Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:15 pm  

Albion wrote:

What a ridiculous point that is!

The top 2 teams SHOULD have it weighted in their favour as they have EARNED that right by performing in the weekly rounds!

I'm shocked that you believe that people lower down the play-offs should have equal advantage to those towards the top!

i dont.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:30 pm  

There is some serious butt hurt in this thread, by Leeds putting yet another cherry on top of the cherry that we had already put on the cake by winning 5 SL's in 6 years and 6 in 9 years. Putting Leeds in the history books as one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport

I'm glad its only a minority though

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:37 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I think its clear that saying 'it wasnt hard enough' is the same as saying 'it was too easy'.

Pretty sad that you have to change what I actually said in the interest of petty point scoring. Giving Leeds a ticket straight to the GF would have been easy, taking the path they did was hard, just not hard enough to reflect their league position. Disagree with that all you want, but if the only counter-argument you can provide is to the non-existent argument "Leeds had it easy" then you might as well not bother.

Your argument is that Wigan should have won. If you want to pretend '1st' makes it sounds like your not talking about Wigan and '5th' and you arent talking about Leeds then fine go ahead. We can all pretend you slipped it by us with your subtlety.

Where have I said either Wigan or 1st should have won? As I said, you're determined to have this argument aren't you, regardless of whether anyone is actually making the points you want to argue against. I've even pointed out, in as basic a way as I can, what the crux of my argument is. I refuse to believe that anyone can be as dense as you're pretending to be. Please tell me you are pretending.

Les catalans lost, they got home advantage, Leeds won, they had to play at Les Catalans. That seems like a fair advantage to Les Catalans, Leeds then won again, they then went to Wigan who had a week off, that also seems like more of an advantage to Wigan.

Which team do you think was hard done to by being knocked out in these play-offs? Wigan who lost after a week off? Saints who lost after a week off? Les Catalans who lost 2 games in a row including one at home? Hull who lost away at wire? Wakefield?

If you genuinely haven't understood my argument at this point then I can only advise you to read my posts and try again. Take my advice and stop jumping in head first with preconceived arguments and take the time to actually read and understand what others say before you post.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:10 pm  

Cronus wrote: As this article says, "Leeds are Champions after a good month." That article is a classic example of why the internet doesn't make fans equal to journalists. The whole premise is flawed. Leeds did have a good season - making both finals. To suggest otherwise is pure bitterness.

Cronus wrote: As this article says, "Leeds are Champions after a good month." That article is a classic example of why the internet doesn't make fans equal to journalists. The whole premise is flawed. Leeds did have a good season - making both finals. To suggest otherwise is pure bitterness.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:23 pm  

My stance on the merits of scrapping for sixth place have changed. Week in, week out - Eddie and Stevo banging on about clubs fighting for sixth or a play-off spot. What's the point, I thought? Not anymore though. It's not a futile excercise as Leeds have proven. It's all about making the impossible possible. I remember Balmain and Hanley scorching through the Winfield Cup in 1988 and almost lifting the shield from fifth. It really rocked that competition to the core - in a good way.

It's still (in theory) advantageous to finish top of the pile and "home win" your way to the GF. If you can't do that then you haven't completed the rquired task set out before you. They say the game is an eighty minute game. It's also a 30 match a season game.

Congratulations Leeds.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:27 pm  

It's such a British outlook to think there must be something wrong with the comp for Leeds to win from 5th rather than it being a phenomenal achievement.

Just to get some perspective Leeds have beaten the following teams without any second chances in the last 2 years of playoffs, and with only 2 games played at home:

Hull (H), Huddersfield (A), Warrington (A), St Helens (N), Wakey (H), Catalans (A), Wigan (A) and Warrington (N) again.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:50 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Pretty sad that you have to change what I actually said in the interest of petty point scoring. Giving Leeds a ticket straight to the GF would have been easy, taking the path they did was hard, just not hard enough to reflect their league position. Disagree with that all you want, but if the only counter-argument you can provide is to the non-existent argument "Leeds had it easy" then you might as well not bother.

If it isnt hard enough, its too easy. Surely this isnt new information for you? If you are arguing it wasnt hard enough, you are arguing it was too easy. You are arguing it wasnt hard enough, you say so above, So you are arguing it was too easy. Exceot it wasnt, it was harder than anyone else has managed.

Where have I said either Wigan or 1st should have won? As I said, you're determined to have this argument aren't you, regardless of whether anyone is actually making the points you want to argue against. I've even pointed out, in as basic a way as I can, what the crux of my argument is. I refuse to believe that anyone can be as dense as you're pretending to be. Please tell me you are pretending.

