I saw an Interesting article recently by Alex Murphy in the Manchester Evening News.
Super League has turned into a ‘three divisions in one’ competition, according to rugby league legend Alex Murphy.
He believes there is now too much inevitability about the outcome of games and blow-out score lines.
He has been quick to make comparisons with football’s Premier League in how the wealthier clubs dominate and have a clear advantage over the majority.
He told MEN Sport: “Seeing Salford annihilated at home by Leeds was just like watching United thrash Wolves 5-0.
So, looking at a 3 tier SL we would have “the haves” “the would-likes” and “the have-nots”
1. Leeds, Warrington, Wigan
2. Hull, Huddersfield, Saints, Catalans, Bradford, Hull KR
3. London, Widnes, Castleford, Salford, Wakefield
I would say Hull, Huddersfield and Catalans moving in the right direction to tier one.
Bulls and Hull KR stuck in tier two and likely to be joined by Salford and Wakey.
Castleford and London stuck in tier 3 with Widnes who have plenty of time on their side.
What would be your 3 tier structure of SL ?

This doesn't make any sense? A three tiered Super League, what does that even mean?

I think the point been is that the super league is becoming like the premeir league in the fact that the lower clubs will never compete with the those at the top (both on and off the field). And the league is pretty much the same year in year out with the clubs finishing in similar positions. Meaning games become more predictable aswell clubs league positions. Thats my understanding of it anyway.

I think my 3 tier would be.

1. Leeds, Warrington, Wigan, Saints (always up there recent history).
2. Bradford, Hull fc, Hull kr, Huddersfield, Catalan.
3. Wakefield, Salford, London, Widnes, Castleford.

Not taking into account runs of form or injury problems.

The games most entertaining for myself to watch are when the clubs compete with other clubs within their tiers.

I think this says more about Alex Murphy than it does about superleague.
It is a little bit disappointing that, one of the games legends doesn't have anything positive to say about the game.
Along with most other sports, all of the teams involved are tryin to improve their performance and both Catalan and Huddersfield are good examples of improvement.
Yes, many clubs, in the short term, may only have a realistic chance of finishing a couple of places higher than last term and some will drop a couple of places, but that doesn't make the game predictable.
Bottom club Widnes beat Wigan a couple of weeks ago (although there were some selection issues) and Wakey would have beaten Warrington last week if the ref had managed to count to six, so I dont agree that the game is too predictable.

Alex Murphy is comparing SL to football’s Premier League in "how the wealthier clubs dominate and have a clear advantage over the majority" hence the "have's" and "have not's" classifications. Its not too hard to understand.

How many years of Superleague? 17 is it? How many years of having a salary cap? 11 maybe?
But only 5 teams have contested the Grand Final. I think that's is disappointing.

It is disappointing, but there is movement. Less than five years ago Wire and Huddersfield would have been in 'Tier Three' and Wigan in 'Tier Two'. To a long-term Wire fan like me it still feels somewhat astonishing to find RL fans in general classifying us as up with the 'big boys'. Other clubs must aspire to make the same change.

That's just a part of every sport, team or individual. You have the top ones who are always favourites. F1 has McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari. Tennis you can pretty much guarantee any major final will be between Nadal, Federer, Djorkovic and Murray, and of course the aforementioned football with the likes of Man Utd and City, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. Why would rugby league be any different?

Salary cap maybe-Do they do this in soccer, F1 or tennis using your examples

Do Swansea have the same "spend" as Man Utd?

The better players - at least the more ambitious, better players - are always going to end up at the same big clubs where they stand a chance of winning things and playing in front of larger crowds.

Kevin Sinfield said in one of his GF acceptance speeches (I forget which one, there have been so many lately) that a lot of the Leeds players could be on bigger money elsewhere but realise they're playing in a good side with the potential to pick up lots of honours.

Money isn't always the motivating factor in building a successful side, hence the salary cap will never create a truly level competition.

It will be interesting to see what difference UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations (the nearest thing football has to a salary cap) will make the top teams.

Rugby League in "Allocating teams standing based on a specific snap-shot of history" shocker

I wouldn't call the SL era a snap-shot in history. We've had the same 4 teams (plus Hull) in all SL seasons for 17 years now. Granted Warrington look to be the 6th inductee.

I think its taken a few teams a while to get a well structured well planned ahead for the future salary cap in place at their clubs. Some teams had very poorly organised systems in place in the early years of the salary cap and eventually realised that 1 or 2 big signings weren't the answer. Warrington will eventually make the Grand Final debuts soon and I think Hudds and Catalans have a decent chance too in the next 5 years, as well as Hull adding to their single appearance.

I think you can write off the first 6 years of SL as they were little different to what had gone before, in fact only when the level cap was introduced can you count as a benchmark.


