Gary Hetherington has said something similar to this, I would love it to happen.

If Wigan had been beaten by Leeds having had a path straight through to the final we would have simply heard moaning about how the 2/3 games extra Leeds had played in the build up had left them battle hardened whilst Wigan were rusty after their rest.

Wigan could have done any of the things Leeds did, or Warrington did. They could have rested players, hell they got their hooker banned for three games by going all out in game that under any system made no difference. Thats their fault, their failing.

Might have known you'd turn it into a Wigan vs Leeds argument.

My post is talking about the flaws to the current format, and why there are too many meaningless and low-intensity games, and why I don't (and never have) believe that the winners of a short knock-out competition can be called champions of the entire season. But like I said, our current format says otherwise. If a team wins it from 1st or 2nd, or perhaps even 3rd, at least they've done it as one of the best teams throughout the competition.

Yes, of course if Wigan had lost to Leeds in the final there would be arguments for and against being rested before the final. The same argument happens every year during week 2 of the play-offs. But for me the team that wins the league has been the best over the competition and has won their place on merit.

As this article says, [url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_554-leeds-are-champions-after-a-good-month.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter"Leeds are Champions after a good month."[/url

It is ridiculous that a team with a negative win ratio can win a competition, SL play offs should be top 6 at most

Yes, Leeds are champions. They are champions because they won the competition.

Wigan arent champions even if their fans decide that they would like to claim victory by measuring victory on some other measurement than the one which is in the rules.

I think next season we should decide who wins games on the amount of metres made instead of points scored, and the league on the basis tries scored

It would be a very special set of circumstances which led to a team with no more than 22 points to qualify for the play offs.

Ah, I see what's happened here. You've confused me for someone who didn't say "I'm not saying Leeds had it easy", and whose argument is that Wigan should have won it rather than that the playoff system is flawed in some of its fixtures, and then, in your haste to have a pop, you've gone and made a tit of yourself. Never mind, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll be able to find someone with views that do actually facilitate your counter-argument.




Ignoring your puerile attempt at baiting, since if we're honest it's pathetic, the problem I have with your assessment is here: "Rugby League has found its champions as not only [uthose able to be consistent[/u, but those able to stand the bright lights of the heavyweight showdown." Leeds weren't consistent. That isn't to say that a team who suffers some inconsistency should be barred from becoming champions, or only the teams who finish 1st or 2nd should ever win, but if you are that inconsistent the title should be extremely difficult to achieve, hence my suggestion of 1v8 and so on. Quite simply, the playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that.

Yes, they are. They won the title according to the current format, by winning four games at the end of a very average league campaign by their standards.

Now, if you can look past the fact it's Leeds, and stop banging on about Wigan, perhaps we could have a sensible discussion and look at why the current format is producing so many meaningless games, and why having a team be crowned "Champions" from 5th position is a little ridiculous.

I will pick and choose my games this season as I did this season. The only ones that have any intensity is when we play Wigan or Saints.

You contradict yourself within two paragraphs. You seem to want to avoid saying you think Leeds had it easy (because you know how stupid that argument is) but then you go on to make that same argument by just phrasing it as [ithe playoffs should be increasingly difficult the further down the table you finish, and I don't believe a home fixture for 5th against 8th is in keeping with that[/i. Its the same argument.

Your whole complaint and argument is predicated on the assumption that had Wigan faced Leeds at some other point in the play-offs they would have been more likely to win. Your whole argument that championship lacks credibility is because you believe that when Wigan faced Leeds, after Leeds had played 35 games, after Leeds had just played an extra game in the south of france and Wigan had a week off, at Wigans home ground, Wigan didnt quite have the advantage they needed and Leeds werent quite 'beat up' by previous games enough.

Your premise is flawed, we dont have that many meaningless games. Had we crowned the champions from the league season it would have been won in front of 9k on a sunday afternoon in Hull. We would have then been left with an entire round of meaningless games, for everyone. Most teams would have been playing meaningless games from August, and some from June. The playoffs protect us from meaningless games.

The team who are champions didnt finish 5th, they qualified 5th and finished champions.