Harry Stottle

Every player is defending for 80 mins, that is 100%? Completing at 60% that is 48mins? You spend 3/4's (75%) of the game defending that is 60 mins. I don't think you are grasping this at all, are you forgetting that there will be 2 teams competing.

And nothing to do with closing those gaps up with 17 player's and 8 refreshed bodies, well we will just have to disagree.

All clubs need that money to survive, M'Lud. Mr Rimmer intimates it is the whole game not just SL, and being the Head of the RFL and Sky paying the money to the RFL and not SL he is quite right, nobody has even mentioned his take on P&R which I thought was quite refreshing:- The RFL board has the final say on promotion and relegation, and we should remember that people have invested in their teams in at attempt to be promoted. I think all options are open, but we go back to the three key streams we’re looking at when trying to map out how the season looks. Solvency is a factor in this, player welfare and the integrity of our competitions are the other two, and both promotion and relegation play into that. “I have been lucky enough to chair, attend or present on a weekly basis to all clubs and the community board and it’s important we keep that dialogue going. We know that whatever happens, in the end, it will not be perfect, because there’s no way of producing a perfect season on the back of this. “But I think by the sheer size of what’s going on around us, people understand there will be some imperfections and it won’t please everyone, because that’s impossible.”

We can't turn back the clock, quite right, but we can reverse some rulings that I consider have had an adverse effect on the product we watch. And of course once again I am highlighting the interchange ruling, it was brought in to so called speed up the game, but it really has had the opposite effect coaches have utilised the 'fresh' player's in defensive stratergies, without doubt even yourself and Tommy must admit it is far far easier for coaches to formulate defensive stratergies with 17 players and utilising a number who are rotated on numerous occasions. Without doubt, modern day professional player's are fitter than there contemporaries from years ago acheived not just with training full time but with better understanding and application of nutritional values and lifestyles, I would love to see these present day athletes playing to the same rules as those from 25+ years ago, a reversal to those rules would make the game faster, ball player's would have far more opportunities to express themselves and handling, running and passing would be more to the fore and coaches would really have to work on both offensive and moreso defensive stratergies with less player's to call upon both in number's 17 down to 15 and far less interchanges to utilise, it is a not a modern day statement that says "defences win matches" it has always been so and will continue to be so, so e of the best games I have ever seen have been low scoring encounters, but today the interchange ruling predominantly puts all the emphasis is on defence. If those 70% fit guy's from years ago could play and perform in the entertaing manner in which they did, I would love to see these super-fit athlete's of today playing under the same rulings. Those of us who champion this sport of ours have always said that newbies who watch a game will keep coming back for more, if we could change the rulings that make the game more open, then I am sure we would entice far more people to become regular attendees and viewer's. Obviously, just my thoughts of my expierience making a comparison of this wonderful sport having observed it a very close quaters through both era's and even prior to that, I am not saying these things because as some would say I am stuck in the past, I am not brash enough to make these points just because "everthing was better back then" off course they weren't, I consider the majority of the moderrn day player's without doubt and fear of contradiction as the best I have ever seen, I just don't think though that the evolution of the particular rule I highlight has had the desired effect and improved the game as a spectacle, it could do so much better.

It's Shi-ite, nothing to do with being new.

You got me in one Tommy, I dislike both 9's and 7's immensely, but I don't get your familiarity with the 13 a side game, chalk and cheese comes to mind

I took the first of those coaching courses back in '85 when they were first initiated the head honcho was Phil Larder who was the RFL Director of Coaching assisted by Frank Wilson and Clive Griffiths and very enjoyable courses they were. I will always remember the instruction at the outset that the course was designed to make training drills/practice and subsequently the fundamental skills of running, passing, and tackling more adept, BUT the emphasis on game tactics and management was down to the individual coach, Mr Larder said that if he trained coaches to repeat game plans it would make for a 'stalemate' as every team would be doing the same, coaches he said had to be as individual as the player's, it is OK he said learning of what other teams do, but it is the responsibility of a coach to explore new avenues and improve on what they have learned that is the only way we will improve both as a game and as a spectacle to watch. Somehow, I think has you say that philosophy has been lost somewhere along the way, individuality is a very rare commodity in modern day tactics.

Now we are geting somewhere, the game needs to be more entertaining it is becoming stiffled, very few things happen away from the 'norm'. The rules have been tampered with for a good few years now, some good some not so, but the evolution process has not given us a better spectacle to watch, and for me as I have expressed numerous times is that to many interchanges allowed is the root evil to arresting expansive football.

God, I dread to think what today's game would look like then if you think that risk taking - I would prefer to call it expansive Football - meant more player's had to do more game time!

