Solid, workmanlike performance from the lads tonight. Once again, credit must go to the much maligned (in lunatic quarters) Saints pack which set the platform on which all else was built. Stand-out players were (in no particular order) - Lomax, Jones and Perry.



50+ points in bad conditions sounds like a decent performance. But Bradford must take the prize for worst team at Langtree Park this season. How tragic to see the Bulls, one of the greatest clubs in modern history and our most serious rival for nigh on a decade, reduced to what I can only describe as lower division standard.



But it's not just Bradford. Aside from Wigan (who whilst exceptional in this competition are only so in comparison to everyone else including us) I haven't watched one outstanding performance from an away team at Langtree Park. It's like we enjoyed ten to fifteen years of steady progression in standards since SL's inception which peaked three or so years ago. Since then the trend has been inexorably downward. I mean, it's saying something about the paucity of entertainment on the pitch when the arrival of Jamie Foster nearby signing autographs instilled more happiness among my two kids than the entire 80 minutes.

Fair comment, but reading the this forum after all 3 wigan defeats we were painted in the same picture as you are now describing Bradford.



We can only play what is in front of us, as did Wigan. But we never suffered the same score line.

I agree Wump. They need to take a long hard look at Super League and see what can be done to improve standards. For me, it's the age old debate about team number, we just cannot sustain 14 teams. I would personally go for 10 teams, play fewer games and expand the Exiles series to 3 games and have a proper, structured international game. Obviously this would depend on having a competent enough governing body to negotiate a TV deal the sport deserves, which we don't have at the moment. Losing the 4 teams would improve the squads pretty drastically and bring in much needed competition for places.



That is why the NRL is so strong. The senior players know that if they don't perform there will be a squad full of youngsters desperate to take their shirt. We don't have that in this country as the youngster playing the game aren't of a high enough standard as the sport doesn't have a strong enough grass roots set up to catch the best athletes.

I think we need to remember that the stricter overseas player regulations were always going to result in a gradual decline in standards for at least the short to medium term. Now that players with exemptions are starting to retire in numbers we're seeing that decline happen. It's not ideal, but I think it's a hit worth taking if we want to improve the way we produce young players across the competition.



Saddened! is right about the number of teams, though. Just before we went up to 14 teams I reckon we had the most competitive SL there has ever been. Again, this decision was made with a bigger picture in mind (basically to allow the introduction of Crusaders IIRC), but one which ultimately proved to be misguided. I reckon a move back down to 12 teams would make a significant difference to the standard of the league. If you pooled together the playing squads of the bottom four clubs I think you could put together two presentable sides.

That is why the NRL is so strong. The senior players know that if they don't perform there will be a squad full of youngsters desperate to take their shirt. We don't have that in this country as the youngster playing the game aren't of a high enough standard as the sport doesn't have a strong enough grass roots set up to catch the best athletes.'"

But then that raises the question of which teams you axe. All well and good spouting this from our position of strength but had SL come in the 80's and Wigan and Widnes where the dominate teams, would we be pushing this same policy with the possibility being that we could be one of the 4 teams to be chopped. Poor finances, delapidated stadium, no trophies for how many years??





When the likes of Widnes, Cas, Wakey, London, Salford, start pushing this line then I'll accept it as the the percived wisdom and not just fans of big clubs protecting their own interests.

We've never come close to matching the NRL and it's unlikely we ever will. But we've certainly been stronger. Hell, I can recall lower league sides which would have put up far greater resistance than Bradford tonight.

To be fair I bet some of their players are wondering when their next pay cheque will be coming in

I should add that I don't just mean the best lower league clubs over the last fifteen years were capable of beating the Bulls (after all, upsets happen all the time) - [ithey actually possessed better players. [/i

There simply are just not nearly enough British players of sufficient quality, most especially in the backs, to sustain a competitive 14 team league with the current salary cap at the moment. I couldn't believe we were playing a top 8 team tonight and I reckon Oldham gave us as much opposition. Even taking into account Bradford's current woes it's incredibly worrying that such a limited and one-dimensional Saints team can hack a fellow playoff contender to pieces with such contemptuous ease.

SL is in a shocking state talent wise.

There have always been plenty of pee poor games in Rugby League as the season enters mid town, it's just that they are easily forgettable.



I think the key is that these 2 teams in Leeds and Baradford are not performing at the moment and that makes the tournement feel a bit lacklustre