This Leeds team likes to testitself. They proved (twice for good measure) that teams could win from outside the top 4 when no-one believed it. Everyone now says 5th is the best place to finish. I expect them to finish 3rd or 4th to prove it can be won from there.

Ateotd, we've won it from 1st - folk whinge
We've won it from 2nd - folk whinge.
We've won it from 5th - folk whinge.

It's just bitterness that won't let folk see how good we have been. But tbh I couldn't care less anymore trying to convince myopic rival fans, it's a waste of time.

Leeds win from 2nd in 2007 & 2008 it was WRONG because we didn't finish 1st, therefore Saints are the deserving champions and makes the game look bad.

Leeds win from 1st in 2009 and its BAD for the playoffs that the top 2 teams are always contesting the GF......people say a team winning from further back will invigorate the playoff system and help the sport.

Leeds win from 5th in 2011 & 2012 and its WRONG because now apparently only the top 2 should contest the GF for credibility of the sport.

Just can't please some folk I guess.

I don't think they do but perhaps they increasingly should.



The RFL is on to it's third play-off format covering fifteen final series and only Bradford has won it from third and no team has won it from fourth.

5 team Play-Off format, 2nd - 2
6 team Play-Off format, 2nd - 2, 3rd - 1
8 team Play-Off format, 5th - 2

Perhaps they should remember back to 2010 when Hudds failed to make the GF from 5th, or in 2009 when Wakey got knocked out in the 1st week.




Interesting to note that Bradford finished 10 points behind the league leaders that year.....the same that Leeds finished behind Wigan. Does the points difference or the number next to your name make most difference to worthiness? Didn't Bradford finish 9 points behind us in 2004?

In 2010 - when Huddersfield exceeded their finishing regular season position (5) after defeating Warrington (3) at the Halliwell Jones?

In 2009 - when neither team finishing 3rd and 4th made it to the semi-finals replaced by teams finishing 6th and 8th?

More examples of teams seemingly able to prosper by finishing lower, taking the momentum of a win with them and defeating teams away from home coming off a loss.




Taking form into or finding form in the bloated play-offs trumps fairly meaningless final league positions in a comp divided into the haves and have nots where before a ball is kicked it's only really a question of deciding who gets to make up the numbers at the rump end.

I'd rather finish 5th or 6th than 3rd or 4th under this current format and that doesn't feel right.

Play around with stats all you like, there is no physical or mental advantage to having to play more games to get to the Grand Final, against better teams and away from home.

Nobody has won the GF after finishing second in the regular season under the 8 team format. Are we now saying that 5th is an easier route to winning it than 2nd?

Seriously?

am i right in thinking that since the 8 team play offs were introduced only one team finishing 3rd [ saints in 2011] have managed to win a home game?

The question being asked is whether finishing in the lower half of the draw under this current format is proving to be an easier route to progress than finishing 3rd or 4th ?

In terms of reaching the semi-finals it's currently 5 to 3 in favour of the teams finishing 5th to 8th even though they are always the ones having to travel to a top four finishing side in week two. The three wins recorded by the top four finishers all went to teams finishing 1st or 2nd but on every occasion where a team finishing 3rd or 4th has lost in week one they have exited the comp the following week despite having home advantage and playing a team that finished below them.

For it to happen perhaps once or twice might be considered a fluke but five from five suggests there could be more to it - such as a format that doesn't neccesarily favour finishing 3rd or 4th over 5th or 6th.

I'd rather finish 1st or 2nd but failing that I'd rather finish 5th or 6th than 3rd or 4th and the results over the last four years don't alter that view.

Careless to draw too many inferences about format from your data there though isn't it?

You have some very seriously confounded variables. Not least in your figures for the 8 team format, where 3/4 of the winners are Leeds. As a model, "Team = Leeds" is a far more powerful predictor of eventual champions than final league position is.

Apart from Leeds, I might add, it's only been won from 1st.

You like your stats, but you need to be more careful of your inferences.

I choose to follow El Diablo's interpretation in that I think the major factor in Leeds winning Grand Finals is the performances of a champion set of Leeds players have put in during actual games than any mathematical formula.

No worries.

That doesn't alter the fact that under the present system we've yet to see a team that finished the regular season in 3rd or 4th - coming off a defeat in week one - go on to win their week two home fixture against a team that finished below them.

In such games it's five to zero in favor of the lower ranked teams despite them having to travel to the home of their higher ranked opponents. This (as you rightly describe them) champion set of Leeds players were only involved in two of the five games so it appears the 'champion set' while no doubt having a bearing where they exist isn't necessarily a pre-requisite to winning in these fixtures - so there must be other factors at work also?

Of the 8 teams that have finished 3rd and 4th in 8 team playoffs, 3 have won their 1st game......
2010 - Leeds
2011 - Saints
2012 - Saints

The 5 who lost
2009 - Hudds & HKR
2010 - Wire
2011 - Hudds
2012 - Catalans

4 different teams have had clubcall
2009 - Leeds (Won)
2010 - Saints (Won)
2011 - Wire (Lost)
2012 - Wigan (Lost)

5 of the 8 teams that've finished 1st or 2nd have gone onto the GF
2009 - Leeds & Saints
2010 - Wigan & Saints
2012 - Wire
......3 of those 5 didn't need the 2nd bite of the cherry, the other 2 lost their opening playoff game.....can you guess which is which?

1st & 2nd Place results
Leeds and Saints P9 W7 L2 (both GF's)
Other teams P13 W6 L7 (only 1 a GF)

3rd and 4th Place results
Leeds and Saints P7 W4 L3 (1 Gf)
Other teams P10 W0 L10

5th & 6th Place results
Leeds P8 W8 L0 (6-0 against higher ranked teams)
Other teams P12 W6 L6 (2-4 against higher ranked teams)

.................................

Its not the format its the teams. Leeds and Saints perform come playoff time better than others regardless of position.

So it wasn't an advantage to finish 5th then as they didn't win or reach the GF.



Are we now extending it to 'it's better to finish 5th - 8th'?......How many GF's have the 6th, 7th and 8th team reached? Zero. In the last years in fact 7th and 8th have disappeared after Week 1. The 6th placed team in the 2nd week, so clearly not much advantage to those teams.



Well ZERO GF's when the whole point of the playoffs is to reach Old Trafford isn't exactly prosperous for those 6th - 8th teams.




Leeds' playoff run in 2011 & 2012 mirrored that of Wigan (6th) and Catalans (8th) in 2009. So how come after comfortable wins and a week off why didn't Leeds and Saints falter on their way to the 2009 GF against teams who had this apparent advantage of being able to find form whilst the top two had to kick their heels for a week? Why couldn't Hudds take advantage of Saints in 2010 doing the 'Leeds Route'?

If 5th is so much preferable then out of the 3 GF wins we've had (in 8 team playoffs) which looks like the easiest run.....

A - HKR (H)...Catalans (H)
B - Hull (H)...Hudds (A)...Wire (A)
C - Wakey (H)...Catalans (A)...Wigan (A)