+1

+1
The sad thing is that the one that is most difficult to win is classed as the least important.

All three.

As stated above it will always be GF for the bragging rights, but my heart will always be for the Challenge Cup.

As an occassion, nothing compares to 'Abide With Me' being sung out at the CC final (no mater who is playing). Goosebumps every time.

Is it harder to finish top than to beat the very best teams in consecutive weeks in knock out games? Fair enough it is difficult to be consistent, even given the amount of p*** poor teams we play, but it's also very difficult to beat the best teams.

We finished top last year but we won 0/2 games against Wire, 3/4 against St Helens, 2/2 against Catalans and 2/4 against Leeds. So overall that's 7 wins from 12 games against top 5 opposition, and 1 win from 3 games against top 5 opposition in knock out games. I would argue that last year we were good at beating the 'easier' teams, but when it came to the top sides you might as well toss a coin, then when it came to big knockout games we really struggled. That's not the description of a champion team for my money.

We had that hymn at my dads funeral back in 1991, always makes me very emotional when I hear it, I'll probably have a few tears in the old eyes on the 24th (and I'm not ashamed to admit it), just another piece of tradition that makes me cherish the Cup Final.

--good post--bout sums it up for me as well! i did not like the whole occasion at last years grand final,not because we got beat, it just did not have the *wembley factor* and the atmosphere was less friendly than the atmosphere you get at wembley.

Sorry mate, but that's garbage.

For a comparison, let's look at Manchester Utd *spit* from last season.

They were crowned champions, having lost only 5 games, but those 5 include Spurs, City and Chelsea at home.

They also lost to Chelsea in both the League- and FA-Cups.

Therefore, they played the 5 teams who finished below them 12 times.
7 wins
5 losses

Does that mean that they should not be crowned champions, and should insted have been forced to play the 11 teams below them to "prove" that they deserved it?
(I'm equating 8 of 14 in SL to 12 of 20 in EPL).

Top of the league should be crowned CHAMPIONS, after a straightforward 1 home, 1 away, against every other team in the league.

And if we'd held out for 2 more mins against leeds (A Big if) and beat Wolfs making it 1 from 3 would that make us a Champion team?

If we'd have lost EVERY game against the other top 5 that season - But won 3 games in the Play offs (Maybe down to other teams injuries/suspensions etc. etc) would that make us a champion team.

Unfortunately comparing any system based on results from a year when a different system was used is flawed.

Well it's not [igarbage[/i is it? It's just a different opinion to yours, I'll wager that there are plenty who share it or there would be no such thing as play offs. As fans, many of us like our champion team to be able to beat the best teams in knockout games.

If there were no play offs, as there aren't in the premiership, then obviously the team that finishes top are the champions, because every single team goes out there with that singular goal and tailors their approach to match.

Quick question, in a league game in June '12, we ran with a depleted team and still stuck 50 points past Leeds, then a month later we had a full strength side and they still knocked us out of the Challenge Cup. If Leeds had to finish top to be crowned champions, do you think we would have seen the same results? Or do you think that perhaps Leeds didn't finish 5th because they were the 5th best team, but because they tailored their approach so they were fresh come the business end of the season? If you accept the premise that the top teams aren't going all out to finish top, it's very hard for the team to finish top to call themselves champions.

If we had lost every game against the top 5 then we would have finished 6th. I don't think there should be more than 5 teams in the play offs so no, I wouldn't call us champions. Having said that, we would likely have had to beat Huddersfield, St Helens, Warrington and Leeds in four consecutive weeks in the play offs, which would be a hell of a feat.

That's why the league seems so boring these days cos half the teams don't give a damn until September. A complete waste of everyone's money.

Yep. Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Les Catalans, Huddersfield and St Helens know they'll almost certainly make the 8; Hull FC, Hull KR, Bradford and Wakefield will fight it out to get in there, then get knocked out in the first week of the play offs; Castleford, Widnes, Salford and London will be whipping boys. Almost exactly the same story every year.

If we had a top 5 system with a 12 (if Toulouse come in and Cas, Widnes and London exit) team league there wouldn't be that same security amongst the top teams IMO, and the standard of the average game would be higher with us not having to sit through the regular hammerings of London, Widnes and Castleford. We could probably raise the cap a bit too with us not having to worry about it being too high for the poorest teams, who would be playing in the Championship anyway. There is the argument that Bradford, Hull KR, Toulouse and Wakefield would get beat most weeks with little chance of making the 5 (I've excluded Hull FC and Salford from that as they're both sleeping giants IMO given Hull's recent boost and Salford's newly acquired wealth), but there's always going to be winners and losers in sport, it's up to them to seize the opportunities in front of them.

The CC lost what ever magic it had left about a decade ago. I'd go so far as to say i'd rather lift the Hub Cap than the CC. At least the hub cap can't be won on an easy draw or a fluke.

I'm sorry but there's only on trophy that's worth any sort of recognition and it's won at Old Trafford in October.

Agree for exactly the same reason as you twoseven