Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:56 pm  

Dougy wrote:

So if the best team is wiped out by a virus the night before the game, and an entire under 21 side has to play the GF instead, and loses, have that said team 'bottled it'?

In that situation you wouldnt expect them to win though would you.

Anyway we are going away from the point. The 5th placed team winning the GF has IMO, reduced the regular season to no more than a series of friendlies, the players know that and simply won't be able to give their all next season meaning we will have a sub standard competition.

You could argue the season we have just had has already shown that this has already set in.

This season was no different to last season, which was no different to the year before. The NRL has provided winners from lower down the league, they had a grand final which was 4th v 8th only two years ago, Last years superbowl winner had a lower winning percentage than Leeds did, in 2008 New York won the superbowl with a 62.5% winning percentage, against a New England side who lost only one game all season which was the superbowl. Were the regular season for those competitions pointless? Are the NFL and NRL substandard competition.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:00 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Actually, it was I who said that you were using words and phrases in a way that suggested you didn't know what they meant, then you attempted to say the same thing about me. The descent was yours, yet you blatantly try to pretend it was mine; how typical. Pretend is about all you've done through the entire thread!

You do realise it is all there for people to read dont you? Lets leave it to them.

What I said was "it was hard, but not hard enough to reflect their standing in the league" which you attempted to misrepresent as "Leeds had it easy" because that was the only argument you had a response for. Strawmannery is all you know, it seems. But still, if you're that convinced, you can provide that quote eh?

Do you really think people are that stupid? Do you really think that dropping the 'too' part of the sentence 'too easy' was subtle enough to catch anyone at all out. Once again, 'it wasnt hard enough' and 'it was too easy' are the same thing.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:18 pm  

Richie wrote:

I believe I only saw one game that a team went into without a complete intention to win - Warrington away to London the week before the CC final. Changes to the process to decide the season champions wouldn't have affected what they did in that game.

Exactly, where has this myth suddenly come from that the top teams were purposely picking which games they were going to show up in this season, really is just bizarre. Especially as Pro RL players anything less than 100% is going to get you hurt and I don't know too many who'd not want to win, they're just not hardwired that way.

Like you say the teams playing in the CC final have just about always rested players etc in the game before to make sure their 100% for the final.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:21 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

This season was no different to last season, which was no different to the year before. The NRL has provided winners from lower down the league, they had a grand final which was 4th v 8th only two years ago, Last years superbowl winner had a lower winning percentage than Leeds did, in 2008 New York won the superbowl with a 62.5% winning percentage, against a New England side who lost only one game all season which was the superbowl. Were the regular season for those competitions pointless? Are the NFL and NRL substandard competition.

You're not comparing like with like though.

For starters, a play off series in both the NRL and NFL is a practical necessity. This is down to ambiguous nature of their regular seasons. There is no clear-cut clarity to who was the most consistent team since none of the teams barely even reach playing each other twice. In the NFL (from what I gather anyway, since I'm not a huge fan) there are 32 teams playing in 8 conferences, and each team plays 16 fixtures. How can anyone be certain to who was the best team that year when dealing with such vagueness?

In the NRL - 16 teams each play 22 fixtures. There's 8 lacking fixtures of ambiguity right there. Most Sydney teams play each other twice, which tend to be more intense (due to the rivalry), so the non-Sydney teams may have a slight advantage. Plus, during State of Origin games, most of the players from the top teams go missing, and they have to contend with that disability. There is no logic in having regular season champions in these prestigious organisations.

Super League - we have one extra game, which hardly creates any uncertainty or what ifs. Certainly not to the scale when Rugby League previously had a play off system (pre-74). This again was necessity - 30 teams couldn't play each other twice, as it would have taken FOREVER.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:10 am  

Dougy wrote:

you're not the only one

My god you cannot be serious.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:17 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You do realise it is all there for people to read dont you? Lets leave it to them.

Indeed it is.

Do you really think people are that stupid? Do you really think that dropping the 'too' part of the sentence 'too easy' was subtle enough to catch anyone at all out. Once again, 'it wasnt hard enough' and 'it was too easy' are the same thing.

Do I think people are stupid? As you say, it's all there in black and white.

SmokeyTA wrote:

No, i was pointing out how pathetic it was to try and pretend Leeds had it easy and Wigan didnt have the odds stacked in their favour enough already.

