marklaspalmas

Back in the day there used to be a show hosted by Brett Kimmorley looking at NRL Tactics. I always enjoyed it. I imagine it's long gone. What would be the equivalent show these days? The only show I've seen so far in 2024 is that one with Matty Johns and Tallis, etc. Not really my cup of tea

Sorry, mate. It does look at way, but isn't. The perils of posting online. The first list was clubs who were given a gilt-edged opportunity/ a poisoned chalice (delete according to your POV). I don't necessarily count that as favouritism, but IMO it was a definite opportunity. The second list was simply clubs invited to have-a-go under their own steam. I don't want to fall out with you over this misunderstanding.

Yes. I lost you. Sorry.

Sigh. Carry on. Those clubs were put into SL above others. Where have I said that's necessarily a bad thing? It happened. Why do you "guess" on my behalf. Your childish last line is so far away from me, I fear exchanging views is pointless.

Eh? Creating spurious POVs for other posters is poor form in a 'debate'.

Climb down mate.

I refer you to my previous post with specific regard to 'favouritism' a loaded word which seems to mean whatever anybody wants in this thread

I simply answered your question. It did happen. Whether it should have, or how clubs were then supported and developed (or not) is the endless debate. But it has happened. Quite regularly, in and outside SL. Toronto, Toulouse, Oxford, Hemel, Gloucester......

Whenever London, PSG, Gateshead, Catalans, Crusaders, etc were pushed into SL.

I'm not sure how you took it that way, but it certainly wasn't. I don't post on here as much as I used to, but my digs tend to be blunter, but hopefully never personal. I feel that in many threads on TRL the level of analysis of all aspects of our sport far outstrips what can be read in UK media outlets in general. I guess that's why I'm still here 25 years later.

Welcome back. I thought you'd asked me to leave it. Yes, the game does evolve, although I don't see how a move to left and right halfbacks would now be invalid if they have different styles. Even the way team line ups are traditionally listed is not be helpful to casual viewers' understanding of the game.

Yes. Apologies to anyone who feels I have derailed the Dodd thread. I do feel part of my bugbear is out of date nomenclature preventing coherent debate and analysis of players.

Yeah, why not? And loads of other examples where that's not the case. And? They're both halfbacks. You don't need stereotypical old style stand off plus scrum half these days. And your best halfback might be a fullback anyway. Walsh.

Ok. Except the attacking and defensive lines look different to how they used to look, there used to be far more scrums and individual roles were far more regimented than they are now. Fullbacks chiming in as halfbacks, wingers and fullbacks being interchangeable, players swopping between hooker and halfback, etc, etc.

Of course they can be different/complementary. They usually are But the "traditional 6 and 7" analogy makes no sense to me.