Competitions good in SL compared to other leagues/sports. But I'd like to see less blow out games. Too many high scoring games over course of season, one team seems to be able to dominate the ruck and blast the other team away in a lot of games. Not sure if it's the quality of reffing or defending that's the problem.

There is a distint lack of consistency and intensity in superleague. Quite a few teams winning by up to 30 pts then losing by up to 30 points a week or two after.
Wigan are the best this year because they are maintaining consistent form similar to Warrington last year. If we had quite a few more teams holding form over a longer period then games would become more intense, this would mean more competition and perhaps less match points difference between top and bottom.

Wasn't the Warrington excuse for failing last year that they'd won too many easy games and therefore lost in the playoffs because another team unfairly played well? Maybe HKR decided to employ similarly underhand tactics this year, only earlier!!!.... tut, tut

Same clubs currently occupy the Top 8 play-off places who finished there last season, though that could temporarily change this evening if Bradford win - but they won't maintain that position.

It'll be the same Top 8 clubs in the play-offs as last season. Aside from a few minor differences in placings between clubs within the Top 8 compared to last season, it'll still be similar. At least 3 of last season's Top 4 will again finish in the Top 4 and similarly at least 3 of last season's 5th to 8th placed clubs will finish between 5th and 8th... again!

So yes - the lack of genuine competition in Super League continues unabated.

We need not bother with regular round fixtures which are a waste of time. 27 rounds of bollox to determine the 8 clubs we all know are going to qualify for the Top 8.

The nature of RL is that there is always going to be blow out scores especially when facing teams such as Wigan and Warrington who may out skill you as well as out power you.

RL isn't like football where you can just put 10 men behind the ball and hope for the best.. Having to defend on your line is tiring and a good team will always find away through. 5 teams in with a chance of winning SL surely that's great news.

This to me is the biggest problem. Year on year I don't think the teams outside the top 8 are getting stronger. The gap between top and bottom doesn't seem to be decreasing so something isn't working.

That's an opinion I hear a lot, but I just don't think it's true. There's no reason why both sides can't be fit, strong and disciplined enough to defend well for 80 minutes. Both at holding their line and at the ruck / marker.

You mean like the permier league where the top two will be the Manchester clubs. Chelsea Tottenham Arsenal will come next. With the rest following. Why would anybody watch a league so preidctable. Think the rest should just give up and call it the Manchester league.

Name me a league where the bottom team aren't that far off the top teams.

The NRL.

Not quite true, but good try.

Wigan - 1.625 points per game
london - 0.25 points per game
difference - 1.375 points per game

storm - 2 points per game
eels 0.5 - points per game
difference - 1.5 points per game

Although the NRL award points for 'bye' weeks, the difference remains the same when you take the points awarded for a bye away. It's also worth considering the team second bottom beat the team top of the league in Super League.

I'm pretty sure NRL clubs finishing bottom (or near the bottom) in the NRL one season have made the Top 8 a season later and in some instances contested the Grand Final or even won it.

Not a chance of that happening in SL.

Ah yes, Wigan, Warrington, Catalans, Huddersfield and Hull FC, permanently top of the table since Super League began. Sorry but this idea of a stagnant SL is a myth only believed by a handful of posters on RLFans. Over the years almost all teams have either improved and risen to better success, or declined and suffered periods of failure.

Just look at how much better the sharks, bulldogs and south Sydney are this year. Even the titans who finished bottom last year are not too far away from the top 8 at the moment.

In terms of points the difference between top and bottom may be similar with superleague but in real terms the games week on week are much more competitive.

Only RL fans would beat themselves up over competitive results.
Only Wigan have a 100% win record over the last 8 rounds.
Warrington L 3/8
Hudds L 4/8
Catalans L 2/8
Hull L3 D1 / 8
Saints L2 D1 / 8
Rovers L3/8
Leeds L5 /8


At this time last year Warrington were ' unbeatable ' and Wigan a close 2nd, neither made the Grand Final.

Hardly predictable

I think that's the case with some of them but not all. Hadn't St George not won a GF for a hundred years or something when they won it a couple of years back? Also, although the Eels were beaten Grand Finalists three years ago, I think they have only won two games so far this season.

And one team was beaten 50 points to something in single figures this week in the NRL. If you read the trade press each week you find out that there are a goodly number of blow out scores in the NRL too. You won't get 70 to anything; but 50 to something-in-single-figures is still a blow out score by anyone's reckoning IMO.

And man some of their games are dull with precious little skill on offer.

