The Grand Final is definitely the most important one. It's the last club game of the year. It gives you the right to call yourselves "Champions". It's what you've been playing all your for. It gets you to the WCC the year after. It's clearly more important.



That being said, it is more of an honour to play in the CCF. It's steeped in tradition. It's at Wembley. It's the oldest RL competition in the world. And the trophy is beautiful, a real work of art.



Totally depends what you're after, really. I'd rather be the champion team. But I'd also like to see us finally win at Wembley!

Totally disagree. In fact, I think it's ridiculous that it isn't made more of a deal of. The shield is pathetic. It should be the size of the Community Shield in football at least, and have all the league leaders engraved into it.



Saints just seem to throw it to each other frisbee style each year and that's it. No fireworks or ceremony or anything. It should still be a huge honour to have topped your league.

The shield is proportional to the "achievement" it marks.







We should give it to every team that tops the league, it's a great honour after all. It could travel around as the season progresses. Then it can continue to be (appropriately) forgotten about as we go into the play-offs.

Is it? Is the Challenge Cup also proportional to the achievement it marks? And if so, why is winning 5 games so much more important than being the most consistent team in the top league in this side of the world?





It's not really much of an achievement to be top of the league after Round 1 compared to Round 27 though, is it.



And you could argue the same about the Challenge Cup going into the play-offs. No-one was bothered that Hull were the cup winners going into the play-offs in 2005. But I bet more people were bothered that St Helens were the League Leaders.

Top challenge cup rounds v the play offs?



The top challenge cup rounds over the last few years have been way better than what most play off rounds have had to offer which have mainly been thrashings.



Grand Final v Challenge Cup Final?



The Grand Final has had better matches than the challenge cup final over the last five years or so..

Winning five knock-out games is clearly a bigger achievement than qualifying for the play-offs in the best position. There are no second chances in the Challenge Cup you have to perform on the day every match.







What about after Round 26? That's almost the same achievement. Shouldn't that be honoured? Being top of the league after Round 27 is a tiny step up from being top after Round 26.







Were St Helens the League Leaders in 2005? I'll take your word for that one. You think they wouldn't have swapped that for winning the Challenge Cup? Personally I think they'd like to have actually won something that year.

Rubbish. It's a completely different achievement. Doesn't make it bigger. Winning the most games all season is a huge achievement. Ask anyone who follows football what they think is the biggest achievement: winning the FA Cup or the Premiership, and see what they say.

Form is temporary. You can get lucky over 5 games. You can't get lucky over 27.





Why would you give anyone a trophy before the competition has finished? It's a poor argument. It's like saying you should give the winning semi-finalists of the CC a trophy.

The fact is, being top of the league after the season has finished is a big achievement. And it's certainly more of an achievement than being top of the league at any other time of the season!





They did. They've finished top every year since 2005.



Winning a competition is only worth as much as its rewards, which includes its reputation, traditions and prestige. So yeah, they would rather have had the CC most likely. But if the rewards for winning the LLS were to change, then so would the perceptions. If the LLS winner went on to the WCC, or were to be called Champions, then it would be treated as a more important thing to win.

This is helped to be proven by the fact that when the play-offs were just a separate competition (the Premiership), it was nothing compared to topping the league.

Where is the cutoff point for lucks / not lucky in terms of number of matches won?



Is it six?

Isn't that exactly what you're arguing for?

OK, it's "far less likely" that you can get lucky over 27 rounds than over 5.

Mr Pedantic

Depends on how you look at it. Again, it's perceptions. Winning the league and winning the championship are two different things now. At one point in the past, they weren't.

Depends which kind of Football. Fans of the New England Patriots and fans of the New York Giants would both rather win the end of season playoffs.

WTF do soccer fans have to do with this anyway?





Besides, scoring the most tries, conceding the least points, bringing through the most academy players, having the most players capped internationally and having the highest attendance are all huge achievements. Wouldn't suggest the club gets a fuss made and a trophy for it though.