nrl vs superleague

[ibeme]

This is brilliant!

Two articles arguing opposite positions from the Roosters coaching braintrust. Even if this was orchestrated, I congratulate them both.

The best way to overcome the apathy that's currently present is to build a genuine rivalry - make the game mean something. Both of these articles are trying to appeal to our sense of pride in the NRL, by making the loss more painful. That can only boost the motivation to win these games, which will in turn lift the profile of the game.

 

[Charge]

FOURTY FOUR TO FOUR!

I'll say it again. The SL has some excellent sides in it that could give anyone in the NRL a decent shake. Conversely, more than half of the teams are composed of absolute trash.

what like manly are in nrl

Absolute Trash with a 44% win Record against Top 8 sides...How many 3rd last teams in the SL can claim that?

Last year London beat Wigan, St Helens and drew with Leeds and still came 3rd from bottom.

The Evident lack of 44% is still there. That makes it what? 2.5 matches from 12?

I did a quick check on last years tables and this is what I found about the competativeness of each of the leagues:

Top of table:
Leeds - 89% win rate.
Bulldogs - 79% win rate.

Mid table ( ESL position 7, NRL position 8 )
Huddersfield - 43% win rate.
Raiders - 45% win rate.

Bottom of table:
Castleford - 21% win rate.
South Sydney - 25% win rate

So the ESL is slightly more weighted to the top than the NRL, but it is not a huge difference, and Leeds were a bit of an anomilly this year. I will be interested to see the same comparison next year so we can see if the leagues are getting more competative.

 

[Ari Gold]

If the SL is so good how come Australia kicked Englands arse 44- to what?? in the Tri-Series.

Your an idiot....thats not how you judge how strong a nation's domestic comp is.....

So you're saying....

-Nz drew with Oz in Auckland last year, so that means NZs domestic comp is as good as Australia's.... :lol: :lol:

-In the soccer, England lost to Portugal in the Euro Cup, so that means Portugal has a stronger domestic comp than England..... :lol: :lol:

i could go on and on but i leave you with those two examples to show how dumb you are.....

 

[JW]

well put it one way nobody likes or plays rugby league down south, apart from the odd few the reason for this is that schools dont play it, and its never got any media coverage. its only us northeners who have took to the game

Relevance?

In what areas or how "big" the game is in England is not the point. You're here arguing that the English SuperLeague is somehow superoir to the NRL. I don't care if Rugby League is played in all of England or in a single town, you made the statement.

The performance of The English/British national team reflects the depth and intensity of the SL competition in comparison to the NRL.

How do you think Australia managed to whitewash Britain 3-0 in 2003 with a 4th string side?

Depth.

Depth in quality, depth in skill, depth in talent.

End of story.

Cheers.

 

[lyon is a saint]

well put it one way nobody likes or plays rugby league down south, apart from the odd few the reason for this is that schools dont play it, and its never got any media coverage. its only us northeners who have took to the game

Relevance?

In what areas or how "big" the game is in England is not the point. You're here arguing that the English SuperLeague is somehow superoir to the NRL. I don't care if Rugby League is played in all of England or in a single town, you made the statement.

The performance of The English/British national team reflects the depth and intensity of the SL competition in comparison to the NRL.

How do you think Australia managed to whitewash Britain 3-0 in 2003 with a 4th string side?

Depth.

Depth in quality, depth in skill, depth in talent.

End of story.

Cheers.

weil c fanny

 

[Charge]

im not on about the national team, the reason our national is so bad because over here rugby league only just manages to make it in papers or on the tv, football, rugby union and even cricket are bigger than league in our country

Crap.

Your saying that media coverage effects what talent a team has and how it performs?

Your national team is crap because your League has poor depth in comparison to the NRL and your top players aren't exposed to tough matches virtually every week.

:arrow:

Cheers.

One off bad losses happen in both the ESL and NRL to even reasonable teams. Don't forget that Britian came top of the table after the round robin matches.

 

[Ari Gold]

well put it one way nobody likes or plays rugby league down south, apart from the odd few the reason for this is that schools dont play it, and its never got any media coverage. its only us northeners who have took to the game

Relevance?

