To Play-Off Or Not To Play-Off

By Toni
June 18 2003

May 31st 2002, Twickenham, England, some time around 5pm. Welcome to the scene of one of the greatest rugby injustices of all time.

The Zurich Premiership play-off final brought Gloucester and Wasps to HQ on that day, and Gloucester must have gone home wishing they'd not even bothered to turn up to the farce that is the play-offs. It's one of the most highly debated subjects in rugby at the moment, something everyone seems to have an opinion on, so firstly -what exactly are the Premiership play-offs, and why have they been introduced?


For those unfamiliar with the play-off system, I'll summarise. At the end of the "regular" season, which this year ended on May 10th, the top three teams in the league will qualify for a play-off spot. Whoever has finished top of the league are not champions, as with every other year that leagues have existed. The only plus about finishing top is the avoidance of missing a semi-final play off and going straight into the final at Twickenham. This year, that was Gloucester's honour. Wasps, who finished second, then hosted Northampton at home - their reward for finishing second. The winner of that then went through to the final, to play Gloucester for the chance to be called English champions.


The key question is "why have they been introduced?". That question is easier to answer. The official line is so that it makes teams keep playing until the end of the season and brings the season to a climax. Well, I'll argue shall I? Firstly, what makes people think that the teams wouldn't keep playing anyway? That they'd think "oh, we can't win the league, let's sit back and stop playing rugby now". The Heineken Cup places make the top 6 keep playing, the bottom 6 keep playing to avoid relegation. When exactly has the league fallen flat when the champions have already been decided?


It's a preposterous idea and one I just don't understand. Ok, I agree it brings the season to a climax - but what were the reports on June 1st this year? Not "Wasps Deserve To Be Winners" but more "poor Gloucester".


As Tigers fans, this might be a bit too much to ask, but imagine for a second you're a Gloucester player or supporter, or imagine Tigers were Gloucester, whatever works for you. The season that began so many months ago has ended, and you've dominated everything and only lost 3 league games. You've been the champions from the kick off of the first day, dominating everything and you've also won the Powergen Cup. If it wasn't for a bit of bad luck you'd be in for a shot at the Heineken. You're far and way been worthy champions, but when the season finishes and you're top of the table - you've nothing to show for it. After a long season, you have an off day at the final and get beaten. You have to stand on the pitch at Twickenham, looking at your fanatical support and trying to get your breath back, as the Wasps team jump around cheering and waving the trophy around. You've been the best team all season but now a team have sneaked in through the back door to claim what is rightly yours. I'd be pretty annoyed to say the least.


Okay, so Gloucester bought into the idea of the play-offs at the start of the season, as did every other premiership club bar Tigers. So they should have expected and been aware that this scenario could happen. This is a strong argument, one that made a lot of sense, and one Lawrence Dallaglio hasn't been slow about pointing out in the recent weeks. As strong an argument as it is, the fact still stands - Wasps were not the best team in England this season, Gloucester were, and all they have to show for it is a losers medal and a head full of disappointing memories. How is this fair?


The Super 12 has a Grand final, my favourite guy Stuart Barnes was saying on Rugby Club: “No one questions it in the Super 12”. No, they don't. The winners of the final are accepted as winners, this is true, but that's a different competition. The Super 12 is not all-season long, but February to May and is played like a Cup competition. The Zurich Premiership isn't. It's five months longer for a start. It must be a lot easier to sustain an amount of pressure for four months instead of nine. The Zurich Premiership is interrupted by international call ups, which the Super 12 isn't. They're two totally different systems, and should have ways that suit each system in turn, not this supposedly universally approved idea of a play-off system.


And Rugby League have a Grand final idea. That's fine, but there's a reason why there's two different codes of rugby. Why follow their example? Why not continue with the format that has worked without problem or question for year upon year? Doesn't the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mean anything to the top brass at the RFU?


The worst case scenario happened for the RFU this year. What they really needed was for Gloucester to win anyway, to try and kill articles and points like the one's I've expressed earlier. However, wouldn't it then be the case that Gloucester have been champions all year and they've won it officially, what's the point of the play-offs? The RFU were put in a no-win situation. And why? Because their idea was idiotic in the first place.


The English club season is already ridiculously long. Several players looked ready to drop by May, like they were already dreaming of their summer holidays and a rest from the physical and mental batterings of rugby. So why extend it even further with this pointless competition, that in fact shows nothing? Will anyone really accept Wasps as champions next season? I doubt it. It'll still be Gloucester that everyone will be nervous of, not Wasps.


One point I'd like to raise is how do the Wasps players feel? Do they think they are rightful champions? I'd like to have a chat to some of them and find out the answers. Surely, the more honest of them would admit that maybe it's not the feeling of satisfaction they were expecting. If it were me, I wouldn't be able to truly enjoy the experience because in the back of my mind I'd know there was a huge backlash against the play-offs, and that Gloucester were in fact rightful winners. None of them would admit it publicly of course, but there must be a few feeling like that. If there's not, then it just shows how much our sport is moving more and more towards football.


So, to return to the original question - to play off or not to play-off? I'm sure you know my viewpoint by now. If I was a rounded writer, I'd show a more detailed positive side for the play-offs, but I honestly can't see any. I'm not a fan of Gloucester and I disagree with a lot of the things written about them, but for the sake of rugby, they should have won that game and been crowned champions - purely because they are. Scrap the play-offs and go back to the old format, let's do things to proper way, the way they've been done successfully for so long. And let's not even start on the issue of the Wildcard, though I will quickly say my opinions of this mindless competition are no higher than of the other play-off system.


I take nothing away from London Wasps. I was at Twickenham on that day, and the darkly humoured side of me enjoyed seeing the all-consuming Gloucester go down it what was a good performance from an inspired Wasps pack. However, it should be back to the drawing board for the guys who make the decisions, not just for the sake of Gloucester's sanity, but for the sake of the English club game as a whole.