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.

Well looky what we have here, a ''compare the names on the team sheet'' analyst. Ball retention was easier because there was more space going forward, bottom line. Attackers in general had more time between receiving the ball and contact.

Ball retention was harder because those players were better, they were given more leeway in the tackle, they were more focused on a big initial impact rather than holding and wrestling and because they were allowed to shoulder charge.

You are also forgetting that players offloaded a lot more 10/15 years ago than now,

If you want to think you are watching some kind of tactical defensive masterclass from these players, if you want to think that, even though we have outlawed the shoulder charge, even though the focus on tackling has changed to slowing the ptb rather than impact, and even though players are offloading much less, they are committing many more errors because of wonderful defence you are welcome to.

Why is it unlikely? You agreed defences are better organised, quicker and fitter. That means they are up in your face a lot earlier and you have to deal with 3 players instead of 1 or 2. I'd rather take on Nigel Vagana on his own than 3 of the modern defenders that you so deride.

You're making my own argument for me. Yes they were going for a big hit. A big hit to deter the ball carrier (and his teammates) from running it in, it wasn't focused on dislodging or wrapping up the ball, hence so many more offloads. Today's defences are all about controlling the ball, to both prevent an offload and to slow the play the ball.

The impact is irrelevant unless it manages to hit a very small area on the body, just under the ball or perhaps the arm itself. Anywhere else then a larger impact doesn't really make much difference to ball retention. You're also making an assumption that the impacts were bigger/more powerful simply because a few people got knocked over. I'd dispute that given the GPS data we've had for several years now that shows the impacts only getting bigger.

You can continue to deride modern players if you wish but I'd rather look at the game and analyse it without prejudice instead.

That isnt aggression.

Exactly, its about controlling the ball. Why would a controlled tackle, where the ball is being controlled by both the defenders and attackers result in more ball being spilt?

I havent derided modern players at all. I'd agree our modern player are bigger, faster and stronger, i would agree that they defend more as a unit. I disagree they are more aggressive, and i disagree that they are responsible for the terrible ball handling we have seen from the top teams over the past few years.

Also im unsure what global positioning data will tell us about impact, i mean its great for pokemon but doesnt really tell us much about the g-force of an impact.

What i would say is that those players listed from 2001 are better players. They were better then and if playing today, with todays training etc, would be better. Not because of a rose-tinted view of the game then, but because the facts are, in 2001 the best players we produced played in SL, and clubs could afford to import better players. Now that just isnt the case. Our best play elsewhere and much of what we import strives for dross.

For the love of god, yes it is. Of course it is. It's an aggressive defence.


Are you really asking how, in a situation where the ball rather than the man is targeted more, that leads to higher rates of lost possession? Come on Smokey, you're not daft. There's no need for this to go on for 15 pages whilst you insist black is actually white.


Does this mean you think the size, speed, strength of players and their cohesion in defence has no effect on whether a ball carrier drops the ball?


The GPS packs the players wear give exactly that information.


I disagree that they were better players in 2001. If those players were put under the same defensive pressures as in 2016 they would've dropping just as much ball in my opinion. The game has changed, don't mistake an inferior spectacle for inferior quality.

no it isnt, its just fast. Ian Kirke was a pretty good defender, he was organised and up in a quick defensive line. Nobody would describe his defence as aggressive.

but the ball isnt targeted to be stripped, its targeted to be held. Why havent we seen the same ball retention issues in the NRL? And why arent we knocking balls loose left right and centre on the wcc if our defence has improved so much? also why do we see far fewer dropped balls in tight defence focused games like the GF?
No not really. To dislodge the ball there needs to be some sort of impact on it.

Im guessing you mean an accelerator or G-force sensor.

except they didnt did they. 37 year old JP didnt drop huge amounts of ball did he? There wasnt a noticeable fall in JP's ball retention over the years was there?

Aggressive defence isn't just hitting hard, like Him says, getting up off your line and taking space away is aggressive. And they still hit hard, there's just more control and technique these days.

Shit! (won't miss live attended games sorry to say)