If you genuinely haven't understood my argument at this point then I can only advise you to read my posts and try again. Take my advice and stop jumping in head first with preconceived arguments and take the time to actually read and understand what others say before you post.

Your point is clear, you have made it plenty of times, 5th werent punished enough for finishing 5th. To use your word it wasnt 'hellish' enough. 1st isnt rewarded enough for finishing 1st, 2 home ties guaranteed, a possible week off, the possible club call, and playing teams below them in the table isnt enough of an advantage.

Your evidence of this is Leeds are SL champions again after finishing 5th, and the teams finishing 1st and 2nd arent, because they didnt receive enough of an advantage and Leeds werent disadvantaged enough, this removes credibility from the qualifying competition as why would you bother finishing 1st if finishing 5th wasnt properly punished/rewarded.

Now stay with me here, 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. That had your idea been the one used, Leeds could still have ended up champions, in fact, in a 1st v 8th knock out which you propose here

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

I think that's exactly the type of convoluted system we need to drop tbh. Seriously, what is wrong with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 straight knockout with home advantage always going to the highest placed side. That way the biggest advantage goes to the side finishing top, with that advantage decreasing in increments the lower down the table you finish.

Leeds, as the 5th placed team, would have played 4th, Les Catalans, then as the lowest ranked team, the top ranked team, Wigan, and then the next ranked team in the final, Warrington. All in knock out games. Which is what happened and Leeds won them all, and a game against Wakefield. Why you are complaining the system isnt hard enough for a team to win from 5th and then proposing a much easier one?

To move on to what you say you want, a sliding scale of difficulty depending on where you finish. Well we have that. 1st and 2nd get home games and 2nd chance if necessary, 3rd and 4th get a 2nd chance. 5th and 6th get no second chance, need to win 4 and not 3 games, will only play one home game, 7th and 8th get one shot, every game away from home. Which makes it more difficult for the lower ranked team than the system you want.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:34 pm  

Surely a Warrington win would have been more damaging for the game than Leeds winning? If Wire had won, Smiths policy of resting half a squad in regular season games would have been vindicated, and no doubt it would have become more common at other clubs next season. Now they have lost it makes his selection policy seem a bit pointless.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:37 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If it isnt hard enough, its too easy. Surely this isnt new information for you? If you are arguing it wasnt hard enough, you are arguing it was too easy. You are arguing it wasnt hard enough, you say so above, So you are arguing it was too easy. Exceot it wasnt, it was harder than anyone else has managed.

Your point is clear, you have made it plenty of times, 5th werent punished enough for finishing 5th. To use your word it wasnt 'hellish' enough. 1st isnt rewarded enough for finishing 1st, 2 home ties guaranteed, a possible week off, the possible club call, and playing teams below them in the table isnt enough of an advantage.

Your evidence of this is Leeds are SL champions again after finishing 5th, and the teams finishing 1st and 2nd arent, because they didnt receive enough of an advantage and Leeds werent disadvantaged enough, this removes credibility from the qualifying competition as why would you bother finishing 1st if finishing 5th wasnt properly punished/rewarded.

Now stay with me here, 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. That had your idea been the one used, Leeds could still have ended up champions, in fact, in a 1st v 8th knock out which you propose here Leeds, as the 5th placed team, would have played 4th, Les Catalans, then as the lowest ranked team, the top ranked team, Wigan, and then the next ranked team in the final, Warrington. All in knock out games. Which is what happened and Leeds won them all, and a game against Wakefield. Why you are complaining the system isnt hard enough for a team to win from 5th and then proposing a much easier one?

To move on to what you say you want, a sliding scale of difficulty depending on where you finish. Well we have that. 1st and 2nd get home games and 2nd chance if necessary, 3rd and 4th get a 2nd chance. 5th and 6th get no second chance, need to win 4 and not 3 games, will only play one home game, 7th and 8th get one shot, every game away from home. Which makes it more difficult for the lower ranked team than the system you want.

The phrase "BOOOOOOM" springs to mind.
Please post that on every thread where some idiot is moaning about the play-offs.
It all smacks to me of anti-Leeds bias. Just because a team wins it from 5th doesnt mean the system is flawed or else why bother with that many teams in the play-offs in the first place?
In theory any team qualifying can win the final but the route they have to follow gets progressively harder the further down the table they finish. What's wrong with that?
I guarantee if anyone else had won it from 5th there wouldn't be this outcry.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:39 pm  

Regular Season is just fine

Just look how happy, grateful and proud Wakey were in reaching the play-offs

not everything in RL is just about winning the biggest prize...sometimes just being invited to the party is a massive achievement for alot of clubs and supporters....should fans of like Cas, Wakey, Widnes, Salford just not turn up anymore just because they realistically don't have a chance of winning SL?