Crowds are crap for the playoffs under the current system. Grand Final is a given no matter what format is used. The clue was in your comment about "recent" weeks not "future" weeks.

The crowds are a completely separate element to the debate, which was about the validity of the current format - not the marketing, pricing policy of the games. That's another issue and one which needs addressing clearly.

For any team to make the play off's from 5th, is a tremendous boost to the sport given the adversity they have had to face. It's also really simple; if a team in the Top 2 are really that good, they will perform when it matters. Never mind all this "off day" guff, all players are very aware when they have to show or go.

The Top 8 format works, for a variety of reasons, all of which have been clearly substantiated by both clubs, coaches and fans alike. Like I said, it's also a huge smokescreen and detracts from a number of superb performances by Saints and Leeds to get to Old Trafford. It's what sport is all about, performing when it matters. Simple.

Let's talk facts then, as RL is a commercial sport which needs income to survive. In 2003 Wigan drew 21,790 for a play off game v Saints. In 2004 we drew 16,179 against Wakey in the playoffs. Our crowds were lower on average then than they are currently. Gates for the playoffs outside the final have fallen dramatically across the board, co-inciding with the move to top 8, which for a commercial organisation is rather bad news.

You are assuming two things: the pricing policy was the same; the economic climates were the same.

Neither of which are true.

Sorry, but beating Hull & Huddersfield wasn't that tough, and that's the problem with the current system. Leeds come 5th & get Hull - who lost as many games as they won this season, followed by Hudds who were in freefall for a while. Saints came 3rd & got the reigning champions twice - how's that fair? For that matter, we came 2nd & got Saints. I'd have swapped that for Hull even if it meant giving up our 2nd chance.

Not knocking Leeds - you play to the rules of the system, and they were impressive on Friday - but in comparison to the original top 5 play-offs, where Leeds would have had to beat everybody above them in the league, this system is a lot easier.

And that's quite apart from the general point that the league is supposed to be a test of consistency across the season, whereas the cup is for raising your game on a given day. The introduction of play-offs to decide the champions goes against the whole point of the season. And yes, before anyone asks, that does mean that Wire deserved to be champions.

No it isn't. They also went to the home of said champions (under your outstanding, original system) and beat them
That's simply untrue.
The present system works. For lots of reasons. Primarily that doing it tough is bloody hard, hence nobody has done it from 5th. Big up to any team who has the ability to do that because they will have earnt it. Going back to some archaic, football driven first past the post policy is nonsense. We set the lead as a sport, let's continue in that theme and not bleat on with this increasingly obvious sour grapes. It's pish poor

Not really. You beat a crap Hull and a crappier Hudds and then beat a vaguely nervy wire (great game though, but the first in the play offs this year). It's hardly a sterling achievement.

However leeds and saints have played admirably by the rules put down; so for that reason they deserve to be at OT. The problem is the league games are all but meaningless leading up to the play offs.

Yes really. Hull, a team you struggled to beat at home by 2 points; Huddersfield away, who finished in the 4 (which so many keep championing) then the League leaders away from home. The "nervy" bit is you placing an irrelevent element to a game which both teams have the same mental approach issues with. Similarly Saints beat you twice, clearly no fluke. They simply own you right now (the key time).

They aren't meaningless given they are there to provide an advantageous platform for whoever finishes first or second. Should a team not utilise that effectively, bad luck. That's sport and it's that simple.

I don't think the current system is perfect, but if Leeds go on to win this season's Super League after finishing 5th, they'll have done so by beating the teams finishing 1st, 3rd (who've beaten 2nd home and away in the past couple of weeks) and 4th in play-off matches, so it's not a million miles removed from the original system in that sense.

I agree that Leeds' play-off run from 5th place to Old Trafford looks, in hindsight, quite soft by comparison to us playing Saints twice and Catalans - but that's more down to the way the standings finished this season rather than a fundamental flaw with the structure.

If it was sour grapes, I'd be saying Wigan deserved to be in the GF, and I'm not. You'll notice, if you read my post (one of your themes) that I said the system was unfair to Saints, that Wire deserved to be champions, and that Leeds deserve credit for doing well at Wire on Friday. Hardly a sour grapes pro-Wigan response.

I actually tried to engage in a debate about the nature of the play-off system, but in response got an insult. Pointless.

Man up, hardly an insult, merely that your posts project you as being sour.

You also made a thoroughly inaccurate point about the League being about consistency across the season. It isn't. Not at all. It is about putting yourself in a position to win the Grand Final. It's that simple. Nor is the system unfair to Saints. Second playing 3rd is realistic as is 5th going to play 4th away then 1st away from home (and playing an extra game prior to that). What part of that is in the favour of the lower placed teams?

There are some hugely spurious points being made in this thread that are completely way off beam.

Can this thread get back on topic please - the clue is in the title. If people want to debate the pros and cons of the play-offs or the different systems there is already a separate thread that has degenerated into bickering. This one isn't going the same way.

WLA the slight thread drift on this is pretty understandable given the fact that the points are closely linked.

Imo it's quite obvious that we haven't peaked at the correct time. Not seen a single valid argument against this fact.

If, as Jonh said, Wigan targetted the CC and not SL, then perhaps IL could tell us in advance next season which one he is targetting, in order that I may save time and money and only follow the one that he actually wishes to compete for.

The answer from DaveO seems to suggest that a sample size of 1 is sufficient to draw the conclusion that playing at 100% is the way to ensure success. I disagree for reasons I have made.

The drift to questioning the format of the playoffs is an interesting one. Last year it wasn't an issue as the best team over the course of the season (and by some way I might add) won SL.

This season that will simply not be the case.

However, strictly keeping to the thread, that does not question whether Wigan peaked too soon, merely whether they were disadvantaged sufficiently by not doing (if indeed you believe they didn't).

The issue is much deeper than MM banging on about Wigan "not being tired". Personally I think we looked shattered, but even if we were to agree with MM, this is simply part of it. Did we "step up" for the playoffs in the way that Leeds and Stains did? No.

Did we offer anything "extra" when we really needed it? No we did not.

Do you honestly think that our form in the playoffs was our best of the season? If so, and this is the only way that you can argue against the question in the thread title, then please tell us exactly how and why it was.

Or maybe give credit to Hetherington/McDermott for studying the play-off system and deciding that 5th place actually gave a better chance of reaching OT than 3rd/4th?

Hull & Hudds were by no means 'easy' wins - quite disrespectful to both clubs. Yes, Hudds have finished the season much worse than they started it, but they were still 4th on merit. Similarly Catalan finshed a poorer team than they started but I didn't hear too many complaints from the Wigan camp when you'd put 40 past them.

If Leeds win the GF from 5th, they will have beaten 4th, 1st and 3rd in successive weeks - all away from home.

That is good enough for me

I'd love to work out how/why the club that wins the CC struggle so badly in the play-offs. I can see no logical reason to this. Fatigue will of course play a part, but the losers of the CC will have played the same number of games (WCC aside) as any other team. Arguably (and logically) it would have been more understandable if Leeds' season had fallen apart after Wembley - yet it seemed to spur us on.

I'm sure emotion plays more of a part than we realise. Sinfield admitted (after the WCC loss to Manly in Feb '09) that it took the team months to get over that game, because that was their primary target. It certainly showed on the pitch, yet after those few months 'getting over it' Leeds went on to win the GF. Again, albeit inadvertantly, by peaking at the right time.

With the CC final and Grand Final being so close together it does seem unrealistic to target winning both