I agree there's a risk of that but it might also mean then that defences drop their wingers back more often and so open a bit of space up in the field.

Is it just me who, when I see a Union game on tv, thinks that the pitch looks bigger? Despite there being 4 more men on there? Admittedly I don't see much Union but when I do it's rare that I think there aren't any gaps to be exploited. Whereas with League I often think the defences are so well organised I don't know where the break is going to come from.

A lot of fair points have been made and most agree that the game is not in good shape and is in urgent need of improvement. Action is required at all levels of the game in order to restore the game to its former glory. However we are in a classic catch 22 situation. The game is chronically short of investment but because it has lost much of its appeal it is unlikely we will get the funds needed which in turn means we are unable to fund the improvements needed to improve the product etc etc.

At grass roots level the coaching is not good enough and funds are needed for better facilities and coaching . Rugby Union is light years ahead in mini and junior development and is a model League should emulate.

At Super League level the game is starved of genuine class. We have not been producing quality half backs and centres for quite some time now which IMO is due to a sequence of factors. Firstly the multi interchange has led to an over reliance of size over skill. The bench is packed with physically over developed forwards used as battering rams in short spells. This has meant centres now have to be more like 2nd rowers to put in higher tackle counts as they are not interchanged. This in turn has led to the traditional lighter weight, better balanced, faster and more skillful centres and half backs being squeezed out.

Secondly there is a lack of backs with real pace with hand and foot skills. This in part is down to my first point about size over skill, but it is also due to the accent on defence that now rules the game. Coaches will not risk the lighter weight players who used to open up defences regularly and bring crowds to their feet because they may miss the odd tackle. The policy of bulking up players with speed, flair and balance ends up with blunting their rare attacking edge. I think Watkins falls in to this group.

IMO the main attraction in watching rugby is seeing wonderful handling moves with attackers beating defenders using body swerve, side step, dummy and angle of run into a gap created by well timed passes. Currently our game sadly lacks these skills which now are more likely to be found in Union. Until we bring back this sort of fast attacking rugby our game will never regain its place as a leader of sporting entertainment.

Although Cuthbertson last year gave us glimpses of the ball playing prop of yesteryear they too are a dying breed as is the ball playing loose forward. It was this typically British style of play that could beat Australia and it is the loss of this style of play that leads to the very disappointing results in this years 4 nations internationals.

So without an attractive entertainment product we will fail to attract the sponsorship money we need and we risk losing the TV audience to Union and therefore the TV income could decline too. So as I say we are in a catch 22 position.

What we could do without cost is to reduce the number of interchanges and limit the number of forwards on the bench which should bring opportunities for quick backs to attack tiring defences. Again without cost we just have to speed up the PTB and cut out the wrestle and keep the scrum packed down until the first PTB with only forwards in the scrum. This should allow half backs opportunities to develop their attacking skills.

Until we improve the skills of our players we are unlikely to win anything on the international scene.

Indeed, and out of all those rule changes above, the 10 metre rule caused the most damage to the game and did more to encourage monotonous 5 drives (including tedious dummy half scoots in often guaranteed open space) followed by the obligatory kick (anywhere will do in most cases). The requirement for developing crafty halfbacks armed with skill-sets and an ability to produce unpredictable plays was removed right there.

Wasn't it Bradford who first wore the shirts where players required help squeezing into them?

At last the game requires a true scrum half after a quarter of a century..My God things are looking up..

It''s also the cause of all this wrestling crap at the tackle. Tactics to help the defence get back and set.

Oh you mean you can't touch a player once grounded (surrender,away) has been called?

Translation: Moooooooooooooovvvvvvvveeeeeee!

Forgot the Moooooooooooooovvvvvvvveeeeeee!..Word.

No that was me when I thought that the Rhinos size 2XL meant that.

No you need to keep the 10 meter rule but reduce the interchanges.
Firstly it would mean that defensive can be up so quickly and the halfbacks would get more time on the ball.
Secondly it would pull defenders inside to compensate for tiring forwards, leaving space outside and encouraging expansive play.

If the 'dominant' or 'surrendered' calls were abolished, and we just reffed the PTB consistently as per the actual rules, there would naturally be more space, as teams wouldn't have time to get back, set and moving back up at pace, and would naturally tire quicker.
A reduction of interchanges would enhance this further. I wouldn't be against going back to non-rolling subs, meaning once you've gone off, you're off for good.

I wouldn't go so extreme as to non rolling subs straight away. I think just reducing bit by bit and seeing how it goes is ok. We did have 12, now 10......let's drop to 8 and see how that goes. Might lead to a drop of 6 and then who knows.

The talk of the 5m rule should take into account the vastly different fitness levels of players nowadays. Firstly I'm not sure it'd work nowadays because of fitness differences and secondly if the NRL doesn't see the need to change to it as well (and why would they as their league is doing fine) then we can't have an international game with different distances in defence.

You be completely summed up my feelings on it Juan. I miss the days of wingers having speed. Centres being elusive with good hands and half backs on the pitch to attack. Now, the team are just clones.

As a sport we're going nowhere. I'd love to see it on terrestrial TV and available to a bigger audience. But the product doesn't seem strong enough right now.

There's no short term answer to this

We've not often agreed about the different aspects of our great sport, but this time I couldn't have written that post better myself.

