Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

01/04/13 - Hull Kingston Rovers v Wigan Warriors - KO 3pm


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

Poll: Who will win? (10 member(s) have cast votes)

Who will win?

  1. Hull Kingston Rovers (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Wigan Warriors (9 votes [90.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 90.00%

  3. Draw (1 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:55 PM

In recent seasons we've had some very fine youth sides, this only a few years after being semi-pro and in the RL wilderness. We're doing our best on that front and without the 30 or 40 years of continuous on-field success that the likes of Wigan bear the fruits of in terms of young player participation. The problem is that as long as the likes of Taylor and Green (an import but the point still stands) are picked off at will by bigger sides, any production line can realistically only move players in the same direction. Why would the next Scott Taylor stay at HKR?

What it boils down to, ultimately, is whether Wood and the RFL have the bottle to back up statements like today's with genuine action. All SL sides are capable of producing young talent given a level playing field. It's not rocket science. As long as there are hierarchies these will inevitable trickle down into said systems. A youth system can't buck the trend of shedding elite established pros.

I wasn't really drawn to the forum by this result - naturally RL is the last thing I want to talk about right now as a HKR fan! :) - more by the irony of it and a couple of other results as regarding the timing of Wood's "Most competitive SL ever" press release. I suspect he feels a bit daft right now, for sure.

Hardly the best timed statement from Wood, but this 'level playing field' you seek is frankly bizarre when RL is intended to be a sport and the health of the game is best served by promoting competition and incentivising growth, as opposed to constraining teams to the level of the lowest quality. HKR rose to the top of the game in the 1980s without the need for a salary cap or any levelling down of competition. There is nothing stopping them reaching those heights again without engineering of the game, provided that they reflect upon their weaknesses and strive to improve. Your attitude is symptomatic of an easy option / quick fix, as opposed to the clubs taking responsibility for their own success or lack of. Wigan as an example were an absolute shambles in the mid 2000s and their rise back toward the top of the game has been largely due to positive management and decisions taken during a period of self reflection when the club was at its lowest point for 25 years and done against the backdrop of a more successful Saints side and the growth of Warrington.

#62 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,201 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:01 PM

FFS, it isn't embarrassing for SL that a side of Wigan's quality grace it. HKR just need to get better to be able to compete twice over the Easter period. We've seen similar failings today from Wakefield and Widnes after good performances on Friday.

Wigan didn't force HKR to sell Green and Taylor, and didn't cause the injuries to the current squad. We have the salary cap, what more do you want to handcuff the bigger clubs? Maybe it's time to look at how HKR need to get better rather than identifying a scapegoat. When overseas recruits are getting sparser it is inevitable that the better domestic players will be in demand, nevertheless Wigan can hardly be accused of 'reloading at will' at the expense of small clubs when the majority of the squad are home grown and ex-Wigan produced players are scattered throughout SL.


Wakefield lost by 12 points, that's hardly comparable with the 78 point margin at HKR.

#63 Grebo Guru

Grebo Guru
  • Players
  • 59 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:02 PM

An embarrassment for the league and it is ironic it comes as Wood is talking about this year as being the most competitive yet. I can sympathise with Wood's stance but I called this kind of score in the off-season as the better sides like Wigan reloaded at will from the little boys' small elite crop. We reap what we sow.

Glad I didn't go is all I can say.



I did go! Club record defeat. At least I can say I was there!

The sad thing is Hull KR are a top half of the table side looking at the last five years as an average but players won't stay with them because there are only two trophies up for grabs, almost uniquely in British sport and they are not one of the bigger clubs.

#64 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,893 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:19 PM

In recent seasons we've had some very fine youth sides, this only a few years after being semi-pro and in the RL wilderness. We're doing our best on that front and without the 30 or 40 years of continuous on-field success that the likes of Wigan bear the fruits of in terms of young player participation. The problem is that as long as the likes of Taylor and Green (an import but the point still stands) are picked off at will by bigger sides, any production line can realistically only move players in the same direction. Why would the next Scott Taylor stay at HKR?

What it boils down to, ultimately, is whether Wood and the RFL have the bottle to back up statements like today's with genuine action. All SL sides are capable of producing young talent given a level playing field. It's not rocket science. As long as there are hierarchies these will inevitable trickle down into said systems. A youth system can't buck the trend of shedding elite established pros.


