Or they could of used the Wire defeat as a serious wake up call, had they faced Leeds in week 1 they could well of put in just as much a poor performance as they did against Warrington. As for the flat affair that took place instead in Week 2, Leeds took a 16-0 lead before being pegged back to 16-12 then surged ahead again to a 34-12 lead before Hudds scored 3 tries in the last 10 mins to get within 6 points @ 34-28, hardly flat was that game.

You could also say Leeds (4th) were at a disadvantage going away to 1st place Wigan in 2010, except they showed up and won. The playoffs format didn't let Huddersfield down they let themselves down (as did Warrington, Wigan, Catalans, Hull & Hull KR), Saints were in that same situation as Hudds (a week 1 away game to a top 2 team) and they reached the Grand Final. Catalans faced the same situation as Leeds but they didn't get 'rewarded'. The real problem with the playoffs is that in the last 4 or 5 years only Leeds, Saints and Wigan have truely gone into the playoffs with the right attitude and belief that they can win it no matter what fixtures they faced, until more teams approach it with the same genuine 'Yes we can win this' frame of mind then it doesn't matter what format the playoffs are.

I've heard a bucket load of complaints since last years GF about how the 8 team playoffs reward mediocre teams, when infact in the first 2 years of its introduction the top 2 teams have gone on to contest the GF ('09 Leeds v Saints....'10 Wigan v Saints) the 1st place team winning both times, so how about until this 'rewarding mediocrity' theory is proven to be more than just a one off can people calm down and stop making out as if its the norm.

Funnily enough i remember when Leeds & Saints contested the '07, '08, '09 Finals after both teams finished in the top 2 spots everytime, that you had fans complaining that it was boring that the top 2 ended up contesting the GF everytime and how they would like to see someone from outside the top 2 reach a GF for a change. Also the Aussies lovers over here who love copying everything they do wanted us to copy them with a top 8 playoffs and people wanted to see other clubs get the oppotunity and experience of playoff rugby instead of the usual same teams.

I see exactly what youre saying but theres a difference between saying its a wakeup call and getting yourselves up from a beating. Hudds arent the only example of teams going out like a battered puppy from 3rd and 4th, in fact i reckon more went through from 5 or 6 than from 3rd or 4th over the last couple of years? I dont know? 1st should play 8th and so forth, its the best way and a better reward for finishing up there

A top five system is the way to go and it should have never have been changed from a top five in the first place.

We shouldn't reward mediocrity anywhere. Both Salford and Castleford made the top five in previous years now a top eight finish is enough for the smaller clubs.

Its like schools. If we are going to drive standards in SL up, raise the pass mark don't lower it.

The only way to keep a top eight play off in a 14 team league format is to play 1st vs 8th, 2nd vs 7th and so forth. Although I see the validty of a top five format and the team finishing top having a week off (I know there'll be examples where I am wrong) but isn't the trend that the team that has had a week off generally struggle? If so wheres the advantage? And not forgetting the bigger point the biggest paymaster is Sky and what would they do with less fixtures in the play offs?

Not a fan at all of losing teams going through to the next round. In your suggestion you could end up with the same fixture in Week 1 and 3, which is what ruins the intensity and excitement of the POs imo. Repeat fixtures in the POs has got to be a big no no.

It's fine as it is.

it's fine but what should happen as a reward for being consistent in the league over the entire season is the team that finished highest in the league in any fixture always gets home advantage

If you win your games then you do. In round 1 the top 4 sides basically play for home advantage which I have no problem with. Then in week 3 however if it's the same 4 sides then they shouldn't play the same team again. (which is the way the NRL playoffs will work I believe)

A one off game is more likely to be determined by a refereeing decision or an injury crisis than the entire 9 month season. Anyone can lose a one off game, whether they deserve it or not. That is the essence of sport.

Also NRL changed their format because Auckland finished 6th, lost their first play off game and they still got to the GF. A lot of Aussies still complain about the playoffs and want it returning to a top 5. I spent only 3 weeks in Aus last year and i heard it mentioned on 3 or 4 occasions on different shows.

Thats the problem, as clubs are playing 27 games and 8 months of slog to basically get home advantage in a game, to play for home advantage in a semi final!!!

Agreed, for me the likelihood of repeat fixtures it IMO the main reason why the first 2 rounds of the P/O are so poorly attended. If we went to a top 5/7 straight knockout series with top spot getting week one off, the playoffs would only take 3 weeks rather than 4 and would therefore free up another weekend throughout the season. If they really want to look at making the Exiles a 3 game series or even a extended WCC then doing this would surely favour one of those.

For me there are 2 major changes that need making to the English RL calendar ASAP; the format of of the playoffs and the ridiculous scheduling of the Challenge Cup.

IN the first few years of the playoffs I don't think they were as poorly attended. The first few time we played Saints in the playoffs we got 18,000 - 22,000 crowds on. Now we struggle to get 12,000.

That's because the format is pants (well, probably more the economic climate which I also blame the RFL for)

Playoff attendances against Saints at Robin Park:

2000: 19,200(top 5)
2001: 19,300(top 5)
2003: 21,900(top 6)
2004: 20,100(top 6)

then suddenly
2011: 12,900(top 8 )

I agree the format is pants.