wiganermike

Heavy defeats happen to all teams, we (Wigan) lost 62-0 at Wakefield a few years ago and won the grand final that year, Leeds got a similar spanking at Cas in 2017 but went on to win the GF that year. Any internal review should have been going on long before the last two results and I expect it will have been. If it wasn't then some people at Leeds just haven't been paying attention as this downward trend has been in motion since at least the end of the treble winning season in 2015. It perhaps had begun even before that given some of the mediocre regular seasons during Brian McDermott's tenure. Leeds much like us in the mid 2000s have failed to properly manage the transition from an ageing squad that was competing at the top end into the next generation. They have also displayed the same trend, of having an upturn in form late season and a playoff performance record that to an extent disguises the deficiencies that were on display through most of the season, that we did in the first half of the 2000s. The club as a whole then falls into the trap of thinking "we got to/ came within a whisker of the GF there" and comes to the conclusion that not much needs changing. They change little or continue with the tack they had been following and the downward slide continues. For Wigan this culminated with the 2006 relegation battle after which under new ownership (which probably helped with the change in thinking and process) we stabilised and rebuilt to a position where we have been competing regularly for honours again since 2010. The shock moment for Leeds came, or should have, in 2016 with their bottom four finish but the occasional good campaign since then such as 2017 (2nd and GF winners) and last year's late surge to the GF (which was almost achieved by Salford too) have seemingly allowed the club to forget the turmoil, deficiencies and issues that had gone before. Those issues have then gone unresolved and the gradual slide has been able to continue. Had they got two or three more victories Leeds could have scraped into the top 6, won a playoff game or two and thought everything was rosy again. Maybe missing out will be a good thing longer term if it wakes the club up about the issues at the heart of the slump.

This is why I suggested a combining of the two divisions for one season only in my earlier post. Sure there will be some heavy defeats when the top sides face the lower end but having a single division for one season only to facilitate a more permanent reorganisation would mean that those clubs won't face those stronger opponents as an ongoing issue year on year. Using the fixture pattern I suggested (play 8 teams twice and 10 teams once) there would be four teams that each club did not face in the season. The four weakest teams on the League 1 ladder excepting Skolars were Cornwall, Midlands, Rochdale and North Wales. In a single season combined league using my suggested fixture pattern those teams could face the likes of Wakefield, Batley, Bradford, Toulouse, Fev, Halifax or Broncos either just once or not at all. The teams that ended that season in the bottom 11 would likely have taken a few hammerings but it would only be for one season that they were having to face the strongest 12. Some of those League 1 teams take such hammerings in League 1 as it is and their fans might appreciate the chance to see their team take on the stronger teams even if it meant a defeat in those fixtures.

Sad to see Skolars needing to step back. Hopefully the club can continue as intended by rejoining the community club ranks as opposed to being lost altogether. If there were to be a restructuring below SL, which seems the only sensible way forward, perhaps a way to do it and avoid a last minute extra relegation place (or two) would be to merge the two leagues and run with a single 23 team league in 2024 but with a fixture list of 26 games to keep the number of games manageable (perhaps playing 8 clubs twice and 10 further clubs once). At the end of 2024 that league could then be split into two leagues formed from the top 12 clubs and the bottom 11 clubs to be used from 2025 going forward. That way we end up with two leagues of a more workable size without any club suffering an after the fact relegation due to a hastily made change.

I thought it was the Northampton club that got admitted but never ended up happening that got the nod over Coventry. Was that not the case?

Any player that is signed now cannot play in the Cup final. According to the Operational Rules (on the RFL website) section B3:9 on eligibilty of players in order to be eligible for the CC Semi Finals or Final a player had to have been registered with the club before close of business on the Friday 1 week prior to the Semi Finals being played. Gildart if signed now could play in SL but not in the Cup as the deadline for the CC has passed (it was July 14th this year).

I'm sure they won't be the only club to attempt to game the system to sneak a few more points (or fractions thereof) if they do go down that route and are able to improve their IMG rating as a result. Choosing to close part of the ground in order to improve the percentage of capacity being used seems like a loophole that needs closing. If not then what's to stop almost all clubs closing off stands or terraces to improve their score for utilisation, no matter how small the gain in the grading score.

If we are to see a switch to a group stage in the Challenge Cup then this or something similar would be a good way to go about it with (after the qualifying round) both the Challenge Cup and 1895 having identically (or at least similarly) set up group stages before progressing to the QFs. The only concern I would have with your suggestion would be the possibility of full time SL clubs facing Community clubs in the qualifying round as the Community club players could be at serious risk of injuries in such match ups. I would perhaps tweak your method to give a bye straight into the CC group stage to 4 SL clubs (byes selected via a draw from the 12 SL clubs) with the CC qualifying round then seeing 8 SL + top 8 Championship teams in pot A and 6 Championship + 10 League 1 teams in pot B. That way you would get 16 winners into the CC to join the 4 that were given a bye, and 16 beaten teams into the 1895 Cup. The 4 Community club qualifiers (via a separate process) would then enter the 1895 group stage (one in each group).

I don't think Miski with whom the head clash occurred was being reckless, he was moving in to join the tackle and the tackled man was flung into him as he was thrown and twisted around in the tackle and their heads clashed. The head contact was completely accidental but I do think the tackle could have warranted a yellow for French and I would expect French to pick up a ban when it is reviewed. I would be surprised if anything was done to Miski for what was IMO an accidental clash of heads. Apparently the ref mentioned the head contact when asked by Hull KR but I do think it was the tackle itself rather than the head clash that is the issue with that incident.

By the second one do you mean the one where the man being tackled was being twisted round and clashed heads with Miski who was moving in to join the tackle? If so I thought it was the tackle by French that was penalised rather than the head clash. The KR player had his leg trapped under himself and his torso was bent backwards as he was spun in the tackle. I think that could be considered a dangerous tackle but the head contact was accidental as the tackled man was effectively thrown into the approaching Miski and their heads clashed.

I think that has more to do with the fact that the on-field ref has to give a try/no try signal whenever they refer a decision to the video ref. Clearly no try had been scored as no Wigan player was close to grounding the ball so he made that signal. In instances where an attacking player may have grounded the ball but was impeded as they attempted to score you may have seen the on field ref signal that in their opinion a try had been scored but ask the video ref if there was also a possible penalty try if they didn't score it. As it is the video ref made the correct call, French was impeded off the ball to deny a scoring opportunity (hence the yellow card and penalty) but Mikey Lewis had it covered and would have got the ball anyway so no need for a penalty try.

Indeed, though none of those teams are in this year's final so aren't really relevant. The 43 years (Hull KR) and 52 years (Leigh) just refers to the time since the last CC win for this year's two finalists. It was to this that I think Wellsy was referring.

Catalan Dragons (2018) and Sheffield Eagles (1998) were both new names on the trophy. It will be the first win in 43 or 52 years for whoever wins this year, which I assume is what you meant? Sorry, but my pedant alarm went off.

Congratulations to Hull KR. They kept their composure and stuck at it while we lost ours and at times our discipline too. Mikey Lewis stood out in what I assume is an unfamiliar position for him. Good luck to both teams in the final. Hopefully the weather will be better than today for what should be a good game.

Had they made the CC semi finals they would still be in the 1895 Cup. They would only be withdrawn (with Batley given a bye) had they reached the CC final, as they couldn't play two finals on the same day. Had they reached the CC semis then their 1895 semi would have been put back by a week or two in case they needed to play in the semi finals of both competitions.

Leeds won 52-0 at Wigan in the league a fortnight ago so doesn't look likely unfortunately.