-this-

This seems a far more honest critique - thanks.

I'd certainly agree that the weighting could be tweaked. Personally I preferred the old top 5 system as it rewarded the top 2 relative to the others far more but understand that top 8 can keep it more interesting at the lower end of the table - would Wakey have had their late surge if they had no chance of making the play offs? I doubt it.

Then that's indicative of what can happen in a simple league format. The title can be decided weeks before the season's end and few clubs are in the title race by the time we get to the last 4-6 weeks so have little to play for - unless you also bring back promotion/relegation too. Likewise, in a straight league format points and performance will still feel less vital the further away from the season's end you are - a team who loses a game in June certainly won't see it as the end of the world.

I'd also add a last point - that Leeds's route to the title wasn't easy. Home to the competition's form team, away to Catalans, away to the League Leaders and then against the cup winners and second in the table Wire, all with no second chances. Compared to that the route to the final for either Wigan or Wire seems far more straightforward - as it should be as reward for their placings, its just that Leeds were able to peak (and have the experience) to overcome the odds. I don't see that in itself as any cause for concern.

^Excellent post (again) from Ian Scott there.

I've got my views on the play off format which I will save for a later day to avoid any sour grapes accusations. I have no problem with the play offs existence though, nor Leeds success.

If the team that finished top won the Grand Final every year there would be no point having it. Leeds have been inspirational.

So you are saying that the playoffs are poorly attended because they are televised and there is no admittance for ST holders.

Why does the televised GF which supporters have to pay for attract 70,000 ?

If Leeds finished 8th they quite clearly wouldn't be good enough to win the competition. Realistically there are 4, at a push 5, teams capable of winning the GF. Leeds are one of the 4. It just happens Leeds switch off during the regular season more often than the rest, and they can afford to do that and finish comfortably within the 8, because they are comfortably better than the rest of the dross in the league and even the bottom half of the top 8. If Leeds got themselves in such a state that they finished 8th in SL, there's not a prayer they could win it from there.

No argument - Leeds performance in the playoffs was fantastic - their route to becoming GF winners was not easy, and they played the game as defined by the RFL, and won ......

But, during the regular season, when 3,000 Leeds fans paid good money for tickets/petrol/food etc, to travel to Saints to watch a game against one of their biggest rivals, the team turned up with their heads painted red, and, regardless of what official drivel they came out with after the game, treated the game like a charity testimonial. The team performance I saw win them the GF on Saturday bore no resemblance to the mess that went through the motions at that Saints game. Why? Because they'd decided that was one of the league games that didn't matter ..... didn't bother to tell the fans beforehand though, did they? Lets see how many bother to travel next year - and lets see how loud the clubs moan when revenues are down because fans refuse to be treated like idiots!

At least when Wire sent the reserves to play Broncos (in a similar display of contempt for the leagues importance), we knew the score; 2nd place was secure and 1st was not seen as worth the effort, and hence the travelling support was way down on the norm.

I have no issues whatsoever with Leeds winning Super League.

I do have serious issues with the concept of playoffs to decide the champions whatever format they take. I cannot accept a system when, in theory, one team can win 29 games on the bounce, lose number 30 and get nothing except a shiney frisbee.

Again, this isn't Leeds fault, but I can see Leeds success from 5th having a detrimental affect on attendances in the weekly rounds across Super League. I am currently unsure about renewing my season ticket for next season, mainly because of the money and partly because I missed 4 of the 13 home games this season. If I don't renew, then I'm sure that I will still be at the Wigan, Saints and Widnes games both home and away, but will I really be that bothered taking my arthrytic knees and watching us play Wakefield on a freezing cold February afternoon, or rushf over to Warrington after work on a Friday to watch us play Salford when, in the grand scheme of things these fixtures mean so little.

I know, maybe I'm just not a true fan!

Absolutely, yes.

Since 1998 there's been 5 or 8 or whatever teams that [icould [/iwin the Grand final at the start of the play offs each year. Prior to 2011 there was only one year where the Legue Leaders didn't make the final and as far as I can recall a team outside the top 2 had only won it once. That suggests to me that the clubs recognised the importance of finishing high up the table to give the best shot at reaching, and hopefully winning the final.

This means that the eventual champions have to be able to perform with some consistency through the year or give themselves a mammoth task of getting to the final and then they need to be able to raise their intensity dramatically for a serties of high pressure games culminating in a final. For me that's asking far more of a team than say a cup winning side with a high profile game every few weeks or a table topping side who can grind out a title - its asking the team to display the strengths of both alongside the ability to maintain peak intensity for several weeks.

For the last 2 years Leeds have done it from 5th. Arguably that gives more credibility to the play offs - and most people seemed to see it that way last year - as it showed a side could overcome all the odds and win through (it wasn't just a formality for the top 3), but its a real rarity and says far more about the Leeds club's experience over the last 9 years allowing them to accomplish something that looked impossioble than it does about the merits of a play offs competition per se in my opinion.

14 teams seems to be here to stay, and if we must have 8 in the playoffs, how about:

Rounds 1 - 26 everyone plays everyone else home and away.
Top eight then divided into two seeded groups of 4, say 1458 and 2367

Playoffs Week One: Give the playoffs a big launch by playing first four fixtures at neutral ground a la magic weekend but on one day, 5v8, 6v7, 1v4 and 2v3

Then, along ClubCall lines, top seeds in each group (i.e. teams finishing 1st and 2nd in regular season) decide which of remaining teams they will play away in week two, and at home in week three, e.g.
Week Two: 8v1, 7v2, 5v4, 6v3
Week Three: 1v5, 2v6, 4v8, 3v7

Week Four: winners of each group meet in GF

This removes any of the weeks off in the play-offs, ensures no repeat fixtures, gives all the top 8 1 home, 1 away and 1 neutral fixture.

Or the top 4 teams in the final regular season table could be given automatic home advantage for weeks 2 and 3, with gate receipts shared maybe.

*prepares to be shot down in flames*

Yes and no.

I'm making the point that you can't fairly compare the league games with the play off rounds because of the effect of televising and season tickets.

A fairer comparison would be between the Challenge Cup. where even the semi finals get modest attendances, and play offs. Yet both the Challenge Cup & Grand Final get huge attendances because the fans evidently buy into both.

This is going to have to be an agree to disagree one!