So let's assume Hudds 'wrote off' week 1. They now need to play Leeds (a tough game for them) and if they win that their reward is an away tie at Warrington (most likely). Surely they will have gone all out in Week 1 to pull off a shock and have a nice tie back at the Galpharm in two weeks?



The benefits to Hudds beating Wire the other night were pretty massive tbh.

Do you think there has been the same intensity to play off games where teams know they have a second chance versus those with sudden death elimination?

If we're sticking with the top 8 lets at least go 1v8th and so forth. Maybe a couple of one sided scorelines in week one but at least tough games arent artificially created and doing it from 8th would become a monumental task whereas 1st and second would be much more rewarded

The Wigan v Saints game had the highest level of intensity of all four games.



The Catalans v Hull KR game or the Leeds v Hull had no intensity and they were knockout.



Like I say, I don't disagree, but the fact is there have just been some freak games this year.



Last year Leeds beat Wigan by 1 point, and the Saints v Wire game was a cracker in Rd 1. The least intense game was the Hull derby which was knockout. The next four knockout games were not particularly close (apart from the Wire v Hudds game which looked like a cakewalk for Hudds at one stage).



I am slowly coming round to the opinion that we should potentially go back to top 5, but not because of these couple of things that you have highlighted.

The problem I've had with the 5v8 and 6v7 games that I've seen since the top 8 came into force is that some teams have looked to me to be trying to avoid losing as opposed to going out to win. You would think that these games would be the most intense of the first week playoff games as the teams involved are trying to stay alive but it hasn't been the case.

In a 14 team comp it should be top 6 imo.



Wk1: 3v6, 4v5

Wk2: 1v2 (winner progresses to GF), 5or6v3or4

Wk3: loser of 1v2 v winner 5or6v3or4

Final: Winner Wk2 v winner of week 3



This rewards the minor premiership much more than currently, doesn;t promote mediocre teams into the finals. To win it from outside the top two would reqrie 4 wins on the trot. Only downside would be just one game in Wk3 for TV.

What does that even mean? Surely if you are trying to avoid losing you are trying to win (ignore the draw)? You can hardly accuse Hull and Hull KR of negativity, they have simply been blown away by better teams on the night.

Thats the old system but its always the 1v2 just acts as a dress rehearsal for the same teams to play again in a fortnight. I stopped watching that game each year because it was pointless

Oh right. Criticism and questioning will not be tolerated. I get it.







(although.... quite how you'd 'get legal' would be interesting. Surely as a plaintiff you'd need to prove on balance that no 'jiggery-pokery' of the salary cap had occurred at Warrington. Cue much public examination of HJS closets in the search for skeletons. I'd be confident of seeing off any legal action. That's if you or anyone else dared to bring a case - instead of prefering the method of censorship-by-bully-boy-threat)

Unfortunately the burden of proof rests with you for making such claims.

All the top sides are clever with the salary cap anyway, none are breaking it

I would have a 20 team league with a champion league style like draw to make the fixtures and play everybody once and the play offs would be knockout with the top team making club call.

Not really, the top NRL teams have a budget of $20mill+ whilst the poorest teams operate on around $14mill. The gap in incomes is much greater than the haves and have nots of SL. Probably a factor is the poorest teams often have the biggest jnr nurseries.