SL is simply too big !!

[Wes]

It should increase their development in all areas if they want to stay here in 3 years time, intensity will not be greater with less clubs and it will kill development.

And yes the maths I used does have an effect after all every top player comes from somebodies development you have just lost 200 players there could be a few stars in the making in that block of players, international forwards tend to be older granted but with your ideollogy what will happen is every team has the best of what we have in their 25 man squad the lesser players will then drop to clubs academies or 20's if you like and play here and the kids will get pushed to the way side as unkown quantaties! Well have clubs academies or 20's running around with older guys rather than the 18-22 year old as intended.

As a result you would have a greater bottle neck on youth development meaning less home grown talent, and as previously stated even if the league was full of elite players equally balanced then injuries, fatigue and mental toughness would play a role in your "intensity" not every game would be intense it would settle down and be the same as now only difference is we wouldnt see kids running around!

Out of curiousity can you name a sport/league where every game has high intensity throughout?

Also do you know the average age of the Kiwi team? Is it a coincidence that they aimed at lowering the average age and now they have they are World and 4 Nation champions, I think not!

[old hooker]

Under no circumstances should we have less teams in SL. The aim should be to bring more players through to a higher standard.It is the coaching that is the problem. Surprising how players improve when coached by Aussies or Kiwis.We need look no further than our own club for proof of that.The most successful British coach in SL history won us nothing yet along comes MM with only 1 new player and wins us a GF.To go to smaller SL would be a defeatist attitude and the worst thing we could do.

[cpwigan]

Under no circumstances should we have less teams in SL. The aim should be to bring more players through to a higher standard.It is the coaching that is the problem. Surprising how players improve when coached by Aussies or Kiwis.We need look no further than our own club for proof of that.The most successful British coach in SL history won us nothing yet along comes MM with only 1 new player and wins us a GF.To go to smaller SL would be a defeatist attitude and the worst thing we could do.

How do you figure that OH? defeatist? Personally, I think it is about beating the Aussies/NZers and we haven't done that for 30+ years so either we enjoy being losers and carry on as we are or we change something.

The easiest change is to crank up the intensity of your elite competition and that means a smaller competition with built in rest periods between. You can have thwe best coach in the world but if your competition is poorer then the players will never learn how to execute under pressure irrespective of the coach.

The coach? with the best will in the world we will never attract more than 8 elite current/very recent NRL assistants/coaches which make a big league silly does it not? Taking that argument, let's go back to a single league? If reducing SL is not the answer then surely as big as it can is the answer?

A SL with 8/10 clubs and a Championship with 14 will produce more players and of a higher standard than 14 teams in the SL. Clubs will not go bust and the cap could even be raised to attract better players.

[Nezza Faz]

Agree 100% with you cpw.

Plus, the NRL competition is so much more intense, with top matches each week and no easy games, that devalue the league here.

They also play State of Origin, which are as tough (if not more so, than Internationals !) - this makes players perform under the highest level of ability plus the extra mental toughness this creates.

They also play far fewer games, so fatigue isn't the same plus the sides can prepare under much better conditions.
All the Oz/Nz players who come over here are stunned at the workload of British players & admit they would be burnt out at the end of the season too - just when the rep games begin. We are at a disadvantage straight away !

[butt monkey]

Under no circumstances should we have less teams in SL. The aim should be to bring more players through to a higher standard.It is the coaching that is the problem. Surprising how players improve when coached by Aussies or Kiwis.We need look no further than our own club for proof of that.The most successful British coach in SL history won us nothing yet along comes MM with only 1 new player and wins us a GF.To go to smaller SL would be a defeatist attitude and the worst thing we could do.

How do you figure that OH? defeatist? Personally, I think it is about beating the Aussies/NZers and we haven't done that for 30+ years so either we enjoy being losers and carry on as we are or we change something.

The easiest change is to crank up the intensity of your elite competition and that means a smaller competition with built in rest periods between. You can have thwe best coach in the world but if your competition is poorer then the players will never learn how to execute under pressure irrespective of the coach.

The coach? with the best will in the world we will never attract more than 8 elite current/very recent NRL assistants/coaches which make a big league silly does it not? Taking that argument, let's go back to a single league? If reducing SL is not the answer then surely as big as it can is the answer?

A SL with 8/10 clubs and a Championship with 14 will produce more players and of a higher standard than 14 teams in the SL. Clubs will not go bust and the cap could even be raised to attract better players.

Too simplistic an approach.

Take it to the extreme and have just 4 teams - 2 in Lancashire and 2 in Yorkshire with the pick of all the players/coaches available. Success at internationals still would not come irrespective of this contraction of the game.

In any World, irrespective of sport or not, contracting suggests weakness and short-sightedness. Where would all the fans "lost" go (and you might say that you wouldn't lose many), but say for example Wigan were to lose out in Lancashire to Salford and Wire, how many ex-Wigan fans would take to the new Lancashire teams and actually pay money to watch them home and away?

