Selling The Drama

[redjonn]

Yep I'd like the sport to expand into other area's of the country,  like the sport to grow into other countries in Europe, like a bigger profile, etc etc...

The reality is still its a regional sport. but one thing we should focus on is to strengthen the sport in its regional area's too.   If the sport raised its profile in its region you never know people might start asking why's that sport so attractive "to them their regions" and want some of it.

Whilst not the expansion orientated approach many crave for it might be a route to expansion in itself.. all be it a longer road but at least maybe more affordable and hence within the constraints of its funding.

Yep of course I'd love to see expansion as many hope it could be but somewhere reality and pragmatism has to kick in - the question being what can we afford now. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

A lot of the problem is they've always buttered the bread too thinly , rather than deciding on one area , and sticking with that area until enough structure was set up 

 

I know, we've got 2 clubs in Leeds, 2 in Wigan, 3 in Wakefield, 2 in Hull, 6 in the rest of West Yorkshire, 3 in the rest of Greater Manchester.

But obviously its spreading ourselves too thinly that is the problem...

[Damien]

19 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Yep I'd like the sport to expand into other area's of the country,  like the sport to grow into other countries in Europe, like a bigger profile, etc etc...

The reality is still its a regional sport. but one thing we should focus on is to strengthen the sport in its regional area's too.   If the sport raised its profile in its region you never know people might start asking why's that sport so attractive "to them their regions" and want some of it.

Whilst not the expansion orientated approach many crave for it might be a route to expansion in itself.. all be it a longer road but at least maybe more affordable and hence within the constraints of its funding.

Yep of course I'd love to see expansion as many hope it could be but somewhere reality and pragmatism has to kick in - the question being what can we afford now. 

This is without a doubt true. I have always said that it should be much easier to expand around the heartlands who have leagues and low traveling times and costs to fall back on. Even if every area in the North had a bona fide amateur club would be huge growth. One of the great travesties is that you can go 10 miles outside of Wigan, and most RL towns, and meet people that haven't a clue about Rugby League. Something has gone badly wrong when this is the case 125 years after the games formation.

It shouldn't be either or though. We should be doing both heartland and wider expansion.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, Damien said:

This is without a doubt true. I have always said that it should be much easier to expand around the heartlands who have leagues and low traveling times and costs to fall back on. Even if every area in the North had a bona fide amateur club would be huge growth. One of the great travesties is that you can go 10 miles outside of Wigan, and most RL towns, and meet people that haven't a clue about Rugby League. Something has gone badly wrong when this is the case 125 years after the games formation.

It shouldn't be either or though. We should be doing both heartland and wider expansion.

I agree with all of this apart from the point about something going badly wrong. That point can be made about all sports. Everyone in those towns just outside of heartland towns would know of RL, even if they know nothing about it. But many would be exactly the same with cricket or RU or other sports. 

There are all sorts of geographical and historic quirks which lead to things being popular in one town/city/region/country and not a neighbouring one. I think it is more complex than stating something has gone badly wrong. It also can't be ignored that many towns get their rugby fix already. The history of our creation can't be ignored.

None of that is to say we shouldn't have done better, and shouldnt continue to focus on these areas, but we have seen shifting down into South Yorkshire for example ain't easy, even when a team from there goes and wins the Cup! 

I don't think we should give ourselves too  hard  a time about where RL is not played any more than cricket beating itself up because France isn't too interested. 

My personal preference for the UK is go where the numbers are. Hit population centres with your development work. To an extent the smaller peripheral towns are a bit of a bonus and probably need to be allowed to naturally occur on the back of the efforts in main cities. If a town near Wigan ain't taking up Rugby League then maybe it ain't worth worrying about. 

But, I think we are some way off topic right now

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Johnoco said:

We would probably be having the same discussion regardless of Covid-19. It’s pretty much irrelevant to the points in question.

So if we'd just seen Toronto survive in SL on the last day of the season and Toulouse get promoted by winning the Championship GF replacing HKR or Wakey ? , You'd still be fed up with the game ?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I know, we've got 2 clubs in Leeds, 2 in Wigan, 3 in Wakefield, 2 in Hull, 6 in the rest of West Yorkshire, 3 in the rest of Greater Manchester.

But obviously its spreading ourselves too thinly that is the problem...

