Sun 2 May: The Betfred Women's Super League Match Thread

[Just Browny]

Anyone seen Graveyard Johnny? I feel like he will have an opinion.

[RigbyLuger]

They've expanded the league too quickly, and the gap between York/Wakefield and the top four should have shown them that.

That gap now includes Bradford and Fev now too sadly, ad the big clubs pick off the talent from below.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

They've expanded the league too quickly, and the gap between York/Wakefield and the top four should have shown them that.

That gap now includes Bradford and Fev now too sadly, ad the big clubs pick off the talent from below.

I agree that you have to find a balance with expansion. I would go to 30-minute halves as they do in the women's NRL. It is no different to bringing in the boundaries in women's cricket or shorter courses in golf. If would help with fatigue of struggling clubs and allow the competition to find its feet.

 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

I agree that you have to find a balance with expansion. I would go to 30-minute halves as they do in the women's NRL. It is no different to bringing in the boundaries in women's cricket or shorter courses in golf. If would help with fatigue of struggling clubs and allow the competition to find its feet.

 

If the players want to play thirty minute halves then fine but if they don't then I don't see what's gained by imposing it on them.

There was always going to be at least a few seasons of massive imbalance. It's not a problem and it's not unique to rugby league. Rather like the belief that the NRL having different rules makes us a global laughing stock, I think we need to just have a bit of perspective on that.

[GUBRATS]

With regards the ' Pathway to the England team ' argument , this would have been better served with regional ( county ) teams drawing a squad from the community game as each area see's it's participation numbers grow 

[Scubby]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If the players want to play thirty minute halves then fine but if they don't then I don't see what's gained by imposing it on them.

There was always going to be at least a few seasons of massive imbalance. It's not a problem and it's not unique to rugby league. Rather like the belief that the NRL having different rules makes us a global laughing stock, I think we need to just have a bit of perspective on that.

I watched the game yesterday and for 60 minutes at 46-0 it is at least something to work on. At 72-0 and 90-0 it is pretty tough going. I only use the idea because it is exactly what is happening in the WNRL. But I imagine that like the men's game we are happy to have 6 sets of rules for the women's game too  

[gingerjon]

Just now, Scubby said:

I watched the game yesterday and for 60 minutes at 46-0 it is at least something to work on. At 72-0 and 90-0 it is pretty tough going. I only use the idea because it is exactly what is happening in the WNRL. But I imagine that like the men's game we are happy to have 6 sets of rules for the women's game too  

I've no idea why the NRLW is 60 minutes though. It's not like the players aren't fit enough for 80 minute matches.

[meast]

14 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

It's a numbers game pure and simple , the pro clubs can provide the ' professional ' support to their local community clubs , it doesn't need an elite system until the numbers are there , we've seen it in the formation of ' super ' amateur clubs , where players are ' encouraged ' to go to to get picked up by pro clubs , St Pat's in Wigan , Blackbrook at Saints , it doesn't help development , it stifles it , stick all the big kids with all the fast kids with all the good kids and it's " oh aren't they wonderful , battering everybody " , but those players don't improve , good kids at other clubs don't develop 

All only my opinion , I'm not an expert in these things like everybody else on these boards 

The more numbers there are playing the game and the more coaches and the more development of both players and coaches can surely only improve this?

12 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

The problem is, the Women's " Super League" is not about development.

It's about creating a high performance environment for women players and providing a performance pathway to the national team.

Other leagues should be taking care of "development". Like the community leagues that @GUBRATS mentions above.

The problem is the League has been created too big, too soon.

If only 4 teams are at that level initially, then really we should have started with 4 (or more likely 6) teams with a view to growing in future.

Posters on here somewhat patronisingly mention "development" and inexperienced "16 year old girls" playing games etc, but that is basically the problem. Rugby League in england has very little history of women participating in any sizeable numbers. So instead of trying to match up to other sports with this "Super League" concentrate on starting small, and building in future years. Fixture lists can be padded out in the first couple of years with group stages in Cup competitions/England camp weekends etc to supplement a smaller SuperLeague fixture list.

Bradford getting hammered 86-0 or York City Knights getting beasted by 60-odd does nothing for the credibility of our "elite" competition, and neither does teams throwing in very young teenagers who have hardly played the game. 90-0 FFS.

 

So because women haven't traditionally played the game in this country we should just forget about it?

