Putting our dreadful season aside, the league this year has been pretty terrible hasn't it?

The quality of the games i've seen has been poor at best - and it says something when clubs the quality of Wigan currently are near the top of the table - despite being rinsed 62-0 at Wakey a few months back and Hull speaks volumes about mediocrity.

Whilst i'm not arrogant enough to suggest this is solely due to a poor, un-entertaining Leeds side - it does seem to have slipped somewhat from normal standards.

I think the league needs a handful of new stars - Segayaro is a good start - i don't understand why people aren't using the marquee rule.

Standards have been on the downward trend for a fair few years. I would say it is becoming an even competition these days but its evened itself up to become a mediocre competition rather than a quality one across the board imo.

I can't think of a high quality game i have watched this yer TBH, when in days gone by we new there would be a fair few humdingers between Leeds, Bradford, Wigan, Saints and Warrington. All 5 of those sides are a pale shadow of what they were in years gone by and the league is worse for it imo.

There are some serious rose-tinted glasses that come out when people go on about SL like it was miles better five or ten years ago.

It really wasn't, IMO. There were good games, there were bad games, there were ones somewhere inbetween and IMO in about the same proportion.

The quality of RL has declined dramatically in the last few years. To the extent that i would argue our treble winning side is probably only the 3rd or 4th best leeds side since 2004.

There are a few reasons for this.

Low salary cap has meant more players exported and a lower quality imported. You could put together an international quality side of players SL has developed and lost.

Ashton
Charnley
Sarginson
Eastmond
Burgess
Myler
Hardaker
Graham
Hodgson
Burgess
Cooper
Whitehead
Burgess

plus

Burgess
Burgess
McCarthy

secondly the stupid system we have rather than concentrate the limited talent we have from 14 to 12 teams (which should see an increase in quality), actually had the effect of spreading the talent to 15 teams and a few more pretending to be full-time teams. So the same player pool which apparently couldnt support 14 sides, now needs to support 16 sides plus a couple more for competitive purposes.

Some are now, vehemently arguing that we need an additional level so another 150 or so players as a reserves. All this against a back drop of falling participation rates, stopping of expansion, and a retreat of the pro game.

third, this levelling down has created a perception problem. The bigger clubs were so much better than the lesser clubs they could afford to carry a fair few players. Many decidedly average players had very successful careers on the back of their team mates. As the quality has dipped these players have taken a more prominent role and as such their deficiencies become more apparent.

fourth, Youth development is a mess, barely bothered with by many clubs, and the few who have the size and resources to do it properly dont want it done properly, they want to exploit their competitive advantage.

edit: just to add, we also have faaaaar too many games played. Too much wear and tear, too many players being nursed through, to many playing with bumps, strains and bruises.

I think its no coincidence that Leeds, Hudds and Saints have seen huge drop-offs from last year, and even Wigan have limped through the year saved by their depth and structure.

the difference is bad games 5 or 10 years ago where good teams destroying poor ones in uncompetitive games and good games were good sides playing well in competitive games.

Now bad games are bad teams playing poorly and getting destroyed by average sides, and good games are two poor teams playing poorly in a competitive game


the last two leeds games have been close exciting encounters against the two top teams in SL, i didnt come away from those games thinking wow, what a game, i came away thinking how are these two teams top of the league? both looked average at best and were beaten by a poor leeds team playing ok.

I can see where you ar coming from this year though I will admit that Leeds's fall from grace HAS coloured my opinion to some extent with me personally.

I suppose with no 1 / 2 dominant teams this year and the likes of Wakefield,Catalans even Salford picking up some credible wins and indeed "everyone beating everyone else" with exceptions of ourselves and sHudds it has seemed a bit.... um.... flat.

I watch as much rugby as I can on TV and there have been very few standout games this year, so few in fact I cant easily list any here.

Part of this I feel is the dreadful level of injuries to teams this year, robbing them of players for games on end, (Cas, sHudds) has deeply affected the quality of games and the other is just a feeling that the game as a whole has just gone a tad stale. That being said, im sure the fans of Hull FC and Warrington arnt complaining that they have there moment in the sun after a slog of a season and maybe thats just my bias shining through.

The fact that (swallows angst) Wigan have managed to stay in the hunt despite being wracked with injuries to key playmakers is testament to them, as much as we may not like to admit it, they have performed and we have underperformed when faced with adversity.

All in all, not a classic season (so far) but heres hoping that with teams getting players back and the prospect of some new faces around the trophies that all this malaise is forgotten.

Is anyone really surprised with the likes of McDermott, Cunningham, Wane and (formerly) Anderson at the helm at some of the bigger clubs?

Super league now is at least a genuinely even competition. Only 6 wins seperate being in the relegation battle and playing for a place in the grand final.

The quality in super league has always been poor, it's just 10 years ago it wasn't very even either. People look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Oh you think it was brilliant when we had likes of Tim Jonkers, john stankevitch et al winning medals galore, with barely any challengers and the likes of halifax propping up the table? Everyone was sh*t back then bar bradford. Leeds, huddersfield warrington castleford salford widnes hull. Getting really bored of hearing the ''the quality now is worse then ever blah blah blah''. Every man and his dog is trotting out that opinion.

I think people are overly negative. Last year's treble winners have been bottom for much of this season that shows how close the competition is.

I always think when you look at the fixture list that tells the story. You look at the teams and basically judge the games on recent encounters and how the teams have performed in other games.

A decade ago, you'd look at the fixture list and basically see should win, should win, should win, should win, title clash, should win, dodgy one, should win, title clash.

Now what do you see? You see games against wigan, warrington, saints, hull, catalans castleford, huddersfield. The larger majority of fixtures now you look at and think ''that'll be tough''.

The top teams were better, far better imo.

How do you really judge it though? On the players they had and how they performed at their best? They had a much easier time of it because back then a lot of teams rolled over and died. The top teams could cruise for weeks on end and then get up for the games against their rivals when they came around, producing high quality clashes.

Do you judge Usain Bolt on the times he broke world records or the heats when he didnt get below 10 seconds?

I don't judge usain bolt.

Nor do you understand rhetorical questions it seems.

possibly. I just don't see no real quality like Saints 2003-2010 Leeds 2004-2011 Wigan 2000-2003 and 2010-2013 Warrington 2009-2012 Bradford 1999-2003 Hull 2005-2006

Those sides above were real quality teams and spanned over each others era therefore creating some awesome matches. IMO any of those teams above would have walked this current SL.

If we're judging competitions, then surely the measure would be how many people got under 10 seconds rather than what just one athlete did?