I actually think McDermott is a decent coach and I think a decent bloke.
My gripe is that he has had many opportunities to rotate the squad and keep some of our crown jewels fresh and ready for the play offs/ CCF.
To continually play forwards who are shot has not helped our cause.
To continually play some players clearly out of form such as JJB and drop players who have been in form such as Moore is somewhat bemusing.
Now we might end up with yet another GF win.
But we have without doubt made life difficult for ourselves.
Maybe McDermott sees this like a horse race and we are handicapped to the full to allow other lesser teams like Wigan the chance to compete

Leeds had a low error count on Friday, I expect Les Catalans' was much higher. I counted four Leeds knock ons but only the Peacock one in the second half came when clearing the ball in our own half.

Giving penalties away is a bad habit but sometimes they can buy time to organise defensively and save tries rather than always conceding. Also a penalty conceded early in the tackle count close to your own line comes with no real down side attached.

Losing possession before reaching a clearing or attacking kick is rarely a good thing by comparison.

Leeds and Warrington both played some good, play-off winning football this weekend and should go forward in good heart for the rightly tough Qualifying Semi-Finals to come.

As TVOC alludes on the previous page, I am rarely surprised at the results this champion group of players continue to pull out. Yet I am continually surprised the coach is at the helm of teams that keep reaching finals.

Make of that what you will.

Same here.

I still don't think we've done enough this year for it to be called a good one - the WCC, one decent performance in the Challenge Cup and one play off win HAVE to be balanced against too many dire perforances during the weekly rounds and another poor cup final effort. I'd probably think differently had we not been humiliated more than once this season, but to ignore those results as somehow irrelevant would be a mistake.

IMO we need a decent performance against Wigan (at the very least a narrow loss) to be able to say the season was a good one.

Judging by GH's comments that would seem to be his train of thought as well.

I don't disagree with the above posts but I can't fault the coaching teams ability to get the side prepared for the important stages of the season. The way the top 8 system works if that involves performing well below par for stages of the season but peaking for the games that matter then so be it.
If we reverted to a top 5 playoff we would be forced to perform at a higher level on a weekly basis or risk scraping in every season.

It would seem the whole competition has been diluted this year. Our weekly rounds season has been widely criticised (& rightly so), yet with 2 weeks remaining we were still in the running for 3rd. Are the standards dropping as a whole in SL, or are our expectations too high?

Unless the league reverts to first past the post format, I don't think the regular season will ever be a true reflection of a team. Or cut the number of games. Top Australian players rarely play more than 25 games in a season (SOO included), yet Sinfield et al had a whopping 50% more. In a season of 40+ games (over 10 months) it doesn't surprise me that there are some distinctly average performances

I disagree. Its only skewed by Leeds' win last season. Before that the grand final had been won by a team from the top 2 from every season bar one since its inception. The most consistent team over the season still tends to take the main prize

Shouldn't that read - one of the two most consistent teams?

SL Grand Finals:

1 V 2 - 11 (with 1 winning 7)

1 V 3 - 1 (with 1 winning)

2 V 3 - 1 (with 3 winning)

3 V 5 - 1 (with 5 winning)

The argument is that the current Top 8 play-off system dilutes the regular season fixtures and renders them meaningless. It's about re-establishing the importance of the regular season fixtures in order that league positions actually matter a lot more as opposed to rewarding mediocrity throughout the regular season. A Top 5 play-off system would be my preferred option.

Taking Leeds as an example, all they need to do during the regular season is pick up sufficient points against mainly whipping boy SL rabble and the rest takes care of itself. It doesn't matter how they perform against the top sides during the regular season as they are still going to finish 5th, and by doing so, they are rewarded with two more fixtures against whipping boy SL rabble in the play-offs.

I never had any doubts that Leeds would progress to the Semi Finals under this current play-off system. All that is required of them is to beat whipping boy opposition twice (that's a given) and then peak for 2 games against meaningful opposition at the end of the season, just like last year.

The reward for finishing 5th is way too cushy under this play-off system. The reward for finishing as lowly as 5th ought to be having to peak for 4 games against teams that finished higher on the ladder (all away from home) - a daunting prospect, but if it were to be achieved, there could be no doubting the validity of the 5th placed team being crowned worthy SL champions.

Agree with this above.



How would that play-off system be organised?

It's the previous Top 5 play-off system... rlTHIS ONErl. I included the Grand Final as a fixture away from home which technically it is, even though it's a neutral venue for both Grand Finalists.

I think its obviously best to have the top 5 system. In reality though the only difference is 1 game which is harder for 5th team. With the GF against the top team probably easier at a neutral venue.

If all goes to form, you'd have to beat 4th, then 1st then 2nd under the current system, assuming you dispose of the warm up team in 8th.

In the old system, you get progressively harder games. I don't see that much difference.

Lest year's league sucess was based more on the fact that 4th was a woeful Hudds teams, and the both 1st and 2nd teams bottled it in their semi finals. The system isn't that bad, just other teams couldn't handle the play off experience of Leeds and Saints. In the end it was them at fault for being flat track bullys, and not having the minerals to do it in a series of tough games.

Don't get me wrong, its easier to win from 5th than it was under the 5 team system, but the odds are still stacked in your favour if you finish top 2

Ah yes my personal favourite. Every league position counted for something and to climax the season your next game is your most important. How does the saying go, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
_____________

Under the current top 8 format the team finishing the Regular Rounds in 4th have won 1 from 8 and all have ended their seasons with a home defeat. In three of those four years the season ending home defeat coming at the hands of a team finishing the Regular Rounds beneath them on the table.

Under the current top 8 format the team finishing the Regular Rounds in 5th have won 8 from 10 and of the two losses only one was at home to a team finishing lower.

For all people saying finishing higher up the league will improve your chances and perhaps in theory it should there is mounting evidence that suggests finishing 4th is a harder road than finishing 5th and that surely can't be a desirable outcome ?

Even teams finishing 6th have faired better than those finishing 4th under this system winning 4 from 8.