Blyth V Workington

[Mr_Tibbs]

Gutted for Blyth

Likewise, and the result sums up my problem with play offs in general. The league table tells us that over 46 games Blyth were the second best team in our division, but they have lost out on promotion to a team that finished 13 points behind them in a one-off game. It just doesn't sit right with me.

The arguments for play offs are strong and sensible - money spinner (for the home teams at least), and they give teams quite a way down the table something to play for right up to March/April. But by that token why not have relegation play offs too then? That would keep the season interesting for all the teams in the division right up to the end. If a team who didn't merit it over 46 games can be promoted via a one-off game (or two one-off games, if you know what I mean) why can't a team who didn't deserve it be relegated in the same way? The outcry would be huge, of course: "that's unfair. If you finish outside the bottom 2 (or 3 or 4, or whatever your division's relegation zone is) you shouldn't be relegated." If that's unfair then it's equally unfair that a team who finishes 5th, many points off the promotion spots, gets a chance for promotion.

There used to be just 3 play-off places - those teams were joined in the play-offs by the team in the last relegation spot from the league above.

It was only short-lived (and I'm not sure it happened in all divisions) but I think it's still used in Scotland?

[liamsears]

Yes, still used in Scotland.

If there is a need for playoffs (and I don't think making the league more interesting for more clubs is a valid reason) then a simple playoff between the team 2nd in the lower league v the team just above the relegation zone in the higher league would show which team was best suited to the higher division.

[300Spartans]

It feels really harsh that getting 99 points has proved meaningless in just 90 minutes in something more akin to a cup game. But it is what it is, we weren't complaining last season when we had the chance to claim 5th place on the final day of the season to make things interesting. And last night was our own fault, we completely fell apart against a side we'd beaten ridiculously comfortably less than a month ago.

[theoriginalcount]

They used to have relegation playoffs in the football league back in the 1980s, whereby the third bottom team from, say, division one, played the third top team in division two (eg like Norwich playing Brighton if a snapshot was taken now) with the winner either remaining in, or being promoted to the higher league.

Not sure how it would work in the non-league pyramid given the geographical intricacies and which feeder leagues would be involved but sad that a tem who finished 13 points clear if their playoff victors have been consigned to another season in this league.

But we know how that feels, so just a case of going one better next year for them...

[Feethams 1966]

Sorry for Blyth but not for Ashton.
Their bench were rather rude to me when when they came to HP.
Loking forward to seeing who joins Darlington next season.

[Darlo_Pete]

Last season when we went up via the play-offs, we were the only team that came second in their league at that level that actually got promoted and I think there was something like 9 sets of playoffs at our level. Perhaps they should consider having the semi-finals and playoff final over 2 legs, which would make it fairer, but would delay the end of the season by about another week.

[lo36789]

Pete what were the figures from the football league with a 2 play off system?

If you want to make it fairer (which I think you are getting at to give more chance to the highest placed team) just promote the second club and do away with the playoffs.

The system at this level is already designed to favour the highest placed team with home legs.

Fairs fair there was one game and one team won it the other lost it.

[joejaques]

I was not a fan of play offs when they were introduced, but changed my mind when it gave me the chance to see Darlo at Wembley (despite the results). Not sure home games have the same attraction though.

[Darlogramps]

I'd be in favour of increasing the number of teams going up from the NPL to three (top two going plus a third via the play-offs).

However that's more to counter the North/South imbalance that's emerged at Step 2 level. (When the likes of Gloucester, Lowestoft and previously Oxford City and Bishop's Stortford are in the Conference North, that tells you there's a problem).

With regards Blyth missing out, it's tough luck. Yes they had a great season, but the structure is there and agreed on.

When we lost out to Ramsbottom, there weren't many saying we should have gone up. We ended in the play-offs and lost. That's the system and we had to get on with it, which is exactly what Blyth must do next season.

I actually think the play-off system at this level (one-off match with home advantage for highest finishers) is much fairer than the two-legged system, which favours in-form sides and means the previous 40+ games count for nothing.

Blyth had home advantage but lost. It's tough luck but they have to move on.

[Darlogramps]

Last season when we went up via the play-offs, we were the only team that came second in their league at that level that actually got promoted and I think there was something like 9 sets of playoffs at our level. Perhaps they should consider having the semi-finals and playoff final over 2 legs, which would make it fairer, but would delay the end of the season by about another week.

Fairer on who? If there was a two-legged system, Blyth would have still gone to Workington trailing 4-3 on aggregate. And Workington would have home advantage.

Two-legged play-offs mean there's no advantage for a side finishing higher in the league. I believe if you finish second then you should have some sort of advantage over the side finishing fifth - otherwise the previous 40+ games are pointless.

So the one-legged system is fairer in that it gives Blyth home advantage for finishing higher in the table.

The fact they lost is hard luck, but it happens in sport. You've just got to deal with it and come back stronger the season after.

[lo36789]

I often wonder if Pete uses a random statement generator to bulk out his posts.

The tool seemingly has a bit of a bug and is prone to throwing random commas into the rest of the post at the same time.

[liddle_4_ever]

I often wonder if Pete uses a random statement generator to bulk out his posts.

The tool seemingly has a bit of a bug and is prone to throwing random commas into the rest of the post at the same time.

Like the Daily Mail headline generator?
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

[lo36789]

Wow it really works.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I often wonder if Pete uses a random statement generator to bulk out his posts.

The tool seemingly has a bit of a bug and is prone to throwing random commas into the rest of the post at the same time.

Like the Daily Mail headline generator?
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

The Daily Mail headline generator IS SERIOUSLY FUNNY. And I urge everyone to give it a spin - go on, you know you want to.

[OHDFC]

Last season when we went up via the play-offs, we were the only team that came second in their league at that level that actually got promoted and I think there was something like 9 sets of playoffs at our level. Perhaps they should consider having the semi-finals and playoff final over 2 legs, which would make it fairer, but would delay the end of the season by about another week.

Fairer on who? If there was a two-legged system, Blyth would have still gone to Workington trailing 4-3 on aggregate. And Workington would have home advantage.

Two-legged play-offs mean there's no advantage for a side finishing higher in the league. I believe if you finish second then you should have some sort of advantage over the side finishing fifth - otherwise the previous 40+ games are pointless.

So the one-legged system is fairer in that it gives Blyth home advantage for finishing higher in the table.

The fact they lost is hard luck, but it happens in sport. You've just got to deal with it and come back stronger the season after.

Also two-legged play offs mean more games. We were completely knackered at the end of this season and if we had come second, I couldn't see us winning another two games in a week, nevermind four games in two weeks (assuming the playoffs weren't crammed into a week).

I'd reduce the play offs to three teams. 3rd would play 4th for the right to play 2nd away for promotion, thus giving 2nd not only home advantage but also more time to rest and prepare, similar to how it works (or did last season) in Scotland

[joejaques]

I often wonder if Pete uses a random statement generator to bulk out his posts.

The tool seemingly has a bit of a bug and is prone to throwing random commas into the rest of the post at the same time.

Like the Daily Mail headline generator?
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

The Daily Mail headline generator IS SERIOUSLY FUNNY. And I urge everyone to give it a spin - go on, you know you want to.

I think this thread might be bumped quite regularly throughout the closed season, brilliant.

[DarloOnTheUp]

"COULD THE BBC GIVE THE ROYAL FAMILY CANCER?"

Probably.

[Allan Quatermain]

HAS THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT GIVEN DRIVERS DIABETES?