I might add that in a discussion about the difficulty of winning a league, what significance does a "bounce of a ball" have? Do you not think that in previous years there were close games decided by similar bounces of balls?
my point was that Wigan last year were not a great side, they had flickerings of a decent one, but couldnt win away from home and put in some pretty poor performances. How can this LLS be so difficult to win if it can be won by a team who wins 4 away games all year?
Also, what significance does getting more points in the Super 8s have? The LLS is awarded to the team with the most points after 30 rounds of matches, not what happens after the first 23 rounds.
Youre point was that the super 8s and the additional fixtures make winning the LLS more difficult to win, but as we proved, a side doesnt need to be the best in the super 8s to win the LLS, a side can win thee games in the first 23 rounds and then, for instance, only win 4 of 7 in the super 8s.
but everybody else we were competing with had a similar run-in (and a few did better than we did)
"Similar" being the operative word. How many had a challenge cup semi final and final to contend with? Certainly not Wigan or Huddersfield. We had no rest. How many had to go to Catalans away? How many teams lost vital playmakers to injury (Aiton, Burrow)? All highly significant points.
What is selective or disingenuous about them? what statistics do you have that would contradict it?
On a more subjective basis Dont forget that a large amount of those super 8's games were dead rubbers for one of the sides, Wire were serving up some absolute dross, Hull FC won 1 game in the super 8s, and in my opinion the teams at the bottom of SL in 2015 were worse than those at the bottom in 2014, Wakefield were a free 4 points for pretty much every side and worse than London in 2013
Equally more subjectively, how many of the 2007,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 games were "dead rubbers" for the top, say, 8 teams? Which teams in previous years were serving up some absolute dross?
If Wakefield were a free 4 points in 2015 (they got 6 points from 23 games), what does that make London in 2014 (2 points from 27 games)?
There are invariably statistics that can back either side of most cases, but one thing is a matter of fact (as I stated in a previous post): Just on the basis of logic, to play only 11 teams home & away (the 2 weakest from 2014 having been kicked out of the league), then to play the top 7 thereafter once (home or away) has got to be more difficult than playing 13 teams home & away - surely?
my point was that Wigan last year were not a great side, they had flickerings of a decent one, but couldnt win away from home and put in some pretty poor performances. How can this LLS be so difficult to win if it can be won by a team who wins 4 away games all year?
What??? Wigan gained 41 points from 30 league games (exactly the same as Leeds as it happens). WTF does their away form have to do with anything? In fact, by that logic Leeds should not have won the LLS due to their abysmal home form! (Haven't checked, but I'm assuming that we won more than 4 away games )
"Similar" being the operative word. How many had a challenge cup semi final and final to contend with? Certainly not Wigan or Huddersfield. We had no rest. How many had to go to Catalans away? How many teams lost vital playmakers to injury (Aiton, Burrow)? All highly significant points.
no doubt it is harder to do the treble, i readily admit that. I think it is far harder to do the treble for the simple reason there are more games.
Im talking specifically about the LLS, and each teams run was as similar as it is possible for them to be.
What??? Wigan gained 41 points from 30 league games (exactly the same as Leeds as it happens). WTF does their away form have to do with anything? In fact, by that logic Leeds should not have won the LLS due to their abysmal home form! (Haven't checked, but I'm assuming that we won more than 4 away games )
Its your argument that the LLS is far more difficult to win, im asking if that is the case, how can a Wigan side who had such a 'downside' win it (which for the bounce of a ball they would have done) Surely if its so difficult, only better teams would do it?
Equally more subjectively, how many of the 2007,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 games were "dead rubbers" for the top, say, 8 teams? Which teams in previous years were serving up some absolute dross?
If Wakefield were a free 4 points in 2015 (they got 6 points from 23 games), what does that make London in 2014 (2 points from 27 games)?
We are talking about 2013 not 2014, and yes London were terrible in 2014. However in 2013 London had 12 points from 27 games.
Regardless, i accept that other peoples subjective opinions may differ, however the point argued before was that the structure made it harder to win, If the answer is it was more difficult to win because of a subjective opinion on the relative strengths of the leagues, we just have different opinions on that. Im simply disagreeing that the super 8s make it more difficult to win the LLS.
There are invariably statistics that can back either side of most cases, but one thing is a matter of fact (as I stated in a previous post): Just on the basis of logic, to play only 11 teams home & away (the 2 weakest from 2014 having been kicked out of the league), then to play the top 7 thereafter once (home or away) has got to be more difficult than playing 13 teams home & away - surely?
But its equal difficulty for everyone that year.
I would accept what you have put here as an explanation of why Hudds earned more points in 2013 from fewer games than Leeds in 2015. But its not an explanation of why Hudds earned more points than everyone else in 2013 and why it was easier to do that in 2013 than 2015.
no doubt it is harder to do the treble, i readily admit that. I think it is far harder to do the treble for the simple reason there are more games.
Im talking specifically about the LLS, and each teams run was as similar as it is possible for them to be.
Where did i mention the treble? I'm not talking about the treble. The cup semi final and Final affected our LLS win because we had that to contend with during the super 8's. Our run in wasn't similar to Wigan or Huddersfield because we had 2 extra games to play. Without the super 8's, we win the LLS comfortably. The league table said so. Can't argue with facts, son
Where did i mention the treble? I'm not talking about the treble. The cup semi final and Final affected our LLS win because we had that to contend with during the super 8's. Our run in wasn't similar to Wigan or Huddersfield because we had 2 extra games to play. Without the super 8's, we win the LLS comfortably. The league table said so. Can't argue with facts, son
i think you have misunderstood what i was saying. I agree entirely it was more difficult for us to win the LLS last year compared to Wigan and Hudds last year because we played more games (due to us winning the CC). I disagree it is harder to just win the LLS this year compared to previous years.
)
