward momentum and create the possibilities for upsets.

In fact i think huddersfield have had a pretty cushty time of things.

Get the opportunity to be one home game away from grand final.

Lose.

Now they get another chance and a home game to get to the semi again.

I think the great thing about the current playoff system is that there are pretty good positives for all teams in the top 5.

Well this systems been in place 2 seasons.

We've has 1st vs 2nd.

and err... 1st vs 2nd

And guess what?

This season will be 1st v 2nd/3rd.

You get 2 bites at the cherry and a home game to begin with.

Unfortunately for once R_R downplayed the significance as he failed to mention that Wigan also supplied every player (for both sides incidentally) in the mid-season England V Exiles match as well as having to fit the re-arranged Castleford game in mid-week also.

Put that one down to Jamie Peacock bizarrely suggesting starting the SL season with a bang rather than a whimper. What the heck was he thinking of other than to disadvantage the reigning Champions even further obviously. Don't recall his suggesting this to open the '08, '09 or 2010 seasons. Strange that.

__________



By finishing 2nd you should have earned the right to a home semi-final over 27 rounds, otherwise what's the reward or point beyond qualifying where it's harder not to qualify.

You shouldn't then have to put that at risk by playing the 3rd placed team - not when there are cushy formalities given to the teams finishing 5th and 6th.