I agree that the standards aren't particularly high, but the passion, commitment and desire is there, should be just tell them that they can't play anymore because they aren't as skilled or professional as the elite men?

I don't think anyone is claiming that WSRL is "elite" it's just the top level of the game, and where is the credibility being lost? if no one knows or cares about it then how can it have any credibility to start with?

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

That's the problem in that these so called professional clubs go in to community club under the guise of offering help and support but all it boils down to is that they are going in to the clubs to take all the best talent from the U16's age group and as soon as they get them there is a distinct withdrawal of that help and support. These girls at that age for the most part are not ready to be thrown in to SL games and their development would be better aided staying at their community clubs which we will see more of especially with the U18's league getting set up. 

Huddersfield in particular after what they have been seen to do this past year or so will,in my opinion, struggle to bring girls in from the local area in the near future.

The girls involved with the Giants team are free to come and go as they please, they choose to go to training and choose to make themselves available, they travel themselves to games, their participation could involve friends and family members to become involved in the sport, so surely that's a good thing?

As for the structures, then the that's not up to the players or coaches, and ideally yes they could have development leagues below "elite" leagues, but as with the men's game, there isn't the player pool there to sustain a strong game.

The fact that there is a womens game with a proper set up league, involving hundreds of passionate people regardless of age, ability, race, religion, culture etc can surely only be a good thing?

As usual though rugby league fans will find the negative in everything.

 

[meast]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

I have virtually zero knowledge of women's RL , as I've posted before , I'm not really a fan , to me the game just doesn't suit the female physique , but even I can see that it isn't ready for pro club involvement , it needs larger numbers of girls to play the sport for longer periods of time to then form an elite competition 

So other posters feel free to label me as a mysoginistic dinosaur if you want just to appease your PC stance no matter what the reality is 

But the womens game isn't the same as the mens game, it's a different sport, roughly based on the same premise, but the womens game suits the female physique, which is what makes it different from the mens game, you are basing and comparing it to the mens game

Just like the junior/ PDRL /wheelchair RL is totally different from the mens game.

Each version of the game should be taken on it's own merits.

Shall we just scrap junior, PDRL, wheelchair rugby league teams and ban leagues for these teams because they aren't as fit and strong as the men who play the game at the elite level?

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, meast said:

The more numbers there are playing the game and the more coaches and the more development of both players and coaches can surely only improve this?

So because women haven't traditionally played the game in this country we should just forget about it?

I agree that the standards aren't particularly high, but the passion, commitment and desire is there, should be just tell them that they can't play anymore because they aren't as skilled or professional as the elite men?

I don't think anyone is claiming that WSRL is "elite" it's just the top level of the game, and where is the credibility being lost? if no one knows or cares about it then how can it have any credibility to start with?

The girls involved with the Giants team are free to come and go as they please, they choose to go to training and choose to make themselves available, they travel themselves to games, their participation could involve friends and family members to become involved in the sport, so surely that's a good thing?

As for the structures, then the that's not up to the players or coaches, and ideally yes they could have development leagues below "elite" leagues, but as with the men's game, there isn't the player pool there to sustain a strong game.

The fact that there is a womens game with a proper set up league, involving hundreds of passionate people regardless of age, ability, race, religion, culture etc can surely only be a good thing?

As usual though rugby league fans will find the negative in everything.

 

I think including clubs in London and Wales will be the game changer. RL is a sport for skilful, powerful and athletic players and there are plenty of women who would be able to adapt to the sport across the UK - maybe even more so than the mens' game. I commend the game for starting to expand - they need to keep at it IMO. We could look back at this period of the game with pride in the next decade.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, meast said:

But the womens game isn't the same as the mens game, it's a different sport, roughly based on the same premise, but the womens game suits the female physique, which is what makes it different from the mens game, you are basing and comparing it to the mens game

Just like the junior/ PDRL /wheelchair RL is totally different from the mens game.

Each version of the game should be taken on it's own merits.

Shall we just scrap junior, PDRL, wheelchair rugby league teams and ban leagues for these teams because they aren't as fit and strong as the men who play the game at the elite level?

No , but do they need ATM what will be considered an elite level ( no matter what you say it will be seen as that ) which due to the profile of the clubs involved could IMO be counterproductive to the development of the women's game 

An elite level with connections to the sports highest profile clubs needs ' numbers ' underneath it IMO

[meast]

2 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I think including clubs in London and Wales will be the game changer. RL is a sport for skilful, powerful and athletic players and there are plenty of women who would be able to adapt to the sport across the UK - maybe even more so than the mens' game. I commend the game for starting to expand - they need to keep at it IMO. We could look back at this period of the game with pride in the next decade.

