I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook

I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook

I think its time, like Cruncher said, to reduce the number of teams in SL and create a leaner and more intense SL.

I personally feel that at this moment in time we simply don't have a talent pool thats of the right level to push our game forward.

I think there are simply too many average players in SL these days. I'm not advocating we will ever be in a position where we see a league full of superstars but for me the current level of average players is far too high.

Reducing the number of options where these players can get SL game time is the quickest and easiest option.

Some of these current SL players would then drop down to the championship and make that comp even stronger.

So we grow RL by making the top flight competition smaller, reducing the opportunity for those up and coming players to get an SL experience?

How small does the league need to be to have "international" grade players available, is it a pool of 10 teams with just 20 centres at the first grade, or is it 14 with 28 first grade to pick from?

If it's 10, and there's the opportunity to rest players who pays for the redundant squad in the back ground? Less game time would be better for players like Tomkins right?

Do we restrict the import of all Ausie players so that the SL grade can only ever get to test their arm at international level?

I guess that the bottom four teams in any league are competitive and SL is the only sport in the world that has losers as well as winners?

Or, do we need the RFL to get the sport into the public eye more? Make the Magic Weekend something that's not just another league game, get the Challenge Cup back in the lime light rather than marginalised as Sky simply don't care?

Give the World Cup to TV or the BBC for free for a year, yes it will cost the RFL but the terrestrial TV producers would jump at the chance to fill the Sat/Sun afternoons with some cheap to make TV.

More people = more cash and a better public perception and growth.

It's pretty evident that there isn't enough talent about to sustain 14 teams in the league, there's far too many players about that are so far off the top players it's embarrassing.

Exactly. We need better teams, creating more competitive matches. And the only way to do that in the sort term is concentrate the good players we have in fewer teams. That would be a start when it comes to making the game more marketable.

There will always be winners and losers, but we need to aim for something like the NRL model, wherein those winners and losers change around on a fairly regular basis.

We also need all the SL teams to increase their production lines of youngsters. The best way to do that, as I see it, is moderate the Salary Cap, creating enticements for clubs to start investing in and promoting junior talent.

Goobervision speaks from the heart, clearly, but I fundamentally disagree with some of his points. An example is that of the 28 centres currently getting regular game time - a nice idea, yet today we have a second rower, Ablett, playing in the centre for England. Now, okay - it's an appalling selection by an idiotic coach, and I can name two or three others who should have been there ahead of him - but the fact that Ablett is able to play centre for Leeds and catch the eye indicates that most weeks in SL he has no real opposition. If he was playing against a specialist centre each week, who is there because he is good enough, not because there is no-one else to wear the shirt, it would be very different.

Who is Mr Creosote?

A smaller SL will also make for a stronger championship, as players move down... This will be better for up and coming "talent".

It's unbelievably obvious that the league needs reducing in numbers but it won't happen anytime soon.

The 'have nots' run this game and the RFL won't want to upset them. A massive opportunity was missed when Crusaders folded. That was the time to cut the numbers.

You're not far wrong there. When I was at the Etihad I overheard a current Salford player talking to a Huddersfield player with regards to recent meetings within the club about their financial difficulties.

You nosy 8ugger!

I think that's too negative, we should be looking at more ways to increase that talent pool. The "8 club-grown players" rule that the RFL introduced recently is a step in the right direction, and hasn't yet had time to show results, but it needs to go further.
Too many clubs are just paying lip service to it at present (Wakey, for example, who have the mandatory Academy products in their squad, but all outside their starting 17).
Force (or encourage) more clubs to produce more players, and some of them will inevitably turn out to be top quality. Stricter rules about producing and using their own players, plus perhaps salary cap allowances for them would be a good next step.

If we cut the number of clubs, we're discouraging youngsters from taking up the game, as we're reducing their opportunities to find a full-time job in the game.

I agree we need to reduce the amount of teams in the top division, for example - how many of our teams would stand a chance for a top 8 spot over in the NRL?

I'd hazard a guess at... 2? Even then its a maybe.