superleague

[oldrover]

went to watch c*s and wakey today, (freebie of course), and if that is where all these years of superleague has got us, then scrap it, scrap it NOW!

[burkyrover]

went to watch c*s and wakey today, (freebie of course), and if that is where all these years of superleague has got us, then scrap it, scrap it NOW!

thought the wigan warrington game was fantastic. Best SL game i have seen.

[DMS]

And thats the problem, as Old rover points out, matches between teams who essentially have nothing to play for are pretty rubbish. But the games between the big boys are excellent. The Wigan Saints game the other week was superb. A bit one dimensional for my taste but action packed.

Bring back P+R now or there will be more matches every year like the Cas Wakey rubbish.

[LOWFIELD]

went to watch c*s and wakey today, (freebie of course), and if that is where all these years of superleague has got us, then scrap it, scrap it NOW!

I hope it was a freebie, couldnt cope with you coming out of the clossett

[sidnee]

How many more of these games before they merge?

They will have to play with themselves then

[oldrover]

<br />I hope it was a freebie, couldnt cope with you coming out of the clossett<br />

<br /><br /><br />

i have a man on the inside, so to speak.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

Dont they have a play off place to play for???

i dont understand this pointless SL bashing it doesnt get us anywhere. there are good and bad games in all league and all sports, some of the recent SL games have been superb includiing both televised games this week.

We play like a SL club now anyway so we cant really say owt.

No P&R does have an impact on the action at the bottom though.

[oldrover]

<br />Dont they have a play off place to play for???<br /><br />i dont understand this pointless SL bashing it doesnt get us anywhere. there are good and bad games in all league and all sports, some of the recent SL games have been superb includiing both televised games this week.<br /><br />We play like a SL club now anyway so we cant really say owt.<br /><br />No P&R does have an impact on the action at the bottom though.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

it's not the fact that it was a good or bad game, the quality was poor, and superleague was supposed to address that.

[Rob Hemmi]

They both won't be there much longer

[sidnee]

They will but even closer than now

A deal will be struck and they will promise to merge and play at Birmingham City's ground until their new stadium is built, and then as if by magic, none of it will actually happen. Red Hall will believe them and......

Now, remind me, which club have we seen that from before

[LOWFIELD]

Dont they have a play off place to play for???

i dont understand this pointless SL bashing it doesnt get us anywhere. there are good and bad games in all league and all sports, some of the recent SL games have been superb includiing both televised games this week.

We play like a SL club now anyway so we cant really say owt.

No P&R does have an impact on the action at the bottom though.

Its a fans forum were people can discuss anything within the rules and if that includes super league bashing whether it gets us anywhere or not then so be it.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

Fair enough fire away. Just to point out though that i was, within the rules of the forum of course, merely pointing out that I dont think SL is poor quality or lacking in entertainment and that people may enjoy it more if they could get past whatever issues they have. There are poor games in every league including ours.

But i suppose it doesnt really effect me so i guess it was pointless of me to discuss it.

[DMS]

I think the general standard in SL has gone down but games involving the top 4 or 5 teams have been very exciting. The move to include 8 teams in the play-offs was IMO an attempt to give teams lower down the league something to play for, seeing as they weren't playing for their survival. I don't think it's worked. The new system was installed to allow teams to develop their own talent and make us more competetive with the Aussies, with a couple of notable exceptions i don't think this is happening. I do think most SL games are very one dimensional. 5 drives and a kick.

[bigjohn]

The problem that I have is the word Super we have good games and bad games yes, but how many are actually Super? I think I have seen five games this year that have been impressed with.

[oldrover]

Fair enough fire away. Just to point out though that i was, within the rules of the forum of course, merely pointing out that I dont think SL is poor quality or lacking in entertainment and that people may enjoy it more if they could get past whatever issues they have. There are poor games in every league including ours.

But i suppose it doesnt really effect me so i guess it was pointless of me to discuss it.

pull your neck in professor. yes i do have an issue with superleague. my club has had to suffer because of the inception of superleague, but if it had done what it set out to do, then i wouldn't have an argument, but it hasn't. yesterday i watched two teams who are fighting for a playoff place, and the skills on display were mediocre. i was watching better than that 30 or 40 years ago. take the overseas players out of the equation and it's even worse. it's not just about "good games". we had good games before superleague. so tell me, where's our Benji Marshall, Jonathon Thurston, Billy Slater, Darren Lockyer, need i go on?. when Gareth Ellis went to Australia, they said they had to get him out on the training pitch and teach him the basics. the aim of superleague was to give us a top class domestic competition and a national team that would rule the world. how long is it going to take. the castleford area is a hotbed of rugby league, if our system is so good, why do we need the likes of McGoldrick,Chase, widders, sergeant etc playing in our competition. don't you think the british game should be better than it is by now, compare our best players to Australias best players, and they're in another galaxy. and as for our top 4 or 5 teams, how good would they be without their imports.