I will go along with trained more in the defence's aspect, but still the overriding factor which allows for the formulation and manipulation of defencive structures from those of yesteryear is the number of allowed interchanges, to coin a phrase "it is a completely different ball game" they could not possibly use the same tactics and strategies with just 2 substitutions, can you not comprehend that?

Exactly what I have been saying Scotchy re the number of interchanges, they are utilised for defensive purposes, the shear number's of bringing on 'fresh' player's is stifling attacks, fatigue is important in the games offensive tactics.

That may well be, but it makes for a better discussion than a half baked idea like Mr McDermott has put forward.

Tommy to your good self and Scotchy, what it seems you desire from an on-field spectacle is a bland defensive orientated structure exhibited by both teams, a lot like Bennet's recent "completion rate" no mistake brand of boring football. What you both describe works, because the other team are usually aware of what is coming next, BUT there are times when it falls down for the defending team, that is when a team who is behind and decides to do something that had been given the name of "Champagne Football" which happens basically when the offensive team puts in a deeper attacking line, have a second and third phase supporting and they keep the ball alive, a lot of the time this throws a defence into disarray and tries are quite often scored resulting from a tactic "away from the norm" why should that be the case if a well structured defence can annul quite easily an expansive type of football as you both claim? If both teams play to the same tactics which is the norm these days it results in a borefest, as you say modern day coaches are fearful for their livelihood and that shouts in volumes to me when I watch todays game in SL, their teams are seemingly fearful of making mistakes and backs are mainly passenger's just making up the number's in today's forward orientated game - that is why coaches play 4 forwards on the bench - the teams with the best 10 forwards to choose from each week usually wins.

I have said previously and that by reducing the number of interchanges the game would be faster and more expansive, the excessive number of interchanges are not to assist the offensive tactics, you are quite right they are used by all coaches to shore up the defence's as much as possible. If substitutes were reduced then when the fatigue levels kick in the creative player's due to not being targeted consistently by 'fresh' forwards could/would be more expansive, those second rows who spend the whole game as a second centre out wide would have to come inside to assist the tiring forwards, thus creating space outside where we would have centre v centre and wing v wing, and most importantly the playing field would be a safer environment, there would be no place for the 10 minute behemoths they would be replaced with leaner blokes with a better aerobic capacity to play longer game time. Those who champion the present day game do not take into consideration that having as many as 8 interchanges from 17 player's is the main reason that defence's are more secure these day's, but as I said it does not make for a better spectacle.

For me the biggest change has undoubtedly been the interchange rule on the physicality front, and putting that one rule back to just 2 substitutes from 15 player's as was the case 30 years ago, would result in the game being faster and more expansive.

Sounds a lot like what Cas did to SL defence's for a couple of season's not to long ago, Mr Powell changed the stereo type play but as you say teams have managed to annul that type of expansive play, does it make for a better spectacle I am not to sure it does. I was having a discussion not to long ago on these pages, comparing the present day style of play between the Championship and SL, whilst I will concede hands down that SL clubs would beat their Champ opponents on a very regular basis, I find the Championship to be an aesthetically better game to watch, and the main reason is that it is a yard slower than SL.

And, that is not just aligned to the pro game, teams in the National Conference being Amatuer player's who also work have to comply with such fixture lists, especially those who have had long cup runs and have to get the league fixtures played before the league deadline, and the League insists on the games being played even if there are mid week games and clubs have to travel from say Lancashire to North Cumbria, or Cumbria to Humberside/West Yorkshire and any combination thereof.

Yep, and after the trials it never caught on, so bin it.

Have you ever played?

Off course it is, but not all for the better young man!

Term it as you see fit Wiggy, but in my opinion it is just a 'novelty' game that when I was young was played as a 7's tournament by pro clubs to make a few bob through the gates, it was not taken seriously by hardly anyone, even the recent surge of the NRL and World Cup 9's did not entice either the paying public or TV audiences, why because apart from the shape of the pitch, ball and posts it has no resemblance whatsoever to the 13 a side game, quite honestly I don't get any pleasure at all from it and the evidence shows I am not alone.

No, he was playing very well at Salford also.

Does no one on here get it, McDermott's suggestion is the best possible chance if proceedings happen to be reinstated of his team avoiding relegation.

What will help the safety of the player's, is dropping the interchange ruling to 3, gone would be the day's of the 10 minute behomoths, they would be replaced by forwards still big lads but capable of sustaining longer minute's on the pitch.

"Plastic Rugby League" 9's as with 7's is a completely different game to the 13 a side proper game.