Wigan?

No I didn’t

No, it isnt.

SL needs fundamental changes to how teams are put together to even the league out. The SC doesnt do that job, its supposed to but we are a decade down the line, without it going up a penny, and still in the same position. We are in danger of being left behind in a position we cant catch up to either RU or the NRL.

So, on the one hand we have the evidence of the league table suggesting that the SL is getting closer in areas such as the points differences between the top and bottom clubs and the top and 8th place clubs

And on the other hand we have “No, it isn’t”

In my opinion the game is more competitive at the expense of quality and intensity. The Bradford, St Helens, Leeds and Hull of 2002 to 2007 were much better quality than the St Helens, Leeds, Wigan and Warrington of 2008 to 2011. But this competitive improvement in superleague doesn't migrate into the international game though, due to the amount of overseas players.

Is it more competitive? I aint so certain. There are too many blowouts in SL and games lacking the intensity required. The defences are not up to scratch and too often the top sides are not made to work hard to score tries.

I suppose one of the main differences with the NRL is year on year you see different teams in the Grand Final.

2010 St. George Illawarra beat Sydney Roosters
2009 Melbourne beat Parramatta
2008 Manly beat Melbourne
2007 Melbourne beat Manly
2006 Brisbane beat Melbourne
2005 Wests beat Nth Queensland

Superleague

2010 Wigan Warriors beat St Helens
2009 Leeds Rhinos beat St Helens
2008 Leeds Rhinos beat St Helens
2007 Leeds Rhinos beat St Helens
2006 St Helens beat Hull
2005 Bradford Bulls beat Leeds Rhinos

It isnt more competitive, you have shown evidence of this yourself. There is other evidence, such as having 6 clubs concede over 800 points, the 100 points conceded gap between those who made the 8 and those who didnt, the fact the top teams win pretty similar amounts of points over the course of a season.

Are you now in the 2x10 format Smokey, central contracts and central academy contracts?

I agree, I quoted some evidence to suggest that the league was becoming more competitive and some that it is less so. I am certainly in the ‘floating’ group when it comes to making a final decision. I just wanted a slightly more reasoned debate than “no it isn’t”

If I had the time, I would look at the scorelines in the first, second and third thirds of the season to see if the wider scorelines came when the teams with the deeper squads started to dominate

I think next year instead of having 2 or 3 teams clearly ahead. This year Wire and Wigan, previously Saints, Bradford and Leeds. Next year I reckon a strong Wire, Wigan, Saints, Catalans, Huddersfield, Leeds and Hull with competive Cas, Hull KR, Bradford and Salford. I reckon Widnes, London Broncos and Wakey will get smashed though.

With regard to the OP's suggestion that the competition's becoming more competitive I'd suggest that the evidence for this is very flimsy. If you look at the number of points won by the top four in regular rounds over the last 5 years the figures are as follows:

2011: 156
2010: 159
2009: 151
2008: 148
2007: 138

This suggests that, barring a tiny increase this year, teams outside the top four have taken fewer points in recent years, not more as you'd expect were the competition becoming more even.

Apologies, I got broken off between reading your post and responding to it - losing the thread a little in the process.

I don't think there's any doubt that the league would be ultra competitive next year if there were 12 teams instead of 14.

Im not a fan of 2 leagues of 10, I think we have 10 teams who are comfortably able to compete at this level, and a couple more getting there. I think 10 would be too small and a couple of clubs who are going in the right direction would lose that by being relegated. I think 12 was the right number but I think we should stick with 14 now we have it. Those 14 should be in in perpetuity being added to rather than replaced. However the 4 or so clubs we have who are “failling” need clear targets to hit.

Im not a fan of central contracts, I dont see what it acheives other than putting the decision over which players we need in the game in the hands of the RFL rather than the clubs who are paying them. Central academy contracts make even less sense, though I can see the argument in favour of the a central body taking control of youth development but I can also see some downsides.

I think we can do better: Firstly I would cut the Sky grant in half. £600k a season. Clubs can then earn that money back by having players eligible for the home nations in their top 25 earners, between £20k per player that play more than 15 games in a season, and £20k per player who represents one of the home nations (with an expanded international game) that year. In return the RFL would get more access and control over those players. This would encourage teams to look to the other home nations and encourage players to play for the other home nations. It would also reward clubs for good youth development. A club with 20 british players in their top 25 would earn £400k, with the possibility of up to another £400k if they become internationals. Whereas a club with 10 overseas players would only bring in another £200k and have a max of £300k they could earn through internationals.

Secondly I think we need to reformat the SC completely. I don’t think it works, it is far too blunt and instrument. Our players are woefully underpaid, there is no getting around the fact they deserve to be paid more, but we need a competitive league and the disparity in income would make that impossible in a completely free market. WE can look at the “points system” mooted in Australia or things like developed players being off the cap, “marquee allowances” etc because if there is one thing the SC actually does achieve and achieve well its stopping us competing for the very best. I would also get rid of the ridiculous rules around companies sponsoring players, we restrict it when we should be encouraging it as much as possible. We need our players getting more money, its better that that money comes from outside the game and it also has the side-effect of increasing the profile of the players, also a positive. As part of this I would also make all players play a maximum of 22 games a year plus any internationals.

Thirdly I think the RFL need somebody whose sole job is to improve the standard of RL in this country, He needs responsibility for improving the standards of coaching, of sports science, of youth development throughout the game. I would want him doing things like setting up partnerships with universities like Loughborough and Leeds met where the best and brightest in sports science are working with and working toward improving RL players, get their students and their professors unfettered access to top quality professional sportsmen so we are at the very cutting edge, even going further a field to players like America or France. If a sprinting coach at the University of florida has discovered how to increase an athletes speed by 5% using a new training programme, the next person to learn its should be the RFL “director of RL” and I want him delivering a course on it open to all RL clubs (not just SL). I would also want him leading a team of the very best coaches in RL having them work with our Elite players and Youngsters. How is a young winger supposed to learn how to catch an Andrew Johns kick when nobody in England can kick a ball like Andrew Johns? How is Kallum Watkins supposed to learn top quality centre play when he plays opposite Carl Ablett? There is a wealth of experience, a wealth of knowledge and a wealth of talent that Australian youth and Elite players can tap into that our youth don’t. Of the few world class players we did have, even fewer are involved in the game in a capacity where they can pass their knowledge on.

Fourthly, I would look at the actual game itself. Id be really interested to see how a change to 4 x 20mins quarters instead of 2x40min halves would change the game, I think too much of our game focuses too much on stamina. Teams can run away with games and a game is decided and becomes a procession all too often within a 10/15 minute spell. I think 15 min quarters would make the game more attacking, teams would need to take more risks, skill and explosive speed and power would be prised above stamina. It would also, I think keep games closer making them more exciting and an upset more likely.

Until we address these issues I don’t think the league will equal by any great degree