I'm not saying that it is ALL luck am I?

There are elements of luck in ALL cup competitions. You don't play everyone home and away for a start. The competition involves only 4 games to win it.

Winning twice from 5th doesn't dispel any theory. Haven't you thought that coming 5th had advantages over coming 3rd or 4th? You had a nice easy game against the 8th team last year actually Wakey came 9th. Then you play the team that just got battered the previous week so is low on confidence.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you were lucky to win it, but you have to agree that there was an ELEMENT of luck in your campaign.

Rugby League in the 80s/90s was different in that really only Widnes were a comparable team to Wigan who generally didn't need much luck, whereas there are about half a dozen decent teams now.

Theories abound, but I don't for a moment believe that it's a question of not trying in the Cup Final or indeed the weekly rounds. I think it's a question of how close to your peak preparation you are.

For instance, if you're trying to peak in September, it is entirely plausible (in my eyes) that you might be over-trained in August. It won't be huge differences, but small things make a big difference in professional sport.

You allude to the formula being easy. Yet other teams can't seem to pull it off, and even Shaun Wane admitted to having it wrong last year.

If you can point to significant, unmatched and decisive good fortune in either the '11 or '12 Grand Final wins go ahead. But we looked a different side in the last two matches of each season, and both years we produced our best performances at Old Trafford. I can't see that being coincidence.

As I say, theories abound. Two years isn't a lot of data to go on and there might be other explanations. I haven't seen another that compels me.

Coming 5th has many advantages, to the point that some posters one here believe that the 5th spot was targeted and achieved deliberately - no luck involved at all.

A theory, incidentally, which I still personally believe to be (in the words of Professor Yaffle) fiddlesticks and flapdoodle.

Leeds deliberate capitulation away at Catalan Dragons in Round 25 last season prior to staging a "score-at-will" late rally would suggest otherwise. It pretty much ensured that Catalan finished 4th and Leeds finished 5th.

Feel free to investigate whether lightning never ever strikes twice though.

Only one of the last five NRL Champions were minor premiers. Do you think Australian fans care about that?

If they care about the game then they should, if you only care about your team winning then no I don't suppose they would.

More than twice for some TV masts.

Since they've never yet crowned any team NRL champions from outside the Top 4 whilst utilising the Top 8 play-off system, then I doubt they would care as much.

14 seasons of Top 8 play offs down under
1st has been crowned champions 4 times, runners up 6 times.
2nd has been crowned champions 4 times, runners up 3 times.
3rd has been crowned champions 3 times.
4th has been crowned champions 3 times.
5th has been runners up 1 time.
6th has been runners up 3 times.
7th has been nowhere.
8th has been runners up 1 time.

Given the level of competition and intensity in the NRL, I'm not convinced it's possible for any NRL team to spend their entire regular season tossing it off, safe in the knowledge they are guaranteed to qualify for the play-offs.

The issue isn't about winning from 5th or 1st - its about what makes a team the Champions from that year - and the answer is winning the Grand Final.

Arguing that another team was the 'best' despite NOT winning the GF is playground stuff. Sts 2005-07 were the 'best' side ever in SL according to quite a few. Oddly enough the records show they were the best for one year only. Those same records clearly show that Leeds were the 'best' team for most of the nine years 2004-2012.

Mid-season form has been shown to be an unreliable predictor of the eventual Champions. All that matters now is whether Leeds extend the above record to 2013 and beyond. Maybe Wigan will take up the mantle as best team from this year onwards. The only measure that matters is whether they win the GF.

... a champion team who failed to win the CC.

Not that there's anything wrong with losing 6 successive CC Finals.

All in the interests swings, slides, roundabouts and playground balance of course


Regards,
Patrick Ronald Ising (not from Brisbane this time).

Last year we finished 10pts behind the League Leaders......the same amount Bradford trailed Saints by when they won in 2005. If Bradford had won in 2004 from 2nd people wouldn't have complained about a 2nd place team winning it yet they were 9pts behind the League Leaders.

My point isn't about who is the best. It is about whether a team that wins the GF can legitimately CLAIM to be the best. To take another sporting monolith that is run only for profit without any regard for true competition, Does anyone seriously think that Chelsea were the best team in Europe last year? The Champions League that they won despite not being champions in their own country was so highly regarded even by their own chairman that he sacked the manager six months later.

And my argument is that it doesn't matter WHO wins the Super League trophy under the present system (Leeds, Wigan or London Broncos) they can't legitimately claim to be the best team if they lose a third of their matches in the season. Yes you win the GF - that makes you Champions - I get it - Yes all teams know the rules before the season starts - I get that too- and yes you can condition your team to peak at season end - I get that too. But ultimately if all of that is reasonable then the regular season is rendered meaningless. How do you get fans through the turnstiles without cheating them. No fans equals no money. Do you think Sky will want to persist with the game if the regular season is meaningless (that they have engineered anyway)?

I get the impression from reading the boards here that I'm far from the only one who thinks this way, although I admit to being in a minority, even amongst Wigan fans, who think I'm a dinosaur.

Take away the competitive weekly element from the game - and the game dies. And if you think that's playground stuff then I'm taking my bat and ball and playing elsewhere.

Why do you think a playoff series renders the regular season meaningless?
A good playoff system does exactly the opposite.

You are right it doesn't necessarily.

THIS playoff system is in danger of making the regular season meaningless. In a14 team competition only the top 4 or 5 might make the season a bit more competetive as some people have argued on here already. I'm not against playoffs per se, I just think that we should all sit down and decide how to get a competetive competition from first game to last which has the ultimate aim of finding the best team and crowning them champions. I don't think the present system does that.

I'm not knocking Leeds they might well have won under whatever system was played. And I'm not running around thinking that Wigan are the best team this year just because they seem to be walking the league. I strongly suspect that Leeds aren't that bothered and neither are Warrington.