Can't make this **** up.
In the rugby Paper, mentions how it would allow clubs to play more youngsters or some BS.
In the rugby Paper, mentions how it would allow clubs to play more youngsters or some BS.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Todd Blackadder calls for play-offs to be expanded to Top 6.
- Thread starter LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)
- Start date
Anyone know where Bath came this season?
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 5,457
Ridiculous.
Personally I hate the play-offs. Granted it rarely happens, but the concept that a team who finishes fourth can end up top of the pile has never felt fair to me. Extending that possibility to the team in sixth feels completely ludicrous.
Personally I hate the play-offs. Granted it rarely happens, but the concept that a team who finishes fourth can end up top of the pile has never felt fair to me. Extending that possibility to the team in sixth feels completely ludicrous.
Better to reduce them to the top 2. Give the season-winner an advantage on the scoreboard by convert league points to match points
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,668
- Reaction score
- 10,540
How would 6 teams even work? I'm not happy with just 4 and certainly don't want it expanded.
3 vs 4 and 5 vs 6, winners play 2 and 1 respectively, winners in the grand final
Would be an absolute car crash. Imagine 6th place lifting the trophy?
Would be an absolute car crash. Imagine 6th place lifting the trophy?
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 22,687
- Reaction score
- 10,968
6 places work in the Top 14 to a degree because its a Mickey Mouse league where away games get thrown all the time, it works in the Pro 14 because of the conference system, why you'd put it in the Prem which has less teams and is competitive throughout leaves more questions than answers. 22 games and 4 playoff sides has always worked.
The obvious answer to that is that his team keeps falling in 5-6th, and he wants some play-off action.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 5,681
- Reaction score
- 2,593
Its simple, does the team in 6th deserve a shot at winning it. Top 4 have earned being the chance, losing players to internationals can lose you a place in a close season so top 4 works as top 3 would be stupid and top 2 wouldnt be as much of a spectacle without the play off game to get there IMO.
Could have losers of the semi play a 3rd place game but thats just a money spinner but still wouldnt complain
Could have losers of the semi play a 3rd place game but thats just a money spinner but still wouldnt complain
Fuzzy du Plessis
Academy Player
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2017
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 114
I really dislike the playoffs, but if we are to have them I think I'd prefer a 6 team version. After Tigers I usually support the lowest placed team anyway, so this would just provide more opportunities for an underdog win. Extremely difficult to find an extra round in an already crowded calendar though.
His reasoning is just ******** though. As long as there is an incentive to finish higher in the league - home SF for the top 2 teams, home QF for 3rd and 4th - then teams will push just as hard as they do now. The only way the top teams will play more youngsters is if finishing 6th is the same as finishing 1st, and even then it would probably only be Saracens or Chiefs confident enough to do so. By that point you have an even further devalued league and a decent amount of disinterested fans.
His reasoning is just ******** though. As long as there is an incentive to finish higher in the league - home SF for the top 2 teams, home QF for 3rd and 4th - then teams will push just as hard as they do now. The only way the top teams will play more youngsters is if finishing 6th is the same as finishing 1st, and even then it would probably only be Saracens or Chiefs confident enough to do so. By that point you have an even further devalued league and a decent amount of disinterested fans.
Last edited:
I disagree that the 4th place team has earned the right.
Hell, I disagree that the 2nd placed team has earned the right.
I see no need to increase the spectacle with SFs.
Just have a final and be done.
Hell, I disagree that the 2nd placed team has earned the right.
I see no need to increase the spectacle with SFs.
Just have a final and be done.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 4,644
- Reaction score
- 2,517
What about if the ringfencing happens and we split into two conferences, we then have 3 from each of two conferences?
Yup, I think 1st vs 2nd is the best IMO.
I loved seeing Falcons in the playoffs but if they'd have lifted the trophy it would have been a bit of a joke.
Hopefully it wont.
We don't need ringfencing (quite the opposite IMO)
We don't need to expand the league (quite the opposite IMO)
We don't need conferences (sport is SUPPOSED to be about merit FFS)
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- 566
I guess that it's competitive throughout the season, thanks in part to a couple of Premiership games during international windows. However, when it came to crunch time, this season has been a poor reflection on the strength in depth, with the semi-finals showing that there are only two and a half teams (Saracens, Exeter and Wasps' backs) capable of competing. You could even argue that the way the final panned out showed that there's only one team capable of competing! This being the case, what would be the point in giving more teams a crack of the whip? Semi-final upsets were more commonplace, the argument would be stronger for me, but it would still be a stretch.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- 566
The best team over the league season does always finish top though. If the winner of the title is the side that tops the league, then I would argue that the best is the one that finishes top as all sides know what they have to do to win and should make use of their resources accordingly. As it is, sides understand the structure of the season and build their squads with that in mind.
Good point. The only problem (not that I can see a solution) is that the way things are structured at the moment is like playing the final two rounds of the Six Nations the two weeks after the World Cup final.
Shaggy
First XV
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,756
- Reaction score
- 1,198
Only way that would be viable is if the league expands to 14+ teams. I'd be happy with that, won't happen though.
English rugby needs a shake up and expansion, the goal should be two fully professional leagues of 14+. Over 10 years it should be possible if planned and managed correctly. Reducing premiership numbers to 10 or something and semi-pro second division would be a huge step back and a loss all round.
Reducing the numbers in the prem IMO would be best for English rugby.