No , that's not what I meant ( and you know it , but you still insist on trying and failing to be clever , as usual ) we have out historic clubs ( unless you are saying we should close some of them down , is that what you think is a good idea ? ) , They are here and are supporting the sport in their areas , what I meant is with the use of RFL funding to set up , build and support clubs ( semi pro ) and build grass roots structure around them in schools and community clubs , a ' creeping ' expansion spreading outward from the heartlands 

[Damien]

39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree with all of this apart from the point about something going badly wrong. That point can be made about all sports. Everyone in those towns just outside of heartland towns would know of RL, even if they know nothing about it. But many would be exactly the same with cricket or RU or other sports. 

There are all sorts of geographical and historic quirks which lead to things being popular in one town/city/region/country and not a neighbouring one. I think it is more complex than stating something has gone badly wrong. It also can't be ignored that many towns get their rugby fix already. The history of our creation can't be ignored.

None of that is to say we shouldn't have done better, and shouldnt continue to focus on these areas, but we have seen shifting down into South Yorkshire for example ain't easy, even when a team from there goes and wins the Cup! 

I don't think we should give ourselves too  hard  a time about where RL is not played any more than cricket beating itself up because France isn't too interested. 

My personal preference for the UK is go where the numbers are. Hit population centres with your development work. To an extent the smaller peripheral towns are a bit of a bonus and probably need to be allowed to naturally occur on the back of the efforts in main cities. If a town near Wigan ain't taking up Rugby League then maybe it ain't worth worrying about. 

But, I think we are some way off topic right now

When I think of something going badly wrong it is more that for the vast majority of the games history the game has shown little or no desire to grow into those areas. For far too long the game was happy to just be the professional arm of 'Rugby'  and the sport suffers for that to this day. Arguably this only began to change with the advent of BARLA. I cant really think of any other sport that has been just content with its lot like RL.  RU was arguably dead in the North after the split but yet rose from the ashes to now have more clubs and players even in the North. The world has changed and what was fine for years isn't now and with RU now professional it just doesn't cut it any more, especially when some of those heartland areas are shrinking.

Whilst I take the point about Cricket or RU these areas all still have Cricket or RU teams and those games are played in schools in those areas far more extensively. If RL had that it would be a huge improvement. As I said even just more amateur clubs representing more areas of the North would strengthen the games base greatly.

You are exactly right about focusing on population areas, that makes complete sense.

[Tommygilf]

48 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

No , that's not what I meant ( and you know it , but you still insist on trying and failing to be clever , as usual ) we have out historic clubs ( unless you are saying we should close some of them down , is that what you think is a good idea ? ) , They are here and are supporting the sport in their areas , what I meant is with the use of RFL funding to set up , build and support clubs ( semi pro ) and build grass roots structure around them in schools and community clubs , a ' creeping ' expansion spreading outward from the heartlands 

That was an awfully long way of saying we spread ourselves thinly in some places and not others.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

They didn't though did they? It's a ridiculous notion.

If Coldplay wrote a completely different set of songs and played a totally different style of music then I might like them. Or if RU had different rules i might enjoy that too. Ad Nauseam 

Did covid 19 cause you not to like Coldplay or RU ? 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Did covid 19 cause you not to like Coldplay or RU ? 

I was going to say loss of taste is one symptom of Covid-19 but in that case it would be a heightened sense of taste so it can't be.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Johnoco said:

Did it cause you to ask ridiculous questions?

So covid didn't prevent Toronto from completing the 2020 season ? , Or indeed giving Toulouse the chance to get promoted ? , If that's the case , neither were up to the challenge 

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Johnoco said:

Not sure what you on about tbh. Are you arguing that Toronto weren't treated sympathetically? Then I agree but as we know that argument has been done to death. As for Tolouse they wanted to join SL but were denied the opportunity, not sure how that adds up to not being up for the challenge but that's another story.

It isn't the RFLs or SLs fault Toronto aren't around now , it is not the RFLs or SLs fault that Toulouse are not in SL now , both are a direct result of the pandemic 

Things are ###### right now , decisions have been made for the good of the game right now , as right now is what's important , that will change once we are out of this crisis , this World crisis not some minor insignificant RL crisis 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

 For far too long the game was happy to just be the professional arm of 'Rugby'  and the sport suffers for that to this day. Arguably this only began to change with the advent of BARLA.