Reducing interchanges to make it even easier for the attack. Anything else? Perhaps tie defenders bootlaces together or maybe strap one arm behind their backs.

Thanks Batley. It is a big worry as the solutions may take quite a few years. Watching the recent Internationals from both codes IMO it was the rugby in the Union ones that was more fluid with much faster rucks and much better passing skills with plenty of quality threequarter play.

We need more space to create moves in. A reduction to 12 men would do this and reduce the wage bill. All tacklers should be forced to stand square at the PTB leaving space out wide this is what the ruck in Union achieves. Only recipient of a kick should be the kicker lets get back to scoring proper tries not a jumping competition in the corner.

Whilst the NRL is a long way ahead in quality, there are a lot of dull games, partly because there are so few mistakes. I've watched plenty of games where the only way a try even looked like being scored was through a kick, at least until the last ten minutes. Last year we saw some teams getting even more defensive - rather than face a 7 tackle set plenty of teams are ready to put in a nothing kick or just die with the ball on the last tackle, and focusing on getting the defence set.

For whatever reason, and whatever the solution, I'd say the game is too skewed towards rewarding defence and at times it actively penalises risk-taking in attack.

I'm not sure the small player issue could be solved without doing something really dramatic like reducing teams to 12 players. We need space on the pitch more than anything else to redress that problem.

Because everyone is risk averse with the ball. You can make meters without moving the ball around and wait for the opposition to make a mistake in their own 40. If nobody makes a mistake then nothing happens because nobody is trying to actually create anything with the ball until they get in the opponents 20. Even then you see teams (over here too) play for another set. Like when England had the Aussies on their own line and kicked to the in goal to get a repeat set on the 4th bloody tackle. I would argue that it's not defences that cut space down, it's that non of the attacking play teams use is designed to create any space, it's a chess game where you look to "gain" small increments in pitch territory from a set of tackles. you make 60 meters from 5 drives and a kick the opposition only make 50 coming back the other way. How often does it seem to be a big deal that you start a set on your own 40? Jeez, if that's all we are trying to achieve during a game it's no wonder everyone is bored $h!tless watching.

I think there is too much looking back and saying wasn't it so much better in those days.

If you watch older stuff on youtube some of the defence is shambolic to the point of laughable.

Yes there were some very skilfull players but at the pace the game was being played and the terrible defence there was plenty of time to display those skills.

The old days any player with real pace had a distinct advantage - these days they all have real pace even the props.

Kallum Watkins will be as quick as 95% of all players who have ever played the game and he weighs near 16 stone - the players are just bigger, fitter and faster and that makes space on the field a premium.

I would agree a lot of players are becoming clones of a 6' 16st tackling machine - the view of modern coaches appears to be a damage limitation exercise i.e. If we don't conceed we cannot lose rather than if we score more than the opponents we also can't lose.

The quality of british coaches is also at an all time low and until that is rectified we will be serve up ragular helpings of turgid one dimensional rugby played by elite athlete that haven't even mastered the basics.

Contested scrums were a mess the hookers were almost laying flat on the ground with their feet outside of the scrum - bring them back doesn't seem to add any value as for the 5 metre rule you will see teams making negative yardage.

To sum up better coaching - watch the Aussies yesterday they did the basics really well - RL is a simple game that has a beauty in its simplicity

That's an accurate assessment of the modern game. Of the two games I watched over the week end, the all blacks -Irish game plus the Aussie - kiwi match.
One thing that impressed me was the Aussie and all blacks passing game. Both sets of players seemed comfortable with the ball, all the passing was crisp and accurate. If you move the ball quickly with support players moving into good running lines eventually you will create scoring opportunities .
Surely that's not too hard to coach is it ?.

Try doing that with the Aussie defence up and in your face. I want to see more passing too but the defences have got so much better it's virtually impossible unless we go down to 12 men.

We've done it before!!

I can't agree that the handling is better in RU. Yes the top fly halfs and scrum halfs can throw good balls, generally the rest of them are awful ball in hand - particularly the forwards who look like they're trying to empty a boat full of water with their arms when they're passing.
You've also got to take into account that the defences in Union, whilst not back 10, are certainly not putting any line speed on.

I'd also say that the passes they have to make are often easier. They aren't having to make the same instant decisions as RL halves do as to which of the 3 or 4 runners to pass to and to do it so close to an advancing defence.

What does impress me in Union is some of the offloading off the floor. When done well it really speeds their game up. Though I suppose is a bit of an anachronism in their rules given than the defenders are supposed to immediately release the attacker.

I feel a bit sick now.

I agree with a lot of this. The Aussies we saw this weekend are just comfortably better than generations before. They are bigger, faster, stronger, more skilful, better prepared, better trained, better coached, with better tactics, better depth.

I think he NRL is of the highest standard an RL league has been and provides plenty of entertainment. I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the game itself, I think there needs to be tweaks and adjustments rather than real some of the more fundamental changes suggested here.

Our problem over here is that we simply don't have the depth of player, we have two few quality players and squads which are too small and players who play too many games. Our problems are with how we bring players in to the game and through in to the first team an keeping them there, rather than the rules on the field.

Saying that, Ive said before I would be interested to see the line-out replace the scrum as that would give us a competitive set-piece without all the nonsense of competitive scrums.