EagleEyePie

Yesssssss! Smith has had a betty crocker tonight but that has made up for it

That was a shocking captains challenge. Rovers had a rush of blood to the head there

Penalty for a hand in the face. When Hadley does that to Nsemba Jack Smith says there's nothing in it. Jack Smith tells players not to run in after every incident or he'll sit them down. JWH runs in and causes a melee and gets a penalty.

Great try from Wardle. Really well executed play from Wigan and Wardle with the afterburners

Well we did not deserve to get away with that. Shocking defending

Looks like Burgess completely missed the ball from the previous angle

The McIlorum knock on changed the game. The Harry Smith kick dead when we had great field position has swung things back again.

It was Walters squaring up down the middle. Once he let the man get on his outside Farrell had to move in too to close the space and that created the opportunity on his outside.

What a try from deep! Some French magic but really good support play from Eckersley

Where is the mitigation there?

Rovers are in great form at the moment, Wigan not so much. Rovers have done well against us previously on their home patch and I can't see them having any issues tomorrow night given our form and theirs. It's a big test for our middles. A lot is made abou the strength of our pack but I felt last years success owed a lot to Thompson, Havard and Ellis and that when you got below that we had some weaknesses. So far this year Walters has stepped up and been playing well, but Dupree, Byrne, Mago and Hill haven't shown enough. Ellis also hasn't been at his best since the Vegas trip. Our best weapon last year was our defence in the opponents half and how we could suffocate teams with good line speed and a controlled ruck. We've struggled to do that this year except for maybe a couple of halves of rugby. I think Rovers win this comfortably by about 30-14

That would presumably have to work the other way too though, with EU players counting as overseas players for the English clubs otherwise it's a double standard. If the goal is to improve the standard of French players and the French national team then more needs to be done to encourage teams across the league to sign French players. New Zealand aren't a strong side because New Zealand Warriors play in the NRL and they have all the Kiwis. NZ are a strong side because the NRL has loads of players from NZ throughout the competition. If we're trying to improve French RL we need more French players across the league rather than concentrated at one or two clubs, otherwise the national team could only ever be as strong as the strongest French club side which will always be weaker than the top nations.

Don't Catalans already have the same overseas quota as every other team? Reducing their ability to sign overseas players compared to other clubs just seems like putting them at a disadvantage. If other teams have a few NRL imports then so should French teams.

I found that a really good read. It's not just the press that doesn't contain that kind of analysis, I've often complained about the lack of in depth analysis on televised RL games in this country compared to other sports. I don't know if it's a lack of tactical awareness by those employed as analysts, or more a lack of interest from those who should be providing better analysis. (I could name some people who appear to be a complete waste of money here, but that seems a little harsh) The article would actually work better as TV analysis but too often we get the bare minimum and it makes the sport seem too one dimensional. BBC in particular seem afraid of presenting anything too complex, no doubt because they partronisingly don't want to confuse all these 'new viewers at home' who have accidentally stumbled upon a live rugby league game while searching for a repeat of Keeping up Appearances. We do ourselves a disservice and make the game seem a bit too basic and less professional. I've seen football and rugby union coverage have active demonstrations as part of tactical analysis. We have a touch screen but it's not used to full effect. We'll 'highlight' a key player on a couple of clips and give no wider context other than 'he's so difficult to play against' when no doubt many who watch the game could pick out another player who makes a much bigger contribution in the clips they use. Also, in terms of the analysis in the article, I'm pretty sure Hull FC were using a similar tactic in their cup win over Wigan. The width of the wingers caused so many problems to Wigan who had a very compressed defence in the middle of the field, no doubt to get players into the tackle and control the ruck speed. Even when they were down a man they were still creating overlaps because the width of the winger, the timing of Sezer and the shape of the attacking play meant Keighran, Farrell and Eckersley were basically tied up together. I'd have loved some analysis after the game or before the Rovers game this weekend on how it happened but we just don't get that.

This is what frustrates me the most about this situation, because ultimately if you're going to challenge a club on whether they should be allowed to participate in Super League for commercial reasons you surely have to do the same for everyone else? And isn't the excessive focus on commercial benefits as opposed to on field performance one of the major criticisms of IMG and their grading? Catalans might be taking central funding without contributing to the value of the Sky deal (though they may contribute to some extent, I don't know how we'd work that out) but how much are Huddersfield contributing? Do they significantly contribute to the value of the TV rights deal or would the deal be pretty much the same with or without them? There are presumably already a large number of Sky Sports subscriptions in that area, and the demographics of the area are already catered to by current advertisers. When it comes to how the product is perceived, Catalans regularly have good crowds at a reasonably sized venue and a good, vibrant atmosphere. Huddersfield play in a good sized stadium to a sparse crowd and it seems to have been that way for as long as I can remember. And I don't mean to pick on Huddersfield. It's just the reality of where we are as a sport that you could pick a number of struggling clubs and then say, 'what does this club actually bring to the competition' or 'how much does this individual team contribure to the value of TV rights' and because of the limited geographical spread of the sport the answer is likely to be not very much.

