Current Super League quality

[Harry Stottle]

20 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.

Well I have enjoyed the last 3 games I've seen two at the LSV and one at Saints, and I am not a Leigh fan

[Dave T]

1 hour 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. 

I dont think Cas are coasting, or writing off the season, or anything else. I dont think they want to be as bad as they are. I dont think they have a choice. They've recruited poorly, played poorly and are getting the results they deserve.

I just think this is their level at the moment.

[AB90]

11 hours ago, Jonty58 said:

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.

Yeah, I always think this notion that the NRL are taking Super Leagues best English talent as a bit silly. I count 6 English players (who have come from SL systems) in the NRL for the 2025 season (Farnworth, Young, Smithies, Nicholson, Sutton & Dodd). That’s 6 out of the 510 available ‘top 30’ contractable players in the NRL.

[The Duke]

I think it would be nice for viewers to see games that the result was in doubt until the last play of the game 

that’s competitiveness 

it might not always be high level but interesting for viewers 

[Click]

19 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Yeah, I always think this notion that the NRL are taking Super Leagues best English talent as a bit silly. I count 6 English players (who have come from SL systems) in the NRL for the 2025 season (Farnworth, Young, Smithies, Nicholson, Sutton & Dodd). That’s 6 out of the 510 available ‘top 30’ contractable players in the NRL.

Farnworth didn't come through a SL system, but you're also missing KPP and Bateman from first glance.

[AB90]

1 hour ago, Click said:

Farnworth didn't come through a SL system, but you're also missing KPP and Bateman from first glance.

Ohhh yeah - My bad! Assumed I may of missed some. Point still stands though

[Just Browny]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

I dont think Cas are coasting, or writing off the season, or anything else. I dont think they want to be as bad as they are. I dont think they have a choice. They've recruited poorly, played poorly and are getting the results they deserve.

I just think this is their level at the moment.

Careful Dave, I'm going over there later.

[SUPERSTUD]

Hoo rah that is what I call a competitive game.

[gingerjon]

Just as well I didn't put any money on those three sure things ...

[Tommygilf]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Just as well I didn't put any money on those three sure things ...

Perceptions have to be changed somehow, there will always be collateral damage.

[N2022]

On 19/07/2025 at 01:01, 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.

Not sure Super League can quite match 'circle of parity', but the Premier League is one of five national divisions in a long established professional sport and still has teams go through the season looking nowhere like staying up. 

Super League has played far fewer fixtures and everyone's taken wins off 2 or 3 teams above them, which in a league of a dozen is pretty decent, see detail below, including other games where the better side only won by a point or two.

SALFORD have beaten 2 teams above them : Hudds and Cas
HUDDS 3 : Cas, Warrington, Hull FC
CAS 2 : Warrington, Hull Fc (and lost by 1 to Wakefield, GP to Hull KR)
CATALANS 2 : Wakefield, Leeds, (and lost to Leigh by 2, Saints by 1)
WIRE 4: Hull FC, St Helens twice (and again in cup), Leeds, Leigh (in cup) and tied with Leigh, also lost by just 2 to Leeds, Wigan and Hull KR
WAKEFIELD 3: Leeds, Leigh, Wigan, lost by 2 to Hull KR
HULL FC 2: Wigan (and again in cup), Leigh (and drew one), lost by 2 to Leeds
ST HELENS 1: Leeds twice and again in the cup
LEEDS 3: Leigh, Wigan, Hull KR
LEIGH 2: Wigan twice, Hull KR
WIGAN 1: Hull KR
HULL KR are top

[Wakefield Ram]

On 19/07/2025 at 00:42, 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.

It's not a level salary cap, that's the problem. It's a "sustainability" cap with lots of exemptions e.g. "marquee" players. So you've got some clubs spending far more than others, hence the lack of competitiveness of some games. 

[AB90]

11 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It's not a level salary cap, that's the problem. It's a "sustainability" cap with lots of exemptions e.g. "marquee" players. So you've got some clubs spending far more than others, hence the lack of competitiveness of some games. 

Yeah this. A salary cap only works if the minimum spend is essentially the full salary cap (or close to). I believe in the NRL, the salary cap floor is 96% of the cap (I.e all teams have to spend up to 96% of the cap). Teams get fined if they don’t spend up to the salary cap flood no different to they exceed it.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Im not sure fans want an equal competition? 

