In the same period (of 3 weeks), the NRL has produced only 3/24 games where a team has been hammered (assuming 30 points is a hammering and 2 of those games the points difference was EXACTLY 30) and in only 2/24 games has a team scored more than 40.

That's because the NRL is incredibly tedious.

And it is the even competition that the NRL demonstrates that we are striving towards - the Australian system (without P&R funnily enough) has allowed teams to develop their squads for the last several decades and build programmes of development for the future without the need for overnight fixes

Our league is more even than it has been but we are not there yet... hence my point below which you conveniently left out of your quote

Following a side that has shipped in a load & hammered a few teams, I lay the blame at the all out chase to speed up the game.The main consequence is that the play the ball is so quick & it is becoming impossible to get the defence set at marker & a shed load of penalties with teams getting a roll forward with no great effort. Take a look at the NRL this year they now make the players play the ball with the foot at every play now there are few penalties at the play the ball as markers are able to get square if they keep concentrating & work at it.The NRL still seems quick mainly because the number of stoppages for penalties appears to droped.

We tried that for a while, but teams were getting pinned in their 20 after receiving, kicking and the team ahead would start their possession on halfway.
I wouldn't mind re-visiting the idea though, but perhaps move the kickoff spot back 10 metres - there is no reason it has to be the halfway line.

Some of the junior leagues are using a PTB on halfway to the conceding team. Personally I think that goes too far, and would rather see a 20 metre tap in those leagues.

Oh and the NRL "ruck" is a completed mess, they are allowed to messabout and lay on far longer than in SL

Well the way I see it is the RFL did two mutually exclusive things with the introduction of franchises.

1. Increased the number of teams while paradoxically;
2. DECREASE the number of available players of a high quality by cutting back on the number of allowed overseas players.

Personally, I think that the game in this country is going backwards because of that, because it puts clubs in the difficult position of having to have x number of players of a specific type (home grown etc) which means that clubs have to settle for players of a less than required standard to be competitive, which means they become less successful on the field, which can have a knock on effect on crowds which itself has a knock on effect on what that club is able to spend salary cap wise. This ALSO is a problem because actual English players of a higher quality can demand premium salaries than a similar overseas player. So this effects a clubs squad depth which leads us back to the problems of competitiveness and losing salary cap spending ability.

Now, I know I'll get abused for saying this, but SL needs to do away with overseas quotas. I know the argument against that "oh England will never be competitive at international level if our teams are full of aussies not good enough for the NRL". But I would counter with this argument "If a player is good enough, he will break into a first team regardless of who's ahead of him"

It is not the job of SL clubs to provide players for the international game. I know people think it is, but it is not the case. The point of a SL club is to win either/or the SL title or the Challenge Cup. If we had no overseas quota, we'd have stronger teams from 1-14 because of the much expanded player pool. Obviously, we still want to have an England team, and as we'd have a tougher league THAT England team would be of a better quality and more likely to be able to compete at international level with the aussies and kiwis. And to encourage clubs to produce those English players the RFL needs to introduce incentives to clubs to do just that.

The logical counter argument to this line of thinking is the English Football team. The Premier League is packed full of overseas stars and European results (Champions League etc) have shown in recent years that alongside La Liga the Premier league is the strongest in Europe. And yet we are nowhere near able to win an international tournament. Despite the fervour around the nation before every tournament and choruses of ‘Football’s coming home’ the national team are terrible and actually lack basic skills compared to their opposition

A strong national side is developed through strong academies and teaching players from an early age the key skills of the game – then finding enough of that talent for the very best to reach the top and excel at international level

I agree that a strong Super League is not dependent on a strong international scene but I also firmly believe that the next step change in the popularity of our sport will come from England doing well internationally – to raise the national consciousness of our sport and the media profile in line with the fantastic work being done at grass roots level across the country

Has the Super League standards declined? – that is very hard to conclude as comparing like for like is very difficult across time periods but I do believe that a competitive League will breed quality (rather than the have’s and have not’s of previous years when we could see Chairmen buy the league) and investment in quality at youth level will pay off in the end

It requires courage of conviction to put into place plans that have a 10-15 year fruition but I am sure we will get there

I know what you mean, but sometimes I've just felt like - can we have a go please? After penalties, goal-line drop-outs and heroic but ultimately futile goal-line defence, the prospect of the cycle just starting over again is depressing. Certain refs exaccerbate that feeling. As, in fairness, does our tendency to drop the ball almost immediately when we do eventually get it back.

