Whilst we're on the subject (sort of) - is any one of age to know why they dispensed with the play off system in 1974-75? What is merely down the creation of two divisions, bearing in mind that division one still had 16 teams? Was the championship final as it was then, no longer the great pinnacle of the season?
Just to add some context, here's the NRL 1998 Brisbane 75% (1st) 1999 Melbourne 67% (3rd) 2000 Brisbane 69% (1st) 2001 Newcastle 62% (3rd) 2002 Sydney 63% (4th) 2003 Penrith 75% (1st) 2004 Canterbury 79% (2nd) 2005 Wests 58% (4th) 2006 Brisbane 58% (3rd) 2007 Melbourne 88% (1st) - stripped of title 2008 Manly 71% (2nd) 2009 Melbourne 58% (4th) - stripped of title 2010 St George 71% (1st) 2011 Manly 75% (2nd) 2012 Melbourne 71% (2nd)
The NRL is far more competitive though. A team that finishes 5th in the NRL (not that anyone has won it from 5th) has had a better season than a team who finishes 5th in SL. I don't think anybody--not even Leeds themselves--would claim Leeds had a good domestic season.
The NRL is far more competitive though. A team that finishes 5th in the NRL (not that anyone has won it from 5th) has had a better season than a team who finishes 5th in SL. I don't think anybody--not even Leeds themselves--would claim Leeds had a good domestic season.
Yeah, a team from 5th in the NRL can call themselves champions. The NRL is more competitive isn’t it, anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Where a team from 4th or 5th or even 8th can get in the play-offs and get to the Grand Final, and then who knows, anyone can beat anyone, teams qualify for the play-offs but need to win the play-offs to be champions
Not like SL, which isn’t competitive, where only the top teams win and it is disgusting that a team from 4th or 5th, god forbid 8th, get to a Grand Final, it makes the whole season pointless. Why bother with the rest of the season if you only need to win the play-offs to be champions.
after all A team that finishes 5th in the NRL (not that anyone has won it from 5th) has had a better season than a team who finishes 5th in SL
For some perspective - Warrington finished with a 81.4% winning ratio in 2011, and Wigan finished top this year with a ratio of 77.7%
Q/ Did Bradford winning it from 3rd in 2005 cause much uproar?
(edit: thanks judd)
To add some context here, we have only had the top 8 play off's since 2008 ? , previously it had been top 6 and prior to that top 5.
There are 2 things that are becoming more evident :
1. If you qualify for the 8, you have a chance to win the top prize 2. Leeds are an excelleny play off/ cup team.
The one sure thing is that the top teams realise that they need a full strength, fit squad at the business end of the season and if this means sacrificing a few points earlier in the season so be it. Does this detract from the weekly rounds, probably ? Is iit worth it to have the spectacle of the Grand Final, yes.
To add some context here, we have only had the top 8 play off's since 2008 ? , previously it had been top 6 and prior to that top 5.
There are 2 things that are becoming more evident :
1. If you qualify for the 8, you have a chance to win the top prize 2. Leeds are an excelleny play off/ cup team.
The one sure thing is that the top teams realise that they need a full strength, fit squad at the business end of the season and if this means sacrificing a few points earlier in the season so be it. Does this detract from the weekly rounds, probably ? Is iit worth it to have the spectacle of the Grand Final, yes.
Leeds peaking during the play-offs is to the detriment of their league campaign, but the benefit of their performance in the play offs, Wigan peaking during the regular season meant they won more regular season games, but didn’t play that well in the play-offs.
The NRL is far more competitive though. A team that finishes 5th in the NRL (not that anyone has won it from 5th) has had a better season than a team who finishes 5th in SL. I don't think anybody--not even Leeds themselves--would claim Leeds had a good domestic season.
The difference in quality between the respective leagues is irrelevant. The argument put forward is that a team winning from low in the playoffs with a "low" percentage of wins "ruins" the regular season. That has categorically not been the case in the NRL where teams have won the Grand Final from lower in the league more often than in SL and with teams with lower win % than Leeds.
What part of this discussion is confusing some of the idiots on here?
Which team or How a team wins the GF and becomes Champions is not an issue to anyone ..... 14 teams looked at the rules, and Leeds played the overall game better than anyone else, and so are rightly hailed as Champions. The disturbing fact of the matter is teams (not just Leeds) are tailoring their season around qualifying for, and being at their peak for, the playoffs. But it doesn't say on my season ticket "Warning: You will be charged full price for ALL games, regardless of whether your team put any effort into the game or not."
So, if the team are only going to try in 20 of the 27 games, how about instead of putting 100% of my financial effort into every game by buying a season ticket for £240+, I (and many others) will choose to put 70% financial effort into paying to watch? ..... Is that OK? If league games aren't that important to clubs (and some very clearly aren't) then why should I pay to watch them all? And it's not like the clubs need the money, is it? The game is obviously swimming in excess cash!!!
I'm a season ticket holder at a top 4 side. Encourage me to buy a season ticket next season to watch 13 friendlies?
I know my team will make the top 8 before we start so whats the point in me buying one? should i just wait for September to start going like the Leeds club do????
Please dont buy one then and encourage a few thousand more to do likewise, them maybe another team can take your teams place as revenue plummets. Then lets hope if it is my team I do not become as smug as you.
What part of this discussion is confusing some of the idiots on here?
Which team or How a team wins the GF and becomes Champions is not an issue to anyone ..... 14 teams looked at the rules, and Leeds played the overall game better than anyone else, and so are rightly hailed as Champions. The disturbing fact of the matter is teams (not just Leeds) are tailoring their season around qualifying for, and being at their peak for, the playoffs. But it doesn't say on my season ticket "Warning: You will be charged full price for ALL games, regardless of whether your team put any effort into the game or not."
So, if the team are only going to try in 20 of the 27 games, how about instead of putting 100% of my financial effort into every game by buying a season ticket for £240+, I (and many others) will choose to put 70% financial effort into paying to watch? ..... Is that OK? If league games aren't that important to clubs (and some very clearly aren't) then why should I pay to watch them all? And it's not like the clubs need the money, is it? The game is obviously swimming in excess cash!!!
You can do what you want, it's a free country. It's a little pathetic though. There is some sort of bizarre attitude going around that for some reason it's a disgrace if a club doesn't win every single game. As if clubs having poor games somehow entitles the supporters to their money back. Well rugby league fans need to snap out of it because it's utterly ridiculous. For a start there aren't 27 games in a season, Leeds played 37 this season and won 25 of them (a win ratio of 68% by the way). Is winning 2/3rds of games unacceptable? If so I'd suggest you're not going to enjoy any kind of competitive sport.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 129 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...
