Paul Cullen (I know...) mentioned on Boots N All that no one wants to see teams getting hammered. To be fair, I think it is a generally held view that a close game is much better than one team running away with it, even if it is your team running away with it.

Wakefield have been awful over the past 6 weeks, having conceeded 40 or more points everyweek and to some pretty average teams too (Hull FC, Hull KR, Crusaders and Quins) however they aren't alone. Over the past 3 rounds of SL, out of the 21 games, 10 teams have conceeded more than 40 points. Now, this stat alone isn't too bad - for instance, it is arguable that if games ended 42-38, the game would have been very exciting. So, let's say that losing by 30 points is seen as a drubbing, out of the 21 games, 8 games are drubbings. That's more than 1/3 of the games!

Why is this? Is it because the pool of player's isn't big enough to support a competitive 14 team competition? Is it because of Promotion and Relegation been done away with and there isn't anything to play for for some teams e.g. Wakefield, Crusaders? An interesting concept is the bonus point scheme. Now, I don't pay too much attention to the Championship or Championship 1 results, but having watched most of the matches on a Thursday evening it appears that the games are generally very close and entertaining. Would this concept work in Super League?

I wouldn't want a bonus point system in Super League. There is nothing wrong with 2pts for a win and 1pt for a draw, that's why it has lasted for over a 100 years. I would like to see more of a balance between attack and defence as at the moment the laws of the game favour the team in possession a lot more, meaning that it is easy for a team to get a roll on and rack up a lot of points.

Promotion and relegation lasted over a hundred years, that was changed. The League winners were crowned as champions for 100 years, that was changed. We keep hearing that the game should evolve and accept modern ideas.

You should really check your rugby league history. In 1905-06 the two divisions were re-combined into a single competition. In order to even up the competition a top-four play-off series was used to determine the Championship.
Apart from the interventions of the world wars, this system was retained until 1962-63, when the league briefly returned to a two divisional system. This lasted only two years, and in 1964-65 they went back to one large division subdivided into county leagues, but the play-off were expanded to the top 16 teams.

Bonus points are not a way of making teams improve. Wakefield clearly weren't interested in the 2 points, why would they be in the bonus 1?

The RFL should just get serious with the franchise process. Teams like Wakefield, Crusaders, Salford, Quins should never have been in SL with the setups they have now.

The player pool isn't big enough to support 14 teams and we have far too many poor quality players being employed by "elite" clubs.

Teams were hammered much worse when we had P&R than they are now. Workington conceded 1,021 points in 1996, Huddersfield conceded 1,011 in 1999, Shudds shipped 1,026 in 2000, Halifax conceded 40+ points in 17 games from a 28 game season in 2003 and Leigh let through 1,210 in 2005 - the same year that Widnes also let 1,000+ past them).

Was that because they "didn't care that they'd get relegated" or was it because they were just not up to standard?

Close games are what we want, I agree. However, I don't think we'll ever eliminate hammerings altogether. Teams sometimes 'get on a roll' and it must be very hard to maintain top-notch concentration and application in defence if you are already down by twenty or thirty points. At that point it gets even easier for the already-dominant team to pile on the points.

Cullen would know about producing teams that get hammered hence why Tony Smith is at Wire.

Shut it Cullen you havent achieved anything as a coach-and thats from a Wire fan

Very harsh that, yes he never won anything at Warrington but he has done alot of good things for the club not only on the pitch, Warrington wouldn't be where it is as a club without Cullen!!!!

A bandwagon Wire fan by the sounds of it.

Don't know much about pre 2009 I take it? Cullen did a lot of good things for you.

Mal Reilly said something similar on Super League Super Men. Defenses have got to improve

I don't mind watching Warrington score heavily these days. Since 1993 I've watched a fair share of us being hammered.

Paul Cullen did a great job at the time we needed it, including saving us from relegation when he first came in. It's just that the club needed taking to a new level.

edited for accuracy



bizzare season really lots of teams have yo yo'd with perfomances.
Wakefield have been on their knees financially all season and have fielded a scratch side of loanees & journeymen, but have won 6. it's not surprise they are struggling at the run in to the season.
Harlequins started off well beating Catalans , Leeds & Saints etc but their lack of squad depth took it's toll , Crusaders were Top 8 in 2010 but as we know the cash was never there .
Catalans couldn't buy a win now are going great , Salford supposedly recruited better for this season but sort of forget to upgrade their coaching set up so struggle to get a consistent performance out .
Only Wigan, Warrington & Saints have really been consistant and have regularly handed out beatings to most teams not on their game. and they can build up a 2-3 try burst to blow most teams way even if they are up for it.
There is not a huge gap in class if the clubs put out their best 17 fully fit , but he gap shows in the class in the overall squads over the season.
Dumping the bottom 4 out of SL and having a ' top table ' won't strengthen the game , it'll just strengthen the top 10 clubs and deny 100 players of competing in SL and getting better. RFL need to toughen up the Quota - non federation to allow / force SL clubs to use more emerging talent , unfortunately with crusaders demise 13 more quota players will pad out the weathlier SL clubs.



