Current Super League quality

[Archie Gordon]

The top half is on a growth curve and is great to watch. But the bottom end is pretty much teams going through the motions in front of small crowds and presumably low numbers of TV viewers. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

It's not a straight forward yes or no.

Players, 

Is the overall standard of player better,  No

Why, Salary has shrunk in real terms

Lower quality overall of overseas players coming.

Best young talent going to NRL.

Are games better to watch, Some are as good as any season. Some as bad as any season.

Clubs are bringing more of their own players which long term helps the game but can lower the overall quality if the overseas players and other signing are lower quality.

How games are refereed has an impact, the constant slowing of the ruck makes the game look messy especially when we can see the way the NRL is controlled.

To improve is not an easy fix , we don't have the money or the governing body the NRL has. But we must stop aiming down and get people in charge with a vision and not let clubs drag the game to levelling down rather than pushing the game forward and dragging the game up and onwards.

 

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, there seems to be a mental block there.

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

And when the outcome of a game can't be predicted in advance, perhaps?

[gingerjon]

I don't think the OP is being entirely reasonable but there is a problem when, in a small league, these are the odds for the next three games (predicted winner's odds shown):

1/9, 2/9, 1/4

You could accept one game like that out of the three but when all three are like that, and we seem to be replicating equivalents each weekend, then there is an issue.

Whether it's a major issue or not is the debate.

But the one thing I would add is that it's not a 'quality' debate. People mostly want to see competitive games. That can happen regardless of the perceived 'quality' of the players on the pitch but, obviously, to be competitive you need the top and the bottom to close enough in terms of consistent standards.

 

[redjonn]

Seems to me a teams intensity or shall I say desperation will not be as high if nothing to play for (except playing the immediate game), whether that be a top 6 position or no danger of relegation. That is no real league position consequences.

As well as other factors surely the above is a factor.

[Just Browny]

There is a quality issue. We've got players like Ratchford, McIlorum, Hall etc still 'doing a job' a full decade after their heyday; we've got bang average overseas players like Liam Knight, Matt Frawley and Dan Russell padding out squads all over. I think there's a real lack of quality in front row positions all over.

Salford gave up before a ball was kicked; Cas, Catalans and Huddersfield have been woeful for large periods. Even the top four have had consistency issues.

As GJ says, you can still have an enjoyable game between not-great teams. But I think a move to 14 would see Wigan, Leeds and Hull KR retain their quality, and the weaker teams bidding with each other for the same pool of average players, leading to more mismatches.

[MZH]

I don't think the overall competitiveness of the league is bad tbh. I reckon you've got 8 teams who would all fancy that they can beat anyone on a good day. My team Hull are mid table and we go to Wigan today, arguably the hardest fixture of the season. We go without probably our two most important attacking players in Pryce and Asiata. I expect we will probably lose, but I don't think anyone would consider it an earth shuddering upset if we win. Indeed we already did win there in the cup.

Salford are an outlier. They would and should have been included in that group of 8 I mentioned, but we all know the issues they have had. Catalans also should be way more competitive than they are, but for whatever reason they are not the sum of their parts. They have issues they need to resolve off field, but they won't be far away if they do.

So that only really leaves Huddersfield and Cas making up the numbers, and I don't think it's all doom and gloom for them either. They have both had a few decent results and played good rugby at times. They aren't whipping boys in the same way that we have seen teams in the past be whipping boys.

Edited July 19 by MZH

[Just Browny]

Having all six matches on TV might be a factor in our perception too. Previously, a top team hammering a bottom one wouldn't have been a TV game so it would have been a bit more out of sight/mind.

[dboy]

6 hours ago, Worzel said:

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

And are there more blow-outs this year compared to other years?

[Jonty58]

3 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

It's not a straight forward yes or no.

Players, 

Is the overall standard of player better,  No

Why, Salary has shrunk in real terms

Lower quality overall of overseas players coming.

Best young talent going to NRL.

Are games better to watch, Some are as good as any season. Some as bad as any season.