Womens tennis suffers because there isn't a clear top 3 or 4 players who are rivals. Sinner v Alcaraz arguably saving mens tennis (nobody really liked the time gap between Sampras and Agassi and Big 3/4- nadal, federer, djokovic, murray) 

In golf the casual fan loved watching Woods, in darts its Taylor/ Littler and in snooker Hendry/ O'Sullivan 

So having 3 or 4 star teams that others want to beat is actually better than 12 mediocre teams that are similar 

[Click]

3 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

Im not sure fans want an equal competition? 

Womens tennis suffers because there isn't a clear top 3 or 4 players who are rivals. Sinner v Alcaraz arguably saving mens tennis (nobody really liked the time gap between Sampras and Agassi and Big 3/4- nadal, federer, djokovic, murray) 

In golf the casual fan loved watching Woods, in darts its Taylor/ Littler and in snooker Hendry/ O'Sullivan 

So having 3 or 4 star teams that others want to beat is actually better than 12 mediocre teams that are similar 

You can't compare individuals in a sport of individuals to a team sport in that way IMO.

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, Click said:

You can't compare individuals in a sport of individuals to a team sport in that way IMO.

But a dominant force does make more headlines than an equal competition, whether it's a team sport or individual. See Wigan at the BBC SPOTY awards for example. Though that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

[Dave T]

I do think there is something in the last couple of posts.

I think there is a bit of a natural order thing at play here. It jars with some people at times (maybe subconsciously) that we don't still have the 'Big 4' ripping it up and playing each other in the big games. When we see Leeds struggling, it feels like it's a reflection of the comp, even though another club comes in and takes their place in the table. 

When we do see things become more competitive and we see teams beating each other more regularly, the likes of Saints and Leeds are just criticised as poor, when they still have these celebrated systems that everyone is told to follow. It seems to be that clubs are rubbish rather than Hull KR and Leigh for example have stepped up. Now of course there will always be an element of that, but when Saints were great, we didn't diminish their efforts by saying how poor Salford, Cas etc were. 

And I struggle with it as well. In other sports too - seeing a weak Man U feels jarring - we see many people playing down Liverpool's title this year based on everyone else being weak.

Things are fine - we have a good and interesting Super League - the way KR and Leigh are going is a breath of fresh air, and sure Wigan, Saints and Leeds are hovering around the top third, but surely that's what we would expect?

[Damien]

Interesting and very honest comments from Will Pryce on his time in the NRL. I think his comments on coaching, and in particular young players, are very much tied to this thread and the quality debate in SL:

 

[Dunbar]

On 19/07/2025 at 01:52, Tommygilf said:

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.

Is there any evidence that this is the case?

[StandOffHalf]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Is there any evidence that this is the case?

Kenty talking about this yesterday. I think he's right that there are too many 'we score, you score' contests. Also think he's correct that the game of the season was the low scoring game between Penrith and the Dogs.

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Kenty talking about this yesterday. I think he's right that there are too many 'we score, you score' contests. Also think he's correct that the game of the season was the low scoring game between Penrith and the Dogs.

Interestingly, I think the picture is different here to the NRL.

I was looking at some stats for the NRL the other day in a discussion about Bevan French (and if he would be as effective in the NRL as he is in Super League). There are about 25% more clean breaks in the NRL per game now as there was when French was playing there. The game in Australia is absolutely suited to players who are quick on their feet and have loads of pace. It is an attacking competition now.

Looking at scorelines in particular.  The 6 again was introduced in 2020 and so taking 2019 and 2024 as comparative seasons.

Data according to Rugby League Project:

NRL mean aggregate score 2019: 27-13

NRL mean aggregate score 2024: 31-16

Super League mean aggregate score 2019: 30-14

Super League mean aggregate score 2024: 29-10

So, in the era of 6 again the NRL aggregate score has increased and the Super League has decreased, to the point of the NRL scoring more points per game now than the Super League. 

I think 6 again is a red herring here because if it were, both competitions would see an increase. My view is that the NRL is now refereed with the attacking team getting all the advantages - with attacking players a protected species, even more than Super League. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Interestingly, I think the picture is different here to the NRL.

I was looking at some stats for the NRL the other day in a discussion about Bevan French (and if he would be as effective in the NRL as he is in Super League). There are about 25% more clean breaks in the NRL per game now as there was when French was playing there. The game in Australia is absolutely suited to players who are quick on their feet and have loads of pace. It is an attacking competition now.

Looking at scorelines in particular.  The 6 again was introduced in 2020 and so taking 2019 and 2024 as comparative seasons.

