For me there are some key indicators that would pretty much prove that there is a declining standard and that this year especially has been very poor

If you ask any wigan fan (who isn't deluded), they would say they are playing much worse this year than last, yet have more points at this stage in the season and are still in the cup, proving the standard this year at the top end is certainly lower
Whilst it is good that the standard at the bottom end of the table may have increased, it is the games between the best teams that neutral or casual fans are most bothered about, and which should attract the biggest TV audience, and they have gotten markedly worse
The reason the premier league attracts so much money is the games between the big teams are full of pace and quality, not because of Sunderland vs West Brom

Also in terms of a long term decrease in standard in the last 5-10 years:
Can anyone see someone signing a regular origin player, let alone a captain, as we did with Buderus 7 years ago
SL teams used to regularly win the world club challenge, and the top SL teams looked like they could mix it in the NRL, now they can't even come close

Some of the worst premiership soccer games are those between teams at the top of the table.

Fair point but they are still the ones that most people are watching

Long term the only sustainable way to improve things on the field is junior development, and I look at how few quality players we (Leeds) produce as an example of why the sport is struggling.

In the short term I really think we seem to have a lot of below par coaches around the place. Hopefully we'll get more hungry young Aussie coaches in SL in the near future.

One thing I'd possibly argue as a mitigant for this year is that last year seemed to knock the hell out of the top three sides. Not just retirements but you had playing groups who hadn't experienced genuine intensity for prolonged periods before like the end of last year, and none of them look as good this time round. Those better teams cited from 2003+ never had to face more than a couple of tough games on the bounce.

Now that seemingly anything goes for the team in possession when playing the ball, the game now resembles little more than a training run. Dumb down the skill levels in order to speed up the game but it just looks . Can't wait to see us required to play the ball correctly in the four nations - lets just hope we can remember how to.

The entire 2001 grand final is on youtube.

The game is just different now. Back then a player would be stopped/hit the deck and that was it. There was no getting numbers into the tackle, turning them on their back and no wrestle. Consequently now the defence has more time to set and it is much easier for teams to maintain a high line speed and reduce space in attack.

Let's not confuse quality with entertainment. The actual quality in super league has never been high. If you judge quality by the best, and the best being the NRL then super league has always been some way behind. Is it further behind now? I'm not so sure. Back in the day English teams would have been thrashed in the WCC (and occasionally were) just as they are now if the NRL teams prepared as well as they do now. If you put todays teams in the 2001 super league environment then they would produce the same ''quality'' that was knocking around back then.

I think people are unimpressed with the entertainment on offer and translate that into a lack of quality. It's the popular opinion that a few influential posters have coined and now everyone just regurgitates the same thing. But just because enough people say something doesn't make it true.

Players have less time and space in possession than they do now. You can say attacking skills have declined, but IMO the quality, organisation, and line speed in defence has never been better. If you watch footage from pre 2003 the amount of gaps in the defence, and lack of numbers at the PTB is strikingly obvious.

I think there's been 2 major events in the development of style in super league over the last decade/15 years. Generally a sport will develop based on the successful teams and how they play to be successful.

When Daniel Anderson arrived at saints, that was a game changer for super league. That was the first time in super league we really saw a structured systematic attack combined with relentless line speed. I remember watching them and thinking this is the closest thing to an NRL team that i'd ever seen over here. Up until then everything had all been kind of free and easy, defences over here simply weren't coached to be able to deal with such a number of runners and decisions thrown at them so quickly. Saints dominated. It doesn't show in titles but they finished top 4 years on the trot. Gradually this filtered down and now you see teams right through the table, salford widnes wakefield, castelford all able to play with the similar structured attack that saints first introduced.

Then, Michael Maguire strolled into town. This was the second game changer. Wigan effectively pioneered ''the wrestle''. Suddenly players wouldn't just tackled. They'd be held up in contact, numbers would be put into the tackle and then they'd be put on their back and players would peel away one by one making the play the ball as slow and controlled as possible.

That pretty much brings us to where we are now where many people don't like the product. Most games aren't as free flowing, defences are strong, alot of attacks have structure and teams are able to defend against these structures.

None of this has changed overnight, it has developed organically. But if you were to watch 10 league games from 2000, and then 10 from this year some of these changes would be blindingly obvious.

The issue is simple. Money.

Since 2001, our Salary cap has lost about a million pounds to inflation. slightly more than a third of its value.

Added to that the exchange rate has collapsed from around 3AUD to the pound, to closer around 1.75AUD to the pound.

This means that accounting for inflation and the changes in the exchange rate, our relative SC spending power has gone from near $9m AUD to about $3.5m AUD. The NRL SC has gone from $3.3m AUD to $7m AUD, or £1m to £4m.

