Current Super League quality

[SUPERSTUD]

Taking out of the equation any allegiance to your own club how many people are honestly and genuinely happy with the overall quality of the current Super League? Some of the recent fixtures have been embarrassing including this one tonight. No wonder Sky are steadily backing off.

[Futtocks]

Here we go again for the millionth time.

[JohnM]

Leigh, Wakefield, Hull KR, York, Toulouse etc think  you are wrong.

 

Edited July 19, 2025 by JohnM

[17 stone giant]

1 hour ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Some of the recent fixtures have been embarrassing including this one tonight.

I didn't watch any tonight. Do you mean Leeds v Salford or Huddersfield v Wakefield?

 

[Hopie]

30 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I didn't watch any tonight. Do you mean Leeds v Salford or Huddersfield v Wakefield?

 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Taking out of the equation any allegiance to your own club how many people are honestly and genuinely happy with the overall quality of the current Super League? Some of the recent fixtures have been embarrassing including this one tonight. No wonder Sky are steadily backing off.

Everyone knows Salford are a basket case and are lucky to still be taking the field. The other game was a big score yes, though Hudds have been better lately.  If you’d picked some other games from the last few weeks we might be asking is this the best super league ever. 

[Whippet13]

Note the OP did not mention Leigh's last 3 games (and I am very far from being a fan of theirs) which were all epic games other sports would shout about. In my view, on the field we have quality, entertainment, heroes and villains aplenty across the league - even down to no 57 at basement club Salford tonight. Off the field it looks like a strategic s**t show to rival the ages though.

Edited July 18, 2025 by Whippet13

[corvusxiii]

I don't think the game goes out of its way to make a one sided match less so and as everyone knows - good teams make their own luck. This is toxic for me a a neutral RL fan. 

[dboy]

3 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Taking out of the equation any allegiance to your own club how many people are honestly and genuinely happy with the overall quality of the current Super League? Some of the recent fixtures have been embarrassing including this one tonight. No wonder Sky are steadily backing off.

I'm forever baffled by this mythical notion that we should have 12 (or 14), competitive teams. That can't happen. It's pure maths (not math).

For every team winning a game, a team must lose a game.

If a team is very good, they will win more games than they lose.

If a team is not so good, they will lose more games than they win.

If wins are evenly spread across all teams, then no team is consistent and hence, must not be very good.

They can't all be winners, and success is relative.

Apart from Cas. They're poop.

Edited July 18, 2025 by dboy

[Click]

33 minutes ago, dboy said:

I'm forever baffled by this mythical notion that we should have 12 (or 14), competitive teams. That can't happen. It's pure maths (not math).

For every team winning a game, a team must lose a game.

If a team is very good, they will win more games than they lose.

If a team is not so good, they will lose more games than they win.

If wins are evenly spread across all teams, then no team is consistent and hence, must not be very good.

They can't all be winners, and success is relative.

Apart from Cas. They're poop.

Why is it a mythical notion to want to have all teams in the top league competitive? 

I think it comes down to what your definition of what "competitive" means, all it really means is that any team could beat any team in the league. 

By definition in a salary capped sport we should have a league that is competitive top to bottom, but in reality we don't.

Currently we have Salford who aren't competitive in the slightest, Huddersfield that have started to become more competitive and Castleford that are again very 50/50.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Click said:

Why is it a mythical notion to want to have all teams in the top league competitive? 

I think it comes down to what your definition of what "competitive" means, all it really means is that any team could beat any team in the league. 

By definition in a salary capped sport we should have a league that is competitive top to bottom, but in reality we don't.

Currently we have Salford who aren't competitive in the slightest, Huddersfield that have started to become more competitive and Castleford that are again very 50/50.

Yeah its not mythical at all. Some of the solutions and methods proposed might be fantasy stuff, but its perfectly possible to have a comp with most fixtures being relatively even odds for most of the season. Injuries, discipline and tactics can be the difference then. 

RL has moved to make periods of dominance in a match even more influential with 6 agains and a preference for ever faster rucks. That has skewed some results which have seen more big scores.

[dboy]

Cas, Hudds, Salford - can't beat a decent team.

If they get beaten by one of those, they aren't decent.

That's not to say they can't pinch a game.

The top teams will generally beat the bottom teams.

Winning 50% of your games puts you in the play-offs.

If you genuinely have a situation where any team can beat any other team, then the recruiters, agents, coaches, owners, players simply aren't doing their jobs.

If you think I'm wrong saying having 12 competitive teams is "mythical", tell me the season in which you think it was most evident.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, dboy said:

Cas, Hudds, Salford - can't beat a decent team.

If they get beaten by one of those, they aren't decent.

That's not to say they can't pinch a game.