Clubs are bringing more of their own players which long term helps the game but can lower the overall quality if the overseas players and other signing are lower quality.

How games are refereed has an impact, the constant slowing of the ruck makes the game look messy especially when we can see the way the NRL is controlled.

To improve is not an easy fix , we don't have the money or the governing body the NRL has. But we must stop aiming down and get people in charge with a vision and not let clubs drag the game to levelling down rather than pushing the game forward and dragging the game up and onwards.

 

Best young talent going to the NRL?

Who is that? There are only about eight English players in the NRL and some of them are hardly the best talent.

[Damien]

I think there are a few different debates at play here.

Being competitive is not really about winning and losing, its about competing in most games and not being dominated and blown away. Salford for me are a prime example of a team that have just not been competitive on any level. This is undoubtedly harmful on a number of levels to SL as a competition.

Quality of SL is a different discussion although related. Competitive does not necessarily equal quality. People have cited a few examples of different games to back up teams being competitive but for me that is often because of a lack of quality. I know Wigan have scraped a few games of late against teams that wouldnt be regarded as top teams and that's largely because we have played rubbish. Games being competitive because the top teams serve up dross arent great for SL either. 

Edited July 19 by Damien

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, phiggins said:

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?

Yes, there will. The pertinent question is purely "how many?"

Blow outs happen in any league, including the NRL. But the measure of competitive intensity is the frequency or consistency of them. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

And are there more blow-outs this year compared to other years?

I don't know for certain. If we define a "blow out" as a 20+ points difference, then ChatGPT claims the trend from 2021>2025 by the end of round 18 is: 14, 18, 15, 22, 24

If you define it a bit lower perhaps "3 converted tries" so 18 points or more (which I think is where many fans would start to think "we're not in this game"?), then the last 3 seasons show: 19, 28, 30, perhaps emphasising even further that the last two seasons seem to differ from the recent past. 

I haven't had time to validate the results though, but interesting if that data is correct?

Edited July 19 by Worzel
Typo

[dboy]

Yes, interesting.

I'd imagine that this year's data is tainted due to the state of SRD.

[sam4731]

I think quality is a very odd metric to judge the appeal of a sport. On one end of the spectrum you've got teams commiting plenty of errors and at the other end which is doing everything we possibly can to speed up the game.

At the end of the day, I don't think any of these things make a difference to winning new fans over.

For me, the simple truth is that appeal comes with things, off the pitch. Names, stories and history.

Who will have more fans in the PL next year? The team that finished 15th or the team that finished 6th?

People support and follow what they know or have heard of.

This for me has always been RL's biggest downfall and why we were fools to let Toronto go.

[SUPERSTUD]

7 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

Damien thanks. Just nailed it as far as I am concerned. IMHO Hudds were that poor that Wakefield could and should have put 70 points on them. Furthermore for players who are full time some of the individual skill levels in some of the other games have been diabolical. Not just Salford, Hudds and Cas either by the way.

[Dave T]

14 hours 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.

 

14 hours 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. 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.

Do you have real life examples of competitive leagues from top to bottom?

Because in reality, there will always be those who struggle each year.

When we talk about competitiveness for me its more about not having the same team bring awful every year. If you have a bad year you can make.chanhes to be competitive the next year. And I think we see that.

[Click]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

 

Do you have real life examples of competitive leagues from top to bottom?

Because in reality, there will always be those who struggle each year.

When we talk about competitiveness for me its more about not having the same team bring awful every year. If you have a bad year you can make.chanhes to be competitive the next year. And I think we see that.

It's a semantics argument around what ones definition of what "competitive" means.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Click said:

It's a semantics argument around what ones definition of what "competitive" means.

Sort of. The point is that I think SL is competitive as many other leagues that we'd compare with. 

There are three clear front runners, another 5 or 6 battling for playoffs where anything can happen and then we have 3 real weak teams right now. Cas and Hudds have been on a downward trend for years now and are in a bit of a rut, Salfords issues off field have caught up with them but they've done well on the field prior to this season.

