I enjoyed the result on Friday too, but agree that the best game was last nights.



The first 4 games effectively meant nowt, so there was little intensity in either of them. Only Leeds looked like they wanted the week off.

Think you mean the first 2 games Chris. The second 2 definately meant something as they were eliminators.



Cannot remember which poster said it but they should go with



1v2 for 1st final place



3-8 play till down to one team and they play loser of the 1st match.



This stacks the odds in favour of the top 2 reaching the final.

Yep - Monday lunchtime

How do you end up with one team to play the losers of the first game.If its 3v8 4v7 5v6 you end up with 3 teams through to the next round

Round 1



Match 1 5th vs 8th

Match 2 6th vs 7th



Round 2



Match 3 1st vs 2nd (winner to final)

Match 4 3rd vs lowest placed winner

Match 5 4th Vs highest placed winner



Round 3

Match 6 Match 4 winner v Match 5 winner (or highest placed winner at home)



Round 4

Loser of final eliminator vs Winner match 6 )winner to final)

seems the most sensible format for the playoffs.

Sensible is sometimes a euphemism for boring though. I think you have to embrace the excitement of the play-offs or the fairness of 'table-toppers are champions', or you can end up with the the worst of both worlds.



FWIW, I prefer the more open new system. The old system just felt like a mechanism for ensuring the table toppers contested the grand final, as if we were a bit embarrased to decide our champions via a knockout competition.

You never played in the old system so how can you have a prefrence





Booooooooooooooooooooooo

I've never played under any system SL - Neasden Junior High and Malet Lambert inter-form (champions!) was the peak of my achievement. I did [isee[/i it though, or some of it, at least. tbf, I'd probably be less keen on openess if we were regularly in the top 2.

We should be embarrassed to choose our champions by way of a knockout competition. We may as well just draw names out of the hat and play a big cup at the beginning of the season and get it over with.



How would it look if Catalans became champions when they lost more games than they won throughout the season along with a negative points difference.



A league provides you with the best team throughout a season rather than the best team over a period of 4/5 weeks.

That is a big chunk of RL history to be embarrased by. I think I'm correct in saying that Hull won 5 of their 6 championships in Finals. I am, I just checked. You were table toppers as well as champions in '35-'36 - the other 4 finals you won from 2nd (3 times) and 4th. In '23 you topped the League, but we were champions. The reverse had been the case '21.



Play-offs were generally top 4 (of a ~thirty team league), straight knock-out, so your point about Catalans is valid, I admit.

Things were further complicated by teams playing different numbers of fixtures (Leigh played 32, Leeds 38 in 1922-3 as one example of many) and the use of a win percentage co-efficient thingy.

Good rugby set up there..