What a ridiculous benchmark to set. Yes, Wigan aren't as good as they were in the 90s; Hudderesfield as Wagstaff's boys; Saints as Murphy's crew; or Salford as the orginal Red Devils. But when in one season has there been a league when most clubs had sides that could compare to their greatest ever?!

If we look at the SL era, I would say Bradford have had the main period of dominance in their history; Leeds can rightly claim to have their most successful period ever, and Saints can probably say their early-mid naughties team matches that 60s side. Our current team is probably on a par with our 30s team in terms of quality/standing in the game, though more successful in trophy terms, is probably equal to the late 40s, and just falls short of the mid 50s team - which I reckon it would have matched had we won the GF (and a SL title this year probably still matches Bev, Bath, Helme et al).

So Leeds and Warrington currently have two of the best teams in their history. Wigan last season were on a par with their best SL teams (and were only out-done twice by that great Leeds team). Bradford have reverted back to historic type (i.e. insolvency!), Saints are suffering the slow decline top teams suffer after a peak. Hull seem to be getting back to their peak of the last 25 years. Catalans probably had/have the best team in their admittedly short history.

When Saints were at the height of their powers we had sides like Halifax & Leigh around who were weaker than anything on show now. We had a Bradford team capable of putting 84 on a mid-table Wire side. We had a guaranteed top 4 each season, with the rest fighting for play-off crumbs.

There is an issue of in-equality now, but let's not pretend it's worse than it has been throughout SL. And it's better that the early-mid-90s!! And as for issues over the way the game is played - that's a matter of opinion. I believe the Wire team of 2011 played the most entertaining rugby SL has seen, alongside Saints under Millward, and Leeds under Smith.

My point is, we have a World Cup coming at the end of the year - an international competition that is set up as well as it could be given the current global position of the game. I would have though Mr Wilkin would have wanted to show more positivity towards that, in his testimonial year, than to bemoan the standard of the game. As the self-appointed spokesman of SL players if he can't come up with worthwhile suggestions (and IMHO the players can only offer significant insight into matters of safety, and to some extent finer rule points) then he'd be better keeping it shut.

Well said to those knocking Wilkin. It's all too easy to moan things aren't right - we've got plenty of people queuing up to do that within and outside the game. RL has always suffered from that. What we are lacking is people identifying properly thought through, workable solutions to things. And people capable of implementing them. And ideally a lot of money to help fund actions!

And as I said earlier, I disagree that quality is lower.

There will always be games in whatever league structure you choose, whose result has little bearing on the competition. But that doesn't make the game meaningless or uninteresting to watch. Go back only a few years and we had the "big 4" who were almost guaranteed to clean up all of the finals appearances and trophies. Surely that made more games meaningless than now, yet things are supposed to be worse now?!

As I said, I'm not convinced the current top 8 system is right, but I'm encouraged that teams other than Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Bradford have been making the finals and winning trophies in the last few years. Leeds' dominance and particularly their repeated ability to win from 5th has admittedly not helped the perceptions. But my view is that the SL Trophy is reward for the dual ability to negotiate a 27 game league season plus make it through a high pressure playoff series. If we had top 5 instead of 8, then there would be more chance of getting the playoffs intensity to an appropriate level and it would make the league season more intense too.

"The game is unrecognisable to the game I played 10 years ago. Saints don't win things these days and its not fair

"Saints ruck speed is slower. The play-the-balls were much more unstructured back then. The likes of Keiron Cunningham were given a free rein to do what he liked because we were the best team.

“I want to see the game do well and I'm confident the World Cup can help”

"In my time, Saints have come full circle a few times. Saints tried to speed it up, but I think Saints are in a bit of a slow patch at the moment.

"Also, 10 years ago, you could point to every team and say they were trying to do something different to try and beat Saints. At the moment, there's an argument that quite a number of teams are doing the same kinds of things and therefore Saints aren't good enough to win things.

"I love the game, so I'll watch Batley against Whitehaven in the rain and I'll enjoy it. But as a wider spectacle, I don't think the last few years have been fantastic for Saints.

"Parts of it have been great and there are always stand-out moments but, as a whole, we need to be conscious that it's an entertainment industry Saints are in and Saints need to entertain people."

I think this is what John is actually trying to say.

awwwww diddums...did the trophy cabinet get thrown out with the ground move?..guess they don't need one at the moment.

Wilkin clearly fancies himself as the mouthpiece of the players, in much the same way as Rio Ferdinand does in football, and is trying to maneuver himself into some fanciful anti-establish maverick stance.