This is the 'devil take the hindmost' attitude so beloved of Wigan's old management and that caused so much damage to the game when they were totally dominant in the years before SL. My own club has the money nowadays to take this line, but I am thankful that the salary cap means they can't be tempted. Having no overseas quota would simply flood the game not just with top-rated Aussies but second and third raters, too, and there would be far fewer chances for local talent to develop. Union's entire appeal is based around a prestigious and successful national side, don't be wishing something on RL which would hold back our international game even further.

Another weekend, another 4 non competitive matches out of 6..

what on earth is going on at bradford at the moment? i mean rovers didnt even have to play out of second gear. never seen so many mistakes in an opposition 30 area

The quota rule should be changed to a maximum of three imports. These imports should also have an age limit of a maximum of 28 years of age. Also they should have a minimum of five international caps to qualify. Therefore, Super League can only sign player from Australia and New Zealand who are of international quality and are young enough to have the desire to add to the competition. This way you stop the developed international player coming over for a last pay day, in turn you weeken the NRL competition. They are not under as much pressure to produce the next generation of players as their squads still have the ageing stars in them. In 6-8 years England would have the strength in depth to compete.

Hardly any imports would come over at all if those were the rules. Players leaving the NRL become ineligible to play internationally for Australia. Players who are under 28 and have been capped previously are not going to give any hope of playing for their country again. When the salary cap increases in the NRL, top quality players aren't going to come over to SL for less money. Besides, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with older high-quality players coming to SL as younger players at the club can learn from them.

There will inevitably be less players coming over, but SL teams will be able to afford top dollar for the very best NRL players as they are not having to spread their salary cap over 6 or 7 players from the NRL Comp. The younger SL players can learn from the cream of the Aussie League.

A quota system does not guarantee a successful england side. Australia and the kiwi players play in a stronger comp week in week out and it makes a difference as well as skill level does. SL needs to become stronger and reducing the overseas players wont do that. if your good enough you will make it. I refuse to believe a coach would pick an overseas player over a brit just for the sake of it.

We need all clubs spending at least 75% of the cap.

So no french players then or (in time to come) other european countries?

From what I remember, the switch to the scoring team kicking off was tried and then dropped because it made it nigh on impossible for a team who were 2 or 3 scores down to have a realistic chance of a comeback in the last minutes of a game.

quarters instead of halves. Breaks up a roll, removes a reliance on stamina ahead of skill, and would, i think result in much closer games.

in 2 more years there will be no decent overseas players heading to SL anyway. a much bigger Aussie salary cap and 2 new teams will see to that. then we will be able to test if having less imports is good or bad for the game!

It will be good in the long run. Even now its hard to argue what benefits a lot of the overseas players bring. Every team could name one of their imports to be dropped from the squad and they'd barely notice the difference if they were replaced by a youngster.

Amos Roberts.

That is a Solid, very solid idea. Lets face it, All the teams in Division 2 are not going to compete with division 1 for another 5 years.

10 teams - paid 1.3 million each from sky money
maximum oversea's quota 4 players.
Can only poach other teams players after they have spent a minimum of 3 years playing first team rugby.
First team rugby is achieved in one season after playing 5 games or more.

1. St helens
2. Leeds Rhinos
3. Warrington wolves
4. Widnes Vikings
5. Wigan Warriors
6. Hull FC
7. Hull kingston rovers
8. Catalan Dragons
9. Huddersfield Giants
10. Bradford Bulls

10 teams - 5.2 million gained for league 2
Maximum overseas quota 4.
Players trained by each academy must spend 3 years with their respective team.
Teams paid .5 million each season in sky money

1. Celtic Crusaders
2. Castleford Tigers
3. Salford City Reds
4. Harlequins
5. Halifax
6. Barrow Raiders
7. Leigh Centurions
8. Fetherstone
9. Toulouse Rugby
10. Wakefield Wildcats

Promotion and relegation in place for leagues 2 and 3.
Franchise application every 2 years for superleague and league 1.

Applicants must have won the league in one of those two seasons to be promoted
Applicants must be financially stable, and must have spent the entire cap allowance for 2 years.
Applicants need a stadium capcity of 10,000+

Salary cap to set at maximum of 1 million pounds a season. Breach of Salary cap revokes the access to sky money for the rest of the season.
No ability to de-register players.

Any thoughts?

Looks like Bradford are going to get a hammering tonight. The defence of some of these sides is just not good enough.

From cricket to rugby league on sky sports 1. A seamless weave of one team bitching the other. Records will tumble in the next 70 minutes.