superleague? it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

Edited July 19, 2010 by oldrover

[bigjohn]

Top post oldrover well said.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

pull your neck in professor. yes i do have an issue with superleague. my club has had to suffer because of the inception of superleague, but if it had done what it set out to do, then i wouldn't have an argument, but it hasn't. yesterday i watched two teams who are fighting for a playoff place, and the skills on display were mediocre. i was watching better than that 30 or 40 years ago. take the overseas players out of the equation and it's even worse. it's not just about "good games". we had good games before superleague. so tell me, where's our Benji Marshall, Jonathon Thurston, Billy Slater, Darren Lockyer, need i go on?. when Gareth Ellis went to Australia, they said they had to get him out on the training pitch and teach him the basics. the aim of superleague was to give us a top class domestic competition and a national team that would rule the world. how long is it going to take. the castleford area is a hotbed of rugby league, if our system is so good, why do we need the likes of McGoldrick,Chase, widders, sergeant etc playing in our competition. don't you think the british game should be better than it is by now, compare our best players to Australias best players, and they're in another galaxy. and as for our top 4 or 5 teams, how good would they be without their imports.

superleague? it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

(big sigh) Ill probably regret this but seeing as youve gone to the trouble to write more than a weak one liner Ill indulge you.

Fev suffering because of SL has nothing to do with the quality of the competition.

You werent watching that 30 40 years ago because the game is vastly different. that much is blatantly obvious if you watch a game from each decade from the 50s onwards it changes dramatically every decade. Skill levels are very high now especially considering the speed of the game.

Kyle Eastmond and Sam Tomkins are as good as Benji Marshall in my opinion. We beatthe kiwis last time we played them, and 3-0 in the last series against them. We were beating Australia for 60 minutes. they arent 'in another galaxy'

Dont confuse facts with Aussie arrogance. Is that the same Gareth Ellis who won player of the year at Wests? in front of Benji? Isnt Sam Burgess ripping it up? Mark Flanaghan couldnt get a game at Wigan. Of course they have a lot of players better than ours, especially backs, at the moment and some genuine freaks but there are a variety of reasons for that. Its a massive ask for us to be better than the australians with the resources and player pool they have.

It was not the sole aim of SL to make us beat Australia, it was a package to professionalise the sport and spread the game, make it a more viable sport. whether its doen that is debateable but thats not to do with the quality. Attendances would suggest otherwise with record crowds this weekend.

I agree more young players should come through, but to be honest if an import is better than a young player then for me the import is worth the place to improve the standard of the comp. If a young player is good enough they should get their chance. Players improve by playing against better players.

Just to clarify Im not pro franchising I believe P&R creates healthy competition and I hope CC can go full time to enable more fluid P&R in the future. All Im saying is that if you look at it objectively then SL is a good competition with some very good contests. The Cas game may well have been bad but you get bad games anywhere.

I dont want to patronise you with tactical analysis and things but we play a very similar game to many SL clubs, the way we defend and our attacking structure, if you want to stand with me at a game Ill talk you through it. Apparently this is the best entertainment weve had for years! (I agree by the way we are having a top season playing our SL brand of rugby)

[oldrover]

(big sigh) Ill probably regret this but seeing as youve gone to the trouble to write more than a weak one liner Ill indulge you.

Fev suffering because of SL has nothing to do with the quality of the competition.

You werent watching that 30 40 years ago because the game is vastly different. that much is blatantly obvious if you watch a game from each decade from the 50s onwards it changes dramatically every decade. Skill levels are very high now especially considering the speed of the game.

Kyle Eastmond and Sam Tomkins are as good as Benji Marshall in my opinion. We beatthe kiwis last time we played them, and 3-0 in the last series against them. We were beating Australia for 60 minutes. they arent 'in another galaxy'

Dont confuse facts with Aussie arrogance. Is that the same Gareth Ellis who won player of the year at Wests? in front of Benji? Isnt Sam Burgess ripping it up? Mark Flanaghan couldnt get a game at Wigan. Of course they have a lot of players better than ours, especially backs, at the moment and some genuine freaks but there are a variety of reasons for that. Its a massive ask for us to be better than the australians with the resources and player pool they have.

