Originally Posted by
RV12
I think the debate about standards is an interesting one, although hampered somewhat by an outright refusal to accept that someone else may have a different opinion.
For what it's worth, I think assessing the standard is very difficult because it can only ever be based on opinion. Firstly it depends on when you are comparing to. As an example, I'll compare now to the early years of Super League.
In my opinion, the standard at the top of Super League now is not anywhere near the standard of the early years of the competition. It may be based on nostalgia but the leading lights of Super League in the early years, the likes of Harris, Long, Sculthorpe, Farrell etc are a significant step up on their counterparts now (i.e. Williams, Lomax etc). We have not produced a player who is both tough and skilful like Sculthorpe or Farrell since. Our skilful players now still lack the excitement of a player such as Long. When you think of the best Super League players, how many debuted this decade?
But, what is often forgotten is that when the big teams used to play each other in the early years of Super League, they often led to blowout scores. It would not be uncommon to see Wigan, Bradford, Leeds and St Helens beat each other by 40 points, even in play off series. Now, matches between the top sides are usually a lot closer.
The standard at the bottom of Super League is better though. That has probably been emphasised by a decline at the top. The days when sides like Huddersfield and Salford would lose by 50 or 60 points every week have been and gone and the league is better for it.
I recall a time on here, even in the mid-late 00's when most home games were judged by whether we hit the "mandatory 40". There weren't that many games that were a contest. That is not suggestive of a high standard. I do not have the statistics to hand, but I would wager that the average winning margin in a Super League match is closer now than it was.
But we can't have it both ways. You cannot have a higher standard and a more competitive league. There has to be a trade off. The higher the standard of the better teams, the more likely that the lower teams get left behind.
You see it in the Premier League now. The likes of Manchester City (and now they look to be joined by Liverpool) are hitting points totals regularly that not too long ago were seen as once in a generation figures. So the standard at the top is higher, but it makes the likelihood of shock results such as City's defeat at Norwich at the weekend all the more uncommon and the rest of the league suffers and stagnates as a result.
In rugby league, I think the debate about standard is getting confused with style, which is the more prevalent point. The sport used to have a focus on speed and skill. Now, what wins big games is, and I am sorry to use this phrase, "the grind". It's why we haven't won big games recently. We admirably stick to our principles of playing an entertaining style. That leads to more errors and against a side that has a simple plan to kick well, complete every set, not offload and has a low error count as a top priority, you will inevitably given them chances and risk losing.
Sides like Wigan have perfected that style and it has succeeded. We saw Warrington succeed with it in the cup final too and noticed them trying that style in 2018, but not perfecting it (instead, they were developing it). Conversely, we have not adopted that style, nor did Warrington under Tony Smith, and neither have won the Super League (2014 aside). In terms of executing a gameplan, I would argue the standard is getting higher. But when that gameplan is incredibly basic and sacrifices what I see as the principles of the sport, it makes you wonder is it worth it?
We could play as Wigan did to gain their success this decade. We tried under KC in fact, but did not have the discipline to execute. But the price Wigan have paid for that success is a 1/3 decline in crowds since 2011. From a business point of view, is the extra prize money worth it compared to the loss of gate receipts and disconnect from your fanbase? There are no easy answers.
If a side can find a way to consistently succeed with an entertaining style that counters that conservative, wrestle style approach, then we will have a sport-changer. Nobody has managed that yet, maybe we will persist and crack it? I hope so. If we do, then I anticipate that there will be a perception that the standard is increasing.