This is the most burdensome and constraining part of English RL`s historical baggage. The hazy presumption for decades that they were just keeping the pot boiling pending a return to the RU fold. The on-field changes they`d introduced were minor details, easily ironed out once the matter of payment was resolved. The RU outlook was to maximise the number of people playing their game. The RL outlook was to maximise the number of people paid to play our game.

In the modern era there`s a lingering psychological need to justify our existence. If those "Active Lives" survey figures are reliable, they`re pretty disappointing for RU. But they`ll just consider remedies, they won`t lurch into agonising "what`s the point, why are we even bothering" mode.

This is the defining divergence in provenance between us and the Aussies. Although professionalism played a role, the NSW RL was founded to play a different game from RU. They knew they weren`t going back from the outset.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This is the most burdensome and constraining part of English RL`s historical baggage. The hazy presumption for decades that they were just keeping the pot boiling pending a return to the RU fold. The on-field changes they`d introduced were minor details, easily ironed out once the matter of payment was resolved.

Can I ask where you grew up and were immersed in this thinking because I can guarantee when I grew up in Wigan in the 70's, 80's and early 90's there wasn't a single person thinking like this?  In fact I would go as far as to say I have never met a single person involved in Rugby League who was under the assumption that we would one day return to the RU fold.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Can I ask where you grew up and were immersed in this thinking because I can guarantee when I grew up in Wigan in the 70's, 80's and early 90's there wasn't a single person thinking like this?  In fact I would go as far as to say I have never met a single person involved in Rugby League who was under the assumption that we would one day return to the RU fold.

BARLA was formed in 1973 in response to the precipitous decline in amateur and junior playing numbers. That is, after 78 years of neglect by the pro clubs who, I would argue, regarded RL as the professional branch of "Rugby". On this basis, it logically follows that payment of players is all that stood in the way of having one code of "Rugby" again.

By the 1970s the die had long since been cast. The Northern Union was formed primarily to financially compensate players. Eleven years later they created a fundamentally distinct game. But the attitudes and assumptions of those early days persisted. Fans have probably never been "immersed in this thinking", and certainly not in the past half-century. My comments related to those who used to run the governing body and the pro clubs.

During Bill Fallowfield`s tenure as RFL secretary he repeatedly pushed for a RU-style method of releasing the ball in the tackle, and it was briefly introduced in the late 50s. Hard to believe he didn`t have an eye on eventual reunification.

It has nothing to do with it, but since you ask, I grew up in the RL hotbed of Bolton. 

[DC77]

On 29/12/2020 at 18:29, Dave T said:

But we are not talking the club game here. You won't get me disagreeing with the benefits of nailing the international game, but nobody knew Wilkinson because of his club efforts. 

And tbh, the vast majority of the country couldn't name and England RU test player now. I know I'd struggle. I'd probably be able to recall some with prompting. 

As I've said, the best way to grow RL in the UK is through internationals, but keeping it on the club game, mainstream awareness is extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve. 

100% true.

I’ve said this umpteen times before, but the prime reason I believe this is the case (and for RL also) is both codes are infinitely more attritional, more defensive, more organised, more rigid, so it’s a lot harder for individuals to stand out. Defensive players do not make headlines, attacking players do. That recent SL Grand final, there is absolutely no way anyone could stand out in that. The same did not apply to all those Wigan games at Wembley, with Offiah, Robinson and co. making eye catching runs as they played in a game that had far more licence/freedom to do their own thing. The 2017 RLWC final vs Australia, an 80 minute arm wrestle, again, there ain’t anyone standing out in that.

RU has also seen a massive increase in player bulk, RL has seen the introduction of the wrestle, as both codes have introduced things that make it nigh on impossible for the attackers (the headline makers) to shine. England beat NZ in the last RUWC, yet not one player stood out. Impossible in an attritional contest. Lomu became a star overnight because he ran riot vs the England defence, tramping over Mike Catt in the process. You stop players like him doing that you stop the star being created. And both codes are VERY good at stopping stars being created.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, DC77 said:

100% true.