I don't agree with you DSK.

Wigan are allowed to build their squad within the rules that work to keep top teams from running away with things.

The reality IMHO is you have two clubs in Hull who chase the same young players, and Rovers boss Hudgell decided to stop making up the difference between what they could afford on the salary cap (£1.1M I think) and what the top clubs afford i.e. the full £1.65M.

I think it would be outrageous to re-engineer and manipulate Superleague to ensure two clubs can compete from the one place, and that they can also compete paying only 2/3 of what clubs are supposed to strive to pay for a quality league.

The problems are entirely of HKR's making, it's sad, and I don't like it because we need 14 clubs that can produce quality kids and pay wages up to a competitive level.

But Wigan are not at fault and nor are the RFL.

#65 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:24 PM

As for calling my proposal "social engineering", fine. I'm happy with that. I'll call the current system you all seem to love what it is - "pandering to bullies". In the US and Aus they have no issue with leveling measures designed to create the best product and players and it seems to work for them, while we have a small parochial sport to cheer about from the margins.

My system would see top-down competition week in-week out, whereas the current system gave us 2 horrible scorelines today.

I'll leave Nigel Wood and the RFL to decide which system they like best, as ultimately it's their opinions that count.

#66 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,316 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:33 PM

So are you suggesting we have an entire lower league geared up for providing the Superleague with players, but that can also create a huge fanbase of it's own (like the NCAA and NFL and NBA)?

How do they do it in Aus?

#67 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:33 PM

I don't agree with you DSK.

Wigan are allowed to build their squad within the rules that work to keep top teams from running away with things.

The reality IMHO is you have two clubs in Hull who chase the same young players, and Rovers boss Hudgell decided to stop making up the difference between what they could afford on the salary cap (£1.1M I think) and what the top clubs afford i.e. the full £1.65M.

I think it would be outrageous to re-engineer and manipulate Superleague to ensure two clubs can compete from the one place, and that they can also compete paying only 2/3 of what clubs are supposed to strive to pay for a quality league.

The problems are entirely of HKR's making, it's sad, and I don't like it because we need 14 clubs that can produce quality kids and pay wages up to a competitive level.

But Wigan are not at fault and nor are the RFL.


This is just your usual assault on the City of Hull though Parky - the same issue exists (more so) with Wakey and Cas and even with Wire and Widnes. It is a demographic issue but it is not JUST a demographic issue. 20K fans packed the KC on Friday so clearly there is considerable demand for RL in Hull. 2 SL sides? It's a debate. But the debate here is more subtle - it's better teams getting better off worse teams and where that leaves any attempts to create a competitive league.

Lay off the Hull-bashing or at least confine it to more suitable threads. This is about how we stop the big sides packing their squads while at the same time thinning those of the small sides. Double jeopardy.

No-one sold me Leeds-Widnes yet then?

#68 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,316 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:35 PM

Can I sell you Widnes-Warrington instead? ;)

#69 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,676 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:36 PM

My system would see top-down competition week in-week out, whereas the current system gave us 2 horrible scorelines today

Have to disagree there. 2 horrible scorelines today out of 14 games? and how many horrible scorelines in the season so far? at the end of the season.

Is this what you want? In 2009 , the Detroit lions agreed to a 6-year, $78 million deal with $41.7 million guaranteed with first draft pick Stafford a day before the draft officially started.

In any case, what happens to the drafted player after the first season. If HKR want to attract and retain players, they has better up their game rather than asking the better teams to go easy.

#70 41hound

41hound
  • Coach
  • 171 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:50 PM

no excuses kr have been a disgrace and sandercockup is to blame he has talked the team out of any chance they had of making a game of it, wigan are playing with a patched up side sandercock should hav used that to inspire is team.

Very negative talk pre-match. Gave the team an excuse to fail and feel sorry for themselves. Hull KR are much better than this and we all know who they are missing - but poor work from the coach on this occasion.

#71 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,841 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

This is about how we stop the big sides packing their squads while at the same time thinning those of the small sides.


Not sure your logic adds up Wigans wheeling and dealing towards the back end of 2012 and in the off season
Out;
Leuluai
Carmont
Lima
Finch
Marsh
Mellor
Fielden
Russell
Hock

In
Smith
Thornley
Green
Taylor

Hardly "packing" the squad if you don't mind me saying, I'd be amazed given the nature of Hocks departure if Wigan are even paying up to the cap, plenty on here seemingly had a lot to say in the build up to this season about Wigans perceived lack of depth if I recall correctly.