Having watched the NRL on a weekly basis for the first time this season I think a lot of the hype around the NRL is misplaced.

Fair point. I suppose my issue is more with the top 8 playoff system rather than the league as a whole. The final league table will show us how competetive the league really is

Hull finished 12th in 09, with only the 2 new franchises finishing below us, and then finished 6th in 2010, after been 4th most of the year. Catalans finished bottom 2 seasons ago, and are now 3rd. Didn't HKR finish 11th in their first season then 4th in their second? It can happen that teams finish lowly and then have a good year the next, or the other way around.

The same teams end up in similar positions in the NRL season after season. If you're lucky, you get one or two teams that make significant gains or declines in one season, but they usually end up back in their normal grouping within a year.

Melbourne, Brisbane, Manly, St George - somewhere in the top 5

Wests, Warriors, Roosters, Bulldogs - playoffs but not serious contenders

Newcastle, Canberra, Penrith, North Queensland, Gold Coast, Cronulla, Parramatta, Souths - scrapping it out for a play-off place.

Do they really? Let's take a look at the evidence then, shall we?


Since 2001, Melbourne have finished in the Top 5 on 6 occasions out a possible 11. They've failed to qualify for the Top 8 on three occasions. The Broncos have finished in the Top 5 on 7 occasions out of a possible 11. Manly have finished in the Top 5 on 5 occasions out of a possible 11. They've failed to qualify for the Top 8 on four occasions. The Dragons have finished in the Top 5 on 5 occasions out of a possible 11. They've failed to qualify for the Top 8 on two occasions.


Since 2001, Wests have qualified for the playoffs 3 times out of a possible 11. They were serious contenders in 2005 when they won the competition and were beaten semi finalists in 2010. The Warriors have qualified for the Top 8 on 7 occasions out of 11. They were beaten Grand Finalists twice, beaten semi finalists twice and Minor Premiers once. The Roosters qualified for the Top 8 on 7 occasions out of 11 winning the competition in 2002, beaten Grand Finalists in 2003, 2004 and 2010. The Bulldogs have qualified for the Top 8 on six occasions out of a possible 11 winning the competition in 2004 and semi finalists on 3 other occasions. They all appear to be serious NRL contenders to me.


Since 2001, Newcastle qualified for the Top 8 on six occasions out of a possible 11 winning the competition in 2001. Canberra also qualified for the Top 8 on 6 out of a possible 11 occasions. Penrith have qualified for the Top 8 on 3 occasions winning the competition in 2003, minor premiers in 2003 and beaten semi finalists in 2004. Gold Coast have qualified for the Top 8 on 2 occasions out of a possible 5, beaten semi finalists in 2010. Cronulla have qualified for the Top 8 on 4 occasions out of a possible 11 and were beaten semi finalists in 2001, 2002 and 2008. Parramatta have qualified for the Top 8 on 6 occasions out of a possible 11, Minor Premiers twice, beaten Grand Finalists twice, beaten semi finalists twice. Souths have the poorest record of the lot only managing to qualify for the Top 8 once out of a possible 10.

So for anyone else struggling slightly with the inconsistent and unhelpful evidence, or sometimes not given(~), and lack of deductions from above here is what was stated (haven't actually checked these):

11 Seasons

Melbourne* - (Top5: 6) (Top8: 8 )
Brisbane - (Top5: 7) (Top8: ~)
Manly - (Top5: 5) (Top8: 7)
St George - (Top5: 5) (Top8: 9)
-----------------------------------
Wests - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 3)
New Zealand - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 7)
Easts/City - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 7)
Canterbury - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 6)
-----------------------------------
Newcastle - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 6)
Canberra - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 6)
Penrith - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 3)
Gold Coast** - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 2)
Cronulla - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 4)
Parramatta - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 6)
Souths** - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 1)

*Had points stripped, but along with others messed with the cap throughout. Seems fair to use league tables but on Wins etc Melbourne would have more Top 8 finishes
**Did not do 11 seasons from the data set.

