As to Wane, there are 2 sides to the game. It bears repeating the obvious, but if you score more than the opposition you win. Brisbane scored only 1 try of their own making. That is a superb effort. It is possible that the effort in defence detracted from the attack. But, Wane clearly knows how to coach defence.
In attack, we have a method which depends heavily on Lockers' ability to tie up the middle of the opposition defence. When he plays well, we are the best team in SL. What has taken too long is a structure that works in Lockers' inevitible absences. Maybe over the next few weeks we will see Bateman take on that role. I think he can do, and signing him was a superb bit of recruitment.
Finally, it is crystal clear that we are having to make do, as is the whole competition, with the limited resources at our disposal. It is some achievement to put together a team drawing so heavily on such a small area, which can go toe to toe with Brisbane, with their infinite resources.
Now, everything that anybody has ever done could have been done better, but I think in this instance we can be justifiably proud of our lads who did themselves and the competition proud. Wane has made plenty of mistakes, but he did a good job last week.

Neat post, with a little nugget in the middle.... This is key...

(Finally, it is crystal clear that we are having to make do, as is the whole competition, with the limited resources at our disposal.)

What worries me is that IL, at the fans forum, clearly stated that the Salary Cap isn't a problem.

But surely it's right that *just* increasing the SC is no panacea? It doesn't make existing English players any better. It *might* discourage a few from leaving the comp, but surely the main issue is, many SL clubs wouldn't have the income to use all of an increased SC. The only thing that will improve players is playing regularly against better opposition.

An increase in salary cap certainly doesn't make exisiting players better but it could well lead us to getting a better calibre of recruit at lower ages if they can see that very good money is available to those who make the first team on a regular basis.
At the moment I'm not convinced of that.
IL has always suggested an increase in the SC in line with inflation.
If that had been in place from the start of the SC then we would be heading for a figure far larger than we have now.
The NRL has a far larger talent pool than us and a far larger salary cap.
With IL/Rads/SW eyeing London and the talent pool down there they maybe going someway to enlarge our scope for recruitment.

How many potential players of all ages don't even look at RL because of the low pay? We have no idea how many potential players just don't pursue a career in RL as they can earn more in a regular career outside the game. Then we have players like Owen Farrell and George Ford in Union who might fancy a crack at the game one day probably never will as they would take a massive pay cut. The poor pay relative to other sports must be a disincentive to players of all ages.

As to many SL clubs not having the income to pay to a higher cap, they would have has if the RFL had the brains to put the TV contract out to tender or even not having done so accepted the Sky money should go to the SL teams only. Even with the current new deal that would have doubled the salary cap to £3.6m fully finding the clubs. Instead they have kept it at £1.8m with (all SL clubs fully funded) in order to adopt this "whole game approach".

It's stupid because there just isn't enough money for a twenty odd team pro game as we see given half the teams are still effectively semi pro still paying to a lower cap.

There are lots of ways you could improve the situation without raising the cap willy-nilly. You could introduce significantly bigger discounts on home-grown talent than there are now. You could also look at marquee player discounts and even Club England type top-up payments.

I don't think even these adjustments would be a full solution, but to simply do nothing in response to this crisis is ludicrous. (I agree about playing better opposition more regularly, but there's a touch of irony in that Saints played a team who trashed them last weekend, and two of the best British forwards around were in the opposition).

Years ago I was accused of scaremongering when I said I feared our game would decline if we just accepted the cap was here to stay forever and that it would never be changed. Okay, British RL still has its professional tier, but a lot of our best players are no longer in it. As someone else said, it's now a case of 'when' our best new players will leave and not 'if'. And, if Joe Burgess is anything to go by, the age is coming down rapidly. How long will we have had him for - two seasons (one of which, judging by this one so far, he's doing a Brian Carney with his head elsewhere).

Is it still possible for the cap to be challenged legally? If so, I wonder how long before that happens. Because it may be the only outcome, and I doubt any of us really want that.

I find myself agreeing with DaveO, which is unusual, to say the least. Increasing the cap without a corresponding increase in income is folly. The problem is not the cap but the fact that the sport as a whole simply does not bring in enough money, whether that's TV income, other sponsorship, or gate money.

On TV sports viewing figures (at club level, at least; internationals are another matter), we are second only to football,. but that is not reflected in TV income.

DaveO is spot on...

Do you have any figures to back that assertion up Geoff?

I'd like to think you are right but am a little sceptical.

The figures are a little hard to find, but this article from last year is fairly typical:

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/may/08/rugby-league-union-tv[/url