Apart from Hanley, all those players you named have their equal playing in SL today but, for the purposes of debate, suppose you are correct. How does that prove that the standards in SL are slipping due to the SC when none of those players actually played in that era?

A better measure is surely the exercise which we have already done, namely a direct comparison between the top side(s) which contested the first SL and those top side(s) of last year.

I know I shouldn't reply... but that's far too tempting.

Let's try Jonathan Davies, who is his equal in SDL today?

BTW, I'm amused that you found my comment about your 92/93 side so controversial. It was meant to be a little provocative: I do think you Saints fans have a real issue with pre-SL rugby league.

I remember that side holding Wigan to an 8-8 draw at CP in front of 30,000 fans, in a season that went down to points difference. Any side that could push a Wigan team with a squad as powerful as we had at the time (see below) all the way MUST have been a great side.

[urlhttp://wigan.rlfans.com/fusion_pages/index.php?page_id=316[/url

Feel free to post the 2006 Saints squad alongside that one any day!

Disrespect your own history all you want, but the Saints side that year was one of the all-time great RL sides, in any other era it would have been extremely successful.

The real tragedy is that you failed to build from there and had such a disappointing 93-94 season, but that doesn't detract from the achievements of that great 92-93 side, bitter though your disappointment must be, you owe it to your own club and your own former players not to airbrush them out of history in some stalinist rewrite.

He was mediocre at best.

FWIW my arugment about the salary cap is primarily to do with me wanting to have a competitive league. I believe the best way forward for our game is to grow the Super League competition. I believe that the best way to do this is to have a competitive and thus entertaining competition because people will come through the turnstiles to watch their team if they believe they have a chance of winning. It is in the best interests of our competition to have that. I believe that we should concentrate on growing Super League, first and foremost. That should be our priority.

I don't believe that removing the salary cap will allow us to do that. I understand the other arguments about adjusting it and there may be some merit in some of those cases but removing the cap will undo all the good work that has been done. This year's competition has to be the most evenly matched I've experienced. I haven't counted but I would imagine that I've seen more exciting and entertaining matches at this stage of the season than during any other season I've watched RL in.

Matches are closer this season sometimes because teams cancel each other out, playing percentages, not because we are seeing better rugby.

I am not going to get started on this thread though, its an endless subject which will never reach a conclusion. There is no proof that the game would be better without the SC or that it will be amazing if we give it a few more years.

At the end of that day I love watching my team, and I think our game is great. The sport will take off once more people come through the gates.

That may well be the case. I'd also suggest it's because the playing talent is more evenly spread across the competition. It's unlikely that one team is going to supply more than ten players for the England team this year and IIRC there was a representative from every team in the NRL in Wednesday's Origin clash thanks to the NRL salary cap.

Does that not just mean less effort is put into youth development though? For example if everyone could spend as much as they wanted, a youth system would be wise as you wouldnt be able to sign young players from other teams like Hudds have done with a few of ours (no offence to hudds it was great initiative signing those players) but although thats spreads talent around, it just makes it easier to get hold of these players.

I think mediocre super league player is probably a fair description, given his disciplinary issues.



In an ideal world I wouldn't want any kind of spending restriction. Unfortunately RL clubs have shown time and time again that they are incapable of controlling their spending. I actually agree that we need some form of financial controls; I don't think though that the current arrangements work very well, lots of clubs have got into financial difficulties in the SC era.

As to the level playing field argument, this is one season, way into the SC era, shouldn't it have been have already brought about a level playing field, if it was ever going to work?

There are studies that have looked into the effectiveness of a SC and found it not to be effective at promoting competition. E.g.

[urlhttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/25/1030053009801.html[/url

(I accept that direct comparisons with the NRL aren't possible, the structures of the game and player base etc are different over there, but it does make interesting reading.)

In any event, what the SC doesn't do at the moment is encourage clubs to grow. We've created a stagnant competition (I don't accept that fans just want close matches, United get huge attendances when they play against lesser clubs they are expected to (and usually do) thrash, people want to see a quality product and star players too, that's probably more important).

If games are closer its because almost all teams are mediocre. To be honest I'd accept that to some extent IF more stars were coming through, sprinkled through the teams and this gave us a real chance to close the gap on the Aussies a bit. We really need to revitalise international competition.

But the stars just aren't there in the numbers they used to be. (Saints are one of the few clubs who are still regularly producing world class players (e.g. Roby and Graham), this isn't about criticising Saints.).

The really talented players are very thin on the ground, strength in depth has always been GB/England's problem but it is worse than its been since the early 80s.

I dread to think what will happen when the current England side meets New Zealand, let alone Australia.