RL should be a game inclusive for everyone, be they, administrators, players, coaches, volunteers, fans etc

Different abilities should and do have different versions of the sport, as I said in my previous post, we shouldn't just judge ALL RL by the elite mens game but on differing ability levels.

Rugby League is a great sport, some definitions are better to participate and spectate in than others to different people, the problem is, people try and define RL as one sport, one game, when in reality it's one sport but with many different games within it.

We shouldn't tell 16 year old girls that they can't play rugby league because they aren't big or strong or skilful enough to play in something called "super league" we should encourage them to play and develop their abilities, even if that means playing in teams that lose 90-0.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, meast said:

RL should be a game inclusive for everyone, be they, administrators, players, coaches, volunteers, fans etc

Different abilities should and do have different versions of the sport, as I said in my previous post, we shouldn't just judge ALL RL by the elite mens game but on differing ability levels.

Rugby League is a great sport, some definitions are better to participate and spectate in than others to different people, the problem is, people try and define RL as one sport, one game, when in reality it's one sport but with many different games within it.

We shouldn't tell 16 year old girls that they can't play rugby league because they aren't big or strong or skilful enough to play in something called "super league" we should encourage them to play and develop their abilities, even if that means playing in teams that lose 90-0.

The big difference to me watching a lot of women's RL is the role for fast, athletic players (even with slight builds). The game is so different to mens' that these players can come into their own and cause a lot of damage. There is a player at Brisbane (full back) forget her name. But she literally picked up a ball 2-3 years ago and is just a natural runner. She now looks like one of the most exciting players in the world. This means that clubs with a few star athletes can really compete given the right circumstances. I am excited to see how the world cup will go. This is a mix of new and experienced athletes.

[meast]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

No , but do they need ATM what will be considered an elite level ( no matter what you say it will be seen as that ) which due to the profile of the clubs involved could IMO be counterproductive to the development of the women's game 

An elite level with connections to the sports highest profile clubs needs ' numbers ' underneath it IMO

It's an elite level in the game they're playing though, like the Huddersfield District football league has an elite level, that elite level doesn't claim to be as elite as the Premier league, it's the same with womens RL, the super league is the elite level of that particular sport, which is totally different from the elite level of the mens game, which is played differently by different people with different physical attributes etc.

As long as people are dedicated to the game there will always be a chance to develop it, whether you personally like it, or agree with it, or even think females shouldn't play the sport is irrelevant, the only way to keep developing it is to encourage girls to play the game, regardless of whether some old blokes in Leigh think they should or not

[meast]

4 minutes ago, Scubby said:

The big difference to me watching a lot of women's RL is the role for fast, athletic players (even with slight builds). The game is so different to mens' that these players can come into their own and cause a lot of damage. There is a player at Brisbane (full back) forget her name. But she literally picked up a ball 2-3 years ago and is just a natural runner. She now looks like one of the most exciting players in the world. This means that clubs with a few star athletes can really compete given the right circumstances. I am excited to see how the world cup will go. This is a mix of new and experienced athletes.

But isn't that true of every sport around the world? some are better than the others, even in the mens professional elite competition there are players that are better than others, differing skill levels, differing abilities.

We shouldn't judge a whole game based on the ability of some of it's players.

Some teams will have some fantastic athletes who will surely go to the very elite of their sport, others will be playing simply because they love it and are dedicated to it and have a means of being able to play the game regardless.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, meast said:

It's an elite level in the game they're playing though, like the Huddersfield District football league has an elite level, that elite level doesn't claim to be as elite as the Premier league, it's the same with womens RL, the super league is the elite level of that particular sport, which is totally different from the elite level of the mens game, which is played differently by different people with different physical attributes etc.

As long as people are dedicated to the game there will always be a chance to develop it, whether you personally like it, or agree with it, or even think females shouldn't play the sport is irrelevant, the only way to keep developing it is to encourage girls to play the game, regardless of whether some old blokes in Leigh think they should or not

As I've said Meast , no issue with an elite level , but the affiliation to existing PRO clubs isn't the right way ATM IMO , community game feeding regional( county ) teams would be a better option ATM IMO

I'll not comment further on this thread

[Scubby]

5 minutes ago, meast said:

But isn't that true of every sport around the world? some are better than the others, even in the mens professional elite competition there are players that are better than others, differing skill levels, differing abilities.

