Widnes must start favourites for this, we've had two impressive wins so far even with key players missing. The most pleasing thing for me has been the way we've coped with the losses of Clarke and Brown (both really influential figures within the team) and Phelps, Ah Van and Cahill (who all had strong seasons last year, particularly Cahill who is a tireless worker on the field and a real leader) without a significant drop in performances.
Although there has been a lot of hype around the Salford team, when assessing our rivals squads I always like to compare them with ours and who they would replace, and perhaps surprisingly, there aren't many I would swap. Rangi would've been a given 2 yrs ago before the emergence of Mellor who is an outstanding team player (don't get me wrong, Rangi is an outstanding individual who produces pieces of magic but possibly would risk upsetting the balance we seem to have) Tim Smith is too hot and cold to build a team around and having watched Hock last year I'd swap tickle for him every day of the week, he can be a complete liability in attack with ridiculous offloads which just aren't on and in defence with indiscipline, also his reputation does him no favours with referees on top of that. Tickle on the other hand is consistent and has started superbly for us, before you take his goal kicking into account. I've never been a huge fan of Puletua as his work rate seems lacking for me although admittedly, that's just going off Sky matches and when we have played St's. Likewise, Meli and Gleeson would be no better (and IMO a fair bit worse over the course of a season) than Phelps and Marsh. However, Morley looks fit and motivated and would walk into our squad and I've always rated Hansen who was an unsung hero at Wigan, I'd have been made up if we'd signed him. They look to have a couple of decent prospects like Fages and the young winger who played against St's.
They also have a coach who is one of the best in the game.
Having said all that, I think it will be a close game and that inconsistent nature of some of the Red Devils players means that in some games at least, those players will all be on form and firing, I just hope it's not on Thursday!
Yep, have you even read his analysis of RL crowds as they related to P & R 1996 - 2008??
More to the point has ANYONE read KPMG's analysis of how P & R will boost crowds??
Question: Why doesn't anyone who supports the idea jeapordy will increase crowds call for the RFL to release the figures, reasoning and logic KPMG came up with???
Also has Mr. Sadler asked Red Hall for a copy??
Again, have you read the thread (and more specifically my posts)?
At no point did I state that I was in favour of the jeopardy idea (not least because I'd hate to be labelled a jeopardist) or that I'd done any extensive research beyond reading the article. I even stated that I didn't disagree with Martyn as such on the topic, but took him to task with the way he was using an extremely poor example as evidence (I use the term loosely) that the current system may not work.
Like some others on this threat, it would be better to read what's written rather than what you think has been written.
I suspect this jibe is aimed at me, even though I explained I was referring to a post of yours (and supplied you with said quote) and not, as you persist in suggesting, misrepresenting what was in the article.
Believe me I have read the article and thought it was a poor argument, and nothing I've read in your replies thus far has changed that viewpoint.
Attendances are factual. There has been a 50% decline for this particular game in less than a year. A commissioned report suggests that jeopardy will increase attendances. This game was the first indicator of whether that might happen...
This is what you said, perhaps you should have heeded your own advice regarding not reading what isn't there before writing the original article, as it just comes across as you trying to back up your original viewpoint on League structures based on non existent evidence.
I'll add that I'm undecided on the changes and don't disagree with the premise per se, just that to garner any conclusions at this stage, let alone comparing apples with oranges and blaming it on the new structure is ridiculous.