Quote ="Jack Napier"T20/Hundred cricket worked as it took what was originally a 5-day game, then a game that lasted all-day, and made it into a 3-hour game.
Having a 2-hour game of RL isn't the problem. Cheapening it to a 7/8/9 player game would make the product worse. I don't think it'd attract any new fans.
.'"
I stopped right here, as I felt you'd nailed it.
I first watched Rugby League sevens in the 1960's and it was too short and too open, one speedster could win a game in minutes,
I saw the nines version at Wigan maybe sometime in the eighties. That was better.
80 minutes of action is fine, Cricket had to change as it was so slow and lacking much action, that was the problem.
For me RL set re-starts has been a smart change to Rugby League, but it's not just the rules that count, teams need to be even, and we salary capped to try to get this (albeit that could be tweaked to be better)
Pearson is showing himself up here, is he positioning himself to stomp out of the game? Reaity is we have changed our game many times to make it interesting, and you can see this via the comparison with Union, just how far we have gone in doing this.