Teams finishing 1st and 2nd could effectively have 1 play-off game against a team finishing 10th or 11th, losing and thats it.
Hi Nathan.
I did say "purely as an example" so don't feel the need to defend the system. However, I do think your objection is extremely weak. So one of the top two could have the benefit of a week off, and then lose to Hull KR or Wakefield? You get decent odds on that one!
And if that is an acceptable reason for rejecting a play-off system, pray tell what you suggest. The only alternative I can think of that fits your criterion is that the top 2 teams, protected against any chance of failing to get to the final, just play each other.
Oh, and the trophy goes to 1st regardless of the result, just in case anyone says it wouldn't be fair for them to lose.
In our old play-off system:
1st played 2nd and the winner went straight through to the final.
The loser than played against the winner of the play-off games between 3rd and 6th place if I recall and the winner of that went through to the final.
Seemed a fair way to me as you got more advantage the further you finished up the table and could only win overall by beating everybody above you pretty much.
Seemed to work well until
I totally agree with you that the top 5 system was the best. Absolutely. Unquestionably. Without doubt. Totally.
Now (he says, knowing above will be ignored), in the context of the discussion about the RL/SL coming up with a format to involve everyone, I gave an example of how it could work.
You objected on the nonsensical basis that the top two might lose!!!! The top two could (and did) lose under the 5 team play-off system which we both prefer.
In future, please try to read and understand what I've said before you rush to reply to an imagined point which you think you may disagree with - it'll do wonders for my blood pressure.
I did say "purely as an example" so don't feel the need to defend the system. However, I do think your objection is extremely weak. So one of the top two could have the benefit of a week off, and then lose to Hull KR or Wakefield? You get decent odds on that one!
And if that is an acceptable reason for rejecting a play-off system, pray tell what you suggest. The only alternative I can think of that fits your criterion is that the top 2 teams, protected against any chance of failing to get to the final, just play each other.
Oh, and the trophy goes to 1st regardless of the result, just in case anyone says it wouldn't be fair for them to lose.
In our old play-off system:
1st played 2nd and the winner went straight through to the final.
The loser than played against the winner of the play-off games between 3rd and 6th place if I recall and the winner of that went through to the final.
Seemed a fair way to me as you got more advantage the further you finished up the table and could only win overall by beating everybody above you pretty much.
Seemed to work well until
I totally agree with you that the top 5 system was the best. Absolutely. Unquestionably. Without doubt. Totally.
Now (he says, knowing above will be ignored), in the context of the discussion about the RL/SL coming up with a format to involve everyone, I gave an example of how it could work.
You objected on the nonsensical basis that the top two might lose!!!! The top two could (and did) lose under the 5 team play-off system which we both prefer.
In future, please try to read and understand what I've said before you rush to reply to an imagined point which you think you may disagree with - it'll do wonders for my blood pressure.
I’m well aware you posted an example of how it could work but I’m still allowed to discuss it aren’t I?
In the old top 5 playoff system yes the top 2 could lose but that was in a 1st vs 2nd game and they got a second chance. Maybe strange in some people’s eyes that you can lose a game and get another chance but value has to be placed on league finish to some extent or the playoffs devalue the league even more.
From RFL / Sky POV the idea is probably around “how can we make more people tune in to rugby league.” IMO it isn’t going to make much difference as the small viewing figures and dwindling fans of the game is a more deep rooted issue however if they do choose this new playoff system, it needs to somehow ensure the teams finishing top 4 aren’t punished.
The issue is that a fair play off system is probably going to make it unrealistic for anyone outside the top 4 bar Leeds to go all the way so it questions the benefit.
I havent read the terms because of the laughable moving of goal posts only Rugby League could do but if they are suggesting moving to a top 8 playoff - i.e everyone in the top 8 has a chance of winning and not like the super 8's were points continued for a bit then salford who have only won 40% of their matches could end up being champions of our sport and that ladies and gentlemen is why rugby league will die
Messing with the structure just shows the mickey mouse nature of the league - we need to just go back to a league and the winner is the one who wins the most matches, this isnt cycling the season should be a peloton - the winner should be the most consistent team over a season.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