I don't think you can say Dufty played at it, as the Saints player placed the ball onto his foot. I think it's the same situation as if you palm the ball back into a player who isn't playing at it, so classed as being knocked dead by the attacking team.

That is the dumbest challenge I've seen so far. Absolutely ridiculous

Is there an actual rule on how far you can go before advantage has been played though? I mean if it's 15m it's great reffing I'm sure there used to be a rule about making a pass that meant advantage was played but as I said, no idea what the actual rule is right now.

Sarcastic head pats and hair ruffles should be mandatory after every error. If you're not s***housing you're not trying.

The rugby isn't fluid, it's full of errors but I'm loving every minute so far. This seems like one of those games that could be absolutely chaotic and it wouldn't matter one bit.

I wouldn't have called it an advantage. I have no idea what the actual rule is these days

Obviously I don't disagree that the lowest division is where the weakest teams are going to go, and that is where teams that 'fail' will probably end up, but when so many teams are newly created and go bust in that league without ever looking like progressing further and always seeming to struggle then I think it makes sense to look at the environment they are coming into and the unique challenges they face compared to the already established sides. If League One is not a suitable place for a new club to get up and running and make the strides necessary to grow then you're never going to get anything but failure. If the game genuinely wants to expand to new clubs that can grow beyond their early stages then something would have to change. You're right, we shouldn't catastrophise, but as someone who genuinely believes growing the geographic footprint of RL in the country is important for growth it's hard not to be frustrated by so many failed attempts.

If you're always failing, you're also probably doing something wrong. If we keep having clubs failing in League One I don't see how that's not going to devalue the competition and put people off from putting money into new clubs at that level. We need to support them and that's almost certainly going to need to be financially, otherwise every new club is going to fall by the wayside. League One is a set up for failure and it would be nice if the people who are willing to give these ventures a go (and those who put their time and effort into them, no doubt many of them unpaid) didn't end up with nothing to show for it at after a few years. It seems aside from Midlands Hurricanes the only relatively new clubs still around are those who are essentially offshoots of teams that were thrust into Super League, failed, then were reborn (North Wales and Newcastle Thunder). I'm not sure a litany of failures is actually a good thing. There's nothing stopping amateur clubs from starting up, but when it comes to the semi-professional game there needs to be an actual strategy. It can't be good for the players at Cornwall being in this situation and repeated failures shouldn't be treated with a shrug.

I think it's a fair point to question the costs to other teams in terms of travel and accomodation when it comes to Cornwall, given the central funding given to clubs in League One is so small. It's obviously an obstacle that Cornwall themselves had to face. @Bull Mania has a point saying it's awful economics. This is why at semi-professional and amateur level you often have regional divisions. Third tier rugby league is nowhere near financially viable enough to disregard things such as travel costs when it comes to deciding who does or doesn't compete in the league. It's not enough to say any team should be allowed in and all other teams just need to try harder. I'm pretty sure clubs in League One are trying damn hard to increase revenue but that doesn't make it possible. In terms of Cornwall being a waste, I guess that depends on whether something can be built from what is left over. I'm not sure what happened to the amateur team down there but if they can see some growth and we can keep people interested in the sport then at least rugby league has gained something. If everything just peters out then it probably been a waste. Maybe a waste of a small amount of money, but also the time and effort people put in to try to sustain semi-professional rugby league in Cornwall. One of the problems we always seem to have when it comes to trying to develop 'expansion' teams is a completely unsuitable structure to put them into. Toronto Wolfpack, for example, being placed into a system with promotion and relegation was daft because they were essentially a professional side in a league of teams barely above amateur status. Having part-time players travel over to Canada just seemed ridiculous. League One just doesn't seem attractive enough as a proposition to really see clubs outside the heartlands take off. It's just a tiny dot on the sporting landscape. You're putting new clubs into a situation where established clubs are struggling and then expecting them to thrive. Rugby league has always needed to expand its base in terms of geography but there needs to be serious consideration given when allowing new clubs to take part at professional or semi-professional level because the list of 'failed' expansion clubs must be starting to get off-putting for potential sponsors. There needs to be a clearly defined strategy. Maybe a system of support in place for the right clubs in their early years as a club. At the moment 'pick a place and have a go by yourself' in a struggling league doesn't seem particularly beneficial for the new clubs or the existing clubs.

Even if there was a strategy for sustainable national development I don't think that would include plonking a team in Cornwall. Just because a team can be created doesn't necessarily mean it's going to provide any benefit. There does need to be some kind of strategy when it comes to giving out licenses and awarding teams a place in League One. Or just any consideration as to whether it makes sense or could be sustainable because trying to maintain a team in Cornwall seems very far down the list of sensible options for growth.