Points like this are always raised when it is Wigan that remains and "leads" from the front but switch back 5 years and it could so easily have been Wigan thought of as "also rans" ready for dumping/merging. With no ground/losing money hand over fist/a salary cap mess/poor junior retention and relegation with a dreadful team a very real prospect it could have been.

[Wes]

Good post Butt Monkey, NF shut up talking tripe there are just as many boring games in the NRL as there is in super league.

People forget Aussies play pretty much full seasons in top weather we dont they prepare in top weather we dont!

Im not gonna keep repeating myself with explanations but I will say again making the league smaller will be bad news and complete short sitedness for immediate success, which wont happen.

CP you still havnt answered my 2 questions I take it this is not by choice? If you can I may be more inclined to opening my immagination to your point, as it is Im really not convinced!

Last point we used to have yorkshire vs lancashire as our version of origin and how good and intense where these games, NOT!

[cpwigan]

Out of curiousity can you name a sport/league where every game has high intensity throughout?

Also do you know the average age of the Kiwi team? Is it a coincidence that they aimed at lowering the average age and now they have they are World and 4 Nation champions, I think not!

Apparently I have to answer these questions :doz:

Your first is obvious, none but the intensity at its best and far more frequently is higher in the NRL. Just one example. I could easily counter the question by saying do Wigan gain far more from playing Warrington than Wakefield season after season? St Helens than Salford season after season.

If anybody doubts why intensity is critical then I shudder because by far the best game of RL I saw this season was v St George. That was RL, a game where our players developed. Did our players develop v Barrow and Harlequins?

Re; NZ there is no record of NZ taking an ageist stance. If the age of players came down it was A) injuries and B) young Kiwis playing in a more intense NRL system that prepares thjem quicker and better for International RL and proving my point.

If you play garbage you learn nothing. If you play the best you learn lots. It really is that simple.

I will leave you a very simple experience. At 10 our team was entered in a league for older youngsters. We lost every game. A season later we played at our own age group and never lost a game. Not sure we developed as much that season but intensity/defeat made us far far better than others.

[old hooker]

I wonder how exciting it would be to watch us play saints,Leeds,Warrington etc 5 times each season and then possibly again in the cc and play offs? Cronulla,Canberra and Souths have been underachievers for a good few years but they will not be ditched even though they have had some thrashings.Wakey,Cas ,Salford have all been poor in SL and there are calls to get them out ,make SL smaller. But would anyone on here say the same thing if We were down there.We need to expand RL,but in the hotbeds of the game. Get rid of Quins,Crusaders and bring in Widnes,Leigh and a Cumbrian team.There are reasons why we are behind The Aussies but not because we do not produce players, We do not have the training/coaching methods and do not develop our young players

[Nezza Faz]

[quote="29wes28"]Good post Butt Monkey, NF shut up talking tripe there are just as many boring games in the NRL as there is in super league.


Where did I ever bring the word "boring" into this post ? To paraphrase yourself, then, of course, you'll get "boring" games crop up in any competition. But, my point you've confused was "intensity" - whatever the match in Oz, that's what you are going to get more than here. Also, what you term as boring, could be seen differently by other onlookers, who can see other separate challenges.

Whatever these are, I'm not a coach, they create an environment that we witnessed in the St George game.

By the way, the weather in Australia in their winter can be as wet as here, if not as cold, and especially so in NZ.

[butt monkey]

I remember a discussion on Radio 5 Sports (about 12 years ago as it was then), about the future of sport in the UK and the problem that EVERY sport had in producing and ultimately retaining said juniors interest in their respective sports, capable of standing up on the World Stage upon their progression into the senior team against peers from other countries.

The discussion revolved around both codes of Rugby, Cricket, Athletics and Football. Without hesitation the main crux argued was that Premier League football "dominated" the mindset of youngsters and their parents to such an extent that even players seen as only "average" within the sport could enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle as opposed to those who played other sports. That attitude saw parents push their siblings and the youngsters themselves leap at the opportunity to live the pop-star culture and high living that football offered.

Since then, the wage/media hype comparison has extenuated to the point that if every other single sport in the country simply put just "packed in", then the t.v. sports stations and newspaper columns would be filled with even more football news. Of course their would be an outcry for those that would miss their sports, but not to the extent a monetary bankrupt, foreign owned and relegated football club threatened with closure would receive (ala Portsmouth last season).

Intensity/quality/quantity only comes from progression. Not from reduction and a simplistic expectation that that would result in "better" performances. If you reduced the SL in size it is far too presumptuous to assume all those players left would remain in the sport or even that youngsters would be enticed enough to play to a professional level in the first place with such a low chance to make the grade.