I do think the biggest thing is perception, probably based on the fact that Sky would never normally pick bottom of the table clashes that are now shown.

I think its broadly fine, we should always strive for better, but I'm certainly enjoying watching more SL than ever. Including Hull just scoring again now against Wigan.

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

Yes, interesting.

I'd imagine that this year's data is tainted due to the state of SRD.

Yeah fair point. Ignore what I said now, I agree

[up the robins]

Gotta agree with tv picks this year have been shocking.

Which idiot chose to put Wigan on a prime time tv slot they are shocking. half time and I'm turning off 

[Father Gascoigne]

19 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.

Sky would only care if Wigan/Saints/Leeds got relegated, as that would potentially affect subscriber numbers in a significant way. The standard of games matters in the NRL much more, which has a free-to-air component, because broadcasters derive their revenue from selling ad slots and it helps if the audience watching doesn't tune out at half-time. 

[Click]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Sort of. The point is that I think SL is competitive as many other leagues that we'd compare with. 

There are three clear front runners, another 5 or 6 battling for playoffs where anything can happen and then we have 3 real weak teams right now. Cas and Hudds have been on a downward trend for years now and are in a bit of a rut, Salfords issues off field have caught up with them but they've done well on the field prior to this season.

I do think the biggest thing is perception, probably based on the fact that Sky would never normally pick bottom of the table clashes that are now shown.

I think its broadly fine, we should always strive for better, but I'm certainly enjoying watching more SL than ever. Including Hull just scoring again now against Wigan.

People like to talk down on RL in this country constantly, but the fact Hull FC were as awful as they were last year, and when you look at them this year it shows how competitive the league is.

[Bull Mania]

11 hours ago, Worzel said:

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

Does that include when one of the favourites is blown away by a team mid-table

 In all seriousness, I think we league is fairly competitive. Even if you reduce the teams to 8, those teams aren't as good as the top teams. That's sport. 

Focusing on the bottom, Salford is an exception. Cas, doing same as Hull last year, writing the season off to concentrate on other areas/the following year. As @Dave T said, it's the fact it's about the third straight  season they've coasted through the season which I find frustrating. But that's a negative consequence of the IMG era we're in (not bashing IMG, but it's definitely a consequence) Hudds, have got things wrong in terms of the recruitment and rugby side of things. That happens. Although not convinced Robinson as a coach. In fact I think there's bigger issue of SL clubs giving too many former players their first coaching gig at the top in SL and being exposed. 

At the top of the table none of us have any idea who's going to be crowned champions. I wouldn't even say it's a two horse race, which is a good thing. 

Last point, there's few sports as unforgiving as RL at the scoreboard running away from you. You can't put 13 mean behind the ball like football. 

[Father Gascoigne]

2 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

Does that include when one of the favourites is blown away by a team mid-table

 In all seriousness, I think we league is fairly competitive. Even if you reduce the teams to 8, those teams aren't as good as the top teams. That's sport. 

Focusing on the bottom, Salford is an exception. Cas, doing same as Hull last year, writing the season off to concentrate on other areas/the following year. As @Dave T said, it's the fact it's about the third straight  season they've coasted through the season which I find frustrating. But that's a negative consequence of the IMG era we're in (not bashing IMG, but it's definitely a consequence) Hudds, have got things wrong in terms of the recruitment and rugby side of things. That happens. Although not convinced Robinson as a coach. In fact I think there's bigger issue of SL clubs giving too many former players their first coaching gig at the top in SL and being exposed. 

At the top of the table none of us have any idea who's going to be crowned champions. I wouldn't even say it's a two horse race, which is a good thing. 

Last point, there's few sports as unforgiving as RL at the scoreboard running away from you. You can't put 13 mean behind the ball like football. 

All good points. 

I remember going through some American sport to see whether it was more competitive when it had fewer teams decades prior. Turns out it doesn't really matter whether you have 30 teams or 16. The talent doesn't get spread out among all teams as assumed. It all relative. You'd get whipping boys in an eight-team league just as you would in a 14-team one.