Without wanting to start a whole new football v rugby debate, a few of the RL followers at work have cast doubt on City's achievement this season with comments like "it's league one ffs" Which made me think about the difficulty of winning league one v winning super league. Obviously twice as many teams in league one, therefore on paper twice as hard to win. What other criteria should we take into account when comparing the two competitions?
What do the mean by 'winning' the superleague, because the one that gets the credit, is usually the one that wins the end of season mini-league, so they only 'beat' something like five teams really.
Well I would look at the old school method of the team that's top of the league after all of the regular matches. Think they have a name for it, but can't remember.
I forget how the league is set up now, but as far as I know, there's no relegation as such, and the bottom half is pretty much there to make the numbers up, so you're still really only looking at being better than four or five teams.
I like the sport and consider myself an FC fan, but it's only worth bothering with on a game-by-game basis. The entire league and cup system is absurd, likewise the random inclusion of European teams in an attempt to make the game here look better and more far-reaching than it is. I'd say that the World Cup is an irrelevance, and even the NRL - held up as the highest form of the game - is a joke in terms of fan support.
You are wrong there mate...you should have said "it's rough its tough its rugby league".....yeah right!!!!!
They used to have a league winners shield for the one that finished top after the regulation season , ironically this was ditched the season Hull FC finished top so they didnt even win that
If you like RL then that's good. The trouble with it is its just a pre amble to getting to the Play offs then pick one of Wigan,Saints and Rhinos and the rest should just go home, The League one title is id say 300% harder to win . Thats it really .
That's amusing in the same way as us never playing at the old Wembley, because the one year we qualified to play there was the time the Papa Johns Trophy (what ever it was called back then) Final wasn't played at Wembley, due to the pitch being ruined by the Horse of the Year Show. Of course it ended up at Boothferry Park and we lost.
Doesn't the club who finish top get a coconut or something and then the other ten village teams play off against each other with the winner playing either Leeds, Wigan or St Helens in the final ? As for the rl challenge cup, I've had this argument all of my life with eggchasers. If City, or in football, you got to a Wembley cup final by winning four or five games City would have been there dozens of times. It was a miracle that fc and Revers hadn't met each other before in a final as they did in 1980 considering how few teams compete in it. By the way Hull City are the only Hull team never to be nilled at Wembley. Tell you eggchasers friends that fact.