And here's the same for the Premier League for comparison94/95 - Blackburn by 1pt
95/96 - Man Utd by 4pts
96/97 - Man Utd by 7pts
97/98 - Arsenal by by 1pt
98/99 - Man Utd by 1pt
99/00 - Man Utd by 18pts
00/01 - Man Utd by 10pts
01/02 - Arsenal by 7pts
02/03 - Man Utd by 5pts
03/04 - Arsenal by 11pts
04/05 - Chelsea by 12pts
05/06 - Chelsea by 8pts
06/07 - Man Utd by 6pts
07/08 - Man Utd by 2pts
08/09 - Man Utd by 4pts
09/10 - Chelsea by 1pt
10/11 - Man Utd by 9pts
11/12 - Man City by 0pts

6 out of 20 seasons have gone to the last day.

Also worth pointing out that the last 13 Super Leagues have all gone down to the very last game with both teams facing each other in that last clash. A couple of them have gone down to the final five or ten minutes as well before the game was decided, not to mention those playoff clashes which were similarly determined in closing minutes e.g. Wide to West, Carney vs Leeds.

I really don't see why we can't manage that potential disadvantage, tbh. In fact, let's ask ourselves why there needs to be up to a 4 week gap between the last round of SL and the GF.

Here's a proposition:

1st Place = Bye to Final
2nd Place = Bye to SF
3rd & 4th = QF

This year it would look something like this:

Sun 9th Sep: last game of SL
Wed 12th Sep: QF
Sat 15th Sep: SF
Sat 22nd Sep: GF

This would make becoming champions increasingly harder the lower down the table you finish, with 3rd and 4th place having to play a hugely intensive run of games to reach the GF. It would also make the playoffs more intense and exciting, knockouts at every stage, with the last 4 games of the season occurring over the space of a fortnight (last w/e of SL and GF being bookends of the fortnight), a packed festival of RL if marketed correctly, as opposed to the long, drawn out, convoluted and unintensive playoff series we have now.

Of course this may be fodder for the tin-hat pile of RL theories.

Just an idea.

The league leaders are crowned SL champions and the top 4 go into the end of season playoffs with the NRL top 4 for the world club challenge.

You get the extended world club challenge everybody wants, more meaningful league fixtures but keeping a playoff system and possible last day excitment.

Main stumbling block would obviously be the Aussies agreeing to it, which they wouldn't as they'd lose their show-piece event once every other year (a Grand Final).

After that, it'd be the logistics of such large travelling distances over a short period of time. Would they have to travel from one side of the world to the other every week? Or would they sacrifice home advantage?

It's an idea, and one that I've mullered over in the past. But it's not in our power to decide, which means therefore nothing will come of it!

Read my post again; the team who finishes first will have 1 week off.

Didn't see that you had a mid week game. So it'd be two weeks between games, as now. Fair enough.

However, a mid week game for some and not others I disagree with. That decision killed the other two groups in the World Cup. The team that played 3 days before always lost. They just don't have enough recovery time. It's too much to overcome IMO.

That's the penalty for finishing 3rd or 4th. It is harder to become champions the further down the table you finish:

1st goes to GF and has a week off
2nd goes to SF and doesn't have to play a midweek QF
3rd and 4th play a midweek QF with 3rd having the home advantage.

Midweek games are a no I'm afraid. We are talking about the end of season playoffs here, the pinnacle of our game. It is essential that these are presented in as best a way as possible and forcing teams to back up a few days after an epic knockout clash does nothing really other than undermine it. Home advantage during the playoffs should be enough for any serious trophy contender. If you're not able to convert a home appearance into a win against a team that you finished above in the table then you probably don't deserve to win the trophy.

I'm in favour of the top one or two getting a week off but let's not overcook it so that the competition is weighted so much in favour of finishing top as to negate the competitiveness of our sporting climax. Champions should be determined on the field not by what the structure of the playoffs is.

That argument works both ways. Someone who values the league will say "If you can't manage to finish higher in the league then you probably don't deserve the trophy." The playoffs shouldn't be a case of "OK, now that league business is over let's start from scratch." It should be a continuation of the competition as a whole. Also, home advantage is a nominal advantage, nothing more.

I can understand the argument about midweek games from a marketing point of view, but certainly not from the point of view that it's "not fair" on teams who finish lower in the table having to work their asses off to become champions.


Really, why shouldn't the playoffs favour the best team after 27 Rounds? Not doing so is rather like redistributing the league points for the top 8 (or however many are in the PO structure). A team's playoff run should represent their league standing, it should be a continuation of that standing, not a "start again" competition. The climb to the top should be very different for teams who have finished 1st and 4th (or below--way below--as we have now).


That's actually my argument. Who becomes champions should be determined by what has been happening on the field all season! And if a team really is deserving of winning from 4th or below, they should have to make up for how far below their contemporaries they have been over the last 27 rounds.

Nominal? Don't teams win a lot more games at home than they do on the road? e.g. I can think now that Hull or Wakefield have won at Saints about four times between them in the last thirty years, Salford and Huddersfield won three times between them in fifty years is it? That's a bit more than a nominal advantage.



Why would you let a team show up for a semi-final knackered because they've just worked their s off to get their? Surely you'd want a team that's battled to be given the same opportunity to perform at their best as other teams do? What purpose does it serve to half them turning up on three days rest? If you were organising a semi-final wouldn't you want it to be as attractive an event as possible? This is a very physical sport and, as can be seen by Easter Monday clashes, backing up without sufficient rest usually reduces the quality of play on show. Can you see how having a midweek game might impact upon the quality of the sporting spectacle and given this is the climax of our season how that would not be a good decision for us?



It does already by giving them a week off and home advantage. Why do you feel there should be more?



They do. If you had asked me last year would I prefer to start from Warrington's position or Leeds I'd have taken Warrington every single time. Surely that suggests that the teams and players themselves believe there is an advantage in finishing higher up in the table.

I think mid-week play-off games are a definite no-no.

I think it's generally more annoying for us Saints fans (understatement!!) that we went four consecutive seasons finishing top of the pile (2005, 2006, 2007, 200icon_cool.gif and were only named 'Champions' once in that period. Surely Saints were dominant in that period of SL history, yet Leeds are known for being that dominant team for beating us in a one-off game.

Having said that though...

I do like the play-offs and it does suit our game, but I have yet to see one person in support of a top 8: it's ridiculous. Go back to top 5/6.

Doesn't bother me one bit that. I wouldn't swap four titles for reverting back to the old system. All too often under the old system the season would peter out with a month left because a team lost one match that left them unable to catch the league leaders. People don't like the sport being referred to as the entertainment business but it is because it's the reason why we are all so passionate about it. We may pretend that it's too do with some sort of heroic northern stance against the ruling classes but that's just our proud history. Really we watch because it is the most consistently entertaining sport around and long may it stay that way.