Yep. There are 3 major reasons why the Aussies/NRL are better than us/SL, in my opinion of course:

- The bigger talent pool (In England we have approx 9000 registered active players in the 12-16 age group. Sydney alone has 42,000)
- Feeder clubs/reserves
- Playing fewer games

I think only the top 4 sides get into the challenge cup - and only at the last 8 stage, get rid of MM, a complete waste of time that impacts the fairness of the competition. Reduce SL to 10 teams with top two getting to the GF no play offs. Maximum any team can play is 22 games - mid season break for either internationals or WCC - although WCC at that time of the season could be embarrassing.

Agree with that except the play offs. If you did not have them it might as well just be top champions. Make it top five and have play offs.

Instead of magic weekend have a 9's tournament big style, with lots of media exposure.

Less SL games could work for the likes of those who'll repeatedly make the money-making expanded WCC......but what does only 9 home league games do for those outside that top 4 money wise?

The problem with reducing the number of games is that the clubs need the money. Only 11 games isn't many to bring revenue in.

I'd actually increase the number of games clubs play but reduce the number of games our top players play.

Would devalue the league imo. We already have complaints that we lack 'big names'. If I'm tuning to watch Saints or Warrington I want to watch the likes of Roby, Clark and Hill play.....not sat on the sidelines because of some number of games played quota.

But if those big name players are knackered through being overplayed then the league's effectively devalued anyway.

I agree it's not ideal, but none of the alternatives are either.

The alternatives are:
- As we are - England's top players continue to play 10-15% more games than Australia's (in the last 10 years Sinfield has played more than an entire season extra than Cameron Smith).
- A reduction in games - less money for clubs, less TV money, less money overall.

I understand the point and in a way agree with it. In an ideal world I'd want a straight 22-game season. But I don't think the clubs can manage on that.

A few comparisons of amount of home games:
- Say a straight 22-game season with top 6 playoff system and the Challenge Cup = min 11, max 15
- Current system = min 14, max 18
- Aviva Premiership clubs = min 16, max 21
- Premier League clubs = min 19, max 33

A point I always find that gets overlooked when comparing the teams, especially in contests like these is the differences in salary caps. With the difference in what the NRL teams are allowed to spend it shouldn't be a shock if the teams who finish bottom in the NRL can beat or run close the top teams in superleague. They are allowed to spend more on their squads so it's surely no surprise they can have more players of higher quality within their teams? We're immediately on the backfoot with contests like these.

Absolutely. Take the islanders out of the NRL and there is a significant drop off in physicality. It's another advantage they have when you compare their talent pool includes a good amount of massive islanders and ours includes a good amount of skinny kids from council estates.


OT but I wonder, with the NRL's seemingly ever-increasing TV revenue, whether some of the NRL's money could go toward establishing some kind of Pacific Island League to try and increase the standard of the clubs there without having to get them up to the standard required in order to enter the NRL. A couple of clubs in each of PNG, Fiji, Samoa & Tonga? Sort of like Super 15's but for the Pacific Island nations rather than Aus/NZ/SA

Because there's no incentive for the NRL to give Islander kids a reason not to come to Australia.

To be fair, most of the islanders whom get signed up by the NRL are already based in Australia or were born there.