So for anyone else struggling slightly with the inconsistent and unhelpful evidence, or sometimes not given(~), and lack of deductions from above here is what was stated (haven't actually checked these)>2/3 Playoff Years
St George 82% Correct
Brisbane 82% Correct
Melbourne 73% Correct
------------
1/2<Playoff Years<2/3
Easts 64% Correct
New Zealand 64% Correct
Manly 64% Overrated
Parramatta 55% Underrated
Canterbury 55% Correct
Newcastle 55% Underrated
Canberra 55% Underrated
------------
Playoff Years<1/2
Gold Coast 40% Correct
Cronulla 36% Correct
North Queensland 36% Correct
Wests 27% Overrated
Penrith 27% Correct
Souths 10% Correct

Seems to me that the statement was a bit too biased towards recent events rather than the time series of 11 years chosen, meaning Manly/Wests seem overrated, Parra, Newcastle and Canberra underrated they've been abysmal recently). Other wise it seems fairly spot on from general positional point of view, though remember that the 14/15/16 team competition changes do give some overestimation of teams earlier in the time series.

I'd say the groupings were reasonablyfair

Well, thanks for that Bovrick.

I knew Keith would be on to spend his worrying amounts of spare time to big up the NRL as he does on every thread, but even though he chose a time period to suit his own argument he still appears to have failed. He can retreat to the Leeds board now and get back to saying every team in SL is crap.

Making claims that Melbourne, Brisbane, Manly and St George finish in the Top 5 in the NRL season after season when those clubs have finished in those positions 55%, 63%, 45% and 45% of the time respectively since 2001 does not back up your argument.

Making claims that Wests, Warriors, Roosters and Bulldogs usually make the playoffs but are not serious contenders is a ridiculous assertion considering that those clubs have finished in those positions 27%, 63%, 55% and 55% of the time respectively, where three of them have won the NRL comp and the other has reached the GF on two occasions since 2001 does not back up your argument.

Making claims that Newcastle, Canberra, Penrith, North Queensland, Gold Coast, Cronulla, and Parramatta are merely scrapping it out for a play-off place is a ridiculous assertion considering those clubs have finished in those positions 55%, 55%, 27%, 36%, 40%, 36% and 55% of the time respectively does not back up your argument. Nor does the fact that two of those clubs have won the competition, two others have reached the GF (one of them twice) and another has made the semi finals on three occasions since 2001.

You were right about Souths - that's about it - well done.

The NRL has established 9 different clubs winning the competition since 2001, along with a further 3 who reached the Grand Final. That may not constitute as a competitive league in Just Browny's world but it constitutes a very competitive league by other rational standards.

Cas finished bottom in 2008, finished 7th making the playoffs in 2009. Granted, that we had no chance of contesting in the grand final.


Generally speaking though Keithy, I get what you're getting at, the nrl is (generally) more competitive, there are far less blowout scores week in week out.

Not denying that the NRL is more competitive at all, it clearly is. Missed the top 5 statement/relevance so yeah, definitely wrong on that, other than Melbourne and Brisbane usually/mostly/more-often-than-not making the top 5. For what it is worth, it is also worth bearing in mind factors such as the NRL's shorter seasons and thus inconsistent ones, much moreso than in SL. Shorter seasons allow slightly more random results to surface, each individual match is worth more so the 'shocks' that happen make more impact on the table. Longer seasons will sort the rankings of teams more effeciently with respect to ability than shorter ones (whether or not changes in ability throughout a season is another matter factored into this I suppose).

The inconsistent fixture lists should also give an illusion of teams being able to rise and fall more each year. Imagine, say, Hull KR over here having to play Warrington, Wigan, St. Helens, Leeds, Huddersfield etc last year twice, and the weaker teams once, then the next year having double fixtures against Widnes, London and so on. They will do better the second year even if they don't get any better by virtue of the fixture list, there is an illusion of greater change. I'd say this factor will play some role in the apparent greater rises and falls year on year in the NRL, but I really cannot be bothered fetching the evidence, so Keith if you would be so kind? You seem to enjoy it

FWIW, the Superleague equivalent. To keep it relatively fair, it is on table position (so including point deductions etc). Furthermore, each are only by the seasons they competed in SL. Finally, the % is against the equivalent for a playoff in the NRL each year it contrasts with in the other % list. So since GC entered I'll count top half, when it was only 14 teams (2001) for 8 playoff places, top 6 still in SL etc etc...

St Helens - 100%
Leeds - 100%
Wigan - 82%
Bradford - 73%
Hull FC - 64%
Hull KR - 60%
Warrington - 55%
Huddersfield - 40%
Catalan - 33%
London - 27%
Castleford - 22%
Wakefield - 18%
Salford - 11%
Crusaders - 0%
Widnes - 0%
Leigh - 0%
Halifax - 0%

Relagation or new teams tend to live around the bottom, traditionally strong teams around the top. Not surprising at all really. Maybe the closed shop helps with competitiveness or just the generally closer nature in financial power etc of the teams over there.