Wood, Riley, Harrison, Cooper and O'Brien are regular first teamers now so it wouldn't make a massive difference to us, also Blythe, Williams, Evans, Currie etc have played a fair bit this season too.

However I agree with you that a lot of what comes out of most teams academies is not good enough so all the people that say we should increase the number of players to increase our chances of beating the Aussies, are missing the point. Players that are not up to the job are never going to be up to the job....how many first team games do they need to 'get experience' and become international standard?

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life... It's on telly tonight.

When Rugby League was re branded into "Super League" what actually changed apart from changing to summer rugby and a few rule changes? To call it Super League is an absolute farce and the RFL have missed the boat to develope the sport and make it what it should be. The opportunity was there to take the sport to a greater level but not enough was done. They say Rugby League is a game played by professionals and run by amatures, well how true is that!!. What should have happened is smaller teams should have merged to create one "super" club. Teams such as Salford Oldham and Rochdale could have been branded as Manchester and Yorkshire clubs done something simular. Obviously people would bang on about tradition and that there'd be no way supporters would join together. But where's the traditon when these teams supporters dont seem to be there anymore?. Besides, the individual clubs wouldnt just fold and fade away, they could still play in a seperate comp known say as league 1 and be feeder clubs to their Super League club. Up and coming players from those town would have something to aim for and aspire to play in "Super League". Also players coming to the end of their career could step down and teach these kids the things they've learned over the years.

So who would go watching these new teams? Well apparently Super League is the second most watched sport on sky after football, so the audience is there. Obviously the clubs would need marketing right and finances play a big part in that, but the chance was there to at least try it.

I think you have misunderstood my point, I certainly haven't thought about any answer before the question.

[iMoney makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player[/i

I agree, money is the reason that everyone goes to work etc. It's what puts food on the table and a roof over our heads. However, having less teams means less opportunity for the up and coming player. Lets take this to the smallest league of two - the academies are making near perfect players but the perfect players still hold the number one spot and the cash.

[iIt also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.
[/i

No it doesn't. It means that Sky have less games on TV. WHy would Sky give the same money for less games? If there was more money, surely the first team would ask for more or would the new found glut of tallent be preventing this but providing more supply than demand?

[iIn addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there. [/i

Why? As a former player and with hindsight with knackered knees I would take the financial security of RU over RL. At what point in your business plan does the RL salary cap eclipse the PPP of RU?

[ithere are a thousand more reasons for less teams.
[/i

Such as?

[iPs, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.[/i

Feel free.

I'm sure that having a large gene pool for competition of the fittest is better than artificially narrowing the pool. Lets make the SL a group of 10 teams with more money, it just makes it easier to buy from Aussie imports that are just outside top 90% (being generous) of their game (which is better that the SL by how much, 10-15%?) rather than taking a gamble on the young lads on the way though.

This is something that I have always argued. Unlike yourself I actually like the salary cap and think that it is a good idea that just needs tweaking a little. However one must is that it should be linked to inflation so it doesnt decrease in real terms. If this was the case and we had a salary cap of £2.3 million we would have certainly kept a lot more players in the game and could compete with RU much better. It is a joke that some players from the 90s got paid more than players today when TV deals, sponsorship deals, crowds, ticket prices etc have all gone up considerably. Where has all the money gone? It doesnt make sense or add up to me.

[iPoor on field product = lack of mainstream interest off it.
[/i

And that explains why RU is so well viewed? The club rugby is very poorly viewed and the quality is whatever the opposite of elite is. How players like Farrel go from barely able to make the team to international is beyond me as an example.

[iA league where ever game is of the highest quality and you've got 5 top games played over a weekend and fans are spoilt for choice.
[/i

Just like the football? They have a number of good games (or so I hear, I don't like watching) but they have a bigger league where the decent clash happens more frequently because of the size of the league. Imagine the premiership with 10 teams.

[iThat's how you market British RL as having the most competative league in the world. If it raises the level of the championship then even better for us.
[/i

I don't! We don't have the most competitive league in the world, and if we did who actually cares in the world? Are the Aussies tuning in en mass? How about the Germans?


[iI'd also go one step further with SL clubs linking up with league two sides and having A teams in that league mixed in with some others.
[/i

So you would reduce the size of SL and make L2 feeder clubs? So that's 1xSL and 1xL2 squads rather than 2xSL and 2xL2? Reducing the oppertunity to shine isn't the way to encourage improvement.

The SC is a great way to cap the achievement of the top teams and level the league. The associated rules were a good way to prevent insolvency.

I'm not sure that the RU competition actually matters on the whole, look at the players that have been lost. Has RL lost a player that has the media's eye gone? Not in my opinion, because RL hasn't had the media focus nationally to start with. How much of a loss to RL was Andy Farrel/Paul Sculthorpe (not RU) at the time? Is anything Scully was worse due to his Gillette sponsorship loss.

Raising the cap may make more Aussies arrive, but the UK a players have to compete against them to play. Does this make the league improve or get worse?

No but having the current concept is working right?

You talk about RU because YOU think its boring. I personally like the game and love the six nations/world cup tournaments as its competative and will hold your interest.

