Maximus Decimus

Can we invent a time machine just so you can go there? The S of Salford was rubbish. I'm not against the use of monikers or of modern looking logos. My problem is that Rugby League has very few good ones on either side of the world.

The Phantoms badge that you have displayed looks way better than most of the Super League badges.

Nope these are easily the world's fittest athletes.

There's a great video that appears to have got lost on youtube. It's from 1992 I think where Martin Offiah makes another break but is eventually pushed into touch by ET. The Aussie commentator goes, 'Look at the speed of the man!' Then says something about how he's never seen a winger as good in his life. Just love the way he says it.

How would they manage it though? I can see how the prestige of Man United would help them to attract players but Chelsea? In theory they wouldn't be able to pay any more on wages or fees than say Newcastle United.

Favourite club - Widnes, given as I was born there. Second club - Always liked Saints and never really minded Wigan. Want Catalans to do well and went Wembley with one of their shirts on in 2007. Australia - Like Wests Tigers as they would have been my local side when I stayed in Sydney for a few months. NZ Warriors for the expansion thing. Amateur - recently involved at Burtonwood Bulldogs and I love it, great to see the level of commitment at grassroots RL.

Widnes spent up to the cap. Playing standards haven't dropped for any other reason than being in an extremely competitive league with many clubs spending the same amount. If we all spend the same then inevitably some teams will be better than others despite any other outside influences such as crowds or finances. I don't believe Widnes should have been given club of the year but then again I've no idea what they based it on or how much detail they went into.

It would probably be like it was before. The top teams would be slightly better and much better than the lower placed teams who would inevitably be worse. At least in theory the salary cap produces closer games meaning that players get regularly exposed to games of higher intensity. In the past we had massive score lines and the big teams only playing a few intense games a year.

It was recently reported that even a good majority of Australian players believe in the salary cap despite it being detrimental to their own personal fortunes. Do you think Man United and Chelsea would still dominate with a salary cap in place?

Touring in Australia without any semblance of a decent back-line with probably the worst coach we've had in a generation. The bookies very rarely get it wrong. Last year showed that our forwards can match it and if we keep it tight we can match the Aussies for about 50 odd minutes. It also showed that in the backs we are extremely weak in comparison and this will continue to hold us back, especially on the fast, hard grounds over there. We're always weaker in the backs but even if you look at the team from 1-7 in 2006 when we last beat them, Paul Wellens, Brian Carney, Keith Senior, Kirk Yeaman, Gareth Raynor, Leon Pryce, Sean Long. We had experience and class in Carney, Senior, Pryce and Long. We had pace in Raynor and Yeaman had just had his best season. Of course we had Wellens who seriously lacked pace but at least positionally he is an excellent player. Let's look a likely line up now, Gareth Widdop, Ryan Hall, Ryan Atkins, Shenton/Gleeson, Tom Briscoe, Sam Tomkins, Kyle Eastmond (if fit). There's a serious lack of experience and class there. They're largely a mixture of steady players and youthful prospects. We might have one of the best forward packs we've ever had but this won't be enough. I'm usually semi-optimistic about our chances. Not this time. We should make out like it is a developmental tour in preparation for the World Cup.

Looks like you got no grief!

Are you for real? Once again your facts don't stack up. What is the state of current international RL crowds especially in Australia? When we used to win it they would get 70 odd thousand in Australia for 3 games series. I was there when there was 25k for a one off. This despite the game in Australia being as popular as ever. I'm sure Scottish fans love Celtic and Rangers to the extent that the next best attended club gets 14,000 in comparison to near 60k for those two clubs. Who knows what a bit of success would get them. Anyway nobody is talking about one team dominating they are talking about repeat finals, totally different things. The facts for this do actually stack up. What exactly would I be jealous about? I'm a Widnes fan who is just interested in a decent final and I have very little interest in another Saints-Leeds final. The chances of me attending such a final are zero. However if it's Saints-Wigan or Huddersfield are there I might just go because I will be interested. Your last point is just bizarre. How exactly do you come up with the idea that the salary cap ensures predictability? As ever you cherry pick your stats ignoring the fact that the last time we didn't have a salary cap Wigan dominated and the Premier League without a salary cap is dominated by the same few sides. The fact that Saints are there instead of Wire or Wigan is testament to the salary cap.