I’ve said this umpteen times before, but the prime reason I believe this is the case (and for RL also) is both codes are infinitely more attritional, more defensive, more organised, more rigid, so it’s a lot harder for individuals to stand out. Defensive players do not make headlines, attacking players do. That recent SL Grand final, there is absolutely no way anyone could stand out in that. The same did not apply to all those Wigan games at Wembley, with Offiah, Robinson and co. making eye catching runs as they played in a game that had far more licence/freedom to do their own thing. The 2017 RLWC final vs Australia, an 80 minute arm wrestle, again, there ain’t anyone standing out in that.

RU has also seen a massive increase in player bulk, RL has seen the introduction of the wrestle, as both codes have introduced things that make it nigh on impossible for the attackers (the headline makers) to shine. England beat NZ in the last RUWC, yet not one player stood out. Impossible in an attritional contest. Lomu became a star overnight because he ran riot vs the England defence, tramping over Mike Catt in the process. You stop players like him doing that you stop the star being created. And both codes are VERY good at stopping stars being created.

I don't agree with all of this, but there was a thread discussing something similar here recently where I made the point that we undervalue wingers and the likes in favour of workhorses who make 60 tackles a game. Whilst I appreciate those players, I don't watch RL because James Roby makes 60 tackles in a game (although that is an aspect of the toughness and the team unit at play), I watch for the star quality of Blake Austin, Matty Russell, Stefan Ratchford and hopefully Greg Inglis next season at my own club. Of course I appreciate the forwards, but we need to be careful not to go down too far down the rabbit hole of it being all about the forwards. At the moment we are maybe just about right, although the thread highlighting that wingers shouldn't get awards like Man of Steel show an odd mentality to me. And we are quick to write off the likes of Austin or Lomax or Williams when they don't make breaks and set up tries in a game, dismissing them as having a bad game. I think our appreciation of these skills is a bit dumb in RL. 

[Dunbar]

The reference to teams being more difficult to score against now does throw up a really interesting statistical anomaly.

In the 1988-89 season, Martin Offiah finished as the top try scorer in the league with 57 tries for Widnes.  In the 2019 Super League season the top try scorer was Tommy Makinson with 23.  In fact in 1988-89 there were another three players who scored more than Makinson did in 2019 - Grant Anderson at Cas, Les Quirk at Saints and Ellery Hanley at Wigan.

This would all imply that points are harder to come by now and yet when you look at the points scored by teams, in 1988-89 there was an average of 19 points scored per team and in 2019 it was up to 23.

The Widnes team which Offiah was a part of finished top in 1988-89 scoring an average of  28 points per game and Saints finished top in 2019 with an average of 32 points a game.

What I don't have is how many tries were scored by each team in their respective seasons and certainly there may have been more points from the boot in Saints year but surely not enough to suggest that tries were easier to come by in 1988-89.

What does this suggest?  I don't know, but it could be that tries are more evenly distributed across teams now and that has an impact in creating the star players who would score 40 or 50 tries a season?  

[GUBRATS]

34 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't agree with all of this, but there was a thread discussing something similar here recently where I made the point that we undervalue wingers and the likes in favour of workhorses who make 60 tackles a game. Whilst I appreciate those players, I don't watch RL because James Roby makes 60 tackles in a game (although that is an aspect of the toughness and the team unit at play), I watch for the star quality of Blake Austin, Matty Russell, Stefan Ratchford and hopefully Greg Inglis next season at my own club. Of course I appreciate the forwards, but we need to be careful not to go down too far down the rabbit hole of it being all about the forwards. At the moment we are maybe just about right, although the thread highlighting that wingers shouldn't get awards like Man of Steel show an odd mentality to me. And we are quick to write off the likes of Austin or Lomax or Williams when they don't make breaks and set up tries in a game, dismissing them as having a bad game. I think our appreciation of these skills is a bit dumb in RL. 

How often to we now see the primary positive for a winger being his runs out from defence on plays 1&2 ? 

Similar with full backs , too much emphasis on their kick returns rather than creation and support at the other end 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

How often to we now see the primary positive for a winger being his runs out from defence on plays 1&2 ? 

Similar with full backs , too much emphasis on their kick returns rather than creation and support at the other end 

You have a fair point with the wingers, they are measured by run metres and 'exit sets' these days.

I can't agree with the full back comment though, full backs are far more skilful and creative than they have ever been... they are the key attacking position on the pitch in many teams these days.