If he really wants to change the game in his new capacity, and not just raise his own (and Saints) profile, if he really wants to reflect the genuine concerns of players then I suggest he raises his concerns together with some constructive solutions and engages with the governing bodies. Spouting negative views without balancing them with some positivity, that just happen to coincide with the decline of his own career and Saints trophy-less career, just make him look embittered and like plenty of union "reps" ........ me-me-me-me-me

There's some childish reactions on this thread. Tony Smith has some strong opinions on things that need improving in the game and the Wigan fans are always going on like this "he's moaning again" "he can't handle it that his team are bottlers in the playoffs".

Wilkin is pretty much right in what he says. Yes we all know Saints are not what they used to be, and the other factor here which nobody is bringing up, is Wilkin isn't what he used to be either, he is a declining player like Wellens and some of his teammates. But he is right that SL is not what it was a few years ago in terms of quality.

For me the evolution of SL went like this:

1997,1998 the quality was poor. By 2000, 2001, the quality at the top had improved, but there was a big gulf in class between that and the rest of the league. SL took great strides in the next few years. The quality of coaching improved and the quality of overseas imports improved so even the teams at the bottom had good players. A great barometer for the improvement was Iestyn Harris, he was a dominant player up till he left for union in 2001, good enough to dictate matches on his own. When he came back in 2004, he had been playing quite well in union, and he wasn't too old by any means, he should have been in his prime, but from then on he was a good rather than great player. Weaker teams that would have been shredded to pieces by Harris a few years earlier were now able to deal with him. He had not had injury problems or anything that would have made him decline, I think SL caught him up rather than him slip.

2005 the game was at its peak. Not only had the smaller teams raise their standard but at the top you had three genuine top sides, Saints and Leeds more or less at their strongest in the whole of SL, and Bradford was the last throw of their great era, and they played unstoppable rugby near the end of the season. Then you had below them the likes of Hull with Swain, Kearney, Blacklock and those guys, and a resurgent Warrington with Andrew Johns at the end of the season. SL wasn't just good for quality of players then, it was brilliant for quality of rugby and excitement of the competition. I mean....Andrew Johns....would this happen today? Would you get Billy Slater or Jonathan Thurston signing for say Hull or Hudds?

Since 2006 I think there has been a decline. I think the middle/lower clubs are still decent, and stronger than they were a decade or so back, but at the top there has been a falling off. Bradford went to pieces, Saints have had a decline, even Leeds I think have been in slow decline, just with a great core of players who can win them big games at the end of the season. The teams that have risen up, are us and Wigan. Wigan from their low ebb - in that mid 2000s era when SL was at its strongest, they were crap, and they got hidings off a strong SL which was fun for us all. But is the current Wigan side a great one? I don't know if it would necessarily beat the Wigan sides of Frank Endacott or Stuart Raper. Warrington I think are a strong side but the fact we haven't pulled away from that Wigan side is a slight downer for me. I have to say had this Warrington side been around in 2005 I don't think we would have finished higher than 4th. But if you put us back to 1997 against that Bradford team that went through the season nearly undefeated the game wouldn't have been close, we would have smashed them out of sight never mind the rest of SL.

So I don't think SL is at its worst, but there has been a definite slip since the peak of 2005. Great as Leeds achievement is to have won all those titles, I think they have dominated SL because their decline since 2005 has been slower than Saints and Bradford. I don't think even Leeds have improved, they have always been on a slow downward path.

Interesting how perspectives can differ. I can't say your view is wrong SC, but I do disagree with it, as I do with Wilkin's assertion that the game isn't as exciting as 10 years ago.

I nearly crashed my trolley in Sainsburys earlier too: who should be on the front of League Express, but Jon Wilkin, calling for more positivity in the game...

I'd generally agree with sally c's overview, except there are too many games in SL where the losing side has clearly thrown in the towel half way through the game. Most of the cricket scores we see can be blamed entirely on the losing team giving up any serious attempts to continue defending for the full game (including Leeds a few times last year - some of the 'defence' against Wigan would have embarrassed an U12's side). That's an attitude that ALL clubs (including players and fans as well as coaches) ought to find unacceptable.

The overall decline in quality is down to reduced imports from the NRL and before that RU. Right now there is a real lack of quality imports across the competition (plus a few high profile departures to RU and the NRL).

The question is does this represent a permanent lowering of standards, or will things pick up once all clubs get used to having to produce their own players to make up the core of their team, and so have to focus on youth development?

The reason I ask is that if we can produce enough better young players, then standards will lift back to where they were, although it will take a few years. If we can't then standards are destined to drop even further as the few remaining quality overseas players retire.

