Although they are still wanting to pay through the nose for RL stars

I played for them when they were called West Park Old Boys.

Many years later I coached Mini's and Juniors at Harrogate, for 9 years, where there are 18 sides in total: 6 senior sides, Junior Colts, Ladies, 4 Junior sides (13-16 yrs), 6 Mini-rugby sides (7-12). The excellent Junior/Mini section has over 300 youngsters training/playing every Sunday morning and the club run one of the best Junior Mini Rugby Festivals each year and the Under 15's side have just won the Yorkshire Championship. The Harrogate club was established in 1871 almost a quarter of a century before Rugby League was born.

Similar set ups are to be found all over Yorkshire (and the rest of the country too) and are run with tremendous enthusiasm and dedication. These are not rah rah establishments but cover the whole spectrum of society with poorer kids not expected to pay any subs. Many Mini rugby coaches are recruited from parents who have no previous rugby background who are then trained to become qualified coaches. This level of investment in time and money not only produces players for the club, county and country but equally importantly produces in each generation a deep, lifelong love of the game which in turn brings money back into the game through ticket sales, sponsorship and millionaire benefactors.

League could learn much from this.

How many times did Leeds hold Salford up over the line? At least 3, maybe 4.

The commitment currently in defence is monumental, even McGuire tracked back to stop what looked a dead certain try and took a knock in the process. Everyone's digging in and having a go.

WTF are you talking about?

Exactly what I said.

You pointed out the crowds that watched and the interest. I agreed, and just stated the obvious, that despite a predictable league, where the same three teams have being in the top four for the last three years, and a product on the field that produces no excitement, crowds have not gone down and the interest is still high.

Therefore why should league have to worry about the top teams in it's league, when only one club has appeared three years on the trot in the top four.

Jesus. You've been posting this rubbish so long now you just can't tell how bad it is.

Currently sat in my hotel room scoffing a whole lemon drizzle cake to myself (is supposed to last three days but I doubt it somehow) and sipping an ice cold lager.

Lager and lemon cake, its how it should be.

Unintentionally you raise good point because amateur RU clubs have always done well from Junior players moving from amateur RL clubs (or at least since the days when they started to allow it to happen), the club that I am loosely associated with has a constant trickle of absconding RL players from the very junior ranks that my brother coaches at to the second XV where there has been a big influx this season - certainly in the junior ranks the usual cause stated is offensive attitudes in the amatuer RL game from coaches to supporters, that and a lack of game time or interest in just getting juniors to play the game whatever their level of skill.

That's exactly what I did as a player and it's what I regularly see happening now as a coach. Either that or players leaving amateur RL and going to other sports or dropping out of sport altogether.
As a player I just wanted to enjoy myself, I didn't want a fight and I didn't want to be in an aggressive environment.
So I didn't enjoy amateur RL but thoroughly enjoyed amateur RU. If my parents hadn't been so steeped in RL I would probably now be watching, coaching and putting my money into Union rather than League.

So you didn't say that union is getting big crowds? Pointing out specifically a capacity crowd at twickenham, in response to my post?

Make up your mind. It's only on the other page. Not hard.

Just on the "obsessed with low scores" drivel FlexWheeler went on about, In my personal opinion, low scores are a direct result of a higher standard of play. Thats where the whole "low score" thing comes from. The best Super League game I have ever seen was the game against Saints where we lost 10-8 at KR and Webb was held up by Gidley in the dying seconds. It had nothing to do with the fact the game was 10-8. It was because defences were so damn good in that game that it took something special to score and that's how it should be.

Every Broncos game I have been to over here this season has been decided in the dying minutes and the highest score was 25-12 where the Eels scored in the last few seconds to seal it. The only 2 games from the UK I have seen of that standard so far have been Leeds/Hudds and Leeds/Saints. All these were low scoring games but again, it has nothing to do with the fact they were low scoring. It's that all the teams involved were that good defensively it took a special play to break the opposition down.

Flex, you can have your 52-12 or your 42-20 scorelines though because you are of the opinion that it gives you value for money, even though it isnt the case and those sort of games are actually boring as hell.

The unpredictability of the result in the final quarter is what matters most.

I'd agree though that in most games where one team (or both) have crossed more than half a dozen times it's been lacking somewhat in the required intensity even if the scores are close.

One of my most favourite games of the SL Era was also V St Helens - the 2003 Challenge Cup semi-final - and that ended 33 - 26 and contained nine tries. Re-watched that game many more times than the two try 10 - 8 defeat in 2007.