[DC77]

On 30/12/2020 at 13:32, Sports Prophet said:

It would be brilliant if just a couple of star players came out and said they bloody hate each other.

Woulda been brilliant if some up and comer at the start of this season called out SBW as an over the hill and overpaid player that has been breezing along in RU for the past 5 years and is gonna get belted when they face off.

Does any club have players that have come through the local juniors, academy and now firmly entrenched in the first team that wants to come out and say for example “I bloody love Hill KR and I have always hated Hull FC. Purely hate them.”

It would be great if there was a bit more personality in the game and open opinions from the players/coaches that would help build the hysteria to bring the eyeballs. The action and on the field and experience in the stands can then bring those eyeballs back.

Another 100% true comment here.

*haven’t bolded ‘star’ as there are none at present, my reason for that being the case I’ve given in a previous post above.

Never understood this decorum that exists in both rugby codes (certainly in UK/Ireland). Players, coaches, nobody says a damn thing about each other (Brian McDermott a slight exception). To pride yourself on how well behaved everyone is, the bonhomie among teams and fans, well that doesn’t generate interest. Needle does.

My favourite ever Liverpool goal was the winner scored by Luis Garcia against Chelsea in the 2005 Champions League semi-final. The scruffiest goal you will ever see, dubbed the ‘ghost goal’ by Jose Mourinho as it ‘didn’t go over the line’, but the most satisfying ever knowing the Darth Vader of the sport disapproved of it. Take out that hatred of the opposition, and the significance and specialness of the goal is also largely taken away. When Alex Ferguson said “knocking Liverpool off their ##### perch” was his aim, taking that attitude away then Liverpool vs Man Utd just becomes another game. Rangers vs Celtic tomorrow, I know people who have going to see those two play each other on their bucket list.

RU being a public school game, I get why they behave themselves. It’s part of RU culture, a public school ethos. But RL? I don’t get that.

[DC77]

On 30/12/2020 at 18:04, Johnoco said:

In what way is  boxing, smaller than RL? That’s completely ridiculous.

I don’t even follow boxing and Frank Bruno was probably still at it the last time I watched a fight, but I can still name off the top of my head...Amir Khan, Ricky Hatton, Tyson Fury, David Haye, Joe Calzage and Anthony Joshua. That’s without googling or anything, just names and boxers I’ve heard of. I seriously doubt that non rl fans could name even 5 RL players of recent times.

Look at when they have a big fight on PPV, absolutely loads of people either get it or club together with mates and have a right pee up, often staying up til the early hours. Not necessarily regular boxing fans either, they just get on board with a big event. Does the same thing happen with any RL events? We know it doesn’t. 
 

But yeah, RL is bigger than boxing. 

It’s a nonsense comment you’ve responded to. 

Boxing is big time. In England I don’t think has ever been bigger, which is crazy given the sport is in massive decline both in global interest and standard of fighters. So much is to Hearn’s credit, as he has managed to polish a t### in conning the public to pay for PPV fights which would have been terrestrial level standard 20 years ago. Derick Chisora on PPV...FFS. Carl Froch vs George Groves...a domestic level standard fight, PPV, at Wembley Stadium...it’s mind boggling. Just 15 years ago Joe Calazghe (arguably the greatest fighter from these shores, the last hall of fame level British fighter) battered Jeff Lacy on ITV. From a world class fighter, on free to air TV, to George Groves, at Wembley Stadium, on PPV. How Hearn swindles people is genius.

There is barely a single bona fide global star in the sport (Mayweather was the last), yet the sport used to be flooded with them. Naz, Lennox Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, Roy Jones Jr, Barrera, Pacquiao. The last PPV worthy fight was Mayweather vs Pacquiao (terrible fight mind). Been zip since. A long over the hill Klitschko leaving Anthony Joshua rocking (would have finished him had he not been in his 40s). And glass jaw Klitschko was no great fighter himself. The standard is truly appalling.

Mike Tyson vs Tyson Fury, I give it 90 seconds (basically the first one that connects flush with Fury’s head). Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe...the four title holders. Four hall of fame level fighters. Anthony bleedin Joshua holds the belts today. Ray Mercer (never held any belt when the standard was great) would clean out the HW division.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, DC77 said:

It’s a nonsense comment you’ve responded to. 

