Picking at the Bones - Who might get picked up from relegated Leigh?

Leigh's brief stay in Super League has ended so now attention turns to the future. Often that has meant a large player turnover, whether relegated sides stay full-time or not. For Leigh, player turnover will be nothing new after a couple of years in which they've used over 50 players. It's inevitable they'll lose a few players, so let's have a look through their squad and see who'll be candidates to move on.

I'll start with a player who hasn't even got there yet. Bryson Goodwin has a decent track record with 6 tries in 9 internationals for New Zealand and 76% career kicking success. Although he's a little off a 1 in 2 try strike-rate, 71 NRL tries in 178 games over 10 years means he's likely to have other suitors if he can get out of a Championship contract with Leigh. Widnes aren't deep at centre, Wigan could be in the market for a goal-kicking centre, and Warrington and Catalan will be having big squad overhauls. *Edit - We now know that Warrington have taken up Goodwin's contract*

Now I'll be looking at the playing side that fell out of Super League in the Million Pound Game.

If they weren't at Leigh, senior players like 36 year old Mickey Higham and 34 year old Danny Tickle probably wouldn't have gone around in Super League this season, so I don't think they'll be on anyone's wishlist even if they wanted to make themselves available. Harrison Hansen, although a little younger at 31 - he'll be 32 when 2018 kicks off - and with a strong Super 8s showing, may have suitors but I think he's most likely to stay at Leigh. Glenn Stewart is another nearing the end of his career. He wasn't as influential in attack or as hard-working and successful in defence as he was in his year at Catalan. He's contracted to Leigh next year and I'm unsure how many sides will be in the market for a 33 year old on an apparent decline, but he offers good leadership that someone like Salford may look for.

Of the other forwards from the MPG, Liam Hood and Lachlan Burr may be the most likely to attract some interest, unless Catalan go on a French player round-up for Antoni Maria. Both Hood and Burr are in their mid-twenties. Hood has generally saved his best for when the TV cameras were around this year, so teams who might want a back-up hooker with a change of pace may see him as an option, Wakefield or one of the Hull sides maybe. Burr has been one of Leigh's most consistent metre makers, especially in the Qualifiers, and was their best offloader this year. He's a player Catalan or Widnes could benefit from, but Huddersfield would be a good fit I think.

In a bottom four side that has ultimately gone down, both MPG halves have impressed me in 2017. Ben Reynolds impressed me almost every time I saw him, he's a dual run/pass threat with 9 tries and 9 assists over the season, along with a 80% kicking success rate and a good all round kicking game. If he can be attracted away from Leigh, the side that relegated them in the MPG that would be an ideal fit - Catalan will need a running threat to replace Myler and it looks as though they'll need a goal-kicker if Walsh leaves. Josh Drinkwater contributed double-figure assists, showed control in the kicking game and kicked a healthy 3 forty-twenties and showed with a strong Qualifiers record that he can be a good goal-kicker. Widnes, Salford and maybe Wigan could be in the market for a game controlling half back if he hits the market.

In the MPG backs, Ryan Hampshire may have found his best level for now as a Qualifiers level player, but offers good utility and has great speed, so someone like Catalan or Salford who lack backs depth could have interest. Matty Dawson, who has done a little better than I expected as Leigh's top scorer with 15 tries in 29 games, and James Clare who showed up well with 7 Qualifiers tries are also probably in the right place. Both on loan centres might be wanted back at parent clubs. Matty Fleming has earned valuable game time, Ben Crooks has been one of Leigh's best players and if Castleford don't see him improving their squad, Leeds may want centre depth or Widnes could be in the market for that position, and Warrington is an outside chance for me too.

Outside of that, there are a few others in the squad who may interest clubs if they seek a Leigh release.

