That's just a part of every sport, team or individual. You have the top ones who are always favourites. F1 has McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari. Tennis you can pretty much guarantee any major final will be between Nadal, Federer, Djorkovic and Murray, and of course the aforementioned football with the likes of Man Utd and City, Arsenal, Chelsea etc. Why would rugby league be any different?

Salary cap maybe-Do they do this in soccer, F1 or tennis using your examples

Do Swansea have the same "spend" as Man Utd?

The better players - at least the more ambitious, better players - are always going to end up at the same big clubs where they stand a chance of winning things and playing in front of larger crowds.

Kevin Sinfield said in one of his GF acceptance speeches (I forget which one, there have been so many lately) that a lot of the Leeds players could be on bigger money elsewhere but realise they're playing in a good side with the potential to pick up lots of honours.

Money isn't always the motivating factor in building a successful side, hence the salary cap will never create a truly level competition.

It will be interesting to see what difference UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations (the nearest thing football has to a salary cap) will make the top teams.

Rugby League in "Allocating teams standing based on a specific snap-shot of history" shocker

I wouldn't call the SL era a snap-shot in history. We've had the same 4 teams (plus Hull) in all SL seasons for 17 years now. Granted Warrington look to be the 6th inductee.

I think its taken a few teams a while to get a well structured well planned ahead for the future salary cap in place at their clubs. Some teams had very poorly organised systems in place in the early years of the salary cap and eventually realised that 1 or 2 big signings weren't the answer. Warrington will eventually make the Grand Final debuts soon and I think Hudds and Catalans have a decent chance too in the next 5 years, as well as Hull adding to their single appearance.

I think you can write off the first 6 years of SL as they were little different to what had gone before, in fact only when the level cap was introduced can you count as a benchmark.


And let's look at the clubs at the "top table"
Wigan, saints, Leeds...haven't they ALWAYS dominated RL tables?
Warrington have always been in the top flight, historically Huddersfield were truly one of the elite set (until splitting the league up nearly killed them) and Hull FC have always been regarded as a "big club"

So really, what we see is simply what has always existed for RL...I have a lot of time for Murphy, it was under his stewardship that Huddersfield began their long, long climb off the canvas, but he needs to stop thinking it "was better in my day"

No we haven't.

Bradford were in the top tier and now aren't.

Since Bradford last won anything Wigan have been on the verge of relegation and turned it around to win a title.

Huddersfield were in the lower leagues and are now top of the table.

Leeds were nowhere for years in Super League, and now dominate.

Warrington had won nothing for years and are one of the best teams in the competition.

If Catalans aren't a success then I don't what else to call them.

Hull FC are starting to look like a team of the future and Bradford are turning things around and becoming competitive again. Hull KR and Salford, and to a lesser extent Wakefield and Widnes, have all given glimpses of what they can do.

The competition is in the better health now than any point I can remember. I agree with you that the number of teams that have played GFs is disappointing, but there are three who haven't in Hudds, Wire and Cats who wouldn't look at all out of place there.

Teams are more accustomed to planning their squads in the context of the cap now. The structure of the cap and quotas is encouraging more teams to develop their own youth as the core of their squads. We're moving in the right direction.

Before that it was just Wigan, so that is a significant improvement

and 3 tiers in Super League? Can't see what the problem is.
It's not like no one ever wins across the groups.

They have changed as well with Warrington breaking in and Bradford falling back.
Hudderfield would probably say they are at least on the edge of tier one.

Exactly that; if this same attitude had been taken at other periods in SL history, Wigan, Warrington and Huddersfield would all have been confined to the lower 'tiers' and, self-fulfilling prophecies being what they are, may not have had the opportunity to improve themselves, the game or the communities they serve in the way they have done, for the reasons Andy Gilder has already articulated.

Change is a process, not an event.

This.

Yet more negative backward comments that SL doesn't need when it is (IMO of course) in the strongest health it has ever been in.

Yes some clubs like Salford and London have continually struggled, but even they are now spending full cap and can hope for better times ahead.

Every other club has been in phases of being good, and being rubbish. As others have pointed out, Wigan were almost relegated but came back to win the title and the CC. Hull tasted success and coulden't keep it up, Bradford dominated then faded, Saints have had their run of sucess and now have slipped back and have to re-build.

I think we'll always see sub standard sides until we become Single-Entity.

I suggest that SL is a failure, until every team is exactly comparable in quality to every other team, with no perceptible difference apart from the colour of their jumpers; ideally, every game should be a draw and at the end of the season, everyone finishes first (or last) and the Grand Final is contested by 14 teams on the field at the same time; the winner is decided by the team with the last man standing - a modern day spectacle to rival the 3 day gladiatora munera staged by Marcus Lepidus in 216 BCE.

Only then will SL be a worthy spectacle, and it STILL won't be as good as the NRL.

Now that's just silly