It was not the sole aim of SL to make us beat Australia, it was a package to professionalise the sport and spread the game, make it a more viable sport. whether its doen that is debateable but thats not to do with the quality. Attendances would suggest otherwise with record crowds this weekend.

I agree more young players should come through, but to be honest if an import is better than a young player then for me the import is worth the place to improve the standard of the comp. If a young player is good enough they should get their chance. Players improve by playing against better players.

Just to clarify Im not pro franchising I believe P&R creates healthy competition and I hope CC can go full time to enable more fluid P&R in the future. All Im saying is that if you look at it objectively then SL is a good competition with some very good contests. The Cas game may well have been bad but you get bad games anywhere.

I dont want to patronise you with tactical analysis and things but we play a very similar game to many SL clubs, the way we defend and our attacking structure, if you want to stand with me at a game Ill talk you through it. Apparently this is the best entertainment weve had for years! (I agree by the way we are having a top season playing our SL brand of rugby)

and here's me thinking you didn't have a sense humour.

[oldrover]

(big sigh) Ill probably regret this but seeing as youve gone to the trouble to write more than a weak one liner Ill indulge you.

Fev suffering because of SL has nothing to do with the quality of the competition.

You werent watching that 30 40 years ago because the game is vastly different. that much is blatantly obvious if you watch a game from each decade from the 50s onwards it changes dramatically every decade. Skill levels are very high now especially considering the speed of the game.

Kyle Eastmond and Sam Tomkins are as good as Benji Marshall in my opinion. We beatthe kiwis last time we played them, and 3-0 in the last series against them. We were beating Australia for 60 minutes. they arent 'in another galaxy'

Dont confuse facts with Aussie arrogance. Is that the same Gareth Ellis who won player of the year at Wests? in front of Benji? Isnt Sam Burgess ripping it up? Mark Flanaghan couldnt get a game at Wigan. Of course they have a lot of players better than ours, especially backs, at the moment and some genuine freaks but there are a variety of reasons for that. Its a massive ask for us to be better than the australians with the resources and player pool they have.

It was not the sole aim of SL to make us beat Australia, it was a package to professionalise the sport and spread the game, make it a more viable sport. whether its doen that is debateable but thats not to do with the quality. Attendances would suggest otherwise with record crowds this weekend.

I agree more young players should come through, but to be honest if an import is better than a young player then for me the import is worth the place to improve the standard of the comp. If a young player is good enough they should get their chance. Players improve by playing against better players.

Just to clarify Im not pro franchising I believe P&R creates healthy competition and I hope CC can go full time to enable more fluid P&R in the future. All Im saying is that if you look at it objectively then SL is a good competition with some very good contests. The Cas game may well have been bad but you get bad games anywhere.

I dont want to patronise you with tactical analysis and things but we play a very similar game to many SL clubs, the way we defend and our attacking structure, if you want to stand with me at a game Ill talk you through it. Apparently this is the best entertainment weve had for years! (I agree by the way we are having a top season playing our SL brand of rugby)

[oldrover]

(even bigger sigh) thanks for your indulgence Tex. firstly, we were competing quite well with the leeds and wigans of this world before s/l, and if we were still getting those fixtures we would be in a much healthier position than we are now. s/l has not been enhanced by our exclusion imo.

secondly, i said i was watching better skills than that. (i had noticed that the game has changed).

if it's your opinion that tomkins and eastwood are as good as marshall, that's fine. but i can't say i agree with you, and i dont see nrl clubs offering them the megabucks that marshall is getting.

did gareth Ellis get player of the year before or after the aussies had sorted him out.

you're quite right about Burgess, but he is the exception rather than the rule, perhaps if he was australian you would class him as a freak. so, in surmation, we've produced 2 world class forwards, who have had to go to australia to develop their game.

you agree we are having a top season playing our brand of s/l rugby. agree who with?

thanks for the offer, but no, i wont be standing with you at a game, and i find that attitude rather pompous. unless of course it was your rapier wit and went completely over my head.

in conclusion may i say that "good games" are not exclusive to s/l and the basic skills of passing catching and kicking that were lacking at the cas wakey match, have been around for as long as i can remember, and were performed by players who weren't able to concentrate on rugby league 7 days a week.

thanks for the chat.

[Andrew Vause]

(big sigh) Ill probably regret this but seeing as youve gone to the trouble to write more than a weak one liner Ill indulge you.

Fev suffering because of SL has nothing to do with the quality of the competition.

