I'd generally agree with sally c's overview, except there are too many games in SL where the losing side has clearly thrown in the towel half way through the game. Most of the cricket scores we see can be blamed entirely on the losing team giving up any serious attempts to continue defending for the full game (including Leeds a few times last year - some of the 'defence' against Wigan would have embarrassed an U12's side). That's an attitude that ALL clubs (including players and fans as well as coaches) ought to find unacceptable.

The overall decline in quality is down to reduced imports from the NRL and before that RU. Right now there is a real lack of quality imports across the competition (plus a few high profile departures to RU and the NRL).

The question is does this represent a permanent lowering of standards, or will things pick up once all clubs get used to having to produce their own players to make up the core of their team, and so have to focus on youth development?

The reason I ask is that if we can produce enough better young players, then standards will lift back to where they were, although it will take a few years. If we can't then standards are destined to drop even further as the few remaining quality overseas players retire.

My own view is that some of the current crop of young backs around SL (far better than a few years ago) suggests that it is possible, but I'm not sure that we won't have to decide to reduce SL to 12 if we want a long-term sustainable quality SL.

Unfortunately it is going to just be a lowering of standards. The Aussies have far more players at every level of the game so they have a much bigger pool of potential talent. In SL, I think most clubs actually do quite a lot in terms of junior development. It's an easy line to say clubs will be forced to do more to bring through young talent, but I'm not sure what more they will do.

We might find that semi decent but not that great young players, that in the past would not have been able to establish themselves as SL first team regulars and would end up in the NL, will now be more in demand by the clubs and will have a better bargaining position in terms of wages.

I think one problem in Britain with the quality of all sport is that most people's involvement in it only goes as far as the nearest X box or whatever the latest gadget is hence the lack of home grown improvement .
BTW i believe there is a BBC Inside Out programme on next Monday at 7 pm about or containing an article on rugby league & the state of the game.

Without wishing to derail this thread, the key to changing attitudes to regular season games might just lie in the perception of what makes a Champion team? Finishing top after 27 rounds has got to matter more IMO

Changing the playoffs only really affects incentives to a few clubs around the margins,

if you scrap the playoffs, then it makes every league game count for the top 2 or 3 clubs, but for the rest its much of a muchness, finish 4th or finish 7th does it really matter much?

if you make it a top 5, then it means the competition becomes more intense for the clubs from around 3 to 7, but doesn't really affect the top 2 or lower clubs

as a top 8, it really just makes the competition more intense for the clubs from around 6 to 10

in the days before SL came in everybody really knew Wigan were going to win the league so the league wasn't massively important for the other clubs either - back then there were a lot more cups so those were the more intense fixtures, but I think we have to be careful about getting nostalgic about the intensity of the competition when it was just decided off a league, we used to have crowds of 3000 or 4000 at Wilderspool even with greats like Boyd, Gregory and co in the team, with only the big derby games really getting the fans to turn up

Maybe the introduction of bonus points might be an incentive for clubs not to capitulate and like wise if you win by X margin you get a bonus point.

So the better/winning team plays expansive to try to get the extra point, and the lesser/losing team defends for their life to stay within X margin to not lose a point.

People go on about the LLS not meaning much so they can't argue that throwing in all these bonus points will alter/mutate league positions.

I disagree. Top 5 as a play-off system incentivises teams to finish as high as possible. It was clear last year that Smith was pretty in-different to whether we finished 1st or 2nd, as there's no real difference in your route in your route to the final; that wouldn't be the case with top 5, where there's a distinct advantage in each incremental place. That's why it's the only play-off system I think strikes the right balance with the league set-up. Top 8 leaves you with games like we had at Salford and London last year-I don't criticise Smith or the club for this, as they're playing the comp, but the organisers should try and eliminate this if possible, as it devalues SL IMHO.

Who would you consider the top 2 clubs to be then?

I'd reckon going back to the old top 5 play-off would give you a much more intense competition for spots and also a more intense play-off competition.

Warrington and Wigan but maybe next year it will be Warrington and Saints.
I don't think that Leeds would win the league, if the playoffs were scrapped. Leeds haven't been massively rotating their squad, they have just got into sticky ruts of form because they don't have a strong and consistent enough team at the moment to win consistently through a season.

I did think the top 5 was a better play off system, not because it was 5 teams necessarily but because it avoided the big weakness of both our system and the Aussie one: you end up with a 4 team knock out just like a cup competition, so the reward system being based on having a 'second chance' has the anomaly that you are allowed to lose a playoff game as long as its the first one (like us this year) whereas if you win that first playoff game you then forfeit your right to a second chance (like Saints this year or us in 2011). Quite a few teams in Aus have fallen foul of that over the years.

I would like to see a 10 team Super League with the top 5 playoffs. I think that would be quite a competitive competition.

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.