Are We Really That Bad?

[ancientnloyal]

I have 13,000 (stupid) posts in this forum but these days I only come here to moan and when things are frustrating. Has the SL caught up or have the increase in NRL based players helped us? I honesty don’t know myself.

Of course we have been spoiled in the 80s and 90s, success is all I knew personally but this season especially as a team and tactics it is dire. Powell at 7? Sam being a halfback attacking Powell being a second hooker, to name a few points it’s a shambles. We aren’t exciting to watch, at all.

Wane here too long? Bad recruitment (sarge eg)? Ran out of ideas? We have enjoyed success since 2010 and we are at the end of that cycle like every team goes through just that for us somehow we are second and every SL is beating each other. Our away form is dire. Now it’s just our time to be crap and make wrong choices with players/staff. It’s frustrating it really is. Just wish Wigan can get bums on seats. Maybe we need to do a 2006 again.

Frustrated. But will still renew my ticket

Also, really we need to beat Cas or Wire for a GF... that’s 100% likely. Weird season this.

[wall_of_voodoo]

I agree.


One point on standards not in a long time have England or GB been close to winning the world cup against Australia. Now if the standards of SL has dropped that much and attendances stagnated then why have we caught up with the much vaunted Australia side.

I know a number of the players we have plays in the NRL but not even that would have stopped the Australians 20 years ago. But here is the one I do not get the NRL is actually growing and if the quality is as good as some believe here. Then why were England so close in November in winning the world cup in Australia when SL standards is crap compared to 20 years ago. When we would get destroyed by them 9 times out of 10.

And not even the last WC the last 4 nations England were robbed from knocking the Australians out. England beat NZ often now as well. So if our standards has dropped so has theirs.


Just proves that you can market crap if you have good marketing around it.

Or you can find fault and talk yourself down and criticise everything and how it was always so much better "Back in the day", slag off new signings, twist everything administrators say to fit an agenda and in general convince yourself that everything's rubbish.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

(PS that isn't aimed at you personally)

I have a few issues with some of the rules/interpretations that the refs have to work with and the way the game has become all about finding a level that everyone can play at rather than promoting excellence
HOWEVER
AS others have said our pool of say 30 international players is as good as at any time in the last 40 years to compete with Australia (can't go back further than mid 70s).
I would just argue that in the 80s/90s/00s we had 5-10 truly world class players and then the rest in terms of ability dropped off a cliff and we couldn't back that up.

It probably reflects SL that overall the teams are better/more competitive I.e. less of them get less real hammerings and can compete but the top Teams are not as good as they were as little as 8/10 years ago

I agree totally.

Just find it funny people moan our SL is crap but we have caught Australia up. Point i was making and my final comment was pure sarcasm because some on here point to the NRL as been far superior to SL. If SL 20 years was so good why did wr lose to them very often.

Problem is we are a bit borong to watch now . So that has to mean SL is crap. SL is more competative now and that is a good thing.

Now not going to get into a debate on whether the NRL is better than SL or not. The point that English (or British) players stand up well in the NRL is only true with forwards. Hence the problem. I do not understand the obsession with signing Aussie forwards now, 99.9% now they are not one iota better than their English counterparts. If you look at the Aussie teams themselves, they fill their sides with Polynesians/Islanders/Kiwis as they are currently are far superior

Where we lack to the Aussies is the backs and especially middle backs. Speed - size and skills. Sorry to say but we are NOT comparable there and putting the likes of Joel or Bateman etc etc covers up the initial deficiencies of the game over here that we do not produce quality players for these positions but rather transfer someone who does well into an "alien" position (for want of a better word) to the one they are not natural in

[thegimble]

Or you can find fault and talk yourself down and criticise everything and how it was always so much better "Back in the day", slag off new signings, twist everything administrators say to fit an agenda and in general convince yourself that everything's rubbish.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

(PS that isn't aimed at you personally)

I have a few issues with some of the rules/interpretations that the refs have to work with and the way the game has become all about finding a level that everyone can play at rather than promoting excellence
HOWEVER
AS others have said our pool of say 30 international players is as good as at any time in the last 40 years to compete with Australia (can't go back further than mid 70s).
I would just argue that in the 80s/90s/00s we had 5-10 truly world class players and then the rest in terms of ability dropped off a cliff and we couldn't back that up.

