Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Big Red Keev

Where would Wigan, Warrington Huddersfield fininsh in the NRL realistically?

58 posts in this topic

However S Moore has not done so and it remains to be seen how those heading that way next season will perform when the do get there.

I hope all prove as good as the three I have mentioned but should any exceed what the Burgess twins, especially George have accomplished that will certainly prove an eye opener indeed. The Aussies will most certainly have to re-appraise their opinions on English players.

None of them to my knowledge are currently setting even the S/L on fire, let alone the NRL. 

 

Scott Moore?   It's no surprise to me that a player who floated about SL without ever really cementing his reputation or building on his obvious talent is now repeating the same thing in a different league.

 

If you look over the last few decades, the top level of British RL has seen plenty of Australian players who came with a huge reputation and did nothing of note.  The individual ability and personality of the player involved is a far bigger marker of success than the relative merits of the two competitions.

 

It's also worth noting the importance of people close to the player.  At Huddersfield we've had very good Australian players, with big reputations, who've underperformed because their families didn't settle in the area.   There isn't much you can do about that except support them to help them through it, and if if it comes to it let them head back to Aus and bring it to an end on good terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bemuses me somewhat, if as you seem to believe, that any S/L side would simply grow into a fully competitive NRL team, simply through becoming used to and made aware of the intensity required for the NRL, so thereby naturally grow into a competitive NRL side, how do you explain the negative and deserved comments placed in the direction of Parramatta and Wests concerning their lack of ability in doing so, after being brought up and being conditioned to the aspects required to compete successfully in that competition? 

 

Luke Burgess was playing very well last season and his injury that has kept him out of the game for all of this season is possibly the factor that he now has to get over quickly, simply in order to re-establish his credentials.

Last weeks return was not at all good and a lot of improvement will be necassary from him. But Luke and Scott moore apart, Sam B, J Graham and G Ellis all went over with large reputations, possibly being the best in their positions over here and all have coped, excelled and further enhanced them since going to the NRL.

 

However S Moore has not done so and it remains to be seen how those heading that way next season will perform when the do get there.

I hope all prove as good as the three I have mentioned but should any exceed what the Burgess twins, especially George have accomplished that will certainly prove an eye opener indeed. The Aussies will most certainly have to re-appraise their opinions on English players.

None of them to my knowledge are currently setting even the S/L on fire, let alone the NRL. 

 

My key point was that if one believes the NRL is stronger overall then just suddenly transplanting the teams from a weaker league would of course mean those teams would initial struggle. That is until they get used to playing and hence focusing on the development areas identified as important by playing in that league they would improve.   This applies to any sport and league.   I don't think that our Super League top players couldn't develop into being as good as the typical NL player given the same environment.   I think initially and in their first season most will take time to adapt with regards to overall effectiveness.  I assume some of the NRL clubs are keen to bring some of the Super-league players over because they believe they have what it takes to be successful. Although some may fail they don't take a punt on the players without identifying something that tells them they will succeed and that they offer something more than the local players they are holding back by virtue of taking a place that the local player would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched from Super League to NRL at the time of the abandonment of licensing and to me NRL is simply a class apart. Much as I loved SL there's no way I'd ever have watched 5 or 6 SL games per weekend that I frequently now manage with NRL. The key differences are the speed of the PTB and the quality of the outside backs but really in every aspect the NRL games are superior.

 

I don't think there's any more than about 30-40 SL players that would hack it in NRL. Our best could mix it with their best but there's so many fewer of them. We also spread them thinly across such a small number of teams that they don't sufficiently improve either themselves or the rest of the players in the competition. Intensity and parity is key in NRL and they reap what they sow.

 

SL needs to copy NRL hook, line and sinker. Mergers, expansion, presentation. Sadly I'm not sure our own top man (Barwick) has even heard of it. But then he isn't an RL expert etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spread them thin might be the wrong turn of phrase there. Spread them thickly like gloopy treacle across just 3 or 4 teams. Yes, that's better.

 

And I'm aware with my NRL viewing binge that I need to get out more before anyone starts! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, at the start of the season I was watching every NRL game played, they were of very very mixed quality and a lot of teams were equal to the bottom end if Superleague

Is the NRL better? Pass.

It's richer, has more players and more intensity of games but is often "by the numbers" and formulaic.

Yes the best teams in the NRL are probably better than the best in SL. But the best in SL would not be out of place in super league IMO

Also, given the rest of Aussie sport is in a decline, who says the NRL is immune to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched from Super League to NRL at the time of the abandonment of licensing and to me NRL is simply a class apart. Much as I loved SL there's no way I'd ever have watched 5 or 6 SL games per weekend that I frequently now manage with NRL. The key differences are the speed of the PTB and the quality of the outside backs but really in every aspect the NRL games are superior.

 

I don't think there's any more than about 30-40 SL players that would hack it in NRL. Our best could mix it with their best but there's so many fewer of them. We also spread them thinly across such a small number of teams that they don't sufficiently improve either themselves or the rest of the players in the competition. Intensity and parity is key in NRL and they reap what they sow.

 

SL needs to copy NRL hook, line and sinker. Mergers, expansion, presentation. Sadly I'm not sure our own top man (Barwick) has even heard of it. But then he isn't an RL expert etc. etc.

 

Not totally disagreeing with your comments ... but the one around number of players reminds me that when I listen to seasoned commentators I get confused by the following logic:

 

1. On the one hand the game hasn't enough good players for a "X" team league

 

2. Then almost in the same breath the positivity towards the development of young players from some of the top teams, like Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Warrington, etc , whom all get praise for the excellent academy work.  This based on the number of youngsters that have come in and shone at those same clubs.

 

Surely the 2nd must mean that more players of good calibre will be around looking for clubs.   

Unless they all go off to Aussie land as per the two young ones from Leeds Academy.  But then that trend would eventually impact the number of Aussie born players in NRL which I'm sure wouldn't be allowed above a certain impact. Then of course we would have more Aussie players that would be looking for clubs over here. All-be-it what people like to describe as "B" class Aussie those "B" class Aussie will be better than now as more spots are taken from young players here going over there...

 

Anyway hard to put in words but the x2 comments seem mutually exclusive to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a simple,straightforward answer to this one.

 

1. Warrington

2. Huddersfield

3. Wigan

 

:tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, at the start of the season I was watching every NRL game played, they were of very very mixed quality and a lot of teams were equal to the bottom end if Superleague

Is the NRL better? Pass.

It's richer, has more players and more intensity of games but is often "by the numbers" and formulaic.

Yes the best teams in the NRL are probably better than the best in SL. But the best in SL would not be out of place in super league IMO

Also, given the rest of Aussie sport is in a decline, who says the NRL is immune to that?

A lot of teams in the NRL are not equal to the bottom end of Super League, that's complete nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017