League Leaders Shield

[NICKYKISS]

Imo the shield is irrelevant.

Completely and utterly pointless.

I agree but this time, 1st place could be huge. If we finished 1st, with Saints and Catalans in 2nd and 3rd (in either order), we’d avoid both in the semi and potentially make them have a very physical semi final between each other. The hub cap matters little but that reward could be absolutely huge.

Our only chance of that happening is to win 4 from 4. I think we can do that tbh but it won’t be easy and May still not be enough.

That's a fair point. However, what you are describing is finishing in the order that is, in your opinion, more favourable for the run in. That it ties in with finishing first is a coincidence.

Absolutely correct. The LLS is an irrelevance but the run it could give you this time is the prize you want. Finish 1st and it could be a home semi against HKR, Salford, Wire etc. Finish 3rd and it could be a home qualifier against HKR, Salford, Wire, followed by an away semi at Saints or in France. Add in that a 1st placed finish is likely to make the other semi final an absolute war and there’s probably not been a better year to top the table.

[The Pearl1]

I’d love to win it, have a week off and have a Saints Catalans semi final.

[Barney841]

I agree but this time, 1st place could be huge. If we finished 1st, with Saints and Catalans in 2nd and 3rd (in either order), we’d avoid both in the semi and potentially make them have a very physical semi final between each other. The hub cap matters little but that reward could be absolutely huge.

Our only chance of that happening is to win 4 from 4. I think we can do that tbh but it won’t be easy and May still not be enough.

That's a fair point. However, what you are describing is finishing in the order that is, in your opinion, more favourable for the run in. That it ties in with finishing first is a coincidence.

Absolutely correct. The LLS is an irrelevance but the run it could give you this time is the prize you want. Finish 1st and it could be a home semi against HKR, Salford, Wire etc. Finish 3rd and it could be a home qualifier against HKR, Salford, Wire, followed by an away semi at Saints or in France. Add in that a 1st placed finish is likely to make the other semi final an absolute war and there’s probably not been a better year to top the table.

Also if you’ve been the most consistent team, it will you give a lot of confidence going into the knockout stages and at the tail end of the season.

[DaveO]

The LLS is very relevant to me.
A club that tops the league at the season's end is the best and most consistent club in the league.
We've all heard the merits of the knock outs and the GF but that's what they are, knock outs and hype.
That the club who wins the GF are the champions is now Rugby League folk law. Even if they win it from fifth and have had a pretty mediocre season.
The LLS would have even more merit if there were 14 teams in the league and each played 26 games.

What would give the LLS even more merit would be if they awarded the coach of the team that tops the league and wins the LLS a financial reward. Say, £2000 for each game won throughout the season. So if the top team won 21 games lost 5 then he would obviously get a cheque for £42000.
That might concentrate minds a bit.

I just don’t think it works like that. The team that finishes top are usually the ones who have found the most motivation to be consistent but it’s not a first past the post system. If it were, you don’t see Saints struggling for a few months IMO, you don’t see us losing in really lazy fashion at Wakefield or generally looking like we’ve lacked urgency week to week and so on.

So we lost to Wakefield because and have looked naff in several other games because we could not be arsed and likewise Saints have been messing about because that is the way it works? You might not realise it but you are actually arguing that those awful Wigan performances that have people coming on here moaning like mad are direct consequence of the format of the competition.

You make a compelling argument for the Grand Final system to be scrapped because if it works as you say it is basically corrupt in the sense some league games are not going to be competitive because the league competition is disrespected by clubs and doesn't matter despite it lasting the majority of the seventh month season compared to the playoffs.

It’s not a given that the team finishing first are the best and the play offs usually prove that. Teams like Cas, Huddersfield and Catalans have won the LLS but then don’t get the job done in the play offs because the actual best teams turn up, just as they would be done in the weekly rounds had they needed to.

No they don't. The playoffs are a knockout competition like the Challenge Cup. No one thinks the challenge cup winners are the best team in the league. The playoffs are as disproportionately influenced as any knockout completion by one off events such as illness, injury and bad decisions by officials due to the fact they are so short compared to a season long campaign where such things will be far less influential as I am sure a statistician could prove. All the playoffs show is that a team managed to string together a handful of wins at the end of the season.

In soccer they would laugh at you if you said whoever finishes top of the Premier League at the end of the season had to give the five teams below them a chance to prove they are the "better" team.

The purpose of the playoffs is an attempt to keep interest in the season by giving nearly all the teams outside the relegation fight something to play for to get into the playoffs. It's a marketing and money making exercise not a system designed to find the best team over a 7 month season. To my mind that comes at the cost of not having the most consistent team crowned champions and if you are correct a lackadaisical approach to league games. RL managed without this for years and soccer does now with mid-table teams out of any chance of winning the league still going at it hammer and tongues playing in front of huge crowds.