We shouldn't judge a whole game based on the ability of some of it's players.

Some teams will have some fantastic athletes who will surely go to the very elite of their sport, others will be playing simply because they love it and are dedicated to it and have a means of being able to play the game regardless.

No, RL compared to RU for example, provides more open spaces and less set pieces for the women's game. Players get their hands on the ball a lot more which means individual players can be more influential. This is why, particularly in the womens' game, it can allow new players to the sport to excel relatively quickly. I think we will find this when clubs come in from London and Wales (and hopefully Cumbria and the NE) who can pull on wider catchments. The problem at the moment is partly the pool of players around a small geographical area. Hence why Bradford used to dominate and another club(s) can take their best players. 

[The Blues Ox]

5 hours ago, meast said:

 

The girls involved with the Giants team are free to come and go as they please, they choose to go to training and choose to make themselves available, they travel themselves to games, their participation could involve friends and family members to become involved in the sport, so surely that's a good thing?

 

 

Another bad injury yesterday to one of the youngsters. Im biting my tongue on all this for the next couple of weeks while it all unravels but there are clear player welfare issues at Huddersfield and hopefully after yesterday something is done about it.

[unapologetic pedant]

39 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Another bad injury yesterday to one of the youngsters. Im biting my tongue on all this for the next couple of weeks while it all unravels but there are clear player welfare issues at Huddersfield and hopefully after yesterday something is done about it.

I`m aware that many people don`t share my aesthetic disgust at the RFL`s rollball fiasco. But it can be seen as a metaphor for general incompetence.

When players are allowed to chuck the ball between their legs in flagrant breach of the rulebook and guidelines, it should prompt the thought that if a governing body is incapable of running the game on the field, they`re unlikely to be fit to administer it off the field. For instance, organizing competitions that are enjoyable and safe to play in.

[meast]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Another bad injury yesterday to one of the youngsters. Im biting my tongue on all this for the next couple of weeks while it all unravels but there are clear player welfare issues at Huddersfield and hopefully after yesterday something is done about it.

What like?

If you have serious concerns then have you raised these concerns with the people running the team and/or the league organisers?

[The Blues Ox]

9 hours ago, meast said:

What like?

If you have serious concerns then have you raised these concerns with the people running the team and/or the league organisers?

It is being done through the correct channels.

[unapologetic pedant]

In Auckland the past couple of years they`ve had 14 teams split into 6 and 8. The League seems to determine the size of divisions and in which to put each team based on monitoring rosters. This year a new team, Point Chevalier, were placed in the top 6 after recruiting several Kiwi Ferns and NRLW players.

If the RFL had done similarly they would have had two divisions of 4 and 6. Teams playing fewer games and/or more often against the same opposition is not ideal, but still better than one competition of 10 with a vast gulf between top and bottom.

 

[GUBRATS]

19 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In Auckland the past couple of years they`ve had 14 teams split into 6 and 8. The League seems to determine the size of divisions and in which to put each team based on monitoring rosters. This year a new team, Point Chevalier, were placed in the top 6 after recruiting several Kiwi Ferns and NRLW players.

If the RFL had done similarly they would have had two divisions of 4 and 6. Teams playing fewer games and/or more often against the same opposition is not ideal, but still better than one competition of 10 with a vast gulf between top and bottom.

 

Or there just isn't the numbers to run a ' Super League ' and you leave them with their community clubs , and set up a different pathway for an England team 

In time when the numbers are there , you look to set up an elite competition 

Don't run before you can walk , or you will end up falling over 

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Or there just isn't the numbers to run a ' Super League ' and you leave them with their community clubs , and set up a different pathway for an England team 

In time when the numbers are there , you look to set up an elite competition 

Don't run before you can walk , or you will end up falling over 

I think there's a lot of sense in this mate. The better players, who feel they want to represent England (or Wales) would still be drawn into their regional rep side and then on/up into the England team squad. Soon the regional rep. sides could be candidates for a W Super League. As you know, I'm all for (no-one should be surprised) building the base of the pyramid, before rushing to the top. 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

As you know, I'm all for (no-one should be surprised) building the base of the pyramid

You mean, sort of like they are doing?

For example: