Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:00 pm  

People who hark on about topping the league forget (or aren't old enough) to remember how few championships went down to the wire, and the fact that even when the top couple of sides were close, the end of season became a procession of meaningless games for over half the sides in the competition.

I have no problem tinkering with the play-off format - e.g. top5 - but the GF is a brilliant end to the season.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:39 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

That isnt down to the play-offs though is it. That is down to the disparity in quality in the league.
And whilst you may argue that clubs who know they are in the 8 have 'meaningless' games (which they arent as they decide the format of the play-offs and the teams they play and the advantages they get) and leads to rotation, any top 8 system would create the same issue, and any play-off system which has fewer than 8 clubs, would increase the amount of 'meaningless' games as we would have more teams, playing for nothing, earlier in the season.

As Leeds' wins have proven - the league campaign can be utterly meaningless. The target is simply not to finish 9th or lower. In what possible way is that inspiring an engaging league season? Why should I fork out hundreds of pounds to watch pointless games?

As i said to your fellow Wigan fan Your argument, and your use of supporting evidence is predicated on the premise that were the play-offs in a different format, Leeds wouldnt have won them. If we discount that premise then Leeds victory is evidence of nothing. Now you can say you accept that Leeds could have won the play-offs under any format, but if you did, you would need to accept that means Leeds winning in the play-offs isnt evidence that the play-offs arent hard enough on the club playing 5th. Leeds could have won the play-offs under any system in which 5th qualified. There are few systems which would produce a more difficult run of games than Les Catalans away, Wigan away, Wire neutral. I see no reason to assume any of the teams in play-offs would have beaten Leeds over the last month, so i see no reason to assume that any other play-off format would have produced a different result. So I see no reason to assume that it was the play-off format which led to this result, so i see no reason Leeds victory is evidence of anything other than leeds are the best at winning the comp.

I've not argued anything of the sort and I've not mentioned Leeds not winning the competition under a different format. I've simply said that crowning a team that loses 11 games but wins a short knock-out competition from 5th as "champions" is ridiculous. As almost all the Grand Final winners before 2011 were from 1st or 2nd the outcome has generally been accepted as fair and the hard questions therefore haven't really been asked before.

When Wigan lost to Warrington in August I was disappointed but not that bothered because I knew even if Wire took the league shield, we'd be 2nd at worst and still in a good position. A fan of a team fighting for top spot shouldn't be feeling that sort of apathy.

And I don't care that it's Leeds, I care that the format is flawed. If Warrington had won, they've been one of the best all year and I'd accept it as a fair result.

The majority of people i've heard comment on it simply said what an acheivement, what a game, what spirit it was played in and how brilliant it was to end our season that way. Very few, mainly Wigan fans, have complained that they dont like the system or that the system has produced an unfair result.

There's at least one Leeds fan in this thread, I've heard other Leeds, Wigan, Salford, Saints and Warrington fans say it. Various media outlets are asking questions over the format. A glance at various RL pages/sites shows hundreds of comments from disgruntled fans of all clubs. Understandably, Leeds fans are generally pretty happy though many still comment on the flaws of the format.

And why shouldn't fans of the team winning the League Leader's Shield feel the end result is unfair? They've fought hard to be the best team over the season only to lose out on the title in a short play-off competition thanks to a format that over-rewards a team getting a roll-on at the right time.

You said they finished 5th, in the context of your post I thought it important to note that they finished champions, but qualified 5th.

No I didn't. But now you mention it I seem to recall they did finish the league campaign in 5th.

Except it is an attack on Leeds achievement, you may be trying to frame it a different way because out right saying it would make you look bitter, but it is an attack on Leeds achievement.

No it's not, as I've repeatedly stated. Leeds have been outstanding over the last month and are worthy winners of the play-offs. You can choose to be paranoid and call it an attack but I assumed you had the intelligence to look beyond that.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:15 pm  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

People who hark on about topping the league forget (or aren't old enough) to remember how few championships went down to the wire, and the fact that even when the top couple of sides were close, the end of season became a procession of meaningless games for over half the sides in the competition.

11 out of the 26 seasons that we had FPtP in this country went down (in theory) to the wire. That's 42% - whether you class that as a few or not is up to you.

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

the end of season became a procession of meaningless games for over half the sides in the competition

It wasn't if you wanted to win the Premiership Trophy. (or avoid relegation for that matter)

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:01 pm  

Cronus wrote:

As Leeds' wins have proven - the league campaign can be utterly meaningless. The target is simply not to finish 9th or lower. In what possible way is that inspiring an engaging league season? Why should I fork out hundreds of pounds to watch pointless games?

Leeds win has proven nothing of the sort. All Leeds win has proven is that on the night, they were better than the teams they played and the theoretic possibility that all the teams in the play-offs, can win the play-offs, that is and always will be the case as long as we have play-offs.

I've not argued anything of the sort and I've not mentioned Leeds not winning the competition under a different format. I've simply said that crowning a team that loses 11 games but wins a short knock-out competition from 5th as "champions" is ridiculous. As almost all the Grand Final winners before 2011 were from 1st or 2nd the outcome has generally been accepted as fair and the hard questions therefore haven't really been asked before.

It is necessary for your argument to work. If Leeds could win the play-offs under any format, even one which you deemed sufficiently difficult then the fact that Leeds won, tells us nothing about the difficulty of the format.

To simplify it for you.

Leeds can win under an easy format,
Leeds can win under a sufficiently difficult format.

Leeds win, does this tell us if the format was sufficiently difficult or not?

When Wigan lost to Warrington in August I was disappointed but not that bothered because I knew even if Wire took the league shield, we'd be 2nd at worst and still in a good position. A fan of a team fighting for top spot shouldn't be feeling that sort of apathy.

Why? Why are you bemoaning that you, nor I, ascribed as much worth to qualifying competition? You should be feeling that way, not finishing top isn’t the end of the season, not finishing top still leaves the big prize to play for. That is exactly how I would expect you to feel. It is exactly the same as everyone has said for the past 14 years, the league leaders shield is a nice to win, but it doesn’t define your season like becoming champions does.

And I don't care that it's Leeds, I care that the format is flawed. If Warrington had won, they've been one of the best all year and I'd accept it as a fair result.

That’s just ridiculous.

There's at least one Leeds fan in this thread, I've heard other Leeds, Wigan, Salford, Saints and Warrington fans say it. Various media outlets are asking questions over the format. A glance at various RL pages/sites shows hundreds of comments from disgruntled fans of all clubs. Understandably, Leeds fans are generally pretty happy though many still comment on the flaws of the format.

I think if you are using RL fans moaning about something on RL message boards an in RL papers as a barometer then your method is flawed. We have RL fans moaning about the game setting record attendances, they will moan about anything they can. Especially when it sets a narrative that someone else’s success wasn’t fair and their team was cheated.

And why shouldn't fans of the team winning the League Leader's Shield feel the end result is unfair? They've fought hard to be the best team over the season only to lose out on the title in a short play-off
competition thanks to a format that over-rewards a team getting a roll-on at the right time.

Because they weren’t the best team over the season, Leeds were, that’s why Sir Kevin Sinfield lifted that trophy on Saturday night and O’loughlin was doing his hair. Wigan were the most consistent team in the qualifying campaign though, they even got a nice shield for their efforts.

No I didn't. But now you mention it I seem to recall they did finish the league campaign in 5th.

Yes you did, and yes, Leeds finished fifth in the qualifying competition.

No it's not, as I've repeatedly stated. Leeds have been outstanding over the last month and are worthy winners of the play-offs. You can choose to be paranoid and call it an attack but I assumed you had the intelligence to look beyond that.

You know that you are attacking Leeds acheivement, you are saying it wasnt enough. You are saying it wasnt worthy of champions and you are saying other teams, other than the one who actualy won the competition, should be called champions. If you want to pretend otherwise fine.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:19 pm  

Supporters are now openly talking about this and the RFL would be foolish to ignore the dissent. A change needs to be made, no-one wants to feel like a fool for attending the weekly rounds.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:27 pm  

mark_m wrote:

Supporters are now openly talking about this and the RFL would be foolish to ignore the dissent. A change needs to be made, no-one wants to feel like a fool for attending the weekly rounds.

If anyone thought at the beginning of the year, that all 8 teams in the play-offs couldn’t win them, then they deserve to be treated like a fool.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:39 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If anyone thought at the beginning of the year, that all 8 teams in the play-offs couldn’t win them, then they deserve to be treated like a fool.

Quite correct , a league employing a play off system with the potential to have the lowest placed club win those play offs , is a sign of strength

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:41 pm  

My issue with the playoffs is not specifically that a team can win it from 5th. It's simply that fans have voted with their feet for all except the GF. The season-ticket thing is a red-herring - if people cared that much, they'd buy a ticket - they don't.

Hopefully we're wrong, but I think quite a lot of us are concerned about the effect of the last two years on interest in the regular season. ( Last year was seen as a 'freak', now I wonder if people will really start to think that the League doesn't matter all that much ).

A 'champions league' would go a long way to fixing this problem - making top 4 (and your position in it) really important, especially if the top two European teams got 3 and 4 from the NRL in their group. But it's not going to happen of course.

Next best I think is the original top 5 system.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:51 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Quite correct , a league employing a play off system with the potential to have the lowest placed club win those play offs , is a sign of strength

exactly, in the NRL it is lauded that anyone can win any game. Last years NRL Grand final was between 2nd and 6th, 2010 between 1st and 6th, 2009 4th and 8th and everyone raves about how wonderful it is and how intense the competition and how that those games are the proving ground for the next generation of antipodean supermen.

Over here, Leeds win it twice from 5th and the entire season is pointless, we should all give up and go home, and most of all, its just not fair on the teams which bottled it.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:03 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You have said it was too easy. I dont know why you are pretending there is a difference between too easy and not hard enough.

There's only one of us pretending here mate. I've said it was hard but not hard enough. It's there in black and white so besides making a tit of yourself what are you trying to achieve?

So you didnt say this?or this? You should probably re-read your own argument and decide whether you want it to be easier or harder to win it from fifth. Because you cant seem to make your mind up.

Oh dear, so now you think I've said it should be easier to win from 5th? No wonder you're having trouble keeping up.

this year it went 5 v 8, 4v5, 1v5, 2v5. Under your proposal it would go 4v5, 1v5, 2v5. It would be exactly the same but Leeds would play one knock out game less. It would make Leeds job 'harder' by removing an elimination game, and make Les Catalans job 'easier' by removing their game against Wigan and a possible week off you silly banana.

"It would be exactly the same" - I don't even think you've read my propsal, let alone understood it.