I think Hull KRs issues are a lot closer to home than Wigans recruitment policy.

#72 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,948 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

But they have bought up the best players of other teams, this isn't in doubt.


The players become available because the club are usually in a financial mess at the time.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#73 Old Frightful

Old Frightful
  • Coach
  • 12,664 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:49 PM

I think Hull KRs issues are a lot closer to home than Wigans recruitment policy.

Yes but, if nobody blames Wigan, you lot don't come out to play.

          NO BUTS IT'S GOT TO BE BUTTER......                                 Z1N2MybzplQR6XBrwB9egniMH8xqYQ5s.jpg                                                                                                                     


#74 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:51 PM

Not sure your logic adds up Wigans wheeling and dealing towards the back end of 2012 and in the off season
Out;
Leuluai
Carmont
Lima
Finch
Marsh
Mellor
Fielden
Russell
Hock

In
Smith
Thornley
Green
Taylor

Hardly "packing" the squad if you don't mind me saying, I'd be amazed given the nature of Hocks departure if Wigan are even paying up to the cap, plenty on here seemingly had a lot to say in the build up to this season about Wigans perceived lack of depth if I recall correctly.

I think Hull KRs issues are a lot closer to home than Wigans recruitment policy.


Wigan lost some key players, for sure, but the fact remains - whether you like it or not - that them signing Smith, Green and Taylor was bad for (and I will say this in bold so I cannot be misunderstood) the competitive balance of the league. That is - quite plainly and simply - a fact, unless we agree that they are bad players. Whilst I also think there is an issue with regard to fairness (Taylor is our player! etc.), that isn't even my point here. My point is the hypocrisy of people arguing in this thread that all is right with SL as a competitive beast when we have so many players moving up the hierarchy.

We have to decide what we want in SL. The fairly ruthless hierarchical system (salary cap notwithstanding) we have now or something more balanced and competitive. Which is why I'm interested in (and baffled by) Wood's comments, although I do like the fact that he made them - it shows that he acknowledges the problem. But this result was not a freak, and nor will it be the last of its nature this season IMHO. And such results will hurt us both at the turnstiles and in respect to the marketability of our sports' elite league. No-one will watch or want to be seen to support in any way an obvious mismatch.

#75 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 17,948 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:51 PM

DSK, I can understand your frustration, and you must be bitterly disappointed but Hudgell went for the spend big on players, win games, fill stands model. Its an ancient and outmoded sports business model. I can understand why he went for that when you were first promoted, you could have been relegated at the end of your first season. Since licensing has been brought in though there has been ample opportunity for HKR to change the model, they didn't. They kept on throwing money at overseas players hoping to buy that success that would fill the stands and pay the bills.

In the modern game it is more important to get your youth policy right than have a big wallet.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#76 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:58 PM

And while I'm here, I'll give you my 1 fundamental reason why I wouldn't pay to watch Leeds vs Widnes, and why practically no neutral would. Because of the 26 players on show, it's my firm view that of the 15 best, at most 2 will be wearing Widnes shirts, those being Hock (not even their player) and - at a push - Hanbury. I may even be being generous here. Leeds will bring players off the bench (and even have a few sat in the stands) better than Widnes can put out to start.

So again, my point isn't even about the "fairness" of this (I've debated that to death elsewhere), it's about the quality of fare I'm being offered. I've no interest in stumping up for the off-chance of a David vs Goliath and I'm sure nor do most casual fans. It's an accident waiting to happen fixture and I want to know what Wood and the RFL plan to do about it (if anything).

#77 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:02 PM

And while I'm here, I'll give you my 1 fundamental reason why I wouldn't pay to watch Leeds vs Widnes, and why practically no neutral would. Because of the 26 players on show, it's my firm view that of the 15 best, at most 2 will be wearing Widnes shirts, those being Hock (not even their player) and - at a push - Hanbury. I may even be being generous here. Leeds will bring players off the bench (and even have a few sat in the stands) better than Widnes can put out to start.

So again, my point isn't even about the "fairness" of this (I've debated that to death elsewhere), it's about the quality of fare I'm being offered. I've no interest in stumping up for the off-chance of a David vs Goliath and I'm sure nor do most casual fans. It's an accident waiting to happen fixture and I want to know what Wood and the RFL plan to do about it (if anything).