This has meant that we have imported a poorer quality of player and started to export players in decent numbers, which was barely a consideration back then.

The simple reason why quality has fallen is that we are spending less and getting poorer players.

Spending less shouldn't result in getting poorer players though. How does a salary say 10% lower in real terms reduce the quality of young players coming into the competition?

It maybe results in one elite player per club deciding to ply their trade elsewhere (either Union or the NRL), but it doesn't account for a general lowering in standards - if there even has been such a thing.

Of course it does. We have around 80 imports in the league and around 20 SL developed players playing elsewhere. This is about a third of the player pool.

Even if the quality of young players coming through was static, and even if it improved, losing 20 of the top players and importing 80 inferior players would result in the lower quality.

Back in the halcyon days of super league 15 years ago, no way would you get a team in 6th place playing like Cas have so far against top of the table.

Whilst playing well I also don't think they've gotten near their top gear. Could easily have more if they wanted and put a cricket score on Hull who are doing a typical post CC semi/final performance that we've often been guilty of ourselves in the past.

And no way would you have top 4 sides like Saints and Wire dropping as much ball as they did on thursday.

Except you absolutely did, and ball retention was easier as well.

In this era of post-truth politics, Super League really is a fantastic product and most definitely in the best condition it's ever been.

the return of the tw%t

His 'nephews son' must've gotten back into games after a few weeks off

Why are you making a sarcastic post, to poke fun at an opinion that no one has actually opined?

2001 wigan and bradford packs

Joe Vagana, James Lowes, Brian McDermott, Daniel Gartner, Jamie Peacock, Mike Forshaw .

Subs: Paul Deacon, Shane Rigon, Paul Anderson, Stuart Fielden

Terry O'Connor, Terry Newton, Harvey Howard, Mick Cassidy, David Furner, Andy Farrell.

Subs: Paul Johnson, Chris Chester, Denis Betts, Neil Cowie

last thursdays packs

Hill, Clark, Sims, Currie, Hughes, Westerman.

Replacements: Dwyer, Westwood, G. King, Wilde

Richards, Roby, Walmsley, McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Greenwood, Wilkin.

Replacements: Amor, Vea, Thompson, Knowles.

I honestly can't see how you think ball retention was easier against that top group than that bottom one.

Because defences weren't as fast, fit, organised or aggressive as a unit and, in general, fewer defenders were involved in the tackle.

Come on, be serious.

That 2001 squad is way way way more aggressive, and were afforded way way way more leeway.

And yes defences now are generally more organised, players are fitter, but that is counteracted by the fact those players just arent anywhere near as good as their counterparts.

And yet again, you twist what was said, as a defensive UNIT they are far more aggressive today than in 2001. They weren't afforded more leeway re targeting the ball carrier and the ball itself because they weren't as fit and couldn't get in to hold the player up and target the ball.

As you agree, players are significantly fitter and faster and stronger today than 15 years ago, that obviously has a significant effect on defences and on the time available to both catch and pass or offload.

So your inference here is that those saints and wire packs are more aggressive than the sum of their constituent parts. Thats seems...unlikely


except they were afforded more leeway re targetting the ball carrier and the ball itself because the rules were applied differently. There was more leeway regarding head-shots, the shoulder charge was legal, the game itself was more violent and aggressive.

Also you say, there was less focus on the wrestle and holding players up to delay the game in those days. But that should result in more dropped balls because more of the impact is on initial tackle.

But if you want to believe in the wonderful technical defence of Atelea Vea, Greg Richards and Jack Hughes ill leave you to it.

Super League standards started dropping well before 2011/12.

I'd suggest 2008/09 which coincided with the banking crisis and onset of economic slump. The economic crisis also impacted upon a frozen salary cap level which still exists today. Sterling which used to buy over 2.5 Aussie dollars slumped to only 1.5 Aussie dollars with implications for the quality and depth of overseas signings along with quality coaches from down under. The replacement coaches in the game were the likes of McDermott, Radford, Wane, Cunningham, Anderson, Chester, etc.

The RFL in their wisdom also decided around the time of economic crisis that 12 SL teams should become 14 SL teams in 2009 in a competition which struggled to spread an already wafer-thin talent base among 12 clubs. The absurd 14 team 'licensed' competition went out of its way to reward mediocrity with a Top 8 play-off system along with safety from relegation and its guarantee of a Sky handout for clubs ranging from the ordinary to utter sheissenhausen.

The playing standards in SL have fallen dramatically ever since along with a steady decrease in overall attendances. The attempt to halt the slide with this latest format has thus far failed to make any impression.