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.

You can still get that. You just have to win a home game against a team that placed lower than you.



5th and 6th have knockout games right from the start and will have to win away from home to get there, that's a certainty.

Cushy formality is complete opinion and not fact.

I believe to be crowned champions a team needs to be able to win high pressure games against their rivals as well as consistently beating teams week in week out. I think the current format balances those reasonably well.

Try as I might, I'm afraid I just can't get upset about any perceived iniquities in the present play off formulae. Nor I suspect are the players and coaches of the other teams who are in the mix.

You know what the SuperLeague set up is before the season's kickoff, and I prefer to expend my energy on supporting my team, rather than than attempting to rewrite the rule books.

Personally, I'm delighted with our weekend result, and look forward to our clash with Hudds, which could be an outstanding match, although I think we'll get a very harsh reality check the week after.

You could look at all the playoff formats we've had and put in decent arguments for and against aspects within them.

Look at the old format and the massive weight in advanatge from 2nd place to 3rd place when theoreticallythe placing could decided on just points difference yet 3rd would have to win 3 knockout games (one away from home) to make the final and 2nd had 2 bites at the cherry and needed to win just one game.

I think bar the club call the current format is the best we've had and generates the most money as theres more games involved.

Is it true that Wigan have not had a week off since the start of the season?
Maybe tvoc would kindly confirm that for me.
Plus has it ever happened before?

Well according to Eddie Hemmings, correct me If i'm wrong tvoc, but they haven't had a week off all season, what with the CC and WCC.

Les Catalans 56 Hull KR 6

Leeds Rhinos 42 Hull FC 10

Yes I can see your point.

Hindsight.

I can see tvoc's point. The playoff format seems to have been designed with a close competition in mind, there are only small differences in finishing a few places up or down within the eight but the league table often shows massive differences between those clubs as we do not have a close competition

Top 5 from 12 teams would be my preference

So where's the advantage for finishing 4th over 5th?

Getting a 2nd bite at the cherry isn't exactly a positive when it's almost inevitably going to be needed, and 5th get a home game (which you've said is a positive thing for 2nd) whereas 4th don't? 5th also get the privilege of playing the lowest ranked team left in the competition, at home. A team that's lost as many games than they've won, at home.

Huddersfield were always going to have to play 3 games to reach the final. If you'd have asked them which 3 games they'd have preferred...

Hull at home, Leeds away, Warrington away (if they'd finished 5th)
Warrington away, Leeds at home, Warrington away (now they've finished 4th)

I'd much rather have our option.

Look at last year... We were capable of a performance that beat the eventual champions. We just weren't capable of it TWICE. If we do the same this year (i.e. play out of our skin and beat the league leaders on their own patch) we're in the Grand Final. Last year, even though we finished in the "better" league position, doing that very same thing still wasn't enough to get us to the final, because we had to do it twice.

If we'd have finished 5th last year (not 4th), we'd have played Crusaders at HQ, then Huddersfield away, then that winning performance at the DW would've been the only time we played Wigan, we all know what happened there, and we'd have been in the final.

It's probably going to be 1st/2nd/3rd in the final anyway, so it's all irrelevant, but finishing 5th is much better than finishing 4th in my opinion. And it shouldn't be.

And for that reason there was a tangible reward for finishing 1st and 2nd under both previous systems (top 5 and top 6) that ended with reaching the Grand Final at the 1st attempt or having home advantage with the 2nd chance.

Earned over the course of the Regular Rounds keeping them meaningful.



In large measure those extra games this season have arguably been an embarrassment to the sport and called into question the worth of putting 100% commitment into the 27 weekly rounds that preceded them. Hopefully Warrington and Wigan will still prevail and give the sport a fitting finale at Old Trafford.

If they don't then the RFL should reconsider the positioning of the Challenge Cup within the calendar so that it doesn't continue to negatively impact what should be the pinnacle achievement in the domestic game.