Although I agree that you need to reward the team finishing top, I'm not convinced that's the best way, that will mean they have 2 weeks off prior to the Grand Final and, as people have said, weeks off may not be that helpful in truth.

Having said that, isn't only having to win 2 home games against the teams that finished 4th and 5th (for example) reward enough for finishing top?

Again, I agree the top 8 is too much as you shouldn't finish in the bottom half of the table and be in with a (slim) chance of being the Champions.

If you have a great side that doesn't bother to turn it on week in week out, but produces the goods when it matters, then fine. And I think that is what Monie was alluding to. But if you get a side that plays poorly for a significant period of the year, then clicks at the sharp end, I think it's a different issue.

How would we classify Leeds for the last two years ? And let's bear in mind that Wire soundly beat them 'when it mattered' in the cc finals. Surely a great side would have won one, if not both those finals ?

The current system does NOT reward mediocrity. When we were mediocre and ot into the play offs in lower end positions we got no rewards other than an unexpectedly enjoyable night at Headingley in 2006. The teams that finished in positions 6-8 this year were all fairly mediocre and got little reward.

This Leeds team are made of champion stuff, not mediocrity.

I'm still heartbroken that Warrington are not champions, and the fear that we never will be refuses to leave me, but to deny this Leeds team their rightful position is laughable. They got exactly what they deserved led by Super League's outstanding captain.

This is assuming that the Challenge Cup 'mattered' as much to the Leeds coaching and management team as it did to Wire's.

Leeds learned a lot from 2005, when they spent the first half of the year sweeping away all before them before gradually burning out in the second half of the season - when it really mattered. Meanwhile Bradford, who'd been ordinary in the first half peaked at the right time and were worthy winners.

There was 12 months of turmoil at Leeds off the back of that but afterwards a model was in place that has seen the club win at Old Trafford in 5 of the last 6 years.

Aside from any world club championship commitments Leeds management's very clear focus is getting the side to peak physically and mentally when it matters - in September and October. That's even reflected in the timing and structure of pre-season training compared to what's in play at other clubs.

The Challenge Cup is definitely a nice to have and publicly they'll make all the right noises and give it their best to win in every game they play in but they're not quite at their peak in late August. Everything is focussed on the big prize at Old Trafford.

The cost of that is they won't be 100% in the challenge cup but the payback is that come the business end of the season they will be while some opponents who have tried to maintain a high intensity all year will inevitably be on the wane.

So if you had won last night you would have been equally dismayed that Wigan were not representing SL in the WCC?

We did it from 5th.................... AGAIN

You are deluded ! If the champions were decieded by the team finishing top of the regular rounds do you think Warrington would have rested and rotated players over the season or put out a reserve team again London the week before the challenge cup ?

At the time, what happened at the end of 2005 was tremendously dissapointing. But looking back it actually put leeds on the road to the success they've had in the last 6 years. Leeds are right to focus mainly on the grand final because championships are what makes great teams.

Last season knocked me sick. We were head and shoulders the best team in the league, but we were not crowned champs. However, we knew what was about to come (the play-offs).

This season, Wigan were the best (sicks up a tiny bit of Shiraz), and again, They weren't crowned champs.

Leeds know how to "beat the system". Fair play to 'em. They beat us.

I'll say it again. Let's "toughen up" this end of season jamboree. Winners go straight to the GF. 2 plays 3 for the right to meet the league winners in the GF. No half baked teams "saving" themselves until Sept, and no dross getting a whooping in the elite play-offs.
Everyone's a winner

If you're going to have a 3 team (and 2 game) play-offs, then there's very little point having a play-off system at all. The play-offs are a big revenue generator and that's a large part of why they were brought in. Aside from the fact that having 3 teams battling it out over the course of 2 games is largely a meaningless exercise (if it's going to be contested by such a small pool you might as well just have first past the post), it's also not going to generate much revenue or even interest in my eyes.

So the question really is do we reduce it to 5 or 6 teams, leave it as 8, or scrap it altogether. Scrapping it is clearly not going to happen, and nor should it, but I do think it needs to be reduced to 6 teams at most.

A BIG REVENUE GENERATOR??????????????????????????????????

Have you SEEN he attendances, for this season's big revenue generator.?