Who's been feeding you the truth serum . At last, a Wigan fan honest enough to declare they missed out on the biggest trophy in Rugby League and he's disappointed about it. Good on you, I admire your honesty.

You are not Tony Smith and I don't claim my £5

For those who think finishing in pole position in the qualifiers is better than being champions I would like to point out that 1997 was 15 years ago. It's 15 years since we decided our champions by who was top of the league. For 15 years teams have known that to be champions they must give themselves the best chance by qualifying in the best position then beat all their contemporaries in the playoffs. Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp? It is also the way that Rugby League has decided it's champions for the vast majority of it's history by the way.

I'd scrap the league Leaders Shield. It was introduced as a fop to small minded Luddites and simply clouds the issue.

You know what, I'm inclined to agree, it muddies the waters.

Lets say the Grand Prix is the perfect example, you get pole position if you come top in the qualifiers, it's a position that gives you best chance of winning the race.
If you come top in the qualifiers you don't win any medals or trophies.
Yes it shows that on an empty track you're the best but if you never win the actual race it also shows that you 'lack something'

Scrapping the LLS, even though it does take some achievement, would be a good step for me.

Leeds are champions for me end of, we just got the fastest lap the day before.

There have been 14 GF of which 6 have been won by the team not finishing top. Why do people accept the fact you are valid champions from 2nd but not from 5th!! Your still not the best team over the weekly rounds!!

Any Saints fans complaining about the fact Leeds won the title despite not finishing top should be prepared to hand back there tittles back that they won in 1999 and 2000 as Bradford and Wigan won the League in those 2 years. The same goes for Bradford who should be prepared to hand back there title which they in 2005 as Saints finished top that year.

The fact that Saints are known as the team who lost 5 GF in a row (07-11) rather than the team that won the League 4 years straight (05-0icon_cool.gif shows which is more important!!

Try not to be so tribal dear, who's the sore one.
2011 was a great season for many clubs, Pies, Saints all in their own way, and by far the most competitive for while, a great spectical, especially the DW stadium one, my hands are still sore from clapping.
But a series 27 rounds of games with only a portion being relevant is odd and that's the point of this post isn't it?

Warrington failed, i get that, let's move the debate on
Scrapping the LLS would mean the point of striving to win all your games is gone, then why pay your hard earned pounds to watch a regular match
What if you figure out a few days before your team is not going for a win because the team sheet fields a weakened side.
Unintended consequences such as the Leeds example, they were poor per Playoffs, shows what can be achieved fron 13 points off the top, I wonder if Warrington will prioiritise the GF this season, deliberately fielding weekend sides towards back end of season, if I was the boss, that's what id do, if the top position is irrelevant.
Maybe playing youngsters and taking a loss is a good thing for the team overall ?

Erm, except the point, the real point, is to finish as high in the league table as possible to earn the resultant advantages as you enter the playoffs. Nobody is striving to finish top for a big dinner plate.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or, indeed, if you have one but if you genuinely think Warrington didn't prioritise the GF last season above all else then I'm not sure how you can benefit further from this discussion. Do you really think Warrington prioritised the Leage Leaders Shield ahead of the Grand Final? For real?

Oh, and you might want to look at Leeds results through July to the Grand Final. After the loss at Catalan on July 10th Leeds only lost one more league match the week before the cup final. Leeds were not poor heading into the playoffs or in the playoffs themselves. Leeds were one of the hottest teams heading into the playoffs, something they seem to have perfected over the last seven or eight years.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but why does playing youngsters equate to a loss? In case you hadn't noticed, Leeds and Saints play a lot of youngsters and, guess what, it doesn't necessarily equate to losing.

The point I'm making is that a team can lose a third of its matches and be crowned Champions as Leeds did very well as you say. Does that not then show the irrelevance of 11matches in your season ? Leeds lost 11 matches in 2011.

If as a supporter I'm thinking should I go to the match or do something else with my weekend, or maybe watch it on sky instead of going to the ground because it doesn't really matter so long as your team win 15 games out of 27, then I can see some fans taking the non rugby weekend. Is that good for RL ? I think not.
In these difficult times, its important as many fans as possible think their year supporting their team has been worthwhile.
As a Wire fan, I do for 2011, as I'm sure do Wigan, Saints and a few others who had something to play for.
Wire spent many years winning nothing, I for one don't mind admitting it darn difficult to watch your team if they finish the year trophy less.
I should know we were the best at it.

You're totally missing the point here. What Leeds did was extraordinary, but they didn't choose to do it the hard way.
Those 11 matches were not irrelevant. Leeds didn't choose to lose them. They would much rather have been in Warrington's position at the end of the regular rounds, not to win the hubcap, but to have the massive advantages that league leaders have going into the playoffs.
Leeds and Saints also didn't choose to play youngsters just for the hell of it. They were forced to do so 'cos of pretty severe injury problems. Had Peacock and McGuire been available at the start of the season, or if they could have played first choice centres and props for most of the season, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even be talking about Leeds losing so many matches anyway.
The bottom line is Leeds couldn't match the others until they had a settled, relatively injury-free team and got used to a new coaching team and new playing systems. Once that happened they were as good as (and results would suggest better than) the rest.

End of debate

I'm not talking about flipping Leeds, I'm talking about the games as a whole, give me strength !
My point is if 11 games can be lost and you still win the ultimate prize as its regarded, then it follows a third of all results don't matter, I don't think that's good for the game, only my opinion, I see RL as under a serious threat to other distractions, this issue adds to the game's demise or don't you notice the empty seats ?

Except that's not the debate.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but when someone posts two paragraphs, one of which is about Leeds losing 11 games, I assume that they are talking about 'flipping Leeds'!

You just don't get it do you? The championship is won by winning the play-offs. The league determines who will play in and have the greatest advantage going into the play-offs. In this sense no game is irrelevant. They all matter in terms of the greater objective...having that advantage going into, and ultimately winning the play-off series.
The relevance of those 11 games is that Leeds had to play all but one of their play-off games away, and that to win the GF, they had to play and win more games than those above them. This would be true of any team whether it's 'flipping Leeds' or 'blooming someone else'.

Yes maybe you are ! As I said I get it, Leeds are the bees knees, the dog's danglies, whatever you want, great season, Mc Dermott' a genius. I heard all that.
But as you don't get it, I'll give up, I wouldn't want you to have a heart attack.