My own view is that some of the current crop of young backs around SL (far better than a few years ago) suggests that it is possible, but I'm not sure that we won't have to decide to reduce SL to 12 if we want a long-term sustainable quality SL.

Unfortunately it is going to just be a lowering of standards. The Aussies have far more players at every level of the game so they have a much bigger pool of potential talent. In SL, I think most clubs actually do quite a lot in terms of junior development. It's an easy line to say clubs will be forced to do more to bring through young talent, but I'm not sure what more they will do.

We might find that semi decent but not that great young players, that in the past would not have been able to establish themselves as SL first team regulars and would end up in the NL, will now be more in demand by the clubs and will have a better bargaining position in terms of wages.

I think one problem in Britain with the quality of all sport is that most people's involvement in it only goes as far as the nearest X box or whatever the latest gadget is hence the lack of home grown improvement .
BTW i believe there is a BBC Inside Out programme on next Monday at 7 pm about or containing an article on rugby league & the state of the game.

Without wishing to derail this thread, the key to changing attitudes to regular season games might just lie in the perception of what makes a Champion team? Finishing top after 27 rounds has got to matter more IMO

Changing the playoffs only really affects incentives to a few clubs around the margins,

if you scrap the playoffs, then it makes every league game count for the top 2 or 3 clubs, but for the rest its much of a muchness, finish 4th or finish 7th does it really matter much?

if you make it a top 5, then it means the competition becomes more intense for the clubs from around 3 to 7, but doesn't really affect the top 2 or lower clubs

as a top 8, it really just makes the competition more intense for the clubs from around 6 to 10

in the days before SL came in everybody really knew Wigan were going to win the league so the league wasn't massively important for the other clubs either - back then there were a lot more cups so those were the more intense fixtures, but I think we have to be careful about getting nostalgic about the intensity of the competition when it was just decided off a league, we used to have crowds of 3000 or 4000 at Wilderspool even with greats like Boyd, Gregory and co in the team, with only the big derby games really getting the fans to turn up

Maybe the introduction of bonus points might be an incentive for clubs not to capitulate and like wise if you win by X margin you get a bonus point.

So the better/winning team plays expansive to try to get the extra point, and the lesser/losing team defends for their life to stay within X margin to not lose a point.

People go on about the LLS not meaning much so they can't argue that throwing in all these bonus points will alter/mutate league positions.

I disagree. Top 5 as a play-off system incentivises teams to finish as high as possible. It was clear last year that Smith was pretty in-different to whether we finished 1st or 2nd, as there's no real difference in your route in your route to the final; that wouldn't be the case with top 5, where there's a distinct advantage in each incremental place. That's why it's the only play-off system I think strikes the right balance with the league set-up. Top 8 leaves you with games like we had at Salford and London last year-I don't criticise Smith or the club for this, as they're playing the comp, but the organisers should try and eliminate this if possible, as it devalues SL IMHO.

Who would you consider the top 2 clubs to be then?

I'd reckon going back to the old top 5 play-off would give you a much more intense competition for spots and also a more intense play-off competition.

Warrington and Wigan but maybe next year it will be Warrington and Saints.
I don't think that Leeds would win the league, if the playoffs were scrapped. Leeds haven't been massively rotating their squad, they have just got into sticky ruts of form because they don't have a strong and consistent enough team at the moment to win consistently through a season.

I did think the top 5 was a better play off system, not because it was 5 teams necessarily but because it avoided the big weakness of both our system and the Aussie one: you end up with a 4 team knock out just like a cup competition, so the reward system being based on having a 'second chance' has the anomaly that you are allowed to lose a playoff game as long as its the first one (like us this year) whereas if you win that first playoff game you then forfeit your right to a second chance (like Saints this year or us in 2011). Quite a few teams in Aus have fallen foul of that over the years.

I would like to see a 10 team Super League with the top 5 playoffs. I think that would be quite a competitive competition.

I agree with the 10 team SL and 5 team PO with the league winner going straight through to the final. The only problem is 2 v 5 could be 10-12 pts difference but for team 2 if they lost they'd be out. No second chances. But it would still probably be an improvement on the current system.

10 teams, everyone plays each other three times meaning 27 games. 13 at home, 13 away and 1 magic weekend. Some teams you'll play home twice, others away twice.

But what about relegation/ promotion? Scrap it I guess but it would mean demoting the likes of Widnes (again), Castleford, Wakefield, London, Bradford or Salford? Seems harsh on those teams. But the likes of Bradford and Salford financially suffering, would a drop to 'Super League 2' be the final nail in the coffin?

