One thing that gave me bad taste about the sunday session is that 2/3rd in to the game everyone gets together and attacks the runaway leader and for me this is not what MN is all about.
I see this as a feature, not a flaw...
Step away from MN for a moment. You have a generic game, and someone has a good lead, so now what to do or allow about the situation? The options are essentially:
1) Do nothing, a significant early lead will be an eventual win
2) Apply some mechanic based throttling to slow the winner down, and let the others catch-up
3) Have a game where losers can gang-up on the leader to hold him back, and let them catch-up with him.
There are lots of ways and means to accomplish these, but in essence those are the 3 contending philosophies.
1) is fine in a short game, but in a long game is awful, and points to needing an end condition that kicks in once inevitability (or even high likelihood) is present.
2) is very artificial and euroesque, and tends to be hated in anything more than a light/medium euro.
3) is therefore the preferred choice for any thematic or long game by default.
I actively prefer and seek games where that table is responsible for balancing itself out. That inevitably means some version of bashing the leader. I think that's a good thing, and I would refrain from playing any game with significant elements of #1 or #2
Would you really prefer that scenario? It seems utterly incomprehensible for me in this style of game...