But this is a discussion about the quality of the league - and I maintain that Starbug was spot on; the game as a spectacle is reduced in quality because of the evolution of how it is played. And that's happened because certain tactics were introduced to stifle the opposition, and they were allowed to continue unchecked - to the point where every team now coaches their players specifically to slow the game down using various underhand, rule-dodging tactics.

And I disagree - they are doing it because they can get away with it; your much touted player drain/salary cap argument might indeed represent the loss of some big name players, but the biggest issue with the game as a spectacle is that it's almost impossible to play open, free-flowing rugby with any regularity. Burgii and Tomkins going to the NRL has not left SL players with a sudden inability to execute basic skills.

But you are both simply wrong. Those tactics arent underhand or rule-dodging, they are plain and obvious, and when executed well, simply good defence, and when countered good offence.

Our problem isnt the nefarious furriners coming over here and cheating, its the league as a whole not being able to play with sufficient skill. Our players arent good enough to execute good defence, not good enough to execute good offence.

British players arent struggling, and the british game isnt struggling because of those swarthy foreigners cheating, its struggling because the best players dont play in SL, inferior ones do, because most clubs still only really pay lip-service to youth development, because youth RL is still fat dads screaming from the sideline to give it the big lad, because the player-pool has stagnated, because the ideas, tactics, implementation, sports science, facilities, are years behind the curve.

And again, they don't get away with it. There are huge numbers of penalties these days. Players are punished for it. That the opposition often isnt good enough to turn that in to points is down to the quality of players, not the quality of referees. Give us the best referees possible, refereeing perfectly, these players arent suddenly world class.

It wasn't so long back that I'd argue that although the NRL was objectively better, SL was often more entertaining. Of course, that was in the hey-day of the wrestling with the Melbourne Storm. And, as noted upthread, SL copies the NRL a few years behind. But the NRL have largely got past that now, and a much better watch has resulted. Let's hope we catch up on that score soon. But I'm not holding my breath.

Attacking skills are very poor this season. Too many balls going to ground, very poor reading of the game but by far the biggest issue is lack of work off the ball.

Very occasionally a team will put a defence under pressure with attackers runing lines and a half back hitting the pass. As somebody mentioned earlier SOL stating Brisbane didn't do anything new, they just did it very well (and much more often).


We have focused too much on the defences and not enough on attack. Too many basic errors- I'd love to see the stats for errors this season

Players aren't able to execute even basic skills consistently.

Despite all it's flaws, when I watch international RU I can see well drilled teams who can execute their skills consistently well.

I'm astounded at the number of errors I've seen this season.

On top of all that we have poor refereeing standards and a useless governing body that is happy tinkering with gimmicks rather than addressing the root problems of our sport.

I reckon this season is an all time high for knock ons and uncompleted sets, also I wouldn't be surprised if the gap between "kicking trys" and "passing trys" has gone wider in favour of the kicking plays. Its a very stop start rugby game these days with each half taking 45+ minutes, televised games take a bit longer heading towards a 10-00pm finish.

I don't disagree with your comments here, but I think a contributory factor is the overly policed obstruction rule which is now in the game. A dummy runner merely touching a player in the defensive line is pinged for obstruction even if the tackling defender has committed themselves as they have bought that dummy. its the equivalent of soccer referees protecting goalkeepers.

The obstruction rules reached a new low on Friday evening with the Penalty against Danny Washbrook.

The skill level across the board in Super League isn't great. We're suffering from a lack of quality. That's not to say that the players coming through now are worse than they were a few years ago, it's just that clubs are putting more and more young players into Super League (seen by many as a good thing) yet the poor standard of under 19's rugby means many would not have been considered ready just a few years ago. Young players aren't developing as fast as they should be.

The so called big clubs now seem to be weaker than in previous years, but can get away with it because they still generally have the strongest academy sides and greater strength in depth.

The big difference between the NRL and Super League used to be that NRL had intense games very frequently and teams always had to play to a high level. In Super League there would be some big games between the big clubs played at a high intensity but they couldn't necessarily maintain that week in week out and largely they didn't have to. This season there have been barely any high intensity big games. Most of the games you'd really get excited to watch have been dull or riddled with errors. The clubs at the top of the league have been too inconsistent, dropping points in games they should be winning easily, playing well one week and playing badly the next.