Boxing is big time. In England I don’t think has ever been bigger, which is crazy given the sport is in massive decline both in global interest and standard of fighters. So much is to Hearn’s credit, as he has managed to polish a t### in conning the public to pay for PPV fights which would have been terrestrial level standard 20 years ago. Derick Chisora on PPV...FFS. Carl Froch vs George Groves...a domestic level standard fight, PPV, at Wembley Stadium...it’s mind boggling. Just 15 years ago Joe Calazghe (arguably the greatest fighter from these shores, the last hall of fame level British fighter) battered Jeff Lacy on ITV. From a world class fighter, on free to air TV, to George Groves, at Wembley Stadium, on PPV. How Hearn swindles people is genius.

There is barely a single bona fide global star in the sport (Mayweather was the last), yet the sport used to be flooded with them. Naz, Lennox Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, Roy Jones Jr, Barrera, Pacquiao. The last PPV worthy fight was Mayweather vs Pacquiao (terrible fight mind). Been zip since. A long over the hill Klitschko leaving Anthony Joshua rocking (would have finished him had he not been in his 40s). And glass jaw Klitschko was no great fighter himself. The standard is truly appalling.

Mike Tyson vs Tyson Fury, I give it 90 seconds (basically the first one that connects flush with Fury’s head). Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe...the four title holders. Four hall of fame level fighters. Anthony bleedin Joshua holds the belts today. Ray Mercer (never held any belt when the standard was great) would clean out the HW division.

So from that post I assume you pay to watch that rubbish ? So Yearns swindling you , not me , no shortage of easily fooled people in the world , you're one of them

[DC77]

On 30/12/2020 at 18:36, gingerjon said:

They wouldn’t have to name players. I bet they could name more than five currently playing clubs though. I think half your boxers have retired. And how much have you personally spent to watch a PPV event featuring them? And if you’ve only spent that why do you think other people spend more?

There are fewer people boxing, fewer professional boxers, no FTA coverage worth the name, little awareness of who is fighting for what at any point, and generally very low public awareness aside from a couple (literally: a couple) of “names”.

Don’t let the Matchroom hype fool you.

You’re right the star names in boxing are not at the same level to what they were. Naz for example, he was everywhere. You could have put Beckham and Naz beside each other and had a genuine discussion as to who was a bigger name. 

Joshua is a big name in the UK today, though he’s nowhere near the standard of his predecessors. He ain’t selling out Vegas anytime soon. He’s fortunate to be around in a weak era (could be permanent), and at a time when Hearn has managed to work wonders in the UK market (while the sport declines in the rest of the world). The UK is keeping Michael Buffer in a job. Fury vs Joshua, 20 years ago that’s a British and Commonwealth title level fight. 

God the days of Nigel Benn vs Gerald McClellan, two world class fighters, on free to air TV. And now it’s George Groves vs Carl Froch, on PPV, at Wembley Stadium.

The whole thing is insane. Everything is backwards.

Regarding names, boxing would still be much bigger than RL (including your criteria of naming clubs). Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury would both be household names in the UK, that would not to apply to RL (including clubs).

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

The reference to teams being more difficult to score against now does throw up a really interesting statistical anomaly.

In the 1988-89 season, Martin Offiah finished as the top try scorer in the league with 57 tries for Widnes.  In the 2019 Super League season the top try scorer was Tommy Makinson with 23.  In fact in 1988-89 there were another three players who scored more than Makinson did in 2019 - Grant Anderson at Cas, Les Quirk at Saints and Ellery Hanley at Wigan.

This would all imply that points are harder to come by now and yet when you look at the points scored by teams, in 1988-89 there was an average of 19 points scored per team and in 2019 it was up to 23.

The Widnes team which Offiah was a part of finished top in 1988-89 scoring an average of  28 points per game and Saints finished top in 2019 with an average of 32 points a game.

What I don't have is how many tries were scored by each team in their respective seasons and certainly there may have been more points from the boot in Saints year but surely not enough to suggest that tries were easier to come by in 1988-89.

What does this suggest?  I don't know, but it could be that tries are more evenly distributed across teams now and that has an impact in creating the star players who would score 40 or 50 tries a season?  

I think it needs to be remembered that in the late 80s we played many more games. Offish may have scored that many tries but it was in 40+ games in all competitions.