The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:46 am  

This season leeds have played 38 games in total, the most that it is physically possible to play in a season in the current format.

Of those 38 games, they have lost 12 and won 26. Last season Man city won the premier league with one of the highest points totals recorded, and from 38 games, the same as what leeds have played this season they won 28 games. Just 2 more than leeds. They lost less games but you have to consider the nature of the sports and that draws will happen much more often then in rugby.

Of course I'm including leeds cup games in that total wherewas if i did the same for man city their total of games would be much higher (and so would their losses)

Advocates pointing to league position need to remember that in the current format all is not equal as some teams play each other more than others due to the magic weekend, couple with the fact that at the start of the season everyone knows 1st will not give you the championship means the league placings are not an accurate measure of a teams ability.

Now I accept many people are not knocking leeds but the system itself. But to the many saying leeds have been average and have just turned up for a few games, well the above statistics prove otherwise.

In terms of the people criticising the current format, I take your points, maybe it should be weighted more in favour of the top teams. But if you look at it like this, anyone finishing outside of the top 4 has to win 2 games away from home against teams that finished above them to get to the grand final. Under the current format it is certainly easier (in theory) for 3rd and 4th place as they get a 2nd bite at the cherry (compared to top 6 which they didn't) and theoretically can get to the grand final in 2 games with a home game to get there (which again under the old 6 system they couldn't).

I read many advocates of the top 5 system, and i agree i felt that was weighted really well. But each time the playoff format has been changed it's generated more games. So we are never going to change it and reduce the number of playoff games and lower from top 8 because it will reduce the income and sky money. Sky wouldn't want it.

Also what you have to consider is the current format is generated with entertainment in mind. The firstr ound of games pits evenly matched teams (in theory) against each other. The top 4 face off, and then 5-8 face off. Even then the quality of the games can sometimes struggle. Can you imagine if it was weighted differently and 1st played 8th?

Was there any angst at the current format in 09 and 10 when top spot won? No there wasn't. The top 8, in it's current format is here to stay. The 27 rounds aren't meaningless because you still need to finish pretty high up to have the best chance.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:00 am  

I think the only way we will lose the top 8 play off system is when superleague is reduced to 12 teams whether this is forced by the financial state of the game or the courage of the RFL to endorse it.
A 22 or 23 game comp I would imagine will make the game more competitive with a 5 team play off at the end of it. Unfortunately the RFL has modelled everything on quantity rather than quality and SKY are the promoters of this existing state.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:33 pm  

Peter Kingsley wrote:

So we are never going to change it and reduce the number of playoff games and lower from top 8 because it will reduce the income and sky money. Sky wouldn't want it.

This isn't true. The Sky presenters have been openly criticising the play off system and the poor early round performances. Sky would take whatever the league decides. The problem is it is left to the clubs to vote on it and whilst you might get the big four (or whatever it is nowdays) going for a more streamlined, elite, version there is absolutely no incentive to vote for a reduction by the clubs whose aim each year is just to make the playoffs.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:58 pm  

MjM wrote:

This isn't true. The Sky presenters have been openly criticising the play off system and the poor early round performances. Sky would take whatever the league decides. The problem is it is left to the clubs to vote on it and whilst you might get the big four (or whatever it is nowdays) going for a more streamlined, elite, version there is absolutely no incentive to vote for a reduction by the clubs whose aim each year is just to make the playoffs.

I think you may have this premis back to front.
The RFL will take whatever Sky prefer.
If they wanted the playoffs to last twice as long to siut their TV scedules, then i'm sure that you would see some change.
Maybe the luddites amongst un need to come to terms with the fact that, the 27 regular rounds are just a protracted
qualifying process and the real thing takes place after that.
For me, it's still hard to view the winners of such a short knockout comp as true champions but, thats probably just an
age thing, that will change over time.
it would be really interesting if a team could win from 8th, which is nigh on impossible but, who knows ?

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:15 pm  

Apart from Sinfield's goal kicking I thought he was very avg and his mistakes under pressure nearly cost them the game. Watching both teams I can see why we can't get close to Australia in Int games.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:20 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I think you may have this premis back to front.
The RFL will take whatever Sky prefer.
If they wanted the playoffs to last twice as long to siut their TV scedules, then i'm sure that you would see some change.

I think, as with most RL fans, you think Sky Sports take much more interest in the inner workings of a sport they happen to cover than they really do.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:34 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

Apart from Sinfield's goal kicking I thought he was very avg and his mistakes under pressure nearly cost them the game. Watching both teams I can see why we can't get close to Australia in Int games.

must have been watching a different game to everybody else then

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:05 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

Apart from Sinfield's goal kicking I thought he was very avg and his mistakes under pressure nearly cost them the game. Watching both teams I can see why we can't get close to Australia in Int games.

Sorry but you're an idiot.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:01 pm  

Actually, I half agree with JB. I dont think Sinfield stood out that much and his kicking from hand wasnt great at times. He wasnt below average though. To me, Burrow was the one that continuously got us on the front foot and played the best game I have possible seen him have in the last 5 years. He looked dangerous everytime he had the ball and as Leeds posters will know, I am not his biggest fan, but last night he was pretty damn awesome.

Re: The argument that leeds are average. : Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:33 pm  

There is no argument

Winning the WCC, CC runners up and SL Champions

If that is average, i'm happy to be average every year