In what areas or how "big" the game is in England is not the point. You're here arguing that the English SuperLeague is somehow superoir to the NRL. I don't care if Rugby League is played in all of England or in a single town, you made the statement.

The performance of The English/British national team reflects the depth and intensity of the SL competition in comparison to the NRL.

How do you think Australia managed to whitewash Britain 3-0 in 2003 with a 4th string side?

Depth.

Depth in quality, depth in skill, depth in talent.

End of story.

Cheers.

ill say it again...........NZ could beat anyone on their day, and you cant say the Bartercard Cup is of great standard.........in soccer Englands domestic comp is the best in the world, but the National team sucks

 

[Greenblooded]

If the SL is so good how come Australia kicked Englands arse 44- to what?? in the Tri-Series.

Your an idiot....thats not how you judge how strong a nation's domestic comp is.....

So you're saying....

-Nz drew with Oz in Auckland last year, so that means NZs domestic comp is as good as Australia's.... :lol: :lol:

-In the soccer, England lost to Portugal in the Euro Cup, so that means Portugal has a stronger domestic comp than England..... :lol: :lol:
i could go on and on but i leave you with those two examples to show how dumb you are.....

Actually I think it is a fairly relevant point. Virtually all of the GB team plays in the ESL, and the Aussie Team is made up of players from the NRL.
Your example regarding NZ and their domestic comp makes no sense as not one Kiwi plays in the Domestic competition (unless he has been dropped from the Warriors).

 

[Ari Gold]

If the SL is so good how come Australia kicked Englands arse 44- to what?? in the Tri-Series.

Your an idiot....thats not how you judge how strong a nation's domestic comp is.....

So you're saying....

-Nz drew with Oz in Auckland last year, so that means NZs domestic comp is as good as Australia's.... :lol: :lol:

-In the soccer, England lost to Portugal in the Euro Cup, so that means Portugal has a stronger domestic comp than England..... :lol: :lol:
i could go on and on but i leave you with those two examples to show how dumb you are.....

Actually I think it is a fairly relevant point. Virtually all of the GB team plays in the ESL, and the Aussie Team is made up of players from the NRL.
Your example regarding NZ and their domestic comp makes no sense as not one Kiwi plays in the Domestic competition (unless he has been dropped from the Warriors).

well thats my point.....The strength of the National team has nothing to do with how strong your domestic scene is, so people should not look at the 44-4 scoreline, even though GB actaully came FIRST in the round robin format

 

[Charge]

well put it one way nobody likes or plays rugby league down south, apart from the odd few the reason for this is that schools dont play it, and its never got any media coverage. its only us northeners who have took to the game

Relevance?

In what areas or how "big" the game is in England is not the point. You're here arguing that the English SuperLeague is somehow superoir to the NRL. I don't care if Rugby League is played in all of England or in a single town, you made the statement.

The performance of The English/British national team reflects the depth and intensity of the SL competition in comparison to the NRL.

How do you think Australia managed to whitewash Britain 3-0 in 2003 with a 4th string side?

Depth.

Depth in quality, depth in skill, depth in talent.

End of story.

Cheers.

You are missing an important factor here. Almost none of that Australian first team would be replaced by NZ or other players form the NRL if it were possible. Thus the Aus team represents the very best of the NRL.

However, in England there are a few positions that would go to non British players if it were possible. Lesley Vinakolo would be on one of the wings for a start and Jamie Lyon would probably make this years center position. Thus the British team does not represent the very best of the ESL.

Despite the fact that it was not the best of the ESL in the Tri-Nations, Britian came top of the 2004 Tri-Nations round robin table.

 

[t-ba]

I did a quick check on last years tables and this is what I found about the competativeness of each of the leagues:

Top of table:
Leeds - 89% win rate.
Bulldogs - 79% win rate.

Mid table (ESL position 7, NRL position 8)
Huddersfield - 43% win rate.
Raiders - 45% win rate.

Bottom of table:
Castleford - 21% win rate.
South Sydney - 25% win rate

So the ESL is slightly more weighted to the top than the NRL, but it is not a huge difference, and Leeds were a bit of an anomilly this year. I will be interested to see the same comparison next year so we can see if the leagues are getting more competative.

Here are the F & A's.

