56 replies to this topic

[Mumby Magic]

For once in Rugby League can we leave things as they are please? The argument of not enough quality players to go round, is just ridicuous.

1) Why not stick to reducing the number of overseas as we were suppose to (it doesn't seem to have gone down too dramatically) rather than the clubs.

2) Cutting 2 teams will cut off opportunties for at least 40 young academy players of a professional contract which could generate the "quality players" we require.

We fart around way too much formy like and have no stabilty which appears amateurish to the everyman.

The doommongers will have there way with the Magic Weekend too, O and the Exiles match in a year or too.

However the Clubcall IS daft!

Edited by Mumby Magic, 25 September 2011 - 04:06 PM.

[Wembley98]

Super League should be increased to 16 teams with promotion from the championship of 2 teams
and the re-intorduction of 2 up 2 dopwn each year from the championship

[Wellsy4HullFC]

This keeps popping up as a "solution" to the quality problem and I just don't understand it.
There is currently a lack a quality players in the SL (including the overseas contingent). So how therefore is cutting the number of quality players (because the overseas lot ARE getting picked for that reason) going to make the competition stronger?

All it will do is make a weak talent pool weaker in talent but larger in number. More players playing in a lower quality competition will achieve what?

Our players need exposing more to higher intensity, not diluted further. Reducing SL to 12 is one of the options (it's not THE option, granted).

[Johnoco]

But why weren't we beating the Aussies with a 12 team league?

[Blind side johnny]

This keeps popping up as a "solution" to the quality problem and I just don't understand it.
There is currently a lack a quality players in the SL (including the overseas contingent). So how therefore is cutting the number of quality players (because the overseas lot ARE getting picked for that reason) going to make the competition stronger?

All it will do is make a weak talent pool weaker in talent but larger in number. More players playing in a lower quality competition will achieve what?

Our players need exposing more to higher intensity, not diluted further. Reducing SL to 12 is one of the options (it's not THE option, granted).

Fewer teams will reduce the opportunities and incentive for young players to make a career in the game and might even make RU more attractive to them. There will then be a degradation in the playing abilities of those in the 12 remaining clubs, so the only answer will be to reduce to ten. Etc and so on until only two clubs are left playing, then some people will be happy to have been proven right.

Why not, on the other hand, put just as much effort into improving the perception and status of a professional RL career and attract even more talent into the game? Maybe that sounds like just too much hard work, even though London are making a pretty good fist of it at the moment.

[the horseman]

i would go for two ten team conferences in three years time.the rfl should be helping part time clubs bridge the gap to full time status . This would give more players top level rugby and then there would be cross conference play offs with the top four of each conference ending with a grand final with two teams who hopefully have not played each other five or six times already

[Dave T]

But why weren't we beating the Aussies with a 12 team league?

It's a good point, and as I've said before, people do seem to think that minor changes will suddenly make us as good as the Aussies.

I've changed my mind throughout this year, and am now of the opinion that a reduction in teams should be considered, although I would change the overall structures which isn't worth going into here.

One of the major issues is the fact that there have been some woeful teams in this year, we need to make the bottom teams as strong as possible, because that way at least the top teams are getting challenged each week.

Based on current recruitment, are we looking at those lower teams and thinking they will really challenge the top 8 next year?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Fewer teams will reduce the opportunities and incentive for young players to make a career in the game and might even make RU more attractive to them. There will then be a degradation in the playing abilities of those in the 12 remaining clubs, so the only answer will be to reduce to ten. Etc and so on until only two clubs are left playing, then some people will be happy to have been proven right.

On the flip side, if you make it too easy for players to get places, they won't push themselves as hard to get that place. Some players are pushed in way before they're ready and ultimately fail and are then written off.

And I'm fairly confident that RU isn't a more attractive career option for RL academy players that have failed to make the team, therefore the rest of what you've said is pretty irrelevant.

Why not, on the other hand, put just as much effort into improving the perception and status of a professional RL career and attract even more talent into the game? Maybe that sounds like just too much hard work, even though London are making a pretty good fist of it at the moment.

Why does that require the league to be 14 teams?

[steef]

Would, as many seem to want, reducing the number of teams who qualify for the play offs help? The way I see it the lower teams would then have to try and do more to break into them. example - Castleford just missed out this year so might not think they're a million miles away but if they had to improve by 4 or 5 places the motivation to improve would need to be greater. Just a thought.

[petero]

One of the excuses regularly voiced when making comparisons with the S/Hemi players is "they have a bigger pool of players to choose from??" Of course they have, they also have a larger league of top pro's playing every week and are looking to extend that even further, so that is not just a pipe dream either.

Lessen our S/L to 12 or 10, which would be an inevitable consequence is plain daft, especially if the former complaint is to be brought up as a viable excuse. We should be aiming for 15-16 teams with extra help afforded to any emerging clubs, a draft system if necassary, being utilised for their benifit, maybe over a limited period of say three years or so.

12 teams is not a good number as all clubs are playing each other too often and this also favours the strong sides who are getting too many easy rides because of it. There is quite a good amount of lads in the NL1, (maybe NL2 also?) who would almost certainly benifit from being full-time pro's, because in the final analysis that is so often the determining factor that defines standards.
OK all would certainly not ever make rep standard, conversly though some just may go on to do that too.

When we had a thirty two team league it ought to be remembered, we DID beat the Aussies and on a regular basis also, so that in itself should tell us something, lessening the pool of players elegible to play for the National side will not do anything to help achieve that goal.

