I agree with him partly, the playoffs are somewhat of an excuse for poor performance throughout the season.
I think the point of having an 8 team play off is that it ensures 8+ teams have to play for the whole season. Having 3 involved would just mean that several teams could clock off by April as there would be nothing to play for.
If we did what McManus suggested, it's great for the top 3 sides, but the other sides would need a reason to keep playing, McManus doesn't cover this.
I agree with the fact the top team should get a larger reward, the top team should either go straight to the final or only have to win one game.
The advantage of a larger play-off system is that the 2 form teams are in the final which makes for a great final.
With us not having the chance to qualify for europe like they do in the premiership, there would be nothing to play for later in the year for the teams below the top 3 or 4.
I thought both the top 5 and top 6 were fine but we will see if this new system works.
But I also think the fact that a team could go all the way and win it exciting.
I can see both sides, I would of just stuck with the top 5 if Im honest though.
Dropkick Murphy..we actually saw and heard a mass of bouncing and scarf and flag waving to Dale Cavese that drowned out anything we could muster.. It stopped us singing our own celebratory songs, it died out seconds later when we accepted we couldn't be heard over the Wigan lot Celebrations muted from us, job done from them. Most fans who slag them off are jealous their own club's support is nowhere near that good - sally cinnamon..Why not discuss Wigan? It's a rugby league message board. Wigan are the most famous brand in rugby league - Tre Cool..Saints fans are hopeless unless it's a cup final or grand final. Wigan fans are so much more loyal and passionate - the flying biscuit..Wires havent been massively succesful over the years, but I've spoke to Brian Bevan And he spoke to me and i wouldnt swap that for Wigans History, ever - Ande..on the TV i could only hear the Wigan fans with about 10 to go - Saint94..Every team is in your feckin shadow, we all know - FIOS
Joined: Mar 30 2002 Posts: 25689 Location: The posh end of Newton
Saddened! wrote:I agree with him partly, the playoffs are somewhat of an excuse for poor performance throughout the season.
I think the point of having an 8 team play off is that it ensures 8+ teams have to play for the whole season. Having 3 involved would just mean that several teams could clock off by April as there would be nothing to play for.
If we did what McManus suggested, it's great for the top 3 sides, but the other sides would need a reason to keep playing, McManus doesn't cover this.
I agree, it's a double edged sword whichever way you look at it.
I can see why the RFL have gone for a top 8 Play Off. It's similar to the NRL and gives every team a chance of winning the major prize. That is hugely rewarding for the teams low down the table, but for those challenging at the top it is a poor format as it really devalues top spot. Why fight hard for top spot when you know anywhere in the top 4 is highly rewarding?
The idea of 3 is good on the face of it as it'll really make the top teams fight for a spot in the three. In a league of 14 this is tough, which will make the league more competitive particularly at the start and middle period of the year. The problem comes at the middle and end of the year when teams well outside the three cannot make it and therefore have nothing to play for. That's when the pace drops off and there will be no competitiveness.
I'm not sure what the answer is to be honest. 8 is too many, but I feel the top six was also becoming a bit tired to be honest. It needed re-jigging, but I'm not sure the top 8 was the answer to be honest.
[quote="Meyt N Prater Pie"]I think I hate wigan.[/quote]
Joined: Mar 13 2003 Posts: 4411 Location: Liverpool
I am in agreement with Rogues on this one. The top 5 system was by far the best, as play-offs go.
Unfortunately, however, the scrapping of relegation means that, as Blobby points out, by the halfway stage six or seven of the teams would have nothing to play for.
It's a no win situation basically. In a 5 or 6 (or 3) team system, the league is devalued because half the sides are effectively playing friendlies for half the season. In an 8 team system, the league is devalued because the rewards for finishing top are so diminished. In a first past the post system you have fairness and reward for excellence, but you lose a showpiece event upon which the RFL and the SL clubs are by now no doubt financially dependant.
Why not give a set amount of money for where you finish in the league, the higher you finish the more money your club gets given to pay off debts or what ever. This way, they could have a top 3 or whatever, and thw lower sides would be playing to earn there club more money. Think they do it in football.
The other thing against the first past the post system was the ridiculous playing some teams 3 or 4 times per season and playing others only twice.
Last season for example Wigan played Saints 4 times, Leeds 3 and Catalan 3.
This season with 14 teams it is far better, but until you get all teams playing each other just home and away, the first past the post system cannot be deemed fair.
SAINTS THE ORIGINAL AND PERENNIAL CHEATS
For sale full Saints kit (circa 1989). Shirts in pristine condition, but shorts badly soiled.
For 27 - 0 you get a trophy For 75 - 0 you get sod all.
Wigan had eight in a row Saints have five in a row
Top five as others have said is the best.
Top eight is a bit of a p1ss take and definitly devalues the week to week rounds of Super League.
As Blobby has said anywhere in the top four is a good finish,I can see a lot of youngsters getting good game time towards the end of the season.
I reckon key players will be rotated as no club needs to bust a gut to finish top or top two even.
[quote='Fishsta"']I've always thought of McGuire as a good player, and I wouldn't normally wish injury on any player, but there was a certain hint of poetic justice to that.
[/quote]
Another classic:
[quote='Fishsta']You forgot to take off the "Saints Reduction Factor" when calculating the ban.
Standard suspension / Saints Reduction Factor = Actual ban for Saints player.
Therefore (2 / 3) = 0.666
0.666 < 1 therefore actual ban equals "less than 1 match".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