What about the Challenge Cup? 2007: 84,241 2008: 82,821 2009: 76,560 2010: 85,217 Different line ups every year and not seen anything like the same drop despite 2009 not including 2 of the best supported sides in the league at the time.

What about the Challenge Cup? 2007: 84,241 2008: 82,821 2009: 76,560 2010: 85,217 Different line ups every year and not seen anything like the same drop despite 2009 not including 2 of the best supported sides in the league at the time.

The attendance for the Super League grand final rose year on year from it's inception in 1998 when 43,000 fans turned up to 2006 when it was 72,582. Since then we've had 3 Leeds-Saints games, 2007 Leeds 33- 6 St Helens 71,352 2008 Leeds 24-16 St Helens 68,810 2009 Leeds 18-10 St Helens 63,259. Everyone can slag Wendall all they like but the facts speak for themselves. I don't think it would be a disaster for RL but it would probably see another lower crowd. Wigan-Saints would have far more interest and almost guarantee another sellout. Huddersfield would probably see a better attendance than last year too. I honestly think Leeds-Saints puts off many neutrals from attending.

Wendell does have a point but it's hardly a make or break situation. I want anybody except for Saints-Leeds, it's been done to death. I've no problem with Leeds winning it again just not at Saints expense. I'd rather Huddersfield made it. Super League GF crowds rose year on year but have dropped by nearly 10k after the last Saints-Leeds GF. There's much less interest as a neutral and I'm talking from personal experience.

We do definitely need a new final. I'd watch Wigan-Saints because I'd be interested in who won. I'd watch Saints-Leeds out of loyalty to RL.

Which is largely because the salary cap is at a level that allows clubs to compete with Widnes. On the pitch is a small aspect of licensing and Widnes have met the minimum criteria. On all other aspects we are clearly in front.

Some of the badges are incredibly tacky and unprofessional looking. Leeds and Bradford don't befit amateur sides, never mind SL sides.

There's far more of them but they attend games less often. I've already explained the season ticket difference. Take this for example, Wests Tigers averaged 19,000 this year with approximately 4,500 ST holders. Wigan however averaged 15,700 yet have something like 10,000 ST holders. Therefore we have far more regular fans attending games through season tickets. We are comparing ourselves with the NRL when the reality is that the NRL does poorly for it's size. They get barely double what we do despite much higher viewing figures and exposure. The AFL shows what crowds they should be getting. They tend to have a walk up culture where fans pick and choose the games. This inevitably means that come the finals time they are more likely to attend.

Quality over quantity and yet you're suggesting we have an advantage over the Aussies? They have something like 4 times more registered RL players than we do.

They are two very different competitions. The reality is that we do extremely well to get the numbers through the gates that we do, especially in comparison to the NRL. However as somebody has pointed out they do a relatively poor job. The biggest difference between the two is season tickets and the NRL are only starting to wake up to this. Often in SL season tickets can make up to 2/3rds of the attendance. I'd be surprised if it was 1/3 in Australia and in some cases a lot less. As a result attendances fluctuate a great deal between big games and small games. South Sydney can get less than 10,000 but more than 30,000 for games. Compare this to Wigan who fluctuate between 12,000 and 20,000 or Wire who fluctuate between 8-14,000. The NRL has a lot more floating fans and they have a history of attending the big games rather than going to all games. Take the NRL grand final, in Sydney a city of 3million people, 1 million might watch it on FTA TV. In the UK around the same number will watch the Challenge Cup final in a country of 65m people. So when finals comes around more of these latent fans are likely to get on the bandwagon and go when they don't usually, whereas in the UK, a large number of our fans are ST holders who are being asked to pay for games that they have usually already paid for.

This is a simplistic argument and one that I dislike. Whilst the first RUWC was 'tinpot' it quickly caught on because there were a good core of sides that were competitive and could have hopes of winning it. Rugby League has never had this, we have 3 competitive sides and another 3/4 credible sides at a push. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a more regular and thought out World Cup but it's not as simple as put one on and it will work. Our problems run far deeper.