Fri 13 Sept: SL: Wakefield Trinity v London Broncos KO 7.45pm (TV)

[Futtocks 13,348]

It is going to be a horribly tense affair. A lot of the Broncos' fortunes turn on the way they start a match. Too many slow starts in recent years have hurt them.

[redjonn 1,095]

I guess whom handles the pressure best.  

Seems to me more pressure on London, whereas Wakefield need Hull KR to win to consign them. Yep, they can't think of that but it just may ease a little pressure.

London were poor two weeks ago when I watched them play Leeds. Their attack was easy to defend. Didn't see the Hull KR & London game but what I've read KR blew it. Although full marks to London for never give-up attitude.

Just wonder if that may be the difference as London in my opinion generally lack finesse in attack. Wakefield defence were able to defend well against Warrington, Wigan & Saints in last few weeks, so should be able to handle Londons attack.

Personally I'd prefer London to be relegated... but well done if they do stay up.

[Wakey Til I Die 23]

Wakey by 14 

[Clogiron 1,837]

Hoping for a Bronco's win and to stay up, I had them down for only winning a couple of games this season but they have undoubtedly prove me wrong and I have been very impressed by what I have seen of them, it's just a pity that when they have lost they have shipped a shed load of points.

The Giants have been the poorest team I have seen this season but having Catalans at home may just provide a lifeline as they seem totally disinterested, Trinity's recent record as quoted is very poor too and Rovers seem to drag defeat from the jaws of victory all too often, and I can't see them getting much at Salford.

Interesting to say the least

 

 

[Chris22 1,176]

I'm probably going to make the same mistake that I have made several times this season, in tipping against London. Wakefield have improved in recent weeks and if they keep that up, they should just about have enough.

But London have been written off all year and have kept proving people wrong. I'm sure the message from Ward will be win and we're safe, and London have already beaten Wakefield twice, so why can't they do it again?

[Davo5 3,667]

Hopefully a London win,will be a tight nervous tussle with less than 6 points in it.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo 706]

Well I make this the 5th time Wakey have been in a final day encounter requiring a win to stay up.  The bookies seem a lot more confident than most RL fans so you can still get some really good odds to soften the blow should all the results go against us. 

Eyes on the big screen throughout the game for important updates from elsewhere.

 

[Harry Stottle 3,081]

14 hours ago, Konkrete said:

No idea who will win.  Too tight to call.  But the game of RL will benefit far more if London stay up. 

Simple question, Why?  Not saying that you are right or wrong.

[Chronicler of Chiswick 909]

London to sneak it by 4, probably won't be a great game - too much tension.

[swann5 109]

Hoping for a Wakefield win . Can see Hull KR loosing.

[Curly perm 42]

19 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

What if this game goes to golden point and the news comes through that Rovers have lost? There would be nothing to stop Wakefield and London from just running down the clock with five drives and a kick.

If that news came through, Wakefield would know they were safe and it wouldn’t be worth the hassle of having to explain why they stopped trying, didn’t go for the drop goal etc etc. I’d think they’d be more likely to just continue to play for the win, rather than help London out. 

[Denton Rovers RLFC 991]

19 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

What if this game goes to golden point and the news comes through that Rovers have lost? There would be nothing to stop Wakefield and London from just running down the clock with five drives and a kick.

West Germany v Austria Football world Cup 1982 springs to mind. West Germany won 1-0 but were far superior to Austria and after WG had scored the goal they needed to secure their own place the teams played ping-pong and just had a kick around as if in a park. A 3-0 win would have seen WG and Algeria go through.

It was labelled the 'disgrace of Gijon'

[Tex Evans Thigh 943]

1 hour ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

West Germany v Austria Football world Cup 1982 springs to mind. West Germany won 1-0 but were far superior to Austria and after WG had scored the goal they needed to secure their own place the teams played ping-pong and just had a kick around as if in a park. A 3-0 win would have seen WG and Algeria go through.

It was labelled the 'disgrace of Gijon'

Same in Euro 2004 with Sweden and Denmark I think. Needed a 2-2 draw for them both to go through and knock Italy out. Unsurprisingly it got to 2-2 and Sweden just passed it about at the back for 20 minutes with no pressure from Denmark.

At least all games are on at the same time now. Originally Huddersfield were playing first and had they lost a draw for London and Wakey would be enough with plenty of time to 'plan it'. If this happens in real time then fair play, theyve kinda earned the right by battling out a draw in the 80 minutes anyway.

[Denton Rovers RLFC 991]

2 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

Same in Euro 2004 with Sweden and Denmark I think. Needed a 2-2 draw for them both to go through and knock Italy out. Unsurprisingly it got to 2-2 and Sweden just passed it about at the back for 20 minutes with no pressure from Denmark.

