bring back the cowshed!
Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 5,690
- Player
- Alan King, Barry Dyson
Now it's six days since that historic win, what do you think of the new play-off system introduced by the NL this year? Does it work better? Would it be good for the Football League?
As we know, in the NL's top division, the second team beat the fourth team. We had one home game to negotiate to the final, while BW had one home and one away. In the NL North, runners-up Harrogate Town beat third place Brackley Town in the final, which was played at Harrogate's ground (not Wembley). But in the NL South, sixth-place Braintree Town beat fourth-place Hampton & Richmond. Braintree scraped through, winning three away games but scoring only two goals and relying on penalties twice. Under the old system, they would not have even qualified for the play-offs, but won their semi-final at Dartford, who finished 17 points ahead of them and only lost the championship on goal difference.
For me, the issues to balance are fairness, finance and competitiveness.
Fairness - I don't think the play-offs are fair in principle, but Rovers and Harrogate did come through, while Dartford can feel aggrieved. However, on balance I think the NL system is fairer than the EFL set up, as the higher you finish, the easier your path.
Finance - Play-offs generate cash for the competing clubs, but this is less true in the NL. Would an away leg at Ebbsfleet have earned much money? However, TV rights for (say) the Championship semis would be worth something.
Competitiveness - Certainly having seven teams in the final mix entends the season for mid-table clubs and this must increase interest for their fans.
On balance, I prefer the new system (although I'd prefer three up, three down between the EFL and the NL). I think the EFL could learn from it, particularly with regard to fairness.
Does anyone else have a view on this?
As we know, in the NL's top division, the second team beat the fourth team. We had one home game to negotiate to the final, while BW had one home and one away. In the NL North, runners-up Harrogate Town beat third place Brackley Town in the final, which was played at Harrogate's ground (not Wembley). But in the NL South, sixth-place Braintree Town beat fourth-place Hampton & Richmond. Braintree scraped through, winning three away games but scoring only two goals and relying on penalties twice. Under the old system, they would not have even qualified for the play-offs, but won their semi-final at Dartford, who finished 17 points ahead of them and only lost the championship on goal difference.
For me, the issues to balance are fairness, finance and competitiveness.
Fairness - I don't think the play-offs are fair in principle, but Rovers and Harrogate did come through, while Dartford can feel aggrieved. However, on balance I think the NL system is fairer than the EFL set up, as the higher you finish, the easier your path.
Finance - Play-offs generate cash for the competing clubs, but this is less true in the NL. Would an away leg at Ebbsfleet have earned much money? However, TV rights for (say) the Championship semis would be worth something.
Competitiveness - Certainly having seven teams in the final mix entends the season for mid-table clubs and this must increase interest for their fans.
On balance, I prefer the new system (although I'd prefer three up, three down between the EFL and the NL). I think the EFL could learn from it, particularly with regard to fairness.
Does anyone else have a view on this?