With ten teams we did no better at rep level than with fourteen so that reduction in personel has in effect been tried and proven a failure.

[The Parksider]

We should be aiming for 15-16 teams with extra help afforded to any emerging clubs..

There is quite a good amount of lads in the NL1, (maybe NL2 also?) who would almost certainly benifit from being full-time pro's........

When we had a thirty two team league it ought to be remembered, we DID beat the Aussies and on a regular basis also.

I'd be happy for Fev and Fax to be added, I have no axe to grind, but how on earth would they be able to compete????? How would the drop in SKY money per club accelerate debt??? Would the salary cap have to come down??

Would the semi pro lads with careers, businesses, good jobs etc really benefit from giving those valuable things up for what could be not too long in a Superleague squad?????.

Was the reason we could compete with Aussie years ago really having one 30 team league??

[the horseman]

agreed .no reduction at all .how can a sport try to expand and cut its top division

[Cruncher]

There is quite a good amount of lads in the NL1, (maybe NL2 also?) who would almost certainly benifit from being full-time pro's, because in the final analysis that is so often the determining factor that defines standards.
OK all would certainly not ever make rep standard, conversly though some just may go on to do that too.

Spot on Petero.

I am in favour of the 2 divisions of 10 full time teams suggestion. The bottom line though, is due to numerous factors - which the RFL seem unwilling to address - RL in this country does not generate enough money to support 20 full time clubs.

A reduction in top flight clubs does nothing to enhance our game for me. If the Sky money is divied up between fewer teams I would suggest the extra money they receive would be spent on higher profile imports rather than junior development. How would this help us? We would be moving further down the Premier League soccer model.

[Johnoco]

I suppose the argument for reducing it to 12 will lead to more intense weekly games. But seeing as that didn't happen enough before, I'm not sure why it would now.

[legend of zelda]

We need to get rid of the players stealing a living in superleague. Not enough good players to have 14 team league, it's that simple. Too many average players playing for wakey cas quins Bradford etc that's why they are gettin shovelled off the top teams. Who benefits from 60-0 scorelines?

[JohnM]

I have what may appear at first sight to be a revolutionary proposal.

1. In the leagues, keep things exactly as they are for at least two licence periods.

2. Create an organisation dedicated to developing the game at an international level. This organisation would be charged with developing a programmes of international games, a world championship etc. We could maybe call it the Rugby league International Federation. Its logo would be Mickey Mouse carrying a football.

[Blind side johnny]

On the flip side, if you make it too easy for players to get places, they won't push themselves as hard to get that place. Some players are pushed in way before they're ready and ultimately fail and are then written off.

And I'm fairly confident that RU isn't a more attractive career option for RL academy players that have failed to make the team, therefore the rest of what you've said is pretty irrelevant.

Your confidence is sorely misplaced and my contribution is not irrelevant, despite disagreeing with yours. You have introduced the concept of failed academy players, no-one else. My concern is with those players who might be successful but would be denied the chance with a reduced league. The temptation to apply their skills in a higher profile and seemingly more attractive arena like RU will be very great.

The corrollary of your earlier statement is that increasing the opportunities in any aspect of life will inevitably result in a reduction of quality. So I assume that we would be even better off with an eight team league?

[Just Browny]

The doommongers will have there way with the Magic Weekend too, O and the Exiles match in a year or too.

Agree especially with this bit. The ideal scenario for the 'too many games' brigade is a straight Grand Final between Wigan and Leeds, as this will mean players aren't burnt out and there are no poor crowds.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Your confidence is sorely misplaced and my contribution is not irrelevant, despite disagreeing with yours. You have introduced the concept of failed academy players, no-one else. My concern is with those players who might be successful but would be denied the chance with a reduced league. The temptation to apply their skills in a higher profile and seemingly more attractive arena like RU will be very great.

The corrollary of your earlier statement is that increasing the opportunities in any aspect of life will inevitably result in a reduction of quality. So I assume that we would be even better off with an eight team league?

Define successful? It appears our two definitions would be different, as I wouldn't say a successful player would be denied a chance at the top. That's why I said they'd be failures. I don't see why they think they'd have a better chance changing skill-sets later in their career and joining a sport that has even more competition as well as a smaller league than SL!

And my earlier statement wasn't saying that at all. What I was saying was that there is a balance. People seem to think that the more players we have, the better pool we'll have to pick from. It's just nonsense spouted by people that haven't really thought about the logistics of what they're saying. Having more players doesn't mean they'll be any good. All you're doing is increasing the number of lower quality players in the league, inevitably bringing down the whole quality of the competition until such a time as it catches up, which could take years.

There's a balance between quality and quantity. Some people don't seem to realise this and either suggest we need a ridiculous amount of players (the ones that suggest having no overseas players and a huge league are examples of this), or suggest that we should just have a few teams in the league to improve intensity. Neither find the balance and just cause further problems.

RL needs to find a way to improve quality AND expand it's talent pool. You can't achieve both of these by messing around with the numbers of teams in the league. There needs to be other ways.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Would, as many seem to want, reducing the number of teams who qualify for the play offs help? The way I see it the lower teams would then have to try and do more to break into them. example - Castleford just missed out this year so might not think they're a million miles away but if they had to improve by 4 or 5 places the motivation to improve would need to be greater. Just a thought.

It's a fair point. Clubs may see achieving a top 8 spot as a barometer of success (the words Adam Pearson has just used to describe the old Hull regime), when really they're miles off the championship.