Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:48 am  

I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . http://www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook

I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . http://www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:01 am  

jameswk wrote: I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . http://www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook To start with, we need to cut the dead wood out of SL - and that means, in the first instance, both Castleford and Wakefield, I'm afraid. Their better players can then be dispersed to the other clubs at the lower end of the table. That would leave us with a leaner, meaner competition. There are far too many Yorkshire clubs in the league anyway, and that is massively diluting the talent pool over there. We could also make use of another French team, to expand the fanantical hotbed down in the South of France (though that may mean that another current SL club needs to get its marching orders - according to a rumour on TotalRL, Salford may be favourites for this, as they supposedly have financial issues). As for London and Widnes ... We apparently can't contemplate relegating the former, because Sky want them in, and the latter - though they've been an embarrassment this season - suddenly seem to be buying big and perhaps are now in a position to make their ambitions real, and become the RL force on Merseyside that they once were. With regard to the international situation, McNamara has signed his own death-warrant IMO. His current England selections reveal that he is just another thickie Yorlshireman who intends to change nothing (and is perhaps already looking towards his next coaching appointment with the club he his unjustly bigged up during this Origin series). Of course, that still leaves the problem of who do we replace him with. I'd have said one of the game's older, semi-retired coaches, someone who can do it part-time, but I can't think of many who'd fit the bill.

jameswk wrote: I dont know how many people have read this article but it is a very straight to the point opinion. worth a look. I think he has some valid points . http://www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... m=facebook To start with, we need to cut the dead wood out of SL - and that means, in the first instance, both Castleford and Wakefield, I'm afraid. Their better players can then be dispersed to the other clubs at the lower end of the table. That would leave us with a leaner, meaner competition. There are far too many Yorkshire clubs in the league anyway, and that is massively diluting the talent pool over there. We could also make use of another French team, to expand the fanantical hotbed down in the South of France (though that may mean that another current SL club needs to get its marching orders - according to a rumour on TotalRL, Salford may be favourites for this, as they supposedly have financial issues). As for London and Widnes ... We apparently can't contemplate relegating the former, because Sky want them in, and the latter - though they've been an embarrassment this season - suddenly seem to be buying big and perhaps are now in a position to make their ambitions real, and become the RL force on Merseyside that they once were. With regard to the international situation, McNamara has signed his own death-warrant IMO. His current England selections reveal that he is just another thickie Yorlshireman who intends to change nothing (and is perhaps already looking towards his next coaching appointment with the club he his unjustly bigged up during this Origin series). Of course, that still leaves the problem of who do we replace him with. I'd have said one of the game's older, semi-retired coaches, someone who can do it part-time, but I can't think of many who'd fit the bill.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:40 am  

I think its time, like Cruncher said, to reduce the number of teams in SL and create a leaner and more intense SL.

I personally feel that at this moment in time we simply don't have a talent pool thats of the right level to push our game forward.

I think there are simply too many average players in SL these days. I'm not advocating we will ever be in a position where we see a league full of superstars but for me the current level of average players is far too high.

Reducing the number of options where these players can get SL game time is the quickest and easiest option.

Some of these current SL players would then drop down to the championship and make that comp even stronger.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:07 am  

So we grow RL by making the top flight competition smaller, reducing the opportunity for those up and coming players to get an SL experience?

How small does the league need to be to have "international" grade players available, is it a pool of 10 teams with just 20 centres at the first grade, or is it 14 with 28 first grade to pick from?

If it's 10, and there's the opportunity to rest players who pays for the redundant squad in the back ground? Less game time would be better for players like Tomkins right?

Do we restrict the import of all Ausie players so that the SL grade can only ever get to test their arm at international level?

I guess that the bottom four teams in any league are competitive and SL is the only sport in the world that has losers as well as winners?

Or, do we need the RFL to get the sport into the public eye more? Make the Magic Weekend something that's not just another league game, get the Challenge Cup back in the lime light rather than marginalised as Sky simply don't care?

Give the World Cup to TV or the BBC for free for a year, yes it will cost the RFL but the terrestrial TV producers would jump at the chance to fill the Sat/Sun afternoons with some cheap to make TV.

More people = more cash and a better public perception and growth.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:18 am  

It's pretty evident that there isn't enough talent about to sustain 14 teams in the league, there's far too many players about that are so far off the top players it's embarrassing.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am  

goobervision wrote:

So we grow RL by making the top flight competition smaller, reducing the opportunity for those up and coming players to get an SL experience?

How small does the league need to be to have "international" grade players available, is it a pool of 10 teams with just 20 centres at the first grade, or is it 14 with 28 first grade to pick from?

If it's 10, and there's the opportunity to rest players who pays for the redundant squad in the back ground? Less game time would be better for players like Tomkins right?

Do we restrict the import of all Ausie players so that the SL grade can only ever get to test their arm at international level?

I guess that the bottom four teams in any league are competitive and SL is the only sport in the world that has losers as well as winners?

Or, do we need the RFL to get the sport into the public eye more? Make the Magic Weekend something that's not just another league game, get the Challenge Cup back in the lime light rather than marginalised as Sky simply don't care?

Give the World Cup to TV or the BBC for free for a year, yes it will cost the RFL but the terrestrial TV producers would jump at the chance to fill the Sat/Sun afternoons with some cheap to make TV.

More people = more cash and a better public perception and growth.

there are some interesting things here, but its as if you have started to think about the answer before you have fully understood the problem.

Money makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player.

It also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.

In addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there.

there are a thousand more reasons for less teams.

Ps, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:29 am  

Guerrier wrote:

It's pretty evident that there isn't enough talent about to sustain 14 teams in the league, there's far too many players about that are so far off the top players it's embarrassing.

Exactly. We need better teams, creating more competitive matches. And the only way to do that in the sort term is concentrate the good players we have in fewer teams. That would be a start when it comes to making the game more marketable.

There will always be winners and losers, but we need to aim for something like the NRL model, wherein those winners and losers change around on a fairly regular basis.

We also need all the SL teams to increase their production lines of youngsters. The best way to do that, as I see it, is moderate the Salary Cap, creating enticements for clubs to start investing in and promoting junior talent.

Goobervision speaks from the heart, clearly, but I fundamentally disagree with some of his points. An example is that of the 28 centres currently getting regular game time - a nice idea, yet today we have a second rower, Ablett, playing in the centre for England. Now, okay - it's an appalling selection by an idiotic coach, and I can name two or three others who should have been there ahead of him - but the fact that Ablett is able to play centre for Leeds and catch the eye indicates that most weeks in SL he has no real opposition. If he was playing against a specialist centre each week, who is there because he is good enough, not because there is no-one else to wear the shirt, it would be very different.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:30 am  

Who is Mr Creosote?

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:38 am  

A smaller SL will also make for a stronger championship, as players move down... This will be better for up and coming "talent".

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:50 am  

It's unbelievably obvious that the league needs reducing in numbers but it won't happen anytime soon.

The 'have nots' run this game and the RFL won't want to upset them. A massive opportunity was missed when Crusaders folded. That was the time to cut the numbers.