I fear quite a few fans (especially it seems Wiganers - no surprise there) are going to be very disappointed come play off time when they find themselves unable to suddenly turn into Champions. The reality is, being average through the season is pretty much a good indication that you are just, in fact, pretty average.

So, like leeds last season then?

Occasionally a team of true champions will encounter some adversity along the way putting them in a false position. That has happened once in fourteen years so it's not exactly a common occurence. If any Wiganers think their team is hiding some genius somewhere they are most likely to end up very disappointed.

Leeds finishing 5th last season was no false position. There was little to no adversity either - they were rubbish for the most part. They reached the CC Final on the back of an easy draw - were extremely fortunate to beat Castleford in the Semi Final with an extra time penalty kick - and as soon as they faced a top 4 SL side, they lost. They couldn't beat any top 4 side in the SL regular rounds all season (and didn't need to as it turned out) until Round 27 when Huddersfield had already ran out of their customary steam. As a consequence of a ridiculous play-off system which rewards mediocrity, they were rewarded with a home game against easy pickings for finishing 5th, followed by another easy game against Huddersfield who had ran out of even more of their customary steam. They became champions on the basis of winning 2 games - a penalty kick win away at Warrington followed by taking advantage of St Helens injuries in the last 20 minutes at Old Trafford.

If ever a team proved conclusively the unimportance of the weekly rounds in SL due to the absurd play-off system in place which rewards mediocrity, then Leeds did so last year.

Don't write off St Helens this time around. They appear to be doing it the mediocre Leeds way

But surely that is a complacent attitude?
200,000 people live in Warrington, about 150,000 in Wigan and surrounding, yet only 21,000 bother. That's not success for me.

Id suggest going back even further, to the days before competitions were sponsored or even televised.

It's a straight league champion and then a completely separate knock-out competition for a number of top-finishing clubs that is relatively new (relatively new as in from 1895). We spent more years with a league competition and then play-offs to decide the champions than any other form of competition)

Leeds regular season finishes for their 5 GF wins and two losing appearances were?

Wins: 1, 2,2,1,5
Losses: 2,2.

In what way does your statement tally with the actual facts?

And a bit more history again, we had playoffs to determine the champions early doors because back then players had full time jobs to work, and travelling across the country was logistically time consuming and expensive, and almost certainly would have involved overnight stop overs thus making the players miss even more work. In short, it wasn't a proper home/away league fixture list and thus the only logical way to fix the imbalance of the fixture list would be for a playoff series at the end.

At a certain point, tradition overtakes original reasoning and circumstances.

I actually agree with you about the current playoff system. Of the ones we tried the top 5 system would be my choice. There at least there was a significant advantage for finishing top and top 2. I think with this top 8 there will be more teams from outside the top 2/3 getting to the final and winning it over time. And then we could see the regular rounds losing significance.

Having said that saints beat Wigan twice to get to OT and Leeds had to beat the league leaders away from home. May be that last year was one off, a statistical anomaly.

Top 5 system for me too. I strongly believe in 1st position on the ladder earning their rightful advantage. And it appropriately assigns the fairest advantage to each side based on their finishing position. No other playoff system does that. This current one is pants which completely undermines 27 regular rounds of SL fixtures whilst rewarding mediocrity in the process.

Last year may well have been an anomaly but I do think a few teams at the top were overhyped and overrated. Wigan ran out of steam winning the CC. Warrington's seemingly invincible form and favouritism always appeared somewhat unjustified to me. They were winning way too many games by cricket scores and I did wonder how ideal their preparation would be coming into the playoff games as they had rarely been tested. As it turned out, they didn't cope very well when they were tested in a close game.

In a nutshell, SL doesn't have enough teams who are good enough or competitive enough to warrant a Top 8 playoff system and we all know the teams which are pretty much guaranteed a place near the top of the ladder. For any genuine contenders, tossing it off and finishing 5th or 6th under the current playoff system isn't a disaster, nor is it much of a handicap as Leeds proved last year.

Had it been a Top 5 system last year, I doubt Leeds would have triumphed quite frankly, but if they had it would have been much more of an accomplishment with little room for questioning their entitlement to be champions. Wigan away in week 1. Away to probably St Helens in week 2. And then away at either Wigan, Warrington or St Helens (depending on other results) in week 3 in order to reach the Grand Final.

Thing is though Leeds didn't play 'dross' all season, they reached the Challenge Cup final and only lost 1 game in Superleague after that. They had a very shakey start whilst the new coach and structures bedded in but once eveything had settled down their true colours showed. It could be argued why decide the season within the first few weeks where teams may not be playing their best footy? Had leeds played like they had after the CC final earlier in the season they would have finished in the top 3.

By beating nothing but dross to get there.

All wins against dross apart from Warrington away and the Grand Final itself.

For 2 games only.

Much better to decide it on the basis of 2 games at the end of the season. Meanwhile, forget about all the dross being played in the previous 30+ games, eh?

Leeds only played well in 2 games last season... the last two. The rest was dross against dross. Quit trying to rewrite history.

You can only beat what's infront of you.

Again, not our fault.

You can't play well for only 2 games a season and win the Grand Final, contrary to what you may say. Ask any coach about that.

I never said that, if a team has a poor start to the season, this shouldn't mean they should be exempt from winning it later on. Leeds played better in the second half of the season to the first, only because they started slowly meant they finished fifth. They still had the quality to win the competition, showing that the start of the season wasn't a true reflection of the teams ability.


They didn't though did they.