You don't understand the difference between a play off and a knock out competition. Knock out competitions are random by design and its why they never had the kudos of the league title decided on a home and away basis. Play off systems are supposed to be just that, competitions where teams play off against each other. As to the play-off format I was moaning about the top 8 format the day it was introduced because it is rubbish. I bet a fair few Leeds fans were as well.

Unless you are a bit dim you will know the top 5 system would make it far harder to get to the final from 5th than the current system. You would have to play off against allthe teams above you and so you should. Not be able miss a game against the team finishing second. Or in Saints case a game against the team finishing first.

The current format is a triumph of marketing over common sense and even the marketing failed given the crowds.

Since the playoffs were re-introduced in '98, only Bradford have managed to win it from outside a top 2 league finish. If there was no chance of the lower placed team winning, then their would be no point in the playoffs. Just because for one year in 14 the GF is being contested between 2 lower placed teams is no reason to throw all the toys out of the pram.

I [ido[/i think 8/14 teams is too many.

should be top 5 play off system
all credit to Leeds and Saints though

If Leeds win the GF and then were to take the WCC.... the best team in the world would only be the fifth best in the UK!!!! Try explaining that to the Aussies.

(Ok, I did say "IF"icon_wink.gif

Don't need to. NZ warriors finished 5th in their league so they could have done it as well.

Agreed 5 is more than enough. 8th place is in the bottom half of the league!

Also think it should revert to the top 3 getting a second chance if they lose at any stage in the play-offs, not just the first round. Even as a Leeds fan, it seems wrong that Wire should finish top, thrash (and nil) one team, then lose by only 2 points and be out of the play-offs.

How incredibly convenient!

Many of us have voiced these concerns before this playoff series and probably will contiune to do so. How a team can finishing top over 27 games can vitually lose a championship on one game is ridiculous imo.

Spot on mate, my exact opinion.

Well, one of my minor bugbears with the playoffs format is that, while Huddersfield and Wigan got 2nd chances after losing their first game, warrington only lost once and went out! That doesn't seem sensible.

Had the playoffs been amongst the top 5, we'd have had mostly quality games. Huddersfield have lost their way but the other teams have given some good hard displays.
8/14 teams not only rewards mediocrity, having over half the competetion qualifying, but it also exposes that our competetion has a big variety in quality down the league positions.
At the moment we can field 5, maybe 6 good teams.

Playoffs are a must for me, but I don't like the current format.

Good post and agree with all of that. Of all the systems we've used the top 6 is the one I've liked best.

It lacks legitimacy to you but not to others. I do not think it adds legitimacy to say "Here's a top five system and the league leaders need to win only one game to get to the Grand Final". I understand that there's some attempted logic in there around rewarding regular season performance i.e. 2nd/3rd need to win two games, 5th needs to win three games. However this year, Leeds have won three games from 5th and have beaten the league leaders to make it to the Grand Final which is a similar path as would have happened under a top five format. All the top five format would have done is over-protect Warrington because Leeds would probably have to have gone through the others before they even got a shot at Warrington, which makes it all a bit end-of-level-baddie.

Let's assume Wire had gone through off the first game of top five system and ended up playing Leeds next week. Should a team making a Grand Final really have to have played two more games than another team to make it? Should a team playing in a Grand Final have a week off in the week before whilst the other one doesn't? How does that serve our Grand Final? Doesn't that unbalance the battle? If so, how is that legitimate? Surely if the Grand Final is the pinnacle of our domestic sport (and it is no matter what people say) it needs to be an event where teams are not penalised prior to taking part. If you allow the kind of disparity evident in a top five system you can end up with teams playing in the GF that are at too big a disadvantage physically because they've had to go through the mill compared to another. I seem to recall it happening to yourselves a few years back against the Bulls after you'd surprised Leeds in the semi when despite a magnificent achievement in beating us before running yourselves to a stop over in Leeds whilst the Bulls put their feet up and had a week off before facing you. Surely it undermines the GF to have a structure that creates that unevenness in recuperation?

Why would you want to undermine your showpiece occasion by penalising a team before they've even stepped out onto the turf? Surely a battle should be decided out on the field and not before a ball has been kicked? That a lower-placed team has made its way through to the final indicates they have overcome tougher obstacles in the first instance so they deserve to be there. They have earned the right to compete so they deserve to be able to compete on an equal footing and not one that's undermined by off-the-field issues created by the structure of the competition.

If a team isn't good enough to beat a team that finished below them in a pressure cooker environment in front of their own fans then that's their problem. If anything the only true way to decide it is to go to neutral venues for all the play off action but that's not practical over here. Yes, reward the teams finishing higher in the table in the form of home advantage and easier draws but don't lever it so far in their favour that flat track bullies get a free pass into the final. I want to see my champions tested not molly-coddled. You get trophies for winning the world cup not the qualifying group and long may that be the case.

If we're going to have a top 8 system it should be the Australian one because it makes sense. If not we need to make sure we don't undermine the Grand Final by (1) giving one participation a week off before the final while another one plays in a blood and thunder knockout game and (2) throwing together the best teams in the play offs until it is later in the rounds i.e. no 1v4 and 2v3 in the first week whilst 5v8 goes on.

Yes but that can happen during the course of a season. Didn't you only finish a point behind Warrington?