Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"No, 2000 we finished top, 2001 we were 2nd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League'" my mistake. just checked and it was 2003 v bradford we got there from third

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"No, 2000 we finished top, 2001 we were 2nd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League'" my mistake. just checked and it was 2003 v bradford we got there from third

Exactly. If you have to have a play off this is the best way to go.

The top 4 play off we have been using over the last few years is the best system, semi final then final between the best 4 teams. All the others, including the top 5 which we are going back to are contrived over complicated and needlessly long.

Out of all the systems we've tried, my preference is for the top 5 version as I think it's the best balanced. Any side, however good, can get ambushed by lesser opposition but under the top 5 format if one of the top 2 fails to make the GF there can be absolutely no excuse. Sure, there'll always be some gripes from disappointed fans but not the levels of dissatisfaction seen under some of the other formats.

The Top 5 Play Off format after a regular season is, in my opinion, by far the best method we have had of crowning champions. No system is perfect and I can definitely sympathise with those of us who would prefer a first past the post league season but I prefer this system for several reasons.

1 - Loop fixtures. We all hate them but we've got them and as long as we have them there is a chance that they can skew the purity of a first past the post league season. Everyone plays everyone home and away and the top side are champions, I can get behind. Everyone plays everyone but plays some teams more than others, sometimes with and sometimes without home advantage and then the top team are champions, I don't think is good enough. And yes, I absolutely would prefer to just not have loop fixtures.

2 - The system rewards success. As has been said, for the four seasons we ran it we got a Grand Final of 1st v 2nd every time. There is a concrete advantage for finishing higher up, whereas the top four gives no real advantage for finishing 1st over 2nd and only home advantage for finishing top 2 over top 4. Look at last season - Warrington didn't beat Saints once in the season or the super eights but one good day saw them in the final. That is much harder to get under the top 5. 1st has a clear advantage over 2nd 3rd, who have a clear advantage over 4th and 5th.

3 - The system is simple. When it first came in in 1998 people complained vigorously about the top 5 being over-complicated but it's actually really easy to sum up. Five teams start, one gets knocked out every week, the last two standing play the final. Simple. Also, the only way to win is to beat every team that finished above you in consecutive weeks. You cannot win the Grand Final without beating all of the teams that finished above you, regardless of where you finish. None of the systems that we have used since have maintained this, to my mind essential feature.

4 - Interest for mid-table teams. We aren't football, we don't have Europa League and Champions League spots to chase. Once a team is safe from relegation and out of the running for first, they are just making up the numbers. Sure, we've established that winning it from 5th is a supreme challenge but still, if your team is 8th with 5 games to go then getting to 5th is an accomplishment in itself. I'm not saying that teams and fans would have no interest in placing higher under a first past the post, but there would definitely be less.

5 - The Grand Finals are actually a good way to determine champions. This is more contentious, as I appreciate that a lot of people think that deciding everything in a one-off game doesn't reward consistency but I think that every system has its flaws. First past the post can throw up absolutely thrilling end of season battles but it can also throw up seasons where one team wins at a canter. Building up an early lead, they play the second half of the season under much less pressure each week as they know they have the safety net of the gap between them and the chasing pack to rely on should they lose. The top five play-offs reward the most consistent team but then challenge them to do it all again under pressure. I love that.

Anyway, I'll enjoy it while it lasts and if you don't like it, just wait another three or four seasons and see what the next ideal format turns out to be!

From 1998 to 2008 we had Top 5/6 playoffs.

In 11 seasons the GF was
1st vs 2nd - 9 times
1st vs 3rd - once
2nd vs 3rd - once

Whilst I liked top 5/6 this is also the reason it was changed because as per usual fans of certain clubs complained because the GF was nearly always the top 2 (and the usual suspects of Saints, Wigan, Leeds and Bradford) and that it was too difficult for teams lower down to reach the GF. Change it up and then fans complain the top two should get more of an advantage.

Basically whatever system we use people will complain and criticise and that’s why it changes every few years. I guarantee that if we see a repeat of consistent 1st vs 2nd GF’s we’ll see some fans complaining about it after a few years.

the reason the first 2 keep getting to the grand final is because genedrally they are gthe best teams over the season, i will exclude huddersfield from that though.

Don't disagree, everyone liking for a perfect formula that doesn't exist.
My argument like a different poster said was that "if" we are to have a pay off system them this is the best at striking a balance between those who want to reward league table consistency and those who are the best "when it matters" .

For example
When Leeds won it from 5th a couple of times you had lots of fans moaning saying it was a joke that a team from 5th could win it.
My argument was that Leeds played the system better than anyone else and if the league had been a first past the past system who's to say they wouldn't have played that system better than anyone else and won that? They wetter good enough to win it whichever way, they would have designed their season around winning it that way.
However I do believe that the play offs should reward the teams that do well over the weekly round more. Under the last few systems though the teams that have finished top have wanted to finish top for other reasons (hudds,cas,wire are the big examples) and given it more credit than it deserves under the systems employed at that point. In other words they won it when certain others weren't bothered about it.
First past the post and the seasons don't pan out the same way.

Under this system their are big big advantages to finishing top2, coincidentally I don't think this will play in Wigan favour this year, however it will mean that each team has to play as close as they can each week to their best consistantly to get those 2 spots, otherwise they do it tough from lower down.

So instead of listening to the moaners they should pick the best system and stick with that.
A few of the rule changes this year point towards them finally coming up with the best rules also rather than trying to listen to everybody and chopping and changing everything to try and please everyone.

Under the top 5 system (and the top 6 to an extent) they are generally the best

Under the top8 and subsequent super 8 systems the best teams (IMO) didn't really care that much about finishing top, they let others get on with winning games that didn't really matter under those systems and burning themselves out.
I do think the super 8s were better than the top 8 system but marketing wise etc it's a logistical nightmare.

So basically, huddersfield won it when most other teams didn't care that much about it.

And yes,it meant little to anyone outside of wigan when we won it in 2010, or Castleford in 2017 or Warrington in 2011/16 etc. and saints last year.

Not many will really care this year, however they know 1&2 gives them a far better chance of winning the one that matters, so there will be more teams wanting to finish 1or2 to give them the best chance of the big one.

And as for those who talk about other games being dead rubbers. There will always be dead rubbers under any system.

Giving everybody something to play for every week and"manufacturing" ways to keep teams involved doesn't keep the intensity, it lessens it.
If they're out of the top 5 and safe from relegation with 10 rounds to go, then guess what?
They can either strive to get better or get worse.
Not sit and wait for a change of system to do it for them.

The problem people really had wasn’t that a team from 5th won it or 4th like in 2013.....it was that the teams that did it being Leeds and Wigan. The hope for many with the switch to 8 will have been to see other new teams reach and win the GF, they didn’t consider one of the usual suspects dropping to 5th and doing it.

Just to prove it a lot of people complained when Leeds beat Cas in 2017 yet it was 1st vs 2nd, exactly the positions that people are saying now should get an advantage in the playoffs.

As long as the same couple of teams reach and win the GF then you’ll have moaners.

Fair point, but I doubt there'll be that worry about Leeds this season!