I'd like to see clubs able to spend a bit more, provided they have sound business plans (which would approved by an independent auditor at the start of each season and then monitored in the same way that the live cap is monitored), particularly on young players. I think they've had a particularly raw deal from the SC. Players generally have lost out due to the SC - especially as it has not even been increased in line with inflation, let alone average earnings), but there are many talented young players being paid a pittance in pro sport terms and you wonder how many of them drift away from RL or don't even get to the first rung of the ladder. We need to reward and celebrate success, not be developing a culture of mediocrity (with Eddie and Stevo et al hyping up players who would have been fairly average 10 or 20 years ago.)

But the clubs that have the youth systems get the pick of the better players. Huddersfield may well have picked up Robinson, Wild and Brown, but Wigan have kept the better players in Tomkins, O'Loughlin and Hock, for example.

If you're relying on other people's youth systems you will always end up with the second rate players discarded by those clubs.

If everyone could spend what they wanted clubs with the most money could cherry pick whoever they wanted when contracts came to an end, very few professional players will turn down massive pay rises. In that case it's even less likely that you would have a decent youth system, why would you bother when you could buy up anyone you wanted? Taking the case of football, just how many good youngsters have come through the top 4 teams from start to finish in the last 10 years? How many are there that aren't nearing 30 that haven't been bought in? None.

How can they have been in the first team without nearing thirty after 10 years. Its kinda narrowing it down.

Put it this way, if you have a team of allstars - at a cost - your youth players benefit and learn from them to develop quicker. This is when your youth team becomes top class, providing only top class players for the 1st team.

Looking at football for example:

Scholes
Giggs
Gary Neville
Foster
Terry
Gerrard
Carragher

What I mean is, none of them have produced anything near a top class player in the last 10 years, as their ability to buy has increased their youth production has slowed.

All the players produced by the top 4 clubs that are any good (Foster is average at best, as are Brown and Evans), are nearing or are over 30.

Given that JD swapped and changed from FB to C, take your pick between Gidley, Webb, Senior or Wellens.



That's rich. It is you who has a problem with SL!



Aye, I was there and Saints were robbed thanks to certain Mr Holdsworth gifting Wigan two points for Hunte being offside when Saints had the ball!




And what will that achieve apart from you saying that Wigan player X is better than Saints player Y and me saying the opposite? When, in reality we both only saw the opposition team a small fraction of the time compared to the amount of times which we saw our own team play. So neither of us can therefore give an accurate assessment let alone an unbiased one!

However, having watched over 90% of the games from both those season, I can say with 100% certainty that the 2006 Saints team was a class apart from the Saints team of 1992/93. Sure, the backs were comparable (I'd still give 2006 the edge) but the 2006 forwards were immense compared to their 1992/93 counterparts.

Also, what you need to remember is that the 1992/93 season was played in Winter (which is a great leveller) and when defences were only 5m apart therefore giving the advantage to the defending team. In 2006, the game was played on faster, harder pitches with a 10m defensive line.



I'm disrespecting nothing. It was a very good Saints side but it's laughable to compare it to the team of 2006.



Or perhaps you could say that the 1992/93 season was a season where that squad over-achieved and in the following years they found their level?

The salary cap hasn't created a more competitive league, far from it.
There are 5 clubs who don't spend the £1.65m and they've no chance of winning anything. So the "level playing field" is out of the window!
Wigan won the first GF the rest have been won by clubs who run benefit trusts, image rights companies, overseas accounts etc. Namely Saints, Bradford & Leeds. Spending the £1.65 alone as Wigan do is not nearly enough, that is why those three clubs have 3-4 International Class players more than Wigan and a whole squad full of quality players more than those not spending the £1.65m.
The salary cap is not just a failure it's a disaster.
It should be abolished and clubs forced to make a profit. League points to be deducted for making an after tax loss!
That way clubs could invest in players all they like and they would be prevented from going bust!
Clubs turning over £5-6m and only investing £1.65m on first team players is a massive underinvestment. This problem needs to be dealt with.

boooooooooooooooo

Sorry but I'd go for Davies every time ahead of those players (especially in Davies favoured FB role, I also thought Davies was class at stand-off, don't recall him playing at centre much). Gidley would run him closest (in terms of quality as a player, I'm not saying Davies was a better centre, but that wasn't Davies' position), Webb hasn't really delivered his initial promise, Senior's past his prime but was never as good a player as Davies. As for Wellens, well you're having a laugh aren't you? More sig material.



I have "a problem" with the CC. Not with the merits of my own team.