At least all games are on at the same time now. Originally Huddersfield were playing first and had they lost a draw for London and Wakey would be enough with plenty of time to 'plan it'. If this happens in real time then fair play, theyve kinda earned the right by battling out a draw in the 80 minutes anyway.

Well for one thing you forgot about golden point so it's extremely unlikely to be a draw anyway, but can you really think two rugby teams would contrive a result, professional ones at that? I couldn't ever imagine that, I still hold firm on my original thinking that it doesn't matter which day the games are played and I don't see it as unfair on any side knowing/not knowing, the pressure given the stakes and what's required for all four teams is the same no matter what.

[I0RL 22]

London to beat Wakey but can't see Hull KR beating Salford so they will go down. 

[Konkrete 867]

10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simple question, Why?  Not saying that you are right or wrong.

Because of the level of engagement in London. Player participation. London lends itself to greater media attention.  Potential audience etc etc

I don’t think Wakey will go down, but what’s their contribution to the game outside of their immediate fan base?  10+ years of SL, with entry gained on false pretences, 2/3 good players produced. Every season bar the odd one last year they’re at the bottom and struggling. 

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo 706]

52 minutes ago, Konkrete said:

Because of the level of engagement in London. Player participation. London lends itself to greater media attention.  Potential audience etc etc

I don’t think Wakey will go down, but what’s their contribution to the game outside of their immediate fan base?  10+ years of SL, with entry gained on false pretences, 2/3 good players produced. Every season bar the odd one last year they’re at the bottom and struggling. 

It's 20 years.  I'll not bother correcting the rest of your drivel.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Wollo Wollo Wayoo

[Tex Evans Thigh 943]

2 hours ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

Well for one thing you forgot about golden point so it's extremely unlikely to be a draw anyway, but can you really think two rugby teams would contrive a result, professional ones at that? I couldn't ever imagine that, I still hold firm on my original thinking that it doesn't matter which day the games are played and I don't see it as unfair on any side knowing/not knowing, the pressure given the stakes and what's required for all four teams is the same no matter what.

I'm well aware of golden point. I would have to assume if they contrived to draw after 80 mins they could carry on the debacle for the duration of golden point. I don't think they will or would do it either but it's odd you recount an example of it happening elsewhere then dismiss it completely. It would be more difficult in rugby but not impossible, particularly a 0-0 just do 5 boring drives/scoots and a basic kick repeatedly for 80 mins.

The pressure is hardly the same is it. If Hudds lost on Friday, Wakey playing a couple of days later would know they were safe so the pressure would be off, which is hardly fair to HKR...or Salford for that matter. Same scenario if HKR played before everyone else and lost. 

[dboy 138]

1 hour ago, Konkrete said:

Because of the level of engagement in London. Player participation. London lends itself to greater media attention.  Potential audience etc etc

I don’t think Wakey will go down, but what’s their contribution to the game outside of their immediate fan base?  10+ years of SL, with entry gained on false pretences, 2/3 good players produced. Every season bar the odd one last year they’re at the bottom and struggling. 

Wollo might not bother to correct your drivel, but I will.

Wakefield have produced more players for the game than virtually every other area, if not all,  (stated by Mr Carter, though he himself couldn't explain the measure the RFL used).

Wakefield made no promises regarding the ground on entry to SL. They said they wanted to play all TV games at Oakwell, but that was never within their control.

In 20 years, Wakefield have finished bottom ONCE.

Also, the club have been self-sufficient since Mr Carter got a hold of the club. They only spend what they earn (which was diminished due to the RFL holding money back because of not meeting some facility standards), and now own the ground (via a loan from WMDC which the club pay back with interest).

If I'm right, you're a Bulls fan?? You really shouldn't be lecturing other clubs about facilities, producing players and definitely not finances!

[Tex Evans Thigh 943]

35 minutes ago, dboy said:

Wollo might not bother to correct your drivel, but I will.

Wakefield have produced more players for the game than virtually every other area, if not all,  (stated by Mr Carter, though he himself couldn't explain the measure the RFL used).

Wakefield made no promises regarding the ground on entry to SL. They said they wanted to play all TV games at Oakwell, but that was never within their control.

In 20 years, Wakefield have finished bottom ONCE.

Also, the club have been self-sufficient since Mr Carter got a hold of the club. They only spend what they earn (which was diminished due to the RFL holding money back because of not meeting some facility standards), and now own the ground (via a loan from WMDC which the club pay back with interest).

If I'm right, you're a Bulls fan?? You really shouldn't be lecturing other clubs about facilities, producing players and definitely not finances!

When you say Wakefield have produced more players than any other area, do you mean the club or Wakefield district? I know the club have a decent record producing players over the past couple of decades with people like Brough, Westwood, Ellis etc but I wouldn't have thought they were anywhere near Wigan or Leeds, or even Bradford come to think of it.

