Originally Posted by
DD
Jeepers! Where do we start?
1) The Play-Offs - Now, I'm a fan of first past the post system, myself, but I'm realistic and realise this will never happen. Therefore, let's get the formula right.
In 2019, we went back to the best format that has been produced and that is a clearly weighted top five system that rewards each place in turn, with the top three all getting a second chance and the top placed team getting two shots at home to get to the Final. It keeps the season interesting throughout as nobody can coast into the top four knowing they will only need one win to get to the Final, and teams will not face elimination at the first hurdle despite having finished top.
We were given a top six system last season as a quick fix, to get the play-offs done quickly, and so it concerns me that this system has been employed again this season. It gives no second chances and is straight to a knock-out system. This degrades the league rounds from the start. I can't help but feel that the implementation of it this season is not short term and it is intended to be in place until the next round of RL changes are thought necessary. We had the right formula. Let's not throw that away.
2) The gulf between the haves and have-nots is getting wider. Whereas the last 25 years suggest that promoted teams have done better than is touted, I suspect this isn't going to last long. We need an overhaul of the system that helps give more funding to the top Championship clubs. This will not be easy, because the pandemic is likely to mean funds are harder for the game to come by.
I like the cricket approach to promotion and relegation. Two leagues of ten teams with (I suspect) relatively level funding. Two up and two down means that relegation is never a disaster. They are simply two tiers of the same competition. If this was the case and there was level funding. then nobody would fear relegation and nobody would have to go for broke to achieve promotion. It could happen organically.
My belief is that few of the non-Super League teams harbour any real ambition to attain top tier status anymore. The likes of Oldham, Sheffield and Workington have all been Super League clubs, but the first two have already, in the past, gone on record as saying that if they were to earn promotion on the field, they wouldn't take up the offer of a Super League place. Therefore, we need to ascertain who are serious about being part of the elite and those who simply can't afford it, then get ourselves 20 elite teams and get two strong divisions with a clear gangway between the two.
Entry into the elite twenty would come in the future by a process of election, whilst those struggling on and off the field over a period of three years, as per the old Super League licencing, would come under threat.
If I look at those who would be part of the twenty, it would be the Super League clubs plus Toulouse, Featherstone, Widnes, Bradford, Halifax, York, Newcastle and AN Other.
I'm not sure how funding could ever facilitate this, though, and that's the pitfall.
If this does not happen, then I'm starting to wonder if P&R is sustainable. Despite the obvious drawbacks of meaningless games, the yoyo effect is going to kick in, to an extent that it will be as bad as what people erroneously believe it was before.
3) Stop chasing pipe dreams.
Yes, Toronto got some big crowds, but like living in a dream world where deluded people and Prime Ministers thought that Covid was a quick three month fix, it was never going to spark a RL revolution in North America. Adding Ottawa and New York to a UK based competition is just crazy.
You look at Toronto and how long was it really going to take Canadian players to come through? Were they ever? I remember Alma-Aty getting the odd 25,000 crowd in Kazakhstan thirty years ago. It was always going to be a passing fad.
If the North Americans are that interested, let them start grass root competitions. If the locals know little about the game, I don't see how having Championship standard players that aren't even household names in Leigh or Featherstone playing against Swinton or Rochdale are going to excite the folk in uptown Ottawa? Surely, they'd find as much pleasure seeing locals play against cities from across the country they can relate to.
4) The Challenge Cup is in dire straits. The fans haven't warmed to the new Wembley. Whilst we can never bring back the old Wembley, I thought that the occasion was still great when we alternated between Cardiff and Edinburgh. As soon as the contract with Wembley is up, freshen it up, move the venue around and ditch Magic. Magic has taken that neutral 'weekend away' crowd from the Cup so that needs to go if the Cup is to survive. If we do play it in London, move it to a venue of smaller size so that the whole occasion doesn't come across as a joke on TV, which it does at present.
To boost crowds, we need to ensure that all clubs include the games as part of a season ticket, and if that means increasing the price by £20 or £30, so be it.
4) With regards to the 'barge' nature of the game, unfortunately, bulk is king now and we can't reverse that process. However, the emphasis on speed of collision is going to prove to be hugely detrimental to the long-term health and welfare of the players, and this will surely be witnessed over the coming years. I dread to think of the damage it's doing to players joints, let alone brains, to be coached to run at brick walls endlessly every week. Players used to run at gaps to minimise that ferocity. Now they run at players. RL is now not about trying to get from one side of the house to the other by going through the doors. It's become about trying to blast a hole in the wall because it's a shorter distance as the crow flies.
How this is achieved, of course, is something else, and I can't find an answer.
5) Finally, the international game.
The obsession with bringing Ireland, Scotland and Wales on board needs to stop, and the honest truth is that we are not only no further down the road in terms of producing worthwhile teams and spectator interest there than we were in the 1990s, but we are further away. No bugger is interested. It's not in their blood. This is not a case of giving up, as such, but a case of flogging a dead horse being a waste of time. Does this have to go on for another 125 years for the penny to drop?
Great Britain was a unique brand in team sport that was instantly identifiable with League. It would also allow the rare breed of RL fan that does come from one of the other home countries to get behind and support a team that plays at the top level.
If you are an outsider and you hear of England v Australia, you are going to think of Union and you are going to compare the two, with us coming out looking not so much unfavourable but embarrassing. The GB product allows us to market something different to Union and take away some of the poorer comparisons that will inevitably be made.
That lot is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other things such as the incessant rule changes every year.
For me, though, most importantly, the game needs to concentrate on its core strengths. Its roots are actually one of its primary plus points. It’s a Northern working-class game for the people. A great advert for our region. We should not be ashamed of this.
The obsession with global domination makes us look a bit cringeworthy. Aussie Rules and Gaelic sports feel no need to expand. They know what they are and they are comfortable with it. They do not feel the need to prove they are superior to a more popular code. They are not insecure in their own bodies.
There is no doubt in my mind that a better impression of our sport comes via outsiders watching St. Helens v Wigan in front of 18,000 full house of passionate spectators who live and breathe the game, rather than watching London v (say) Bristol in front of 2,000 happy-clappy home fans plus half a dozen visitors, whose low crowds only serve to demonstrate to the viewers that the game is unpopular, rather than the opposite impression that the RFL would absurdly perceive it to show.