Not quite how I remember it, but since your argument is that Saints should have won a game against one of the greatest club sides in RL history, thanks for supporting me!







I think the 92 backs WERE stronger. You're right about the forwards. I don't think its "laughable" to compare the two teams. It probably was a better side overall though than the 92 side but I can't understand why you can't accept a compliment about your 92 side, I am a Wigan fan telling you that was a great side. Its bizarre. The fact you think its worthy of sig status is amusing. As is the fact that you include my reference to the 2009 side (a good team, it may be running away with the SDL but that's more down to the mediocrity of the opposition than the current Saints team being exceptional - come on, be honest, admit it!

).

Getting back to the 2006 side, I do think the Saints 2006 side is a little overrated. If the star players in your side, the ones that look like your best players, include players of limited phsyical gifts like Wellens - though 100% effort and great positional sense, I'm not saying he isn't good, simply that he isn't great - then you can't really claim that the 2006 side is up there with say Wigan from the early-mid 90s, the great Aussie teams like Canberra in the days of Meninga, Daley, Clyde et al or the great Brisbane sides of the 90s.

It's a shame to say I agree with you.

The SC has ruined the quality of the game, sure we get more freak results and stuff but who cares, every sport has it's top clubs I am not saying we have to be one of them, but untill everyone spends the full cap the SC is useless and makes things worse. The only way to get a level playing field is to do it like the NFL in the USA but we are not capable of doing this. We should have no cap but you should have to make a profit and all current super league applications should still be based on stadia and all the various other attributes but also on finances and turnover.

Shock, horror!! Wiganer in "I don't rate Wellens" posting.

All I will say is look at Wellens' individual medal haul.......



And don't we know it!



As I said earlier considering I saw over 90% of the games from both those seasons, I'd say I was in a much better position to judge the relative merits and flaws of them compared with someone who probably saw 20% of them (if they were lucky).



Again with the Wellens-bashing!!!

In fact, it's always the same argument ad nausem but with a different Saints player being berated. Over the years we have had comments claiming that just about every Saints player was "average" and that they are made to look good by their "superstar" teammates. One minute, player X is "average", the next he listed alongside his teammates as you try and prove that player Y is "average".

Face facts: Wellens has been a class act throughout his SL career - his awards, both collectively and individually, prove that beyond any doubt.

Wellens individual collection of medals, awards and trophies, one shows he was surrounded by a good team and also shows the standard of RL has significantly dropped

[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=415278Rugby League loses another International to Union as a result of the salary cap[/url

That rumour's been around for a while but it doesn't make any less disappointing that he will go.
Leeds have invested a lot of time and money in Smith as do all clubs in their youth players. I just feel that clubs should be protected from this. Leeds are financially far wealthier than Wasps but for the salary cap they could pay him his market value and keep him.
Another reason he may be going is that his head coach will be Shaun Edwards. Perhaps he prefers the opportunity of being coached by Edwards rather than McLennan.
A big loss for Leeds and a big loss for Rugby League.

Do we know that the reason he's leaving is purely cash? Perhaps he's just attracted by the opportunities there are in International RU?

Very sad though, good player.

Pages 4-6 are pretty funny

That link's not working.

Probably been deleted because of all the swearing but Lee Smith has signed for Wasps apparently.

Cov Warrior has already dealt with your point about Wellens' success meaning that he is a great player.

As for the rest of your post, the comments about me bashing Saints players are so funny I don't think I could have made them up if I'd being trying to parody you.

This thread contains numerous, often bizarre, posts by Saints fans attacking former Saints players and Saints squads, in a desperate but doomed attempt to shore up the remains of the pro-CC argument.

Given all the abuse heaped upon Saints players and squads by Saints fans on this thread, to then accuse a Wigan fan of bashing Wellens is unbelievable.

Especially as all I was doing was saying that he is a limited player physically - there is no substitute for pace and Wellens isn't and never has been quick - and this stops him, despite all his other attributes as a professional, from being a great player.

I wasn't saying he is "rubbish" or "garbage" or using any of the ridiculous expressions Saints fans have used on this thread about their own players. Wellens is a quality player; a very good player indeed by the dismal standard of FBs in the Soopah Doopah era. He is not however one of the all time greats.

The suggestion that Wellens is on a par with Davies is astonishing. Davies was a tremendously talented player, a superb rugby brain, great hands, quick and elusive. I had the privilege of watching Davies play against the great Wigan sides as well as in internationals. He never looked out of his depth. If only you could say that about Wellens and indeed most of his Soopah Doopah England team mates, then maybe we'd have a fighting chance against the Aussies, instead of receiving the inevitable pummelling. I am absolutely dreading the 4 Nations.