[Caboosegg]

The LLS is.only irrelevant until its won by a team.

Then it's relevant. Wasn't it saints who didn't celebrate it one year then didn't win everything else.

[the pieman]

The LLS is.only irrelevant until its won by a team.

Then it's relevant. Wasn't it saints who didn't celebrate it one year then didn't win everything else.

the problem with the LLS is that no fans really recognise it, and thus the players also treat it the same way now. Its 3rd in the list of trophies to be won in terms of kudos / recognition

there's a very similar thread on the general forum about state of rugby but its discussing this same point

i personally believe that the club finishing top of the league after x number of games, should be champions as it recognises consistency over the season, not a team that can loiter around mid-table all season, and then put 2-3 good games together and are then recognised as champions

[nathan_rugby]

What is the average position in the league for teams winning the grand final?

If loop fixtures were removed, you would probably have a more competitive league as there are less games and therefore less of a requirement to rest and rotate. This was proposed but the clubs turned it down due to a loss of revenue (I believe), so you cannot have it all.

The big issue in rugby league is money, so whatever decisions yet made it has to factor that in.

[josie andrews]

The LLS is.only irrelevant until its won by a team.

Then it's relevant. Wasn't it saints who didn't celebrate it one year then didn't win everything else.

the problem with the LLS is that no fans really recognise it, and thus the players also treat it the same way now. Its 3rd in the list of trophies to be won in terms of kudos / recognition

there's a very similar thread on the general forum about state of rugby but its discussing this same point

i personally believe that the club finishing top of the league after x number of games, should be champions as it recognises consistency over the season, not a team that can loiter around mid-table all season, and then put 2-3 good games together and are then recognised as champions

I agree with that.

Didn’t we used to have that?, where whichever team finished top we’re the Champion?

Then there was something similar to magic where the top 4/6 teams played off at Man U long before we had sky & a Grand Final.

I remember going to those games, which makes a change cos I have a memory like the proverbial sieve!!

[the pieman]

The LLS is.only irrelevant until its won by a team.

Then it's relevant. Wasn't it saints who didn't celebrate it one year then didn't win everything else.

the problem with the LLS is that no fans really recognise it, and thus the players also treat it the same way now. Its 3rd in the list of trophies to be won in terms of kudos / recognition

there's a very similar thread on the general forum about state of rugby but its discussing this same point

i personally believe that the club finishing top of the league after x number of games, should be champions as it recognises consistency over the season, not a team that can loiter around mid-table all season, and then put 2-3 good games together and are then recognised as champions

I agree with that.

Didn’t we used to have that?, where whichever team finished top we’re the Champion?

Then there was something similar to magic where the top 4/6 teams played off at Man U long before we had sky & a Grand Final.

I remember going to those games, which makes a change cos I have a memory like the proverbial sieve!!

Yes, that correct, but i'm quite traditional in my thoughts on that. The team finishing top (99.9% of the time is the one that deserves it over the course of a season), with the play-offs, whilst i accept its the current format, doesnt mean i like it, as the best side over the course of a season, isnt necessarily the one named "champions"

we aslo had quite a bit more to play for (and poss more prior to when i started watching in the early 80s)
Lancashire Cup
Regal Trophy
Championship
Challenge Cup
Premiership

the premiership was a post season play off - top 8, with the 2 winners playing at old trafford. You would also have similar in the 2nd division, so there would be 2 matches at Old Trafford, which is what i think you are thinking about

[Barney841]

the problem with the LLS is that no fans really recognise it, and thus the players also treat it the same way now. Its 3rd in the list of trophies to be won in terms of kudos / recognition

there's a very similar thread on the general forum about state of rugby but its discussing this same point

i personally believe that the club finishing top of the league after x number of games, should be champions as it recognises consistency over the season, not a team that can loiter around mid-table all season, and then put 2-3 good games together and are then recognised as champions

I agree with that.

Didn’t we used to have that?, where whichever team finished top we’re the Champion?

Then there was something similar to magic where the top 4/6 teams played off at Man U long before we had sky & a Grand Final.

I remember going to those games, which makes a change cos I have a memory like the proverbial sieve!!

Yes, that correct, but i'm quite traditional in my thoughts on that. The team finishing top (99.9% of the time is the one that deserves it over the course of a season), with the play-offs, whilst i accept its the current format, doesnt mean i like it, as the best side over the course of a season, isnt necessarily the one named "champions"

we aslo had quite a bit more to play for (and poss more prior to when i started watching in the early 80s)
Lancashire Cup
Regal Trophy
Championship
Challenge Cup
Premiership

the premiership was a post season play off - top 8, with the 2 winners playing at old trafford. You would also have similar in the 2nd division, so there would be 2 matches at Old Trafford, which is what i think you are thinking about

The best times of rugby league then for me