Quote: Aboveusonlypie "I know you are presenting a balanced argument and that is not necessarily your view but I'm not sure where the evidence is that Super League is poor.
People say that the evidence is to just look with your own eyes - well, I've been watching since the late sixties and rugby league is an infinitely better spectacle than it was back then. The players are fitter, the game is faster, defence is better and for that reason the attackers have to do a lot more with the ball then they ever did.
This season has seen injury crises in just about every club, testament to the fact that the game is so much quicker and more brutal than it ever was. So it may seem that the quality right now is a bit lower.
The likes of Leeds and Huddersfield dropped off a cliff and Hull and Warrington replaced them - I'm not sure that is proof that the standard is lower. The league is much more competitive even than it was 7 years ago when just Leeds and Saints had any chance of winning it.
I for one, enjoy the fact that the bottom team is capable of beating the top team. People used to complain on here when 5 years ago we battered opponents with scores of over 50+ saying it proved the league was poor, now when the games are close, they are still saying it (though it may not be the same people). And I'm glad that Hull emerged this season. It was refreshing. I hope Leigh do the same next year.'"
I understand what you're getting at with this but I think you are confusing competitiveness with quality. A closer league doesn't mean the quality is better. Rather than all teams stepping up to Leeds and Saints' standards 7 years or so ago, we've actually slipped to everybody elses level and that level is arguably even lower than it was back then.
Yes, it's obviously great that the league is more competitive and as a result more interesting. Our seasons play out a lot better for that fact...
But as far as quality goes it's dog . Pretty much every big game between the top clubs over here is either a dull defense-a-thon or a plagued with knock ons and handling errors which in turn re-enforces the coaches belief that they should stick to negative tactics in the bigger games. The games and league may be closer, but the sport is dire to watch at the minute and I think the close scorelines just distract from that fact.
Like has been said in this thread, you've managed to finish 2nd and get to a grand final despite being ravaged by injuries. We did that in 2011 too. And in 2014 we are widely acknowledged as the worst team to ever win Super League (and we finished top too!) and won the grand final with a half back partnership of Turner and Flanagan. Do you think any of these things happen if the quality of the sport is high all-round? Not a chance. Warrington are widely regarded as the best team in the league this season and they are not even a patch on their 2011/12 sides that never managed to win the SL, and that was just a couple of years ago and everybody was saying the standard had slipped then too!
I really worry what will happen if we keep sitting back and watch the quality dip year by year... Maybe one year Wakefield (for example) will win the Super League and whilst that'd be cool in so far as how bonkers it is, it'll really be a sign that there's no quality left, despite the RFL probably talking it up as proof of how amazing and exciting Super League is.