Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:26 pm  

The Eagle wrote:

This sums it up for me. I think what should be summarised is that continued sucess is not guarunteed, in fact probably the opposite.

Also, small teams don't always necessarily need to settle for mediocrity if managed correctly.

It depends how small.

Realistically a club like Batley is not going to get to the top of Super League, it doesn't have the potential market - it's a small catchment area only a few miles from Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield and Wakefield who are already established. I think the only small town that has potential to get to the top is Castleford because historically they have been up with the big boys for a long time and so have established their market.

If you are trying to build a market to attract new supporters to the game, its very difficult in a small town, because someone like Batley would really be having to reach out to get people in from those towns which already have SL clubs.

Medium sized clubs like Warrington and Huddersfield have benefited from investment and I think if somebody with serious money behind them went to Salford they could get up there as well, but to go taking money to Batley, Hunslet, Swinton etc is a non starter.

Back to the original point about success being cyclical, IMO the real key point is that it is harder to replace top class players particularly in certain positions, its hard to do what Saints have done and go from Cunningham to Roby. When Warrington lose Briers and Michael Monaghan we will struggle because there are few players of that calibre on the market. Leeds have started to replace guys like Senior but the hardest will be Sinfield, because he's not just a good player he's a great leader and personality. Look at what happened to Wigan in the couple of years after losing Farrell. Not saying Leeds will go that way - in 2001 people thought Leeds would collapse after Iestyn Harris left but after the wobbly year with Ben Walker, the emergence of Sinfield filled the gap and then surpassed it.

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:41 pm  

I see yer points SC but RE-Replacing Sinfield that process is already taking place from the leadership side of things we have Brad Singleton and "play-maker" wise Stevie Ward.
Of course both players will have their own identity and style but that's where i see our future in those roles stated and whilst i'm off the opinon "You Don't replace" the quality of legendary players like Senior ,Peacock and Sinfield per say you can still unearth enough quality to take the club forward but in a different guise i'e Hardaker and Watkins will take the Centre mantle and make it their own maybe not the same way Senior did but in their own style and so on etc.

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:47 pm  

We lost Lewis Jones in 1964 and it was said how do we replace him?,but although we had just gone through a bad 3 years we were also on the virge of our last great era

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:21 pm  

lionarmour87 wrote:

We lost Lewis Jones in 1964 and it was said how do we replace him?,but although we had just gone through a bad 3 years we were also on the virge of our last great era

Wigan went through the same thing from about 1966, the end of the great Boston, Ashton, McTigue era.
The next great Wigan era 1985 - 2006 was managed a little better. Once a player was 30 or there abouts they were gone and replaced with younger players. The likes of Hanley, Goodway, Gregory weren't held onto for too long.

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:28 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

The likes of Hanley, Goodway, Gregory weren't held onto for too long.

Ouch. Low blow.

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:56 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Wigan went through the same thing from about 1966, the end of the great Boston, Ashton, McTigue era.
The next great Wigan era 1985 - 2006 was managed a little better. Once a player was 30 or there abouts they were gone and replaced with younger players. The likes of Hanley, Goodway, Gregory weren't held onto for too long.

Are you kidding yourself putting Hanley in that list?

Wigan got rid of Hanley in 1991, he was still the best player in England in his final season in 1995. Losing Hanley meant Wigan could afford Offiah and of course Offiah did well but to imply Hanley was moved on before he declined is nonsense, Hanley never declined significantly, he retired at the top.

Also I like the fact you count the era of Wigan's greatness as going up to 2006. Between 1996 and 2006 Wigan one one Super League title and one Challenge Cup. Does this count as a decade of greatness in Wigan's great history?

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:40 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Also I like the fact you count the era of Wigan's greatness as going up to 2006. Between 1996 and 2006 Wigan one one Super League title and one Challenge Cup. Does this count as a decade of greatness in Wigan's great history?

Beat me to it, Sally. Amazing they won so little with Farrell as captain, given his reputation.

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:41 pm  

rodhutch wrote:

Yes our players are aging but we are replacing - that is why our youth policy is so important

Hall for Donald
Watkins for Senior
BJB and Hardaker aren't doing that bad - Clarkson is establishing himself.
We have the likes of Hood making it - and there will be more.

I think Sir Kev may be the most difficult for everything else he brings

I agree Kev is our most influential player and will be difficult when the time comes to replace him!

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:55 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Are you kidding yourself putting Hanley in that list?

Wigan got rid of Hanley in 1991, he was still the best player in England in his final season in 1995. Losing Hanley meant Wigan could afford Offiah and of course Offiah did well but to imply Hanley was moved on before he declined is nonsense, Hanley never declined significantly, he retired at the top.

Also I like the fact you count the era of Wigan's greatness as going up to 2006. Between 1996 and 2006 Wigan one one Super League title and one Challenge Cup. Does this count as a decade of greatness in Wigan's great history?

Beat me to it too ,I read the post in the diner and thought "cant wait to get home to check this up"How do we define a glory successful period?we have had sporadic wins here and there ,but its got to be 5 years I think

Re: If success is cyclical, where are Leeds currently? : Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:01 pm  

lionarmour87 wrote:

Beat me to it too ,I read the post in the diner and thought "cant wait to get home to check this up"How do we define a glory successful period?we have had sporadic wins here and there ,but its got to be 5 years I think

It depends who you are and what you're used to. For us winning two Challenge Cups and a minor premiership in three years is a glory period because we've won nothing for ages - before that under Alex Murphy we won a minor premiership and a Challenge Cup and lost a CC final, and that counted as a period of relative 'glory' for us for the next three decades.

I expect for Leeds fans, the Graham Murray era, which delivered a Grand Final and a Challenge Cup win, seemed like a period of relative success at the time, after a long spell without major honours, but now the Murray era probably doesn't seem anything special. But Hull fans probably still view the Kear/Sharp era of 2005-06, which delivered the same as Murray for Leeds, as a period of success.