If RFL really wanted to act radical they would pool the best emerging talent in an NFL draft pick system , allowing the weaker clubs first choice to the best spare talent , ie no, don't waste 300K on 3 Aussies , pick the best three from the England Knight Squad and spend the other 150K you've then got spare on their academy set ups . think of 10 clubs spending a combined 1.5mil less on imports and putting 1.5m into their youth development.
Loans happen at present & dual reg but it's piecemeal & transient.

Until there is a minimum & Maximum salary cap limit there will always be hammerings in Super League. One thing about the NRL is you see much closer games and they dont have a NFL like style draft system.

well said can do without idiotic posts like that , cullen gave 20 years service to the wire

Too many teams don't spend to the cap and the coaching is awful.

It was the Wire chairman who changed everything for them. Paul Cullen was never going to take them to the heights they are at now. The chairman was the instigator.

I'm not on about league positions, challenge cups im on about when he was still playing and doing alot of work behind the scenes in the office and stuff, he was the one who got the wolfpack season tickets going also he was the one who got the ball rolling with us changing to Wolves.

The NRL has two advantages - a far bigger and better pool of players and the fact that most teams spend close to the cap. David Gallop (NRL CEO) said that some SL teams only spend around 30% of the cap. Its not surprising that a team that can only afford to spend a third of the amount of other clubs will struggle to have any depth or quality in their squad.

And what did he get at the end?

Loads of abuse

Not totally true since the takover of the club in March... Trinity have been finacially stable, however the expected 'sword of dameclese' in the franchise process meant that no one... literally no one... wanted to sign with a club who were expected to lose superleague status.

but i take your point!

I'd rather have SL cut down to a league on 10 or 12. Or possibly have the Super League as a 10 Club league, and then the league below that being another 10 club league.

So, say, a SL comprising of

Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Catalans, Hudds, Cas, Leeds, Hull FC, Hull KR, Bradford

and then a league below with

Salford, Wakefield, Quins, Widnes, Halifax, Fev, Barrow, Leigh, Crusaders (if they've gotten themselves sorted) and 1 other.

You could then maybe get a 1-for-1 promotion/relegation between these two leagues, or stick with the franchise system.

It would also have other benefits - 2nd league teams have something more realistic to aim for, the quality of players in these leagues should improve, and it's better for the player's health as they're playing less games per season, amongst other things that I can't explain coherently at 2.30am.

It's more to do with the changing nature of RL I think. Small differences in the teams can mean big points.

Much as it pains me, take Huddersfield. On form capable of beating anyone, and topping the league but have had off days where they shipped 30+ points against they might have expected to deal with "easily"

It's become a truism that RL is a game of inches, maybe even millimetres. If one team has it's calibration off by a smidge then they can easily concede points, and how often do we see halftime leads of 18 or 20 points over turned?

I wouldn't mind seeing a bonus point for close games, since many many times a very close game has been decided by a contentious call or miracle bounce of the ball.

Rugby League (in particular in the summer era with fast pitches etc) is a sport that will always have lob sided score lines. It simply isn’t a sport where a team can play for a draw or keep the score down

In football, a team can put 10 or 11 men behind the ball and a clearly inferior side can achieve a 0-0 or lose by a small margin. In RU, the laws of the game allow for negative tactics – i.e. removing the ball from the pitch on a regular basis and slow the play down. But in League, this can’t happen – one team doesn’t have to be better by too much to get 20 or 30 points on their opponents... it is a sport where it is very difficult to be defensively minded

The first half of this season was as competitive as I have seen for a long time with a lot of upset wins. It is fair to say that the teams with the larger (more depth in quality) have come to the fore in the second half of the season but that is to be expected and we are in continuous development not overnight change

RL is a momentum sport. If it see-saws back and forth it makes for a compelling spectacle. But you do sometimes see games when one teams dominance, particularly in terms of weight of possession, becomes almost self-perpetuating, as the opposition tire and penalties mount.

As a supporter of a team that has played big chunks of the game without the ball this season, team-that-scores-kicks-off appeals.