It probably reflects SL that overall the teams are better/more competitive I.e. less of them get less real hammerings and can compete but the top Teams are not as good as they were as little as 8/10 years ago

I agree totally.

Just find it funny people moan our SL is crap but we have caught Australia up. Point i was making and my final comment was pure sarcasm because some on here point to the NRL as been far superior to SL. If SL 20 years was so good why did wr lose to them very often.

Problem is we are a bit borong to watch now . So that has to mean SL is crap. SL is more competative now and that is a good thing.

Now not going to get into a debate on whether the NRL is better than SL or not. The point that English (or British) players stand up well in the NRL is only true with forwards. Hence the problem. I do not understand the obsession with signing Aussie forwards now, 99.9% now they are not one iota better than their English counterparts. If you look at the Aussie teams themselves, they fill their sides with Polynesians/Islanders/Kiwis as they are currently are far superior

Where we lack to the Aussies is the backs and especially middle backs. Speed - size and skills. Sorry to say but we are NOT comparable there and putting the likes of Joel or Bateman etc etc covers up the initial deficiencies of the game over here that we do not produce quality players for these positions but rather transfer someone who does well into an "alien" position (for want of a better word) to the one they are not natural in

I agree if England hsd Thurston and a good partner with 1 quality center then they would be World Champions. You know its bad up here when Kevin Brown made the team.

Our forwards can handle theirs now.

[catman]

There has been a lot of good comments on this subject.

To play modern rugby league you must be big and fit. You can be the most skillful or intelligent player but if you don't have the physicality or athleticism then you can't play at the top players from the past such as Andy Greg who were brilliant in their own era would not be able to cope with the physical demands of the modern game.

In this country we have looking for and developing big fit lads over the past decade and we now have about 200 of them playing in the super league however in the same time we have not been searching for or developing our skills its all about the physical.

So it's not surprising then that after a decade of this policy our game is bereft of skillful players we have second rows filling in at scrum half and no one notices, there are very few position specific players out there most players are now of the utility type. It's also not surprising that our games are boring as without the skill teams resort to bash, bash, bash 5 drives and a kick they haven't got a plan b.

What's the solution we've got to make our game less reliant on size and fitness perhaps allow more subs perhaps reduce the number of tackles there needs to be some imaginative rule changes. If we do nothing the game will just wither as people turn away in boredom we need exciment, personality and action all things rugby league is famous for.

[fozzieskem]

On a slightly different but related note I see The Times have done away with RL coverage which is yet another nail in the coffin for the game as it’s a sport that needs all the coverage it can get.

[moto748]

To play modern rugby league you must be big and fit. You can be the most skillful or intelligent player but if you don't have the physicality or athleticism then you can't play at the top players from the past such as Andy Greg who were brilliant in their own era would not be able to cope with the physical demands of the modern game.

Ben Barba isn't big, and he copes all right, as do plenty of others.

[josie andrews]

Morley, I think you made a mistake in naming Hethrington as trying to make RL more popular! All he wants to do is be a big fish in a ever decreasing pond iMO!

Josie, I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure Koucash was right either, and maybe the jury is still out on Leneghan. My point is they seem aware of the problems or challenges facing the game and come up with ideas to address these. Some of the people at RLHQ seem to be jobsworths on fat salaries and even fatter pay-offs.

That I definitely agree with!

[old hooker]

To play modern rugby league you must be big and fit. You can be the most skillful or intelligent player but if you don't have the physicality or athleticism then you can't play at the top players from the past such as Andy Greg who were brilliant in their own era would not be able to cope with the physical demands of the modern game.

Ben Barba isn't big, and he copes all right, as do plenty of others.

Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater, James Maloney etc, etc, etc.

[pedro]

To play modern rugby league you must be big and fit. You can be the most skillful or intelligent player but if you don't have the physicality or athleticism then you can't play at the top players from the past such as Andy Greg who were brilliant in their own era would not be able to cope with the physical demands of the modern game.

Ben Barba isn't big, and he copes all right, as do plenty of others.

Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater, James Maloney etc, etc, etc.

slater aint small

[moto748]

Slater is around 90 kg, so 'normal' size. As are most of the others mentioned. Maloney is around 83 kg, according to wiki.