Said it before. Top five compete for SL title, 6th to 10th compete for a secondary competition. Keeps the season alive for the majority of teams and bridges a gap for the lower end SL teams to get used to a play off intensity game. The big clubs can then be happy with out having to resort to playing the likes of Trinity! No excuses not to turn up.

Fwiw, I think Smith is correct, even though his reasoning may not be quite right.

If the play offs are to decide the Champions of the competition, then in a 14 team competition the "best" team cant be a team finishing in 5,6,7 or 8.

The best team is at the top of the pile after 27 rounds and if we do need a play off to decide the champions, this really should be a top 4 or 5.

Back in the day, there was the premiership play offw, which was a competition for the top 8 clubs in a 16 team competition, but this was a seperate cup comp and not used to decide the Champions.

Having said that, i'd have loved to be watching Trin at Old Trafford on 6th October !

He talks cack at times,Catalan finished fourth and were still blown away.

In 2011 the only team blown away were Hudersfield who finished fourth.

In 2010 no one was blown away.

In 2009 the only team blown away was Hull kr - who finished fourth.



I like Tony Smith,but he really does need to engage brain before opening his mouth at times.

A poster called ThePrinter posted this on the Leeds board -







I think this post blows Tony Smith's reasoning right out of the water. There is a known memory quirk (It has a name... just can't remember it!

) that generally leads us all to think that past was much rosey than it actually was. People have short memories and would suggest that Tony's is indeed short and looking at the stats, they prove him entirely wrong!



That said, the debate about how many teams makes the play-offs is a valid one, but not based, it would appear, on the closeness of matches!

Cant agree,you cant have it both ways.



Saying the best team cant be someone finishing 5th,but it can be someone finishing 4th.The teams could be level on points and only separated by points difference.



Personally i quite like the structure as it lengthens the season for supporters of many clubs and builds to a finale.

Even if it was a top two play off people would still complain as there would be the potential for the top two teams to be separated over the regular rounds by more than a couple of points.In 2006 eg -- Saints were 8 points clear of Hull at the top at the end of regular rounds.



The game needs a pinnacle to the end of the season,more so with no relegation.

The majority of RL history has seen the Champions decided, both here and in the Southern Hemisphere, by a play-off system. In England that was generally the top 4 sides, until 1974 and then the Super League era has seen that mimic the NRL systems.



But let also not be guilty of short memories, play-offs are part of our past, present & future of this game.

Top four, fourth and third play:winner plays second and then winner plays league winner in final.

Wheat and chaff well separated and just reward for winning the league going straight into the final.

Sadly there is not enough money in it and it will never happen.

Strange how when you look back to when we went from 5 in the play-offs to 8 in 2008 it was Tony Smith who suggested the idea when he worked for the RFL.

Gobby Aussie who should it shut ,let teams enjoy their moment of fame.not all coaches can be at at a club where money is no expense.hope Hull knock them out.

You get your finger out and get them papers signed, never mind this

Smiths got a point, but not attacking the real sham.

The SL play offs are for nothing other than to obtain a few more quid.

Each team plays the others at home and away, no pointless tragic week end.

Champions crowned SL champs.

If you want a play off comp have it top8, 6 or 4.

or introduce another comp with all clubs taking part.

Should it shut,rate Fev talk that, do you need a Normy lad like me to teach you how to talk