The league is perhaps more open than it has been for a while. Imports are spread a little more evenly across the league and the best aren't necessarily concentrated at the top clubs any more.

Perhaps there's also a lack of innovation too. Not many new ideas and some people in top jobs who aren't quite as tactically astute as you would expect. Love him or loathe him, Michael Maguire was certainly innovative at Wigan and it forced clubs to react and adapt. At the moment things are perhaps just a little bit stale on the coaching front too.

And yet we keep on reducing the size of the top flight to create more intense games ?
We used to have a 16 club top flight, then 14, then 12, briefly back to 14 and now back to 12, with the big clubs wanting to reduce to 10.
This process hasn't worked and it seems clear that the big 4 just want a larger slice of the Sky cake.

What we have done is to cut the total numbers of full time professional players and bearing in mind that players develop at different times/speed, is to shrink the talent pool and the downward spiral continues.

We have to "sell our game" much harder and realise a better value when negotiating TV rights and stop "giving away" tickets to the big events.

Improved marketing and encouraging ticket sales through the clubs would be a step in the right direction

When we cut the league to 12, we didnt cut the number of prop clubs to 12. We increased it by one and another 4 or 5 who are playing at being fulltime.

Rather than concentrate the talent as you would expect a cut in numbers to, the new structure and increased funding to lower clubs, along with a stagnant salary cap actually spread that same talent thinner.

No, you're wrong

The old first division was 16 clubs
Super league commenced in 1995 with 12 clubs
Increased from 12 to 14 clubs in 2009
Cut back to 12 clubs in 2014

Yes, the increased funding for finishing in the top 4 of the Championship has muddies the waters, with regards to full time professional clubs but, the reduction from 14 to 12 has done little to ramp up intensity and the fact that the top 4 clubs were just about sorted before the start of this seasons Super 8's has probably reduced the "intensity" in games thus far.

As SmokeyTA says, Super League was reduced from 14 to 12 teams but the number of professional clubs wasn't reduced. The new structure has also allowed Championship clubs to be more ambitious. Leigh have certainly signed up a number of players who could have added depth to Super League. With players continuing to leave for the NRL and clubs promoting from the under 19's we've seen the talent spread out across Super League and in the Championship.

We seem to be getting the 'more competitive' league from the point of view that two previously top teams (Leeds and Huddersfield) are in the qualifying 8's while Hull are fighting for top spot while Catalans probably would have been too had it not been for injuries. Castleford also could have been up there with better luck on the injury front.

It could be argued that some bigger clubs are stockpiling talent and depriving other Super League clubs from creating enough depth in their squad, although they'd no doubt argue that if they bring so many players through the academy they're entitled to keep who they want. Wigan have 37 professional players under contract next season, and that's assuming Matty Smith goes to Saints. Not sure what the numbers are for other clubs but that seems quite a large squad.

because we havent gone from 14 to 12. London and Bradford stayed full time, leigh joined them. So we went from 14 to 15 and a few who were playing at it.

But that full time element is by no means certain for the future is it ?
Bradford may go part time and London, who knows.

Either way, the top flight is 2 clubs light (4 if you compare back to the old first division), which necessarily shrinks both the talent pool and the opportunity for young players who may want a career in RL.

My poit was that far from increasing intensity in the top flight, the new structure has diminished it, unless you count the games in the Qualifiers ??

And im agreeing with you. Im saying that shrinking the top flight from 14 to 12 should have seen the best players of the two worst clubs distributed amongst the others. Concentrating the talent. It didnt because those two stayed full time, leigh joined them and others could offer more to more players. We have expanded the number of clubs taking from the player pool and not increased the player pool.

Premiership rugby union make an announcement that they are actually going to freeze their salary cap for a couple of years, at £7m. Would be amazed to see us unfreeze ours.

They bring in the sponsorship and tv money by allowing the big teams to spend money and attract the stars. The smaller teams (Sale being one of those) have managed to attract big new sponsors and owners due to being in that league.

Polar opposite of Rugby League where we constrain our clubs (and by god don't the clubs want it. Wouldnt you rather pay your employees less if you ran a business?!?!?!?!) and drag the whole competition level into the gutter. Many of the casual viewers I knew have stopped going to games and watching on tv. What hope to we have of attracting sponsors if these sorts of fans walk away.