Daniel Mortimer is obviously experienced in the NRL and fits the bill of many previous Hull KR or Salford signings, but I think both clubs may have learnt from being burnt on similar types of player before. I'm not convinced what the market for him should be, but he'll get another club if he wants one probably. Samisoni Langi made the SLP stats round-up every time he played apart from his first game. It was a fairly small sample size and he didn't contribute as many tries or assists as Leigh would have wanted, but he averaged over 100m a game so clearly is an impact player - Widnes, Warrington or Catalan could be looking for a new centre, and Huddersfield, Leeds or Wigan could want depth there at the right price. Eloi Pelissier feels to me like quite literally the player Catalan were missing this year. Zip, passion and enthusiasm in everything he does, even if that does sometimes slip over the line into penalties or diving. If bridges haven't been burnt, he needs to get back to the Dragons. I can't see another clear landing pad club for him, maybe Warrington who need to replace Brad Dwyer. Mitch Brown has arguably been Leigh's best this year, with the most carries and metres, as well as a rich try scoring form in the Qualifiers. He can play across the back line and do a good job, he brings experience and determination as well as ability and versatility. I imagine lots of sides will look at him. Widnes might be the best fit, where he can play centre and back up full back.

One last player to discuss is Jamie Acton. Yes, he's a thug and a liability given his disciplinary record - 2 sin-bins and 5 charges in 2017, 14 games missed due to suspensions as a result. However, they won a third of his 15 Super League regular season games, no Leigh regular had a better win percentage. His 105 metres per game is also the best of any Leigh regular in the 23 game regular season. 4 tries is good for a prop and he has reasonable defence. If there's any coach up to the task of calming his reactions and focusing his aggression in the right way then Acton belongs in Super League. Sadly, I'm not sure if there is. *Edit - we now know that Acton has committed himself to Leigh*

My guess is about half of the twenty players I've singled out above won't be starting 2018 in the Leigh squad. I suppose one thing relegation does is spice up the off-season transfer market!

Mark
SLP

2017 Grand Final SLP Meet Up

A few people have asked about a Grand Final meet up, so we've decided to put some plans in place for anyone who wants to grab a beer with us before the Saturday's big game. We appreciate it's fairly short notice, but do come say hi if you can.

Our plan will be to get to The DOCKyard at Media City for roughly 1:00pm.

This pub is located close to MetroLink Line D & Line E, close to local bus routes and close to car parking at the Lowry Outlet shopping centre, amongst other places to park. It's roughly 1 mile walking distance away from Old Trafford.

We will then make the walk to Old Trafford at about 4:15pm, which should give us time to grab a beer or two in the Fan Zone before heading inside the ground for kick off.

Get in touch with us if you're going to be at the Grand Final on our Twitter or Facebook. If you'll be there and want to contribute to our Instagram also get in touch!

Cheers
Mark & Tom
SLP

Structuring the Future: a different way forward for Rugby League

Changes are coming in 2019 it seems. As ever, views are split and no-one agrees. But all the ideas I've seen are things that we've seen before already - a load of tried, tested, moaned about and moved on from structures.

Personally I'd stick as we are, with very minor tweaks, but if change is in the air my suggestion is one we haven't tried yet, but is hugely successful in America. Here it is!
--------------------------------------
Super League

• Super League to be made up of two conferences of 8 each
• Sides play within their conference home and away (14 games)
• Sides play inter-conference opponents once - rotating the home/away game in alternating years (8 games)
• Magic Weekend will see sides play the other conference side who ended the previous year in the same position, i.e. 1v1, 2v2 etc. (1 game)
• Playoffs: 1v4 and 2v3 in each conference, winners playoff in conference finals, then winner of each conference play Grand Final.
• Promotion & Relegation can be retained, if desired, by having the bottom side of each conference playoff. They would be replaced by the winner of a Championship Grand Final. (I wouldn't allow P&R in Year 1, to let things settle)

Here's an idea of how it might look, based on current league placings and ability to run as full time clubs in 2019. I'm not a marketing guy, so the conference names are just me spit-balling, but you get the idea.

One thing you'll notice from this structure is there's a lot less games than we currently play. Super League sides currently play 23 regular season games, 7 'Super 8s' games, then potentially a semi and a Grand Final. 30 to 32 games, plus up to 5 in the Cup. In my structure they play 23 league games, then potentially 3 finals games, as well as up to 5 Cup games.

