The same as was afforded all teams finishing the regular season in positions 1 and 2 from 1998 to 2008. If you can find a reference of mine to Les Catalans as dross perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a link to it.




In what way was Sunday's game at the DW Stadium a semi-final? It wasn't so I'm sure you'll now have to agree that rightfully earned reward has been denied them.

You don't need three teams for a Grand Final just the two and preferably they should be the ones that have shown themselves over the season to be most deserving. The RFL shouldn't care about teams finishing 3rd to 5th, 6th or 8th depending on the format as they haven't earnt the right. Getting the teams finishing 1st and 2nd is what they require for the integrity of the Regular season to be maintained.



If ever a dross team (7th or 8th) become Champions they will have little credibility and nor will the format that allowed a team that lost more games in the Regular Season than they won to become Champions.

At that point there should be little interest in 27 Regular Rounds as it appears they will have counted for practically nothing other than avoiding finishing in the bottom 6 of 14.



Agreed on the form part but the answer is not to deprive the higher placed team in the regular season with the loss of home advantage when facing a team that finished lower on the ladder. That's simply not equitable to me and it's only appeared since 2009. It's the biggest difference from the formats that have gone before and served the game well IMO in giving the best opportunity for the season to finish with a flourish and not some hopelessly mis-matched, tired out, damp squib.




Not with an inbalance in fixture lists. The current Leeds V Bradford Millenium Magic fixture in 2011, in theory handed Leeds a distinct advantage over both Wigan and St Helens where the Champions could be decided on less than the two points on offer.

I'm comfortable under either system (first past the post or Play-Offs) for deciding the Champions as long as it's agreed before the season starts. The fact the vast majority of RL Champions have been decided by the latter convinces me that it's the correct method to use once the format is sorted. Unfortunately only RL can come up with a progessively worse format as the years go by.

__________



You appear to be describing the position of a pre-match favourite in RL. In sport (even F1) it's all on the duration of the event.

In F1 the driver (Vettel - obviously) who collects the most points over the course of 20 individual events is declared the Champion. F1 is first past the post as determined by a League table at the end of the 'Regular Rounds' (with no Play-Offs) but carry on using the analogy if you think it's useful to the debate on which play-off format best suits RL.

Sorry you did state your dross teams were 7th & 8th and not 6th.

Not to give an incentive to the 3rd and 4th teams if they win away in the first round made it far too easy for the top 2. It now gives has the first round more edge.



I said "Because they (Wigan) could not beat Saints at home (in round1) they lose home advantage in the semis" A home semi was the reward for the winner of the first round at the DW. Wigan knew that and lost. Wigan rightfully earned a home tie in round 1 only but a home loss meant they then didn't deserve a home semi



The playoffs are a handicap knock out and should be won by the most deserving in this competition and not prior competitions otherwise why have it?

The top 4 get a handicap advantage to start with but must make the most of it otherwise they are no longer the most deserving. For the competition to have credibility every team in it has the right to win it. The odds are heavily in favour of the top 2 winning it as history shows. If a team that is awarded a 2nd bite, after losing at home, and cannot win away they do not deserve to be champions.



I think if this were to happen they will have great credibility as they would have knocked out all above them.



The "Hub Cap" is a separate competition. The top 2 & top 4 start with great advantages and opportunities.



The higher placed team only loses home advantage if they are beaten at home by a lower team which is fair. If they don't risk losing something in the first round why are they in the first round?



I agree this has never been fair and should revert to just one home and away game.




I thought the majority of RL Champions were decided by first past the post!

But I agree the system could be better and even include home and away ties,

The incentive to win for 3rd and 4th should be the week off. No need to add further gain/pain by reversing the positions earned over 27 Regular Rounds.



Yes you did, sorry I miss-read that initially. I agree everyone knows the rules beforehand (and previously I have said Wigan will just have to suck it up) but that isn't what the debate has been about. It's whether the current format is the best way of going about deciding the SL Champions.



If I understand your point, the Play-Offs aren't a seperate competition, they are the means by which we find the Champion team as an extension of the Regular Rounds having first eliminated the utter dross from this element of the same competition.



Surely the best way to find the 'most deserving' is 1 V 8, 2 V 7 etc not by pitting the top 4 head to head with enormous consequences for the loser who could find their season irreparably damaged allowing a weaker team to come through and take their place. You are manufacturing an entirely false proposition that simply wouldn't happen in the wild. First the weak are picked off before finally the two top dogs go head to head to decide the Champions.

The history of this format is relatively young and as long as the season's best become Champions it's still OK and so far P1 have done just that by seeing off P2 in the two finals so far.



Sounds more akin to a worthy Challenge Cup winner than becoming the Champions. If a team ever do so (from 8th) by having a steller final month after a mediocre opening seven, where they almost certainly lost more games than they won, I'd personally find it difficult deep down to think of them as the sports' Champion team.



Is it fair though? Wigan have lost what could be crucial home advantage in a potential future semi-final by losing to a team who finished only one place lower in 3rd and by definition still a very capable team. Had they been playing at home to Hull KR in an obviously fairer alternative format (2 V 7) would this have happened?

It's a crazy format. Lose by 8 points (could just have easily been 1 point) in Week 1 to highly competitive opponents (while others lower ranked teams are enjoying a comparative stroll in the park) and your immediately demoted to the chasing pack and no longer favourite to even make the final.




Method for deciding RL Champions:

1895/96 to 1905/06 - League - 6 Titles
1962/63 to 1963/64 - League - 2 Titles
1973/74 to 1997 - League - 25 Titles

Total - League - 33 Titles

1906/07 to 1961/62 - Play-Off - 51 Titles
1964/65 to 1972/73 - Play-Off - 9 Titles
1998 to 2010 - Play-Off - 13 Titles (and continuing)


Total - Play-Off - 73 Titles

Well, at least you two aren't arguing about sodding planes.

As long as you are all happy, thats all that matters.

when these two get going it like those old kicking duels the fullbacks used to have many years ago first one to drop the ball etc.Lewis jones and Johnny Wilson used have a kicking duel every game .its good reading wth tvoc and Juan ,and good duel

PS whats wrong with sodding planes then?

My thoughts exactly. Guys either get a room or agree to disagree. Please don't turn this into another 'who can type the most' contest There's a game a game on Friday.

I allowed Juan to have the final word on the 'Wilf Rosenberg thread' by not reading his final reply. (Still haven't) I decided to be the bigger man and walk away before someone ended up getting hurt.

Sssh though, remember it's our secret.

Whow! Thats one way of putting spin on a retreat. Your're not French by any chance are you?..... and modest too!

Yes I believe you didn't read my reply because you keep repeating that you didn't .......which means it must be so.

Your point being?

You (and everyone else) can believe whatever you like (such as 'first past the post' being the predominant way British RL has determined it's top flight Champions) but the truth of the matter is I did not read your reply to save me feeling the need to reply.

That's the honest truth - it matters not one jot to me who believes it.

Ok I will concede to you that it would be better if the 1st and 2nd finishers retain home advantage if they get to the semis and lose the week off if they lose the 1st round matches.

By the way I have taken your advice and haven't replied to your last post but I did take the courtesy to read it. Hope this didn't infringe on your self appointed bigger man status!