British RL is in a desperate state due to a lack of high level RL being played every week like it is in the NRL.

I don't believe that the crops of quality youngsters we produce season after season who beat their Aussie counterparts at youth level suddenly turn poor before they hit their peak.

What happens is their development is hindered as they stop being tested to the level NRL players do each week.

I'd love a comp as big and as good as the NRL but sadly we don't have the playing pool to achieve it. Instead of reducing the teams, cutting away the also rans and raising the weekly intensity level we instead dilute the comp with championship level players who we pretend are a lot better than they are.

It baffles me how blind some people are. We can watch standards slip further away season after season but yet some RL fans have their head in the sand.

Linking the cap to inflation and letting it rise with that isnt raising the cap though in real terms. The cap may be the same as 10 years ago but players today are being paid far less.

a point that most fans fail to understand.

players are getting poorer in real terms, why would they chose to stay in the competition.

You can't believe this, surely.

How many small clubs have won the SL in the SC era?

How many clubs have gone bust or had serious financial difficulties in the SC era?

Are you actually a member of the board of directors of the RFL?

I don't like the SC in it's current form, but it is only a symptom of a wider disease. Even if the SC were reformed in the way it should be - to encourage growth, ensure financial stability of clubs with additional financial controls and monitoring and reward clubs for developing players - the SL would still always be weak financially because of the people and culture at the RFL and clubs (and in the wider RL world - as shown by a poster on this thread claiming the SC has done a good job to protect clubs from insolvency!!)

Some of the cash has gone into new stadiums (Wigan's deal diverts a lot of revenue - more than IL has yet admitted publicly - to the stadium company), but it is a bit of a mystery as to where the money has gone, until you realise that clubs have just got used to the status quo under the SC and waste money because they can't spend it on players...

So you are of the opinion that the Salary Cap doesn't restrict the larger clubs and that teams like Wigan haven't lost players as a result of the cap?

I don't know how many have had financial difficulties? Are you trying to say that no cap would prevent this? I can't see how a reduced number of teams would fix this, as less games = less cash while fixed costs remain the same (ground maintenance / wages).

Where would the additional fans in a reduced league come from? Lets take Widnes and London out, where do their players go? Where to the bigger clubs players get SL experience? Would Wigan be developing a full back right now, and if so how often would they get a game?

I wrote " The SC is a great way to cap the achievement of the top teams and level the league. The associated rules were a good way to prevent insolvency."

I neither stated that the SC prevented insolvency, nor that they did a good job. I do think that the maximum spending limits which took into account the clubs revenues were a good way, I think that this route with more financial governance would help but I don't think the RFL executed this well.

"The associated rules were a good way to prevent insolvency".



Clubs that have got into serious financial difficulties in the SC era include: London, Bradford, Widnes, Halifax, Crusaders, Wakefield, Salford, Gateshead, Sheffield. There may well be others, but that'll do for starters!

As for the mythical level playing field - it remains mythical. The league title is held by the club with the highest revenue in the competition and the SL this year is likely to be won either by the club with the biggest fan base or the club with the richest owner. I ask again - how many clubs have won the title since the SC came in?

Where did I advocate reducing the number of clubs in the league? Actually I think the issue is not so much the number of clubs but whether we have the right clubs making the right contribution. So, for example, if I were in charge of the SL one of my top priorities would be to get a sustainable Toulouse side into SL.

simple.... have a 2 tier sl with 10 teams in each tier and have promotion and relegation. could have for example...

tier 1
wigan
leeds
saints
wire
catalan
hull
hull kr
brad
hudders
london

tier 2

salford
wakey
cas
featherstone
leigh
barrow
halifax
batley
widnes
sheffield

He said the same on the NRL Footy Show last week where he was a special guest

Is there any way of watching the footy show over here? Can you stream it or get it on Premier Sports? I love that program.

There are clips on YouTube.

For me we need to seriously reduce the imports in our game in order to improve the quality of our home grown players. Under Nobby at Wigan, Sam Tomkins was in the 20,s and not going any further ( in fact nearly on his way out ) because he thought he was not big enough. Tim Smith got injured and he had to bring him in to the team, the rest they say is h.......

There are too may overseas players + coaches in our game, a lot of young players never get the correct amount of game time in their strongest position because of this, I know results, results, results ! only matter and winning trophies because its a business. The demise started when teams like Wigan, Saints, etc went looking down under in the 80,s and don,t get me wrong I loved watching Kenny, Meninnga, Miles etc, and this trend has continued ever since.

The trade off is, our own lads never get the right chances and hence we never produce the correct amount of talent we should do. There is enough playing talent round the north west alone in RL to produce enough players if they are coached correctly and more importantly given the correct chances. ( over-rated Kiwi stand off playing for England instead of ? )

Its the same in the Premier league, too many foreign players and not enough home grown lads. How many non-Aussies play in the NRL ? not many, how many non Spanish play in their football league, not many.

If they had kept the overseas quota in and reduced it to 2 players years ago, there would be a lot more players like Tomkins knocking about in SL.

