Thanks for all the comments.

We originally launched League Express because of the lack of coverage in the national newspapers on Monday mornings.

Since then our audience is very much Monday orientated. All our market research suggests that to come out on any other day would lose readers. In fact I get a lot of emails from people who say that League Express is one of the things that makes their return to work on Monday morning a bit more tolerable.

On the question of content, I do take the point about analytical discussion about the game. One of the problems, however, is that current coaches are very reluctant to talk about and reveal their tactical approach to games, which they regard as akin to state secrets.

Having said that, I think we may have someone coming on board for Rugby League World who has the right experience and would prove to be very capable of writing some great analyses of some of the bigger games.

Generally speaking, in League Express we have to try to satisfy the fan who is only interested in his or her team at one level, right through to the kid who is playing for an Under-9s team and wants to read the results of all the teams in his or her league. And one of the things that has happened in recent years is that the game has expanded, with new clubs at all levels of the game all demanding coverage.

It's quite a challenge!

And that's before you factor in the current economic situation that affects us and any other business.

I remember when there were two issues. The Friday one covered what had happened in the week and did superb previews to the weekend ahead.

TotalRL, or something along those lines? A3 but folded down into an A4 form on the shelves. It was excellent.

Can I just say it takes a certain type of person to come onto a message board like this and answer critics.

Hopefully some of the comments/ suggestions we have made will make it into the paper. If just one does then this entire thread has been worthwhile. Whoever said "Well what would you do?" deserves credit for turning it on it's head.

Glad to hear you're looking at doing more in this area. I would argue that you don't necessarily need a current coach to start revealing their plays to LE but a coach with some recent high level experience could give more of an insight then we get at the moment.

For example in the Guardian they have David Pleat analysing soccer tactics and it gives a more detailed appreciation. Perhaps if you have someone coming on board with the right experience they could do that. I can think of a number of angles they could look at:

They could analyse the gamebreaking play of the week, showing what happened and why it worked and point out the various aspects of attack and defence. This would need to be in more detail than, "player x outpaced player y" obviously.

It may be a particular facet of the game that's the key to a win such as winning the ruck, this is such an important area in the game nowadays yet there's never any in depth analysis about what we see. We get the basics but a bit more detail of [uhow[/u teams win the wrestle, dominate the collision, apply good footwork etc would be interesting.

Another article could cover set moves and how these have changed over time. Is it me or do all SL sides now operate a similar backline move with the playmaker switching the ball to an attacking line behind the one facing the defence? Why the lack of variety these days? I can think of heaps of attacking plays from the past that we never see now, perhaps some coach could give us insight in why?

Just a few ideas. I have many more!

It's ironic that Martyn Sadler is being accused of stating the obvious, because I remember the times not so long a go when Mr. Sadler had some novel ideas on Rugby League. Amongst others, there was the time when IIRC, he debated the possible removal of the knock on law. I did'nt agree with him all the time, but he generally had something interesting and provocative to say.

Generally I think Sadler is a good RL hack who commands a deal of gravitas. There are times in the past when he has frustrated me when trying to defend hairbrained RFL attempts at 'xpanshun', or by trying to masquerade his opinions as 'common sense,' but his articles are generally the ones I turn to when I open the paper.

The old Sadler file was a pretty good read, even if you disagreed with its content.

The problem with any sort of RL writing is that the organisation that runs the game has disolved itself of any credibility so any sort of story on the game is like talking about someones mother. Everyone is touchy on the subject, and inevitably RL hourno's cop some stick.

That said, I think Martyn is wrong when he seems to think the magical cure to our game is marketing. It is the very credibiility of the RFL which is always in the doldrums that ruins our brand and hence our appeal, but that is another topic for another day.

That's the fella.

NRL Tactics did a great job of that sort of thing last year. Shame we could only watch it over here using nefarious means.

Agreed. Well done MS!

Chris Irvine please note. Your approach does you little credit.

Quote Bullseye="Bullseye"For example in the Guardian they have David Pleat analysing soccer tactics <snip> '" And today they've got the rl equivalent. Not the most insightful, but credit for trying. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/graphic ... urne-storm

Quote Bullseye="Bullseye"For example in the Guardian they have David Pleat analysing soccer tactics <snip> '" And today they've got the rl equivalent. Not the most insightful, but credit for trying. www.guardian.co.uk/sport/graphic ... urne-storm

Much preferred the old Sadler he was more interesting then. The new Sadler and I think it is Danny Lockwood of League Weekly have gone too egoistic and come across with a minority viewpoint. It's as though they have to write something different or controversial to draw attention to themselves, or maybe its because they do not want to upset the admin at red hall.