Leeds:+594
Roosters:+342 (Best)

Hudds:-239
Raiders:-59

Castleford:-409
Souths:-357 (Worst)

It's also interesting to note that Four teams in the SL managed to top the -10 pppg margin on differentials to the NRL's two. (33% to 13%)

 

[Greenblooded]

Its a fair point, however I find it a bit annoying that you selectively mention that GB finished on top of the round robin table, and not mention at all that GB were smashed in the final.

 

[lyon is a saint]

Its a fair point, however I find it a bit annoying that you selectively mention that GB finished on top of the round robin table, and not mention at all that GB were smashed in the final.

right let me get a point across, aussies won the final because of one man lockyer FACT, had our keiron cunningham been fit and on form it would of been a closer game FACT, and dont forget our captain fantastic paul sculthorpe wasent fit and shouldent of played

 

[t-ba]

Its a fair point, however I find it a bit annoying that you selectively mention that GB finished on top of the round robin table, and not mention at all that GB were smashed in the final.

right let me get a point across, aussies won the final because of one man lockyer FACT, had our keiron cunningham been fit and on form it would of been a closer game FACT, and dont forget our captain fantastic paul sculthorpe wasent fit and shouldent of played

But we were missing our vast horde of SL players :roll: .

We went through the entire bloody thing without Andrew Johns...

 

[Charge]

Its a fair point, however I find it a bit annoying that you selectively mention that GB finished on top of the round robin table, and not mention at all that GB were smashed in the final.

Ah, but how many Australians sellectively mention that GB got smashed, but fail to admit that they came top of the table? All of them - I'm just readressing the ballance ;-)

 

[Greenblooded]

FACT?? Your saying you know for a fact that GB would have won if Lockyer wasn't playing? Mate that is weak.

 

[JW]

You are missing an important factor here. Almost none of that Australian first team would be replaced by NZ or other players form the NRL if it were possible. Thus the Aus team represents the very best of the NRL.

However, in England there are a few positions that would go to non British players if it were possible. Lesley Vinakolo would be on one of the wings for a start and Jamie Lyon would probably make this years center position. Thus the British team does not represent the very best of the ESL.

Despite the fact that it was not the best of the ESL in the Tri-Nations, Britian came top of the 2004 Tri-Nations round robin table.

All you are doing in strengthing a point I made earlier.

Imports are among the best players in the ESL, with Vainakolo and Lyon as you mentioned. This is stopping young English talent from making it into first grade and thus creating a stronger English game.

You even said yourself that such a thing wouldn't happen in Australia.

The sooner the Poms make more of an effort to grow their own, the better form them and the ESL.

Cheers.

 

[lyon is a saint]

Its a fair point, however I find it a bit annoying that you selectively mention that GB finished on top of the round robin table, and not mention at all that GB were smashed in the final.

right let me get a point across, aussies won the final because of one man lockyer FACT, had our keiron cunningham been fit and on form it would of been a closer game FACT, and dont forget our captain fantastic paul sculthorpe wasent fit and shouldent of played

But we were missing our vast horde of SL players :roll: .

We went through the entire bloody thing without Andrew Johns...

yes jamie lyon, he would of made it into the aussie team the lad is now officially a st helens legend

 

[JW]

FACT?? Your saying you know for a fact that GB would have won if Lockyer wasn't playing? Mate that is weak.

It's English mentality.

They believe the only difference between Australia and England in Cricket is Shane Warne.

FFS :roll:

Cheers.

 

[Charge]

Its a fair point, however I find it a bit annoying that you selectively mention that GB finished on top of the round robin table, and not mention at all that GB were smashed in the final.

right let me get a point across, aussies won the final because of one man lockyer FACT, had our keiron cunningham been fit and on form it would of been a closer game FACT, and dont forget our captain fantastic paul sculthorpe wasent fit and shouldent of played

But we were missing our vast horde of SL players :roll: .

We went through the entire bloody thing without Andrew Johns...

I completely agree with you on this point. you can't after getting beat in a final come up with excuses of injuries or inadiquate preporation. The team knows what is at stake a long time before the match and should be ready for the title of the best in the world to go to the winner. Same goes for the WCC though, so I guess that makes Leeds the best in the world.