There is a distint lack of consistency and intensity in superleague. Quite a few teams winning by up to 30 pts then losing by up to 30 points a week or two after.
Wigan are the best this year because they are maintaining consistent form similar to Warrington last year. If we had quite a few more teams holding form over a longer period then games would become more intense, this would mean more competition and perhaps less match points difference between top and bottom.

Wasn't the Warrington excuse for failing last year that they'd won too many easy games and therefore lost in the playoffs because another team unfairly played well? Maybe HKR decided to employ similarly underhand tactics this year, only earlier!!!.... tut, tut

Same clubs currently occupy the Top 8 play-off places who finished there last season, though that could temporarily change this evening if Bradford win - but they won't maintain that position.

It'll be the same Top 8 clubs in the play-offs as last season. Aside from a few minor differences in placings between clubs within the Top 8 compared to last season, it'll still be similar. At least 3 of last season's Top 4 will again finish in the Top 4 and similarly at least 3 of last season's 5th to 8th placed clubs will finish between 5th and 8th... again!

So yes - the lack of genuine competition in Super League continues unabated.

We need not bother with regular round fixtures which are a waste of time. 27 rounds of bollox to determine the 8 clubs we all know are going to qualify for the Top 8.

The nature of RL is that there is always going to be blow out scores especially when facing teams such as Wigan and Warrington who may out skill you as well as out power you.

RL isn't like football where you can just put 10 men behind the ball and hope for the best.. Having to defend on your line is tiring and a good team will always find away through. 5 teams in with a chance of winning SL surely that's great news.

This to me is the biggest problem. Year on year I don't think the teams outside the top 8 are getting stronger. The gap between top and bottom doesn't seem to be decreasing so something isn't working.

That's an opinion I hear a lot, but I just don't think it's true. There's no reason why both sides can't be fit, strong and disciplined enough to defend well for 80 minutes. Both at holding their line and at the ruck / marker.

You mean like the permier league where the top two will be the Manchester clubs. Chelsea Tottenham Arsenal will come next. With the rest following. Why would anybody watch a league so preidctable. Think the rest should just give up and call it the Manchester league.

Name me a league where the bottom team aren't that far off the top teams.

The NRL.

Not quite true, but good try.

Wigan - 1.625 points per game
london - 0.25 points per game
difference - 1.375 points per game

storm - 2 points per game
eels 0.5 - points per game
difference - 1.5 points per game

Although the NRL award points for 'bye' weeks, the difference remains the same when you take the points awarded for a bye away. It's also worth considering the team second bottom beat the team top of the league in Super League.

I'm pretty sure NRL clubs finishing bottom (or near the bottom) in the NRL one season have made the Top 8 a season later and in some instances contested the Grand Final or even won it.

Not a chance of that happening in SL.

Ah yes, Wigan, Warrington, Catalans, Huddersfield and Hull FC, permanently top of the table since Super League began. Sorry but this idea of a stagnant SL is a myth only believed by a handful of posters on RLFans. Over the years almost all teams have either improved and risen to better success, or declined and suffered periods of failure.

Just look at how much better the sharks, bulldogs and south Sydney are this year. Even the titans who finished bottom last year are not too far away from the top 8 at the moment.

In terms of points the difference between top and bottom may be similar with superleague but in real terms the games week on week are much more competitive.

Only RL fans would beat themselves up over competitive results.
Only Wigan have a 100% win record over the last 8 rounds.
Warrington L 3/8
Hudds L 4/8
Catalans L 2/8
Hull L3 D1 / 8
Saints L2 D1 / 8
Rovers L3/8
Leeds L5 /8


At this time last year Warrington were ' unbeatable ' and Wigan a close 2nd, neither made the Grand Final.

Hardly predictable

I think that's the case with some of them but not all. Hadn't St George not won a GF for a hundred years or something when they won it a couple of years back? Also, although the Eels were beaten Grand Finalists three years ago, I think they have only won two games so far this season.

And one team was beaten 50 points to something in single figures this week in the NRL. If you read the trade press each week you find out that there are a goodly number of blow out scores in the NRL too. You won't get 70 to anything; but 50 to something-in-single-figures is still a blow out score by anyone's reckoning IMO.

And man some of their games are dull with precious little skill on offer.

Having watched the NRL on a weekly basis for the first time this season I think a lot of the hype around the NRL is misplaced.

Fair point. I suppose my issue is more with the top 8 playoff system rather than the league as a whole. The final league table will show us how competetive the league really is