That opens up the schedule for some extra games. Those games could be:

• Additional 'On the Road' rounds, as part of the actual season of course - inter-conference games between say the top 4 from each and bottom 4 from each, other than your Magic opponent, so 3 more regular season games. They could be played as double headers in places like the Midlands, London, South West, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh etc.
• An expanded World Club Series (although we might struggle to get NRL buy-in!)
• International games, with France, New Zealand or Pacific Island nations all possibilities.
• An Origin Series - Lancashire v Yorkshire, with Cumbria v the South or something as a curtain raiser.
• You could also work in an 'All-Star' game, with players from each conference other than the Grand Final sides, as a Grand Final curtain raiser maybe, to further encourage fans of all sides to attend.

--------------------------------------
Championship

At the moment I'm not convinced we have the depth of quality below the full time clubs to have the same structure in the Championship as in the Super League.

I would suggest for the Championship:

• A 12 team league, featuring based on current clubs and current standings:
• Featherstone, Halifax, Batley, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Rochdale, Swinton, Oldham, Bradford, Barrow, Whitehaven, York
• Top 4 playoff, 1v4 and 2v3, followed by promotion final at neutral venue - potentially as Super League Grand Final curtain raiser or part of some other 'event'.
• Bottom side will go down to League 1.
• Fixtures would be made up of:
• Home & away v all (22 games)
• 'Summer Bash' fixture against closest finishing opponent previous year (i.e. relegated side v final loser, losing semi finalists, 5v6, 7v8 etc.) (23 games)
• I would strongly consider reinstating a cup competition for this level if clubs feel 11 home fixtures isn't enough to sustain required revenue levels to compete.

--------------------------------------

League 1

It's really tough to make a call on what to do with League 1 right now, with a some uncertainty surrounding the existing clubs like All Golds and Oxford.

If we assume no change for now, we're left with 12 teams: Doncaster, Keighley, Newcastle, Workington, London Skolars, Hunslet, North Wales, All Golds, Coventry, Oxford, Hemel and South Wales.

The obvious solution is to copy the Championship set up. That would work well in some ways, but with such low central funding - and crowds - at this level, I think it needs a unique solution given the distances travelled. 

I would have a north and a south division, with inter-division play, to help the Southern teams progress still. 

• Sides would play their own division 3 times, with 7 home games, 7 away games and 1 to be decided - it could be neutral for example. (15 games)
• Sides would play once against the other division - 3 home and 3 away, based on odd or even finishing position the year before. (6 games)
• The playoffs would consist of 3 North sides, to reflect their generally stronger capability to compete if promoted, and 2 South sides. The top finishing North side gets a 1st round bye. In the 1st round QF1 sees South 1 hosts North 2, and QF2 sees South 2 hosts North 3. In the 2nd round, SF1 sees North 1 hosts winner of QF1, and SF2 sees loser QF1 hosts winner QF2. In the 3rd round, Loser SF1 hosts winner SF2 for the right to face winner SF1 in the Promotion Final. 
• With Promotion & Relegation to/from the Championship, the make up of the divisions will have to be fluid.

It would look something like this:

--------------------------------------

Entry to the League

New entrants can enter in one of three ways. All have to be approved by a majority of member clubs.

1. Application to join League 1 as a new part-time club. They join the most appropriate division and fixture scheduling is adjusted as appropriate. No club will be forced from the structure. 
2. Application to join Championship as a full-time club. Their will be a requirement to financially compensate the club displaced into League 1. No club will be forced from the structure.
3. Buy-out an existing club at any level, directly replacing that club in the structure.

I would say 1 & 2 type of entrants need to be ratified by kick off of the season before the one where entry would occur, to allow for confirmation on any structural adjustments. Type 3 entrants will need to be ratified by Super League Grand Final day of the season before the one where the entry/change will occur.
--------------------------------------

Anyway, that's my idea, if we have to change things. I actually think you could apply my Super League structure to the NRL too. Let me know your ideas too!

Mark
SLP

Appreciating Success - The Value of Castleford's League Leaders Title

A big very well done to Castleford Tigers!

They've won the League Leaders title and done so with four games to spare. They've obviously been the best side in Super League this year. Very good in defence, peerless in attack.

The debate/banter amongst commentators and fans now turns to the value of what they've achieved and the level of celebration it deserves.

In my book, they aren't the Super League champions. They side will be crowned at Old Trafford in October. However, that should never take anything away from what the League Leaders title means or is worth.

There are three major trophies available in Rugby League - the Challenge Cup, the League Leaders Shield and the Super League Trophy (with the bonus of the World Club Championship opportunity to the winners).

