Or teams think finishing 5th is an OK ambition because it doesn't make that much difference and so devalues the league.



The NRL system is different than ours so you are not comparing like with like.

I think it is definitely true though that in our country the top 8 does have meaningless games featuring the lowest placed teams namely 7th and 8th. I think the scores and crowds reflect this as well.



Well they were wrong. The competition has been decided different ways in the history of the game depending on how the league was structured not based on any tradition. We played off in the 70's because the competition was 34 teams in one division but with only 30 fixtures so you could hardly claim to be champions by finishing top of the ladder back then. Just the top 4 played off then IIRC presumably because they didn't think lower teams deserved a shot at it

When it went to home and away fixtures then the logical way to decide who was champions in such a league was top of ladder, so we did. I suspect Millennium Magic will die a death sooner rather than later and if it does and we do end up with just home and away fixtures you can bet we won't return to top of the ladder deciding it however logical that would be then because Nigel Wood and the RFL are into "marketing".

good thread this

They can, but it is incredibly tough.

Week 1:

3 beat 2
5 beat 4

Week 2:

3 beat 1 and advance to Grand Final
5 beat 2

Week 3:

5 beat 1 and advance to Grand Final


They CAN meet, but would have to have beaten EVERYONE above them.

Yeah isn't it just...I only hope its finished before about noon on Saturday as i will be having a couple of beers in manchester prior to watching the super saints in the grand final at old trafford! Still, gives warrington and wigan fans something to extend their season....

Do you seriously think it doesn't make much difference finishing 5th compared to 1st or 2nd? Do you now think that the 5th placed team will regularly make the GF?

1st & 2nd place hold all the trump cards. 2 home games against lower ranked opposition and the GF awaits. A champion team would be able to negotiate this.

Trouble is the teams finishing below 1st or 2nd in the playoffs could of been taking it easy all season and are actually better than the top 2. Look at Leeds playoff run compared to Saints or Wigans. Leeds beat Hull and Hudds who were both pap then won one tough match vs Wire, Saints had to beat us twice in two very tough matches yet they finished above Leeds.

We didn't have to beat you twice. We did, but we didn't have to.

One loss for Leeds and they were out.

You can't be overly critical of a team who picks & chooses when they want to perform. By the same token (in the example of Hudds) if a team loses form at the end of the season, you cannot use that an excuse for the other team winning - they were 4th on merit and should have given us that 'tough' match that you seem to think we deserved. Nobody complained when Wigan made easy meat of Catalan.

It always has been (and always will be) much easier to qualify for OT from 1st or 2nd place - that is why it usually happens. Finishing 5th gives no second bite of the cherry, with all the difficult matches away from home

To be fair its never happened before so the way the fixtures may of panned out could just be a freak. If it happens on a regular basis though do we not think the regular season games are virtually gonna become friendlies? I think top should be champions but obviously for the good of the game we have to keep the playoffs. I just think that the top team should have a bit more reward to keep the regular season race for top spot healthy.

Leeds and Saints both deserve to be at OT as they have played superbly through the play offs, in no way am i disputing that. We all know the system before we start.

One got the week off and the top 3 got a second go.

That was the top 6 system. 1 v 2 got the first week off, played 2nd week with the winner getting another week off.

Correct

Officially?

I can OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCE that that is correct