Most of Leeds players have come through their youth system,they have hardly been big spenders.
Once you have tasted excellence,you cannot go back to mediocrity.

#78 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,316 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:06 PM

How many neutrals go to any non-showpiece game anyway? In any sport?

How do you propose to do remove this disparity? Trading surely wouldn't work unless the bigger teams are willing to swap better players for lesser players. For example, Wigan obviously rate taylor, but not as highly as, say, Farrell. So Farrell would stay at Wigan and Taylor would come to Wigan for whoever it would have been sitting on the bench this year...

#79 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,230 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:09 PM

DSK, I can understand your frustration, and you must be bitterly disappointed but Hudgell went for the spend big on players, win games, fill stands model. Its an ancient and outmoded sports business model. I can understand why he went for that when you were first promoted, you could have been relegated at the end of your first season. Since licensing has been brought in though there has been ample opportunity for HKR to change the model, they didn't. They kept on throwing money at overseas players hoping to buy that success that would fill the stands and pay the bills.

In the modern game it is more important to get your youth policy right than have a big wallet.


I think this is harsh. Hudgell I'm sure knew what he was up against but my point would be that if he had been fortunate enough to take over at Leeds or Wigan rather than HKR and spent exactly the same amount of money in exactly the same areas, he would be reaping the rewards of either sides' current success. I think the current system places an extra onus on owners to over-invest in previously failing sides, whereas by the same turn you could invest only modestly in Leeds and Wigan but still achieve, such is the strength of their infrastrusture, commercial investment, demographic reach etc. I think it's very disengenuous - for example - of Gary Hetherington to talk about "poor management" at the smaller sides. When he's achieved the same success at Wakefield I'll give him more time of day with that kind of statement. I fail to see what more Hudgell can or could do. We get 8K fans despite being at best average, we've paid full cap for the most part and our youth structure has over-achieved in just 7 or so years. I just think the tide that sides like HKR are up against is too strong and I say this without hint of bias as I really don't ask for anything more than a fair crack of the whip.

"Oh hi Wigan - you want Scott Taylor? OK we'll swap him for O'Loughlin and Goulding? No? OK nice talking to you"

This would be a tremendous move in the right direction. Then we should seriously think about a larger chunk of TV revenue for the small market sides. We need a better reason for people like Hudgell to invest in these sides going forward. When Hetherington et al sneer at him for the favours he gets at SL conventions or whatever, he can just politely remind him how much bigger the market Leeds operate in is and how much less he had to do at his own club to get it to its current level.

Edited by DeadShotKeen, 01 April 2013 - 07:11 PM.


#80 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:10 PM

I think this is harsh. Hudgell I'm sure knew what he was up against but my point would be that if he had been fortunate enough to take over at Leeds or Wigan rather than HKR and spent exactly the same amount of money in exactly the same areas, he would be reaping the rewards of either sides' current success. I think the current system places an extra onus on owners to over-invest in previously failing sides, whereas by the same turn you could invest only modestly in Leeds and Wigan but still achieve, such is the strength of their infrastrusture, commercial investment, demographic reach etc. I think it's very disengenuous - for example - of Gary Hetherington to talk about "poor management" at the smaller sides. When he's achieved the same success at Wakefield I'll give him more time of day with that kind of statement. I fail to see what more Hudgell can or could do. We get 8K fans despite being at best average, we've paid full cap for the most part and our youth structure has over-achieved in just 7 or so years. I just think the tide that sides like HKR are up against is too strong and I say this without hint of bias as I really don't ask for anything more than a fair crack of the whip.

"Oh hi Wigan - you want Scott Taylor? OK we'll swap him for O'Loughlin and Goulding? No? OK nice talking to you"

This would be a tremendous move in the right direction. Then we should seriously think about a larger chunk of TV revenue for the small market sides. We need a better reason for people like Hudgell to invest in these sides going forward. When Hetherington et al sneer at him for ther favours he gets at SL conventions or whatever, he can just politely remind him how much bigger the market Leeds operate in is and how much less he had to do at his own club to get it to its current level.

You do know that Leeds were virtually bankrupt when he took over,don't you?
Once you have tasted excellence,you cannot go back to mediocrity.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users