League Leaders Shield

[josie andrews]

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

That’s what I remember, the best of times

[josie andrews]

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

Just said the same The best of times

[ian.birchall]

[*]

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.

Even better if it was being dished out to the first team squad and not counted in the salary cap. Nice to get a grand net of tax.

[NICKYKISS]

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.

It’s not rocket science. It’s not a first past the post system, so the best teams don’t need to be ‘quite there’ every week. Saints have won 4 GF’s on the trot but the LLS only twice. Had they needed to finish top, they would’ve done and would’ve ensured they did that by not resting most of their team in games at London and then Toulouse. That didn’t happen in the first past the post format and they wouldn’t have been pipped to top spot. To think teams like Huddersfield, Cas and then Catalans in 2021 are better sides than the teams that win those GF’s is simply not true. Teams just play to the system the format dictates.

[No straw damn us]

The LLS winners get £100K. As that is "prize money" it can be shared between the players without affecting the salary cap. It's certainly worth competing for.

[Wintergreen]

The LLS winners get £100K. As that is "prize money" it can be shared between the players without affecting the salary cap. It's certainly worth competing for.

Worth it ..........unless it derails the real goal of the comp.

[Charriots Offiah]

Both will do for me.

[CheshireWarrior]

I think for modern day Super League, the league leaders shield is quite prestigious in the respect of, as super league is considerably far more competitive than it was in 2003 when it was first introduced, consistently really is the key to winning it as opposed to pot luck.

I'm sure many will agree that around 2003/2004/2005 (you could often predict a 2 point victory fixture and be 99% accurate of victory).

Is it recognised though? I don't think it is by the RFL or SL, I don't imagine at the start of any clubs pre-season objectives, winning the LLS is up there too.

Equally so though, the challenge cup final at Wembley isn't a delight anymore, the world club challenge is sadly so underated and written off by the aussies.

Perhaps like others have said, finishing first means automatic grand final qualification or maybe organising a charity shield between 1st and the challenge cup winners.

Either way, to win it these days, you have to be quite something imo!

[nathan_rugby]

I think for modern day Super League, the league leaders shield is quite prestigious in the respect of, as super league is considerably far more competitive than it was in 2003 when it was first introduced, consistently really is the key to winning it as opposed to pot luck.

I'm sure many will agree that around 2003/2004/2005 (you could often predict a 2 point victory fixture and be 99% accurate of victory).

Is it recognised though? I don't think it is by the RFL or SL, I don't imagine at the start of any clubs pre-season objectives, winning the LLS is up there too.

Equally so though, the challenge cup final at Wembley isn't a delight anymore, the world club challenge is sadly so underated and written off by the aussies.

Perhaps like others have said, finishing first means automatic grand final qualification or maybe organising a charity shield between 1st and the challenge cup winners.

Either way, to win it these days, you have to be quite something imo!

Clubs will not vote something in that reduces their revenue, that’s why loop fixtures also stayed in.

The league would be more competitive if we either reduced the games (loop fixtures) or increased the quality (by removing clubs like Wakefield).

With regards to the charity shield idea it’s pointless. Adding more stuff in isn’t the solution. Let’s work with what we have got rather than adding more in.

I think everything in rugby league has been massively over complicated.

- need to incentivise the league to make it more competitive
- strong and consistent international calendar
- valued World Cup challenge / series
- every club has an academy
- challenge cup at a venue in the north to increase attendance
- remove loop fixtures and magic weekend
- remove or at least increase the salary cap
- simplify the rules - there are too many (it’s gotten too complicated, 20/40 kick, 6 again, choosing where your scrum is etc).

[ian.birchall]

Nathan wants us to get rid of Wakefield on the grounds they bring nothing to the game.
Is this the same Wakefield whose defeat of the Warriors a few weeks ago stands a good chance of costing us a top two finish?
Let us keep Wakefield, at least they have a full sized pitch unlike Castleford.