You werent watching that 30 40 years ago because the game is vastly different. that much is blatantly obvious if you watch a game from each decade from the 50s onwards it changes dramatically every decade. Skill levels are very high now especially considering the speed of the game.

Kyle Eastmond and Sam Tomkins are as good as Benji Marshall in my opinion. We beatthe kiwis last time we played them, and 3-0 in the last series against them. We were beating Australia for 60 minutes. they arent 'in another galaxy'

Dont confuse facts with Aussie arrogance. Is that the same Gareth Ellis who won player of the year at Wests? in front of Benji? Isnt Sam Burgess ripping it up? Mark Flanaghan couldnt get a game at Wigan. Of course they have a lot of players better than ours, especially backs, at the moment and some genuine freaks but there are a variety of reasons for that. Its a massive ask for us to be better than the australians with the resources and player pool they have.

It was not the sole aim of SL to make us beat Australia, it was a package to professionalise the sport and spread the game, make it a more viable sport. whether its doen that is debateable but thats not to do with the quality. Attendances would suggest otherwise with record crowds this weekend.

I agree more young players should come through, but to be honest if an import is better than a young player then for me the import is worth the place to improve the standard of the comp. If a young player is good enough they should get their chance. Players improve by playing against better players.

Just to clarify Im not pro franchising I believe P&R creates healthy competition and I hope CC can go full time to enable more fluid P&R in the future. All Im saying is that if you look at it objectively then SL is a good competition with some very good contests. The Cas game may well have been bad but you get bad games anywhere.

I dont want to patronise you with tactical analysis and things but we play a very similar game to many SL clubs, the way we defend and our attacking structure, if you want to stand with me at a game Ill talk you through it. Apparently this is the best entertainment weve had for years! (I agree by the way we are having a top season playing our SL brand of rugby)

I don't know if you stated that last paragraph with tongue firmly in cheek, if not, it is one of the most patronising and egotistical comments that I have read for a long time. A few weeks ago a complete novice came on criticising people's spelling and grammar, but the line, Ill talk you through it. (sic) in my opinion ranks with the arrogance of that poster.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Andrew Vause

[Tex Evans Thigh]

It was a genuine offer! Im fortunate enough to be in contact with people and in a position to put into practice modern coaching techniques around tactics and game plans. We play an SL brand of rugby, I could point out how and why and compare opinions etc. I chatted about it with my dad other week and he was explaining how it went in his day when he played and it was interesting to compare the differences. I dont expect that to get in the way of a bit SL bashing mind.

The original point was SL is ###### with no skills and it was somehow implied that CC produces better games than SL which doesnt. It then turned into a 'critique' on why SL has failed. The point Ive laboured to make is that SL hasnt been a total failure and does produce good games. The fact arent in right or wrong is neither here nor there. If you watch SL objectively it is by and large as entertaining as CC. I saw 3 games this weekend 2 SL and the NRC I enjoyed all equally as they were all fantastic games. I watched Widnes v Whitehave and Wakey v Hull the week before and I wanted to stab my eyes out. Works both ways.

They are quick trainers those Aussie magicians. Ellis was getting MOM awards in his first games. There are 3 english players in Aus - all 3 are going well. More will go now the exchange rates are more favourable.

The bottom line is that peoples perception of the quality of SL is tainted by the wrongs done to Fev by the RFL in the original creation of SL.

Yours,

The Professor.

[oldrover]

It was a genuine offer! Im fortunate enough to be in contact with people and in a position to put into practice modern coaching techniques around tactics and game plans. We play an SL brand of rugby, I could point out how and why and compare opinions etc. I chatted about it with my dad other week and he was explaining how it went in his day when he played and it was interesting to compare the differences. I dont expect that to get in the way of a bit SL bashing mind.

The original point was SL is ###### with no skills and it was somehow implied that CC produces better games than SL which doesnt. It then turned into a 'critique' on why SL has failed. The point Ive laboured to make is that SL hasnt been a total failure and does produce good games. The fact arent in right or wrong is neither here nor there. If you watch SL objectively it is by and large as entertaining as CC. I saw 3 games this weekend 2 SL and the NRC I enjoyed all equally as they were all fantastic games. I watched Widnes v Whitehave and Wakey v Hull the week before and I wanted to stab my eyes out. Works both ways.

They are quick trainers those Aussie magicians. Ellis was getting MOM awards in his first games. There are 3 english players in Aus - all 3 are going well. More will go now the exchange rates are more favourable.

The bottom line is that peoples perception of the quality of SL is tainted by the wrongs done to Fev by the RFL in the original creation of SL.

