I don't think it's necessarily MM who's inexperienced (although i'm still undecided if it's a good idea playing Sam at full-back). Personally, i feel the team has too many young inexperienced players in it who just aren't used to playing in so many high-pressure games. The likes of Tomkins (x2), Tuson, Mcilorum, Prescott, Tuson, Goulding are all still relatively new to the first team. I believe a couple of older, more experienced heads in the team would have got us through that game...

Nobody even knows the rules. This playoff format is a joke. How can you finish 4th and get a home semi final? I mean WTF!

All this is hypothetical we haven`t beat the robins yet.

I don`t like these playoffs there a joke.

The top 8 play off system doesn't work for me in a 14 team league but we knew before tonight what we had to do(well to a point). It doesn't quite seem fair that you really don't get any form of reward for finishing top but thats the way it works and this format may one day benefit us in the way it has Leeds tonight.

In 80mins they've basically earned the rights we've worked for 27 games for which doesn't feel right but like I say we knew where we stood going into tonight.

Very good points, finishing in the top 4 is all the same really, just 1st and 2nd get home games which in our case this season is our weak point

The top 2 playing each other with the winner going to the final is so much better, and rightly rewards the two most consistent teams over the course of the season. Hopefully the playoff will be reviewed but I very much dont it because the RFL are a bunch of nobs.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think the fact that one day it might benefit us is any justification. I've been saying for years that not enough credence is given to the winners of the League. The top 5 playoff system at least had some credibility, this format simply doesn't. Outside of the game it's actually ridiculed. I've lost count of the numbers of fans of other sports who find it laughable! The winners of the league should be the ones the others 'play off' for the right to challenge. Simple as that really. However, as we all know, Sky money is king in this sport and they want a contrived play off tournament, so that's exactly what we get. Sad really.

I thought that one of the reasons the play-offs were changed was because it was felt that the winners of 1 vs 2 going straight to the final meant that a team that was playing well could lose momentum by having a week off?

I wouldn't be too discouraged by that loss. You have another go, and Leeds have lost theirr first playoff game three times out of the 4 wins they've had in recent years - including a 38-10 tonking at Sts in 2008.

Pretty much exactly as I see it.

I have never heard that. I seem to recall when it was changed from the top 5 the RFL said something along the lines of it was too difficult for the fans to understand or some other patronising comment. I suspect it is also to be more inclusive to give the impression poor teams really do have something to play for. It's bit like the often criticised attitude in schools where no one is a loser! Your season is over half way through? Well tough - try harder next time.

The loss of momentum was IMO easily made up for due to the fact the other sides would have battered themselves to bits to get to the final which was the whole point I thought in order to make it very hard for anyone other than the top side to win the competition. With the top five the only way for a side other than the one finishing first to win the GF was to beat all the sides above them. Of all the systems we have had the top five gave the side finishing top the most advantage whereas now it's little removed from an ordinary cup competition.

Dave

Pretty much as I see it too.

Jeez with all this agreement on here, things are going to get very boring soon!

IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT RUGBY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT SAINTS CAN T PICK LEEDS D***HEAD

Ohh keyboard warrior.

Turn you caps off love and stop shouting.