So despite nobody saying Leeds had it easy (check the thread), and despite the fact that I said they "had it hard" (again, check the thread), you've insisted, for page after page, that my argument was that it was "easy". It was you who added the "too" to add some credibility to your strawmannery, but since I've spelled out in black and white what my argument is, insisting its something else only makes you look a bit desperate. The lengths you've gone to to misrepresent my argument simply highlights your complete lack of any counter-argument.

Saying something is hard but not hard enough for their league position isn't the same as saying something is easy, any more than saying 6 feet is tall but not tall enough to be a basketball player is the same as saying "6 feet is small".

But hey, since you haven't even grasped the use of an apostrophe it's no surprise that you've got yourself in such a muddle with the English language .

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:58 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Indeed it is.

Do I think people are stupid? As you say, it's all there in black and white.

So despite nobody saying Leeds had it easy (check the thread), and despite the fact that I said they "had it hard" (again, check the thread), you've insisted, for page after page, that my argument was that it was "easy". It was you who added the "too" to add some credibility to your strawmannery, but since I've spelled out in black and white what my argument is, insisting its something else only makes you look a bit desperate. The lengths you've gone to to misrepresent my argument simply highlights your complete lack of any counter-argument.

Saying something is hard but not hard enough for their league position isn't the same as saying something is easy, any more than saying 6 feet is tall but not tall enough to be a basketball player is the same as saying "6 feet is small".

But hey, since you haven't even grasped the use of an apostrophe it's no surprise that you've got yourself in such a muddle with the English language .

I honestly don’t know why you are struggling with the concept that hard and easy are relative concepts.

Like in the context of Basketball players, 6ft is small, because relative to most basketball players (who are much taller) it is.

Saying something isn’t hard (which you also did, which is what I was responding to when I put that, you then backed away quickly from that argument, which I allowed you to do Here:

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

If Leeds did have it hard all the way I wouldn't have a single complaint.

among other examples) Is the same as saying something is easy, saying something isn’t hard enough, says it is too easy (like something not being wet enough, means it is too dry).

So now you understand relative concepts, maybe you will understand what you said, and also why you weren’t being as subtle as you thought, and just how obvious your bitterness was to me and other people.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:37 am  

Class thread this

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:35 am  

Dougy wrote:

So if the best team is wiped out by a virus the night before the game, and an entire under 21 side has to play the GF instead, and loses, have that said team 'bottled it'?

Outstanding. This is one of the funniest breakdowns I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:47 am  

MjM wrote:

:D

No matter how much these Pie Eaters complain, the problem isn't Leeds or having a play off system. The "problem" is that substandard, bottle-less teams can get to the top of the league but fail in the play offs. Wiganers feel this is a fault of the play offs themselves. I believe it is a fault of the teams who can go so far but do not have the true qualities that champions need to display. When the chips were down, when they encountered a tiny bit of adversity, they failed to win in the biggest games of the season. By definition, they were unworthy of being champions.

I, for one, don't know personally any fellow Wigan fans who begrudge Leeds their title. As far as this competition is concerned they were the best team. I don't think we were the best team just because we won the regular league. If the regular league was the main title, and *then* we'd won it, I'd think we were the best team.

Perhaps one or two are moaning specifically because Wigan didn't win this year, but I think most are simply questioning whether the balance is right, or more specifically, whether we're in danger of diminishing the importance of regular season games too much. That's a legitimate question whoever you support. In fact, one of my close friends is a Leeds supporter and himself raised the point that whilst he loves winning the title, he's not particularly happy to watch his team play rubbish in the middle the of season and is even more concerned that next year he might have to sit through poor stuff because "it'll be allright in the end". I've got no problem with the playoff concept, and in fact, the actual number of teams in the playoffs is only an issue insofar as its a factor in addressing the main challenge, which is trying to make as many games as we possibly can - throughout the season - 'big games'. As I say, something like a Champions League would be excellent, but sadly unlikely.

Despite my friend's concern I accept the point that 99% ( if not 100% ) of the time, all teams on the day turn up to do their best ( though his concern could still be valid when it comes to signing players and selection I suppose). But even if we accept that teams always try their best, there's *still* a piece missing - as a fan *I* care more, like it or not, if the game is significant. I want to leave games elated if we win and gutted if we don't ( ideally more of the former, but hey ). There's no perfect way to achieve this for every game, but it shouldn't stop us striving to get the balance right. And ultimately, making games as significant as possible has to be an important component of trying to increase attendances. Playoffs can be helpful versus just a straight League, but counter-productive if you take them too far.