I agree with the 10 team SL and 5 team PO with the league winner going straight through to the final. The only problem is 2 v 5 could be 10-12 pts difference but for team 2 if they lost they'd be out. No second chances. But it would still probably be an improvement on the current system.

10 teams, everyone plays each other three times meaning 27 games. 13 at home, 13 away and 1 magic weekend. Some teams you'll play home twice, others away twice.

But what about relegation/ promotion? Scrap it I guess but it would mean demoting the likes of Widnes (again), Castleford, Wakefield, London, Bradford or Salford? Seems harsh on those teams. But the likes of Bradford and Salford financially suffering, would a drop to 'Super League 2' be the final nail in the coffin?

An interesting thread this. Although some replies have been rather embarrassing - eg 'he's moaning because Saints aren't winning anything, blah blah blah'.

Whether the standard is any better/worse than 5/10/100 years ago is the wrong question to be asking if we want to improve the game. There's no reason to be stuck in the past and the fixation with it is probably part of the reason why the sport seems to be standing still.

What we, and Wilkin, should be writing/talking about is the future and how we can improve the sport by making it financially sound, making attendances rise etc which will make RL a successful sport. There is a lot of doom and gloom about currently (mostly coming from our 6 fingered friends in Wigan) and although we will not have the imports and we will lose a couple of high profile players to other leagues/sports, there is a basis to work from if we can get the governance and structure right.

Agreed - Wilkin moans all the time, the fact that Saints haven't won a trophy for years has got nothing to do with that.

Re your last para, which again I agree with, my point is that if Wilkin must drone on, it would be good to hear him say what, say, 3 things he would do to change the sport and make some of those things happen. I suspect he doesn't because one of the answers will be to reduce the number of clubs in SL which will put some members of League 13 out of work. When he becomes a FT mouth piece, he is even less likely to look at it objectively.

2 doesn't play 5 in week 1 of the old top 5 system. 2 plays 3, loser gets second chance against winner of 4 V. 5. This is definitely the fairest system, and the only one that adequately rewards league position, without creating any potentially silly situations for clubs that finished higher.

I've a (sighted crazy) theory that 5th is quite a good place to finish, and arguably better than 3rd or 4th. Whilst 4th can lose a game, it's only in week one, when they play a team 3 places higher. Whilst 5th are in 'sudden death' all the way, week 1 they're at home to a team from the bottom half of the table. Week 2, yes they have to play away, but only to the team that finished one place above them, that have got a hiding (usually) from the best team in the league the previous week, whilst they have momentum from a (usually comfortable) win. Faced with that, do people really see finishing 4th as better than 5th?

Whilst a 10 team comp would certainly be more competitive, it just feels too small a league to me-I'd compromise at 12, which also means you've gotta be able average to make the play-offs (5th out of 10 might still have lost more games than they've won). Plus I'd struggle with which 4 teams should go-that's over a quarter of current SL clubs you'd have to demote.

Unfortunately players are sometimes asked for their opinions on these things, and will give it. Wilkin has led calls for players to have more of a voice , and in some matters they should. However, I don't think they're best placed to make the calls needed to make the game stronger. That said, I'm not sure that the current administrators are either, and the governance structure of the sport is one aspect that is rarely debated, but is the root cause of the issue. Theoretically, let's say that it could be proven that a 10 team SL was the right way to go-at present you'd have to have a majority of SL clubs vote for it-turkeys and Christmas anyone?

I'm not saying this is easily solved, but looking at this would help more than getting Wilkin's ideas on what we should do differently.

Nailed it.

The point I'm making is that Wilkin doesn't offer any opinion, certainly not in the BBC article we're discussing. "Down with this sort of thing" "Something must be done" is the sum total of his input.

It's clear to me that the game cannot sustain 14 FT professional clubs. There isn't enough money in the game to do that. Market forces dictate it must contract or, alternatively, we need to get more money in. How do we do that? Increase crowds, TV deals and sponsorship. How do we do that? Bit of consistency with our international calendar, better TV scheduling, employ proper marketing people (to the extent we don't already, dunno). We had a debate on this board a few month's ago about increasing the salary cap to raise standards and keep players from leaving. Madness. Sam Tomkins is a jewel in the RL crown but if we can't afford to keep him as a sport then he should go.

All of the above may be absolute drivel. It doesn't matter, it's an opinion. The point is that Wilkin hasn't even bothered doing that and he keeps getting the chance to. He ought to seize it or bore off.

Standards in the British game are undoubtedly dropping and you'd need to be a fool to argue otherwise. The precipitous decline in the quality of backs just in the last decade in particular is frightening. The (probably) best halfback in the game is pushing into his mid 30s and wasn't good enough to play for a top team 10 years ago. The biggest club in the game is being forced to rely on Smith and Green, the very definition of average journeymen, to move them around the park for the next few years as there is simply noone any better available. You'll be stuck relying on Myler to do the same soon for the same reason. We, a top 2 trophy-challenging side next year most likely, will be relying on a mixture of raw, unproven teenage kids and well past-their-best veterans in our backline and we'll still probably be better off there than all but a couple of other teams. How many top sides continue to be forced to field SRs as centres because there are no quality centres available?

The only thing that's really changed is that we don't have Aussies and Kiwis over here masking the problem.

Ignoring the larger problems of the game, I'm quite happy to be relying on Myler, who will be England's first choice half back within a couple of years

The only thing that's changed is that 10-15 years ago England had Long, Martyn, Sculthorpe, Farrell, Harris, Deacon, Smith, Goulding (just about) and Briers to choose from (among others). Now, as you say, they're looking to the future with Myler... The defence rests your honour...