An interesting thread this. Although some replies have been rather embarrassing - eg 'he's moaning because Saints aren't winning anything, blah blah blah'.

Whether the standard is any better/worse than 5/10/100 years ago is the wrong question to be asking if we want to improve the game. There's no reason to be stuck in the past and the fixation with it is probably part of the reason why the sport seems to be standing still.

What we, and Wilkin, should be writing/talking about is the future and how we can improve the sport by making it financially sound, making attendances rise etc which will make RL a successful sport. There is a lot of doom and gloom about currently (mostly coming from our 6 fingered friends in Wigan) and although we will not have the imports and we will lose a couple of high profile players to other leagues/sports, there is a basis to work from if we can get the governance and structure right.

Agreed - Wilkin moans all the time, the fact that Saints haven't won a trophy for years has got nothing to do with that.

Re your last para, which again I agree with, my point is that if Wilkin must drone on, it would be good to hear him say what, say, 3 things he would do to change the sport and make some of those things happen. I suspect he doesn't because one of the answers will be to reduce the number of clubs in SL which will put some members of League 13 out of work. When he becomes a FT mouth piece, he is even less likely to look at it objectively.

2 doesn't play 5 in week 1 of the old top 5 system. 2 plays 3, loser gets second chance against winner of 4 V. 5. This is definitely the fairest system, and the only one that adequately rewards league position, without creating any potentially silly situations for clubs that finished higher.

I've a (sighted crazy) theory that 5th is quite a good place to finish, and arguably better than 3rd or 4th. Whilst 4th can lose a game, it's only in week one, when they play a team 3 places higher. Whilst 5th are in 'sudden death' all the way, week 1 they're at home to a team from the bottom half of the table. Week 2, yes they have to play away, but only to the team that finished one place above them, that have got a hiding (usually) from the best team in the league the previous week, whilst they have momentum from a (usually comfortable) win. Faced with that, do people really see finishing 4th as better than 5th?

Whilst a 10 team comp would certainly be more competitive, it just feels too small a league to me-I'd compromise at 12, which also means you've gotta be able average to make the play-offs (5th out of 10 might still have lost more games than they've won). Plus I'd struggle with which 4 teams should go-that's over a quarter of current SL clubs you'd have to demote.

Unfortunately players are sometimes asked for their opinions on these things, and will give it. Wilkin has led calls for players to have more of a voice , and in some matters they should. However, I don't think they're best placed to make the calls needed to make the game stronger. That said, I'm not sure that the current administrators are either, and the governance structure of the sport is one aspect that is rarely debated, but is the root cause of the issue. Theoretically, let's say that it could be proven that a 10 team SL was the right way to go-at present you'd have to have a majority of SL clubs vote for it-turkeys and Christmas anyone?

I'm not saying this is easily solved, but looking at this would help more than getting Wilkin's ideas on what we should do differently.

Nailed it.

The point I'm making is that Wilkin doesn't offer any opinion, certainly not in the BBC article we're discussing. "Down with this sort of thing" "Something must be done" is the sum total of his input.

It's clear to me that the game cannot sustain 14 FT professional clubs. There isn't enough money in the game to do that. Market forces dictate it must contract or, alternatively, we need to get more money in. How do we do that? Increase crowds, TV deals and sponsorship. How do we do that? Bit of consistency with our international calendar, better TV scheduling, employ proper marketing people (to the extent we don't already, dunno). We had a debate on this board a few month's ago about increasing the salary cap to raise standards and keep players from leaving. Madness. Sam Tomkins is a jewel in the RL crown but if we can't afford to keep him as a sport then he should go.

All of the above may be absolute drivel. It doesn't matter, it's an opinion. The point is that Wilkin hasn't even bothered doing that and he keeps getting the chance to. He ought to seize it or bore off.

Standards in the British game are undoubtedly dropping and you'd need to be a fool to argue otherwise. The precipitous decline in the quality of backs just in the last decade in particular is frightening. The (probably) best halfback in the game is pushing into his mid 30s and wasn't good enough to play for a top team 10 years ago. The biggest club in the game is being forced to rely on Smith and Green, the very definition of average journeymen, to move them around the park for the next few years as there is simply noone any better available. You'll be stuck relying on Myler to do the same soon for the same reason. We, a top 2 trophy-challenging side next year most likely, will be relying on a mixture of raw, unproven teenage kids and well past-their-best veterans in our backline and we'll still probably be better off there than all but a couple of other teams. How many top sides continue to be forced to field SRs as centres because there are no quality centres available?