Imo this is the only way we can go forward in SL in order to improve our own league + chances of competing against the Aussies. I also think the player pool is not bigger enough yet to support 14 competative teams in SL

There are lots of urban myths regarding Nobby and Sam, a quick check of the teams listings up untill Smiths injury and Nobbys damascus moment shows that out of 21 games before smiths injury Sam started 9 and was sub in 6, so hardly rotting in the 20's

Sam was young and inexperienced, but an obvious talent, it needed protecting and nurturing, throwing him or any kid in at the deep end is a sure fire way of ruining a carreer.



whats the problem with overseas coaches? Mcguire turned us round, the last english coach to win the grand fibal was Mcdermott, but that seemed to be a Dorahay moment by Leeds rather than anything else, other than that its mainly aussies and new zelanders that coach well.




but does that talent have the attitude and dedication to become a full international player, as Monie always said out of a winning youth team you would be lucky if 4 went on to become fully established pros.

you refer to the NRL, they are not embarrased to have other nationalities play for them, Tony Carroll springs to mind, isnt Petro Civenaciva(sp) a south sea islander?



couldnt comment on football, but shall we ignore the New zealanders, tongans and other south sea islanders plus a handfull of brits who ply their trade in the NRL?




if we had reduced the quota where would these players have magically appeared from? the game is littered with kids who had a talent or natural size advantage and looked like world beaters at an early age, but either get disillusioned with the game or stop developing, for every Sam Tomkins, there are a a dozen Darryl Laceys.

I normally avoid posting in this way, but the problem isnt too many overeseas players, its too many clubs in SL chasing too few players and spectators, there are too many blow out games with one sided score lines, before we can address the problems with the national side, we need to make the weekly rounds more competative, this can only be done with 10 teams!

It doesn't matter how many times Eddie Hemmings spouts this on Sky it's NOT TRUE!

Well we agree on one thing that there are too many teams..... I never suggested that Sam was rotting in the 20,s. I am a great believer in the saying " if your good enough your old enough " I do not believe Sam was being protected, and his older brother was defo not being protected, there were held back in the 20,s because at the time there was imo over rated players playing in the same positions.

Why do they get disillusioned ? You only need to look at the way Wigan are now progressing with lads who have come up through the system, MM, Precky,Sam,Hock,Tuson,Mossop,Goulding, Charnley etc, compared with other clubs who look overseas to fill all the key positions. If piggy had stayed, would MM be playing 1st team now ? I,m not saying we will produce another 20 Sam Tomkins but there would be a hell of a lot more quality young British players.

Why is it over the years that we have continued to beat the Aussies at youth level, but fail at test level ? imo its because over there, and yes they have a more competitive league, but alot of them lads progress to play 1st grade quicker. Over here how long does at lad in his 20,s have to wait to get a 1st team chance, unless they are exceptional.

In my view these English players would have come to the top because they would have been coached correctly and then play the correct level in order to develop them in to, perhaps not superstars but good quality internationals.

As for coaches, yes MM was very good for Wigan I 100% agree. However how many Aussie assistance coaches have failed over here ? alot. If we go on to win 3 trophies this year do you think SW would have MM to thank for his schooling and ultimately his success ? I would suggest that if you asked him, he would say he learned a lot from him but also MM learnt a lot from him in aspects of the game.

It doesn't matter what Ellery thinks about the standard of the SL competition because Craig Sandercock begs to differ.



[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/06/19/RUGBYL_Sandercock.html&BID=480[/url

To save anyone reading the article, here's the crux of his argument.

"I've been very impressed to tell the truth, it's possibly better than I thought it would be."

"Possibly better"?? Maybe the RFL need someone else to do their positive PR spin. I hear Shaun McCrae's available.

its dificult with Joel, he was a forward and a much bigger frame than Sam, and a better athelete, so he was physically ready before sam was, but the point still holds about the myth of nobby and sam, as someone else has posted, its a myth created by wiggy.

yes at the moment the wigan team is full of home produced players, and we are and should be proud, but the it has taken 6 or 7 years to get to this stage, hock made his debut in 2003, lockers 2002, mixed in with players who have broken through in the last 2 years, but we dont have an english half or stand off, we have a couple of outstanding prospects, but robinson and brown were suposed to be our half back pairing for years to come, now robinson is a hooker at shuddersfield and brown is really journryman who peaked in a televised game against the old enemy, its difficult to predict how a player will develop.

we do beat the aussies at youth level, which suggests the skills are there, but look the progression from u16, our players go on to u18's and u20's where some clubs cant raise a team and games get cancelled, the aussies progress to the bartercard league to learn and hone thier skills, again 2 few players or 2 many clubs in the uk which ever way you look at it, this needs addressing there needs to be a set development ladder, that may be loaning young players out at NL level but the current set up is not fit for purpose. at the end of the day there are only 17 first team shirts available every week and its a balancing act who to play in those shirts for both short and long term success, if the supporting structures are correct and players are plying at a higher intensity even in the u18's the first team will benefit.

you are right about SW, but it will have been a two way street, he will have learned a lot from MM.