All three are special. Winning any of the three should be considered a success. All three require slightly different things to achieve:

• The Cup requires you to raise your game repeatedly for one off winner takes all pressurised occasions, culminating on a massive stage at Wembley to a national audience. 
• The LLS requires you to be the most consistently good side throughout a season, home and away, against every side. 
• The Grand Final requires an element of consistency combined with the ability to time being on top of your game weekly for a quick succession of games against the other very best teams in the league.

We should not underestimate what it takes the great athletes of our game to do any of these things. We also should not value what it takes to do any of them over what it takes to do the others. They are all special challenges that, when achieved, should all be celebrated. Equally so in my eyes!

I know they aren't all quite treated equally right now and everyone has their preference or viewpoint. I'm asking anyone reading this to put that behind them, move on from it, start celebrating all the successes equally. I think we'll all feel better about things!

Having a proper presentation and giving medals for the League Leaders winners, and giving it more equality in terms of prize money, are all things that help give the most maligned trophy more kudos. The last step will be to move its award back to the end of the regular season. That should give the winner more time to celebrate it in its own right, without it coming too close to the cup or grand final.

If we as fans start flocking to Wembley for the climax of the cup, whoever the sides on the field are, that addresses any loss of magic there.

The Grand Final sees the champions crowned, no change needed there.

So, fans of Rugby League, I'm calling on you to recognise all the successes equally. Are you with me..?

Mark
SLP

Man Down: Does Losing a Player Mean Losing on the Scoreboard?

This is something one of our listeners asked us about recently. I said I had the info but needed to put it all together, and now I have.

After the Salford v St Helens game, where the Red Devils hung on in the last ten minutes despite being a man down, Helen Hughes asked:

"Are there any (free) stats on which side does better during the ten minutes of sin binning in Super League matches? It seems to me that the side who has lost the player often score more during this period, or at least they are not disadvantaged by the sin binning from a points point of view. What do you reckon?"

I suggested the reality was probably that teams generally do better with the extra man, but there will be some memory bias at play, that we'll be more likely to remember the ones that go against the expected outcome. 

In actual fact, having an extra man for ten minutes does generally have a positive impact on the scoreboard. Having an extra man for more than the ten minutes a sin binning provides doesn't seem to give the expected impact on the scoreboard though. Then, when you look at the overall results of the period teams have an extra player, you actually see as many outcomes where a team down a man is equal of or better than their opponents, supporting Helen's supposition.

I looked at every card handed out in Super League from the start of the 2015 season through to and including Round 9 of 2017. I also broke these down specifically for televised games too, as we're more likely to recall games we've actually seen,

Over the period, there were 171 cards, with 120 occasions where this saw one team having any advantage of players on the field - 51 times, cards were either off-setting or came when opponents had already lost a player themselves.

In those 120 games, 60 saw the team that were a man up take advantage, although 60 also saw them fail to do so, with 36 occasions actually seeing it become a disadvantage. Amazingly, this has been more unexpected when a send off has occurred, so a team had a longer man advantage yet only took advantage 5 of 11 times.

Helen was right, and I was kind of right too - that memory can play tricks. You'll see that in televised games the same experience is even more pronounced, as more televised games with cards see a draw or negative result for the side with an extra man than see them take a scoreboard advantage of the numerical one.

The experience does differ a little by year however, as the below full table below shows. In 2015 teams were much better at taking advantage of having an extra man than they were in 2016, although in red card situations in 2015 it still seemed tough to finish off opponents. 

In 2017, the full experience is closer to 2015, with teams more likely to take advantage when they have an extra man. Despite that, in 2017 televised games we do see a greater failure to take advantage of the extra man. Up to Round 7, when Helen asked her question, the full 2016 experience was being seen in 2017. In certainly was a reasonable question to ask and her suspicions are not at all without foundation.

The 2016 information really is remarkable when faced up against the standard wisdom that having an extra man is a big advantage. Maybe this is just a quirk of the information sample I had available, who knows? If it isn't then the spirit of the Rourke's Drift Test is well alive and rugby league teams really can use adversity as a true motivator.

Thanks for reading and feel free to give your views on the explanation for the surprising results in the comments below