And the team that was missed

~North Queensland - (Top5: ~) (Top8: 4)

So ordered from the only consistent indicator actually used, Top 8 finishes, by percentage to normalise GC/Souths, group them into 3 tiers again, see if the original guesses were fair...:

>2/3 Playoff Years
St George 82% Correct
Brisbane 82% Correct
Melbourne 73% Correct
------------
1/2<Playoff Years<2/3
Easts 64% Correct
New Zealand 64% Correct
Manly 64% Overrated
Parramatta 55% Underrated
Canterbury 55% Correct
Newcastle 55% Underrated
Canberra 55% Underrated
------------
Playoff Years<1/2
Gold Coast 40% Correct
Cronulla 36% Correct
North Queensland 36% Correct
Wests 27% Overrated
Penrith 27% Correct
Souths 10% Correct

Seems to me that the statement was a bit too biased towards recent events rather than the time series of 11 years chosen, meaning Manly/Wests seem overrated, Parra, Newcastle and Canberra underrated they've been abysmal recently). Other wise it seems fairly spot on from general positional point of view, though remember that the 14/15/16 team competition changes do give some overestimation of teams earlier in the time series.

I'd say the groupings were reasonablyfair

Well, thanks for that Bovrick.

I knew Keith would be on to spend his worrying amounts of spare time to big up the NRL as he does on every thread, but even though he chose a time period to suit his own argument he still appears to have failed. He can retreat to the Leeds board now and get back to saying every team in SL is crap.

Making claims that Melbourne, Brisbane, Manly and St George finish in the Top 5 in the NRL season after season when those clubs have finished in those positions 55%, 63%, 45% and 45% of the time respectively since 2001 does not back up your argument.

Making claims that Wests, Warriors, Roosters and Bulldogs usually make the playoffs but are not serious contenders is a ridiculous assertion considering that those clubs have finished in those positions 27%, 63%, 55% and 55% of the time respectively, where three of them have won the NRL comp and the other has reached the GF on two occasions since 2001 does not back up your argument.

Making claims that Newcastle, Canberra, Penrith, North Queensland, Gold Coast, Cronulla, and Parramatta are merely scrapping it out for a play-off place is a ridiculous assertion considering those clubs have finished in those positions 55%, 55%, 27%, 36%, 40%, 36% and 55% of the time respectively does not back up your argument. Nor does the fact that two of those clubs have won the competition, two others have reached the GF (one of them twice) and another has made the semi finals on three occasions since 2001.

You were right about Souths - that's about it - well done.

The NRL has established 9 different clubs winning the competition since 2001, along with a further 3 who reached the Grand Final. That may not constitute as a competitive league in Just Browny's world but it constitutes a very competitive league by other rational standards.

Cas finished bottom in 2008, finished 7th making the playoffs in 2009. Granted, that we had no chance of contesting in the grand final.


Generally speaking though Keithy, I get what you're getting at, the nrl is (generally) more competitive, there are far less blowout scores week in week out.

Not denying that the NRL is more competitive at all, it clearly is. Missed the top 5 statement/relevance so yeah, definitely wrong on that, other than Melbourne and Brisbane usually/mostly/more-often-than-not making the top 5. For what it is worth, it is also worth bearing in mind factors such as the NRL's shorter seasons and thus inconsistent ones, much moreso than in SL. Shorter seasons allow slightly more random results to surface, each individual match is worth more so the 'shocks' that happen make more impact on the table. Longer seasons will sort the rankings of teams more effeciently with respect to ability than shorter ones (whether or not changes in ability throughout a season is another matter factored into this I suppose).

The inconsistent fixture lists should also give an illusion of teams being able to rise and fall more each year. Imagine, say, Hull KR over here having to play Warrington, Wigan, St. Helens, Leeds, Huddersfield etc last year twice, and the weaker teams once, then the next year having double fixtures against Widnes, London and so on. They will do better the second year even if they don't get any better by virtue of the fixture list, there is an illusion of greater change. I'd say this factor will play some role in the apparent greater rises and falls year on year in the NRL, but I really cannot be bothered fetching the evidence, so Keith if you would be so kind? You seem to enjoy it



FWIW, the Superleague equivalent. To keep it relatively fair, it is on table position (so including point deductions etc). Furthermore, each are only by the seasons they competed in SL. Finally, the % is against the equivalent for a playoff in the NRL each year it contrasts with in the other % list. So since GC entered I'll count top half, when it was only 14 teams (2001) for 8 playoff places, top 6 still in SL etc etc...

St Helens - 100%
Leeds - 100%
Wigan - 82%
Bradford - 73%
Hull FC - 64%
Hull KR - 60%
Warrington - 55%
Huddersfield - 40%
Catalan - 33%
London - 27%
Castleford - 22%
Wakefield - 18%
Salford - 11%
Crusaders - 0%
Widnes - 0%
Leigh - 0%
Halifax - 0%

Relagation or new teams tend to live around the bottom, traditionally strong teams around the top. Not surprising at all really. Maybe the closed shop helps with competitiveness

or just the generally closer nature in financial power etc of the teams over there.