Genuine question, I'm not trying to cause a fight.

[dboy 138]

2 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

When you say Wakefield have produced more players than any other area, do you mean the club or Wakefield district? I know the club have a decent record producing players over the past couple of decades with people like Brough, Westwood, Ellis etc but I wouldn't have thought they were anywhere near Wigan or Leeds, or even Bradford come to think of it.

Genuine question, I'm not trying to cause a fight.

Not sure (neither was Mr Carter).

It was a score credited to each club and the feeling was that it was an algorithm of club produced and service area produced (for the whole pro game, not just SL).

The big clubs are very good at pinching juniors from all over...

You'd be surprised just how many Wakey lads are in the game!

[Tex Evans Thigh 943]

3 minutes ago, dboy said:

Not sure (neither was Mr Carter).

It was a score credited to each club and the feeling was that it was an algorithm of club produced and service area produced (for the whole pro game, not just SL).

The big clubs are very good at pinching juniors from all over...

You'd be surprised just how many Wakey lads are in the game!

I wouldn't to be honest as I have first hand experience of it when me and 2 other lads Fev/Cas signed for Leeds when we were 15 some 20 years ago and that practice carries on still. Big clubs are more attractive though particularly ones that provide so many young players with a path to the first team like Wigan and Leeds. 

The Wakefield District is of course inclusive of Cas and Fev so it can be a little misleading but the area does produce a lot of talent even if they don't get developed by those clubs. I just saw on Facebook a lad from Fev Lions signing for Wigan for example so it still goes on and will continue.

For this type of discussion its probably best to look at players the club produces and their impact in the game to identify how good their scouting is but more importantly how good their system is at producing top players. I know that Wigan put a lot of effort into the culture of the club and developing the mental toughness of young players as well as skill and that shows in the players that come through. Wakey have produced some excellent players over the years and some great ones recently such as Tom Johnstone which would suggest they are doing something right.

[Konkrete 867]

1 hour ago, Wollo Wollo Wayoo said:

It's 20 years.  I'll not bother correcting the rest of your drivel.

Ah ha.  Good man... thought that would hit the spot!  

 

1999 - bottom 4

2000 - bottom 3

2001 - bottom 2

2002 - bottom 2

2003 - bottom 2

2004 - play-offs

2005 - bottom 3

2006 - bottom 3

2007 - 8th

2008 - 8th

2009 - play-offs

2010 - bottom 4

2011 - bottom 2

2012 - 8th

2013 - bottom 4

2014 - bottom 3

2015 - bottom

2016 - 8th

2017 - 5th

2018 - 5th

2019 - bottom 4 (possible relegation with one game to come)

Call it drivel if you like but the stats don’t lie. My opinion, which may well be drivel, is that currently London in SL contribute more to our game than Trinity in SL.  If you disagree then tell us why, outside of your own fan base, the reverse is true.

 

[Konkrete 867]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

Wollo might not bother to correct your drivel, but I will.

Wakefield have produced more players for the game than virtually every other area, if not all,  (stated by Mr Carter, though he himself couldn't explain the measure the RFL used).

Wakefield made no promises regarding the ground on entry to SL. They said they wanted to play all TV games at Oakwell, but that was never within their control.

In 20 years, Wakefield have finished bottom ONCE.

Also, the club have been self-sufficient since Mr Carter got a hold of the club. They only spend what they earn (which was diminished due to the RFL holding money back because of not meeting some facility standards), and now own the ground (via a loan from WMDC which the club pay back with interest).

If I'm right, you're a Bulls fan?? You really shouldn't be lecturing other clubs about facilities, producing players and definitely not finances!

I was asked a question re comparing London to Trinity and the relative value of each. It wasn’t a lecture. Also, this thread isn’t about Bradford.

Would you say that the Wakefield club are a greater asset to SL than a London team?  If so why?

[dboy 138]

So, not always at the bottom as you originally said!

Assets to SL?  Well, the much-repeated mantra for having London in, is that they raise the profile of the game e.g. in the media/paying public, both in London and nationally.  Clearly this is nonsense. Is the profile higher for having Wakefield in? Equally, no.

Neither club should be drawing attention to their playing facilities, in a dick-measuring contest. Wakey do now own their ground and have credible plans for development.

Wakefield produce a steady stream of players for the game, including SL.  London, to a lesser extent, do also, but in nowhere near the same number. The failure of the game (and I don't usually buy into the default position of "blame the RFL"), to invest in the South and take advantage of the potential in London, is scandalous. 

Wakefield have been moderately competitive over the years; London? Not really. 

Wakefield are recognised for playing a very good brand of rugby and London have created interest with their results.

Conclusion. None of that matters. Value to SL/the game should be judged on the field, over a season. End of.

I'll be very happy if London stay up, as long as it isn't Wakey going down.