Data according to Rugby League Project:

NRL mean aggregate score 2019: 27-13

NRL mean aggregate score 2024: 31-16

Super League mean aggregate score 2019: 30-14

Super League mean aggregate score 2024: 29-10

So, in the era of 6 again the NRL aggregate score has increased and the Super League has decreased, to the point of the NRL scoring more points per game now than the Super League. 

I think 6 again is a red herring here because if it were, both competitions would see an increase. My view is that the NRL is now refereed with the attacking team getting all the advantages - with attacking players a protected species, even more than Super League. 

I do think we've accepted a slower ptb in SL, by allowing more interference and we see refs speak more to the ball carrier than the tacklers in scruffy rucks. This is perception based as we dont get detailed analysis, but I think on the back of the whole "penalty, penalty, try" slogan that was repeated hy the commentators every game I do think we have tried to reduce them, and we appear to me to have accepted that we will allow more dominance in the tackle.

Of.course this perception could come from being a Wire fan and we hardly rush to play the ball!

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Interestingly, I think the picture is different here to the NRL.

I was looking at some stats for the NRL the other day in a discussion about Bevan French (and if he would be as effective in the NRL as he is in Super League). There are about 25% more clean breaks in the NRL per game now as there was when French was playing there. The game in Australia is absolutely suited to players who are quick on their feet and have loads of pace. It is an attacking competition now.

Looking at scorelines in particular.  The 6 again was introduced in 2020 and so taking 2019 and 2024 as comparative seasons.

Data according to Rugby League Project:

NRL mean aggregate score 2019: 27-13

NRL mean aggregate score 2024: 31-16

Super League mean aggregate score 2019: 30-14

Super League mean aggregate score 2024: 29-10

So, in the era of 6 again the NRL aggregate score has increased and the Super League has decreased, to the point of the NRL scoring more points per game now than the Super League. 

I think 6 again is a red herring here because if it were, both competitions would see an increase. My view is that the NRL is now refereed with the attacking team getting all the advantages - with attacking players a protected species, even more than Super League. 

I do think the 6 again is a central part of that though. We all love a close contest. When there are two well-matched teams, the 6 again is less likely to result in an avalanche of points.

You could argue that the top 9 of the SL are closer in terms of unpredictability of result than the top 12 of the NRL. Having the bottom handful of NRL teams who are rarely competitive against the heavyweights in the competition would probably feed into that increase in the aggregate score. The lesser teams are opened up and get flooded. 

Edited July 22 by StandOffHalf

[Fly-By-TheWire]

How are we defining quality?   I'd say there's definitely less off-the-cuff rugby, perhaps a direct result of more structured defence.   All very subjective, but I do feel RL is less fun than it was in the first 10-15 years of super league, even if the league is more even than it was back then.   Maybe this was because we were in a honeymoon period after the Sky investment and it all felt like we were on the up, even if my own club were rubbish at the time.   Or maybe it's just that RL was more important in my priorities back then than it is today, and that today I have many more things to feel fun about.

I do miss watching the sort of rugby that Saints produced back in the day though <<< washes mouth out and goes to church for confession >>> and I wish we could see the top teams throwing the ball about today like that.

Edited July 22 by Fly-By-TheWire

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Fly-By-TheWire said:

How are we defining quality?   I'd say there's definitely less off-the-cuff rugby, perhaps a direct result of more structured defence.   All very subjective, but I do feel RL is less fun than it was in the first 10-15 years of super league, even if the league is more even than it was back then.   Maybe this was because we were in a honeymoon period after the Sky investment and it all felt like we were on the up, even if my own club were rubbish at the time.   Or maybe it's just that RL was more important in my priorities back then than it is today, and that today I have many more things to feel fun about.

I do miss watching the sort of rugby that Saints produced back in the day though <<< washes mouth out and goes to church for confession >>> and I wish we could see the top teams throwing the ball about today like that.

Id agree with this. I think Leigh are one of the most entertaining attacking teams to watch, and I'd love to see them rewarded for their style.

We do need to be careful as I think there is a risk of really becoming quite safe, we here so often about completions, playing the %, and that isn't really box office. 

There is sometimes a feeling that teams are going through the motions and if they are around halfway its a bomb, and if within 20-30 a cross field kick. Little variation at times. I think we need to be careful with ruke changes, but I do wonder whether defusing a bomb within 10m of your own line could act as a a deterrent.