Yours,

The Professor.

sorry prof, but i feel you're deliberately missing the point. where did i imply that C.C. produces better games than s/l. you say there are good games in s/l, fair enough. i said there are good games in CC, i also said we had good games before s/l. BUT, i wasn't talking about the game, i repeat, i was talking about the quality of the basic skills of the game, which in the game i watched, were poor. now, i dont have sky, i dont normally go and watch s/l. so all my comments were aimed at this one game. i said that if this is the quality after all these years of s/l, then we should scrap it. that is my opinion and i leave you with it.

p.s. correct me if i'm wrong but didn't those aussie trainers have the whole off season to work with Ellis, and the quote about having to teach him the basics came from his club.

[Andrew Vause]

Here lies the rub. "It was a genuine offer! Im fortunate enough to be in contact with people and in a position to put into practice modern coaching techniques around tactics and game plan".

I am going to open another debate inside a debate here. Before I get slated, I realise that coaches are an essential part of the game. But that statement, "Coaching techniques", "game plan", "tactics". All well and good, but OR quite rightly states this was about catching, passing and not dropping the ball. To be fair modern words/phrases such as those make me shudder, considering I am only 43 and I hope that i'm not yet a fossil. (Could Robinson, Sterling, Kenney, Van Vollenhoven, Hanley, Langer, Lewis Jones, Lionel Cooper, Hardisty, Menninga, Pearce etc, I could go on forever, have had their games improved by "tactics" "coaching" and "game plans"? or were they natural uninhibited geniuses. Maybe so, may be not open to debate.

I must admit that because of the Super league and our national sycophantasism to all things RL that are Australian, I'm not as into RL as I was in my teens and 20s, therefore I am not as qualified as some posters on here ,on all things Super League but if catching and passing is the issue surely this is not a coaching and tactics thing.

The thing that killed so called "school tie" sports for many years in this country was "Coaching" "Tactics" and particularly "Game Plan" especially in Rugby Union and to a lesser degree Cricket, Then lo and behold Rugby Union decided to go professional, allow players with natural talent and flare to play for their national team, players not necessarily born with a silver spoon up their ###### and with a lillywhite skin, players, players who could catch and run and tackle, without being necessarily being instructed and shown how to do so (by people who couldn't lick their boots). Who didn't have their natural talent squeezed out of them by some tactician who wanted to play the game on a chess board.

Oh and look what happened we beat the Aussies in their own back yard to win the World Cup. Don't think I'll see the likes of this in my code, in my lifetime.

"I would like to see how well these coaches(Monie)would do if they were coaching the likes of Bramley".

P.Fox 1989.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Andrew Vause

[oldrover]

Here lies the rub. "It was a genuine offer! Im fortunate enough to be in contact with people and in a position to put into practice modern coaching techniques around tactics and game plan".

I am going to open another debate inside a debate here. Before I get slated, I realise that coaches are an essential part of the game. But that statement, "Coaching techniques", "game plan", "tactics". All well and good, but OR quite rightly states this was about catching, passing and not dropping the ball. To be fair modern words/phrases such as those make me shudder, considering I am only 43 and I hope that i'm not yet a fossil. (Could Robinson, Sterling, Kenney, Van Vollenhoven, Hanley, Langer, Lewis Jones, Lionel Cooper, Hardisty, Menninga, Pearce etc, I could go on forever, have had their games improved by "tactics" "coaching" and "game plans"? or were they natural uninhibited geniuses. Maybe so, may be not open to debate.

I must admit that because of the Super league and our national sycophantasism to all things RL that are Australian, I'm not as into RL as I was in my teens and 20s, therefore I am not as qualified as some posters on here ,on all things Super League but if catching and passing is the issue surely this is not a coaching and tactics thing.

The thing that killed so called "school tie" sports for many years in this country was "Coaching" "Tactics" and particularly "Game Plan" especially in Rugby Union and to a lesser degree Cricket, Then lo and behold Rugby Union decided to go professional, allow players with natural talent and flare to play for their national team, players not necessarily born with a silver spoon up their ###### and with a lillywhite skin, players, players who could catch and run and tackle, without being necessarily being instructed and shown how to do so (by people who couldn't lick their boots). Who didn't have their natural talent squeezed out of them by some tactician who wanted to play the game on a chess board.

Oh and look what happened we beat the Aussies in their own back yard to win the World Cup. Don't think I'll see the likes of this in my code, in my lifetime.

"I would like to see how well these coaches(Monie)would do if they were coaching the likes of Bramley".

P.Fox 1989.

that's a good post for mine Andrew.