And let's look at the clubs at the "top table"
Wigan, saints, Leeds...haven't they ALWAYS dominated RL tables?
Warrington have always been in the top flight, historically Huddersfield were truly one of the elite set (until splitting the league up nearly killed them) and Hull FC have always been regarded as a "big club"

So really, what we see is simply what has always existed for RL...I have a lot of time for Murphy, it was under his stewardship that Huddersfield began their long, long climb off the canvas, but he needs to stop thinking it "was better in my day"

No we haven't.

Bradford were in the top tier and now aren't.

Since Bradford last won anything Wigan have been on the verge of relegation and turned it around to win a title.

Huddersfield were in the lower leagues and are now top of the table.

Leeds were nowhere for years in Super League, and now dominate.

Warrington had won nothing for years and are one of the best teams in the competition.

If Catalans aren't a success then I don't what else to call them.

Hull FC are starting to look like a team of the future and Bradford are turning things around and becoming competitive again. Hull KR and Salford, and to a lesser extent Wakefield and Widnes, have all given glimpses of what they can do.

The competition is in the better health now than any point I can remember. I agree with you that the number of teams that have played GFs is disappointing, but there are three who haven't in Hudds, Wire and Cats who wouldn't look at all out of place there.

Teams are more accustomed to planning their squads in the context of the cap now. The structure of the cap and quotas is encouraging more teams to develop their own youth as the core of their squads. We're moving in the right direction.

Before that it was just Wigan, so that is a significant improvement

and 3 tiers in Super League? Can't see what the problem is.
It's not like no one ever wins across the groups.

They have changed as well with Warrington breaking in and Bradford falling back.
Hudderfield would probably say they are at least on the edge of tier one.

Exactly that; if this same attitude had been taken at other periods in SL history, Wigan, Warrington and Huddersfield would all have been confined to the lower 'tiers' and, self-fulfilling prophecies being what they are, may not have had the opportunity to improve themselves, the game or the communities they serve in the way they have done, for the reasons Andy Gilder has already articulated.

Change is a process, not an event.

This.

Yet more negative backward comments that SL doesn't need when it is (IMO of course) in the strongest health it has ever been in.

Yes some clubs like Salford and London have continually struggled, but even they are now spending full cap and can hope for better times ahead.

Every other club has been in phases of being good, and being rubbish. As others have pointed out, Wigan were almost relegated but came back to win the title and the CC. Hull tasted success and coulden't keep it up, Bradford dominated then faded, Saints have had their run of sucess and now have slipped back and have to re-build.

I think we'll always see sub standard sides until we become Single-Entity.

I suggest that SL is a failure, until every team is exactly comparable in quality to every other team, with no perceptible difference apart from the colour of their jumpers; ideally, every game should be a draw and at the end of the season, everyone finishes first (or last) and the Grand Final is contested by 14 teams on the field at the same time; the winner is decided by the team with the last man standing - a modern day spectacle to rival the 3 day gladiatora munera staged by Marcus Lepidus in 216 BCE.

Only then will SL be a worthy spectacle, and it STILL won't be as good as the NRL.

Now that's just silly

The salary cap is pointless if clubs spend nowhere near the allowance.

But it caps the tops clubs, if it wasn't there then teams like Hull, Wigan, Leeds and Warrington would just spend what they liked and the other teams would be even further apart, a bit like Wigan in the 80's.

I don't really understand this thread surley ever league in every sport has teams that are better than others and split into invisable tiers?

There are simply more better players in the NRL. That means every club can be competitive on its day, and accelerates the capability to rebuild a side. It doesn't mean that the Sharks stand a cat in hell's chance of winning the competition this year, but they aren't so far off in playing terms that they can't become genuinely competitive within say 3 years if things go right for them.

My own feeling echoes vbfg - it looks very much to me that SL standards are improving, driven in large part by a focus on home-grown players, combined with the salary cap which stops the likes of Leeds and Wigan snapping up every young player who looks to have potential. That focus on developing young players is being driven by cap limitations, gradual painful quota reductions (combined with unavailability of star Aussies) and the stability brought by franchising.

Huddersfield to me are the prime example of a team that through a gradual but continued commitment to youth, have got better almost year on year. With no salary cap restrictions, would they have been able to keep the likes of Cudjoe? With no franchising would they have even dared go down that route in the first place?

The one thing that I would like to see change is the mindset in SL that losing - to anybody - by 30 points plus is in any way acceptable. Not saying it can't happen - it does in the NRL as well although less frequently - but in my opinion too many sides throw in the towel ridiculously early. Maybe if standards even up we'll see fewer blowout scores, but I can't help but think there are mental issues as well.