The top teams will generally beat the bottom teams.

Winning 50% of your games puts you in the play-offs.

If you genuinely have a situation where any team can beat any other team, then the recruiters, agents, coaches, owners, players simply aren't doing their jobs.

If you think I'm wrong saying having 12 competitive teams is "mythical", tell me the season in which you think it was most evident.

Closeness and competitiveness of fixtures is exactly what the aim is and can be achieved. Arguably that relies on clubs like Wigan and Leeds not always being at their optimum.

Google Premier League circle of parity. Its one thing they love to talk up because "anybody can beat anybody" makes every game more attractive and therefore the whole league.

That's not saying there won't be stronger and weaker sides in a given season, or that this will change through a season with recruitment, injuries and managerial changes for example.

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah its not mythical at all. Some of the solutions and methods proposed might be fantasy stuff, but its perfectly possible to have a comp with most fixtures being relatively even odds for most of the season. I

When did this happen?

Which season had all teams being competitive?

You can include NRL.

For every winner, there is a loser.

12 teams, 27 rounds, 324 points available = mean average of 27 points...when were 12 teams clustered around that total?

Never.

The points distribution (reflective of competitiveness), follows a traditional "inverted U", or "bell-curve".

 

[StandOffHalf]

Pretty embarrassing that tonight's game was one of the top 2 Sky picks for this round.

Hudds were appalling.

[dboy]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Closeness and competitiveness of fixtures is exactly what the aim is and can be achieved. Arguably that relies on clubs like Wigan and Leeds not always being at their optimum.

Google Premier League circle of parity. Its one thing they love to talk up because "anybody can beat anybody" makes every game more attractive and therefore the whole league.

That's not saying there won't be stronger and weaker sides in a given season, or that this will change through a season with recruitment, injuries and managerial changes for example.

Yes.

That's sport.

A human factor of luck, form, injury, whether your club name rhymes with whinos - all factors.

If you mean going into a round where you really can't tell whether team 1-6 will beat team 7-12, for 27 rounds, it can't happen week in, week out.

It's an absolute mathematical fact that win-loss (competitiveness), follows a standard distribution curve.

By the way - and you may/may not like this - but the most "competitive" league competitions in history have been those with strict salary structures and draft-pick systems.

Wigan, Leeds, Wire, Saints have more talent in their Tier-2, than is in the Cas, Hudds, Salford Tier-1 teams.

 

[dboy]

How the NFL Became the Most Competitive League in All of Sports

[dboy]

And just for fun - check out "revenue sharing" in the NFL.

They see the whole of the game as a business - we just see our own little clubs.

[Worzel]

5 hours ago, dboy said:

I'm forever baffled by this mythical notion that we should have 12 (or 14), competitive teams. That can't happen. It's pure maths (not math).

For every team winning a game, a team must lose a game.

If a team is very good, they will win more games than they lose.

If a team is not so good, they will lose more games than they win.

If wins are evenly spread across all teams, then no team is consistent and hence, must not be very good.

They can't all be winners, and success is relative.

Apart from Cas. They're poop.

“Competitive games” is about the number of blow-outs, not whether sides win or lose 

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, dboy said:

And just for fun - check out "revenue sharing" in the NFL.

They see the whole of the game as a business - we just see our own little clubs.

We are the same as all European sports. The NFL and Super League just can’t be compared. 

[Damien]

5 hours ago, dboy said:

When did this happen?

Which season had all teams being competitive?

You can include NRL.

For every winner, there is a loser.

12 teams, 27 rounds, 324 points available = mean average of 27 points...when were 12 teams clustered around that total?

Never.

The points distribution (reflective of competitiveness), follows a traditional "inverted U", or "bell-curve".

 

When people talk about being competitive they aren't talking about simply winning and losing. Its about how they play and compete in the vast majority of games.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

“Competitive games” is about the number of blow-outs, not whether sides win or lose 

Quite, there seems to be a mental block there.

Competitiveness is when a lower table side could beat a top table side.

[JM2010]

It will be better next season because clubs can sign 3 more Queensland/NSW Cup players each

[The Duke]

As a KR fan I’m fairly happy with how we are going!

but it’s sad when you look at the fixture list and there are so many fixtures across the league that are foregone conclusions 

I do think the recent upturn in form of a few teams has made the competition more interesting, initially it looked like Wigan or KR, now Leeds, Leigh and arguably St Helens could beat each other on their day so hopefully the run in is interesting 

Salford have brought shame on the competition unfortunately.

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

“Competitive games” is about the number of blow-outs, not whether sides win or lose 

But there will always be some blow outs during a season. But this season we’ve also had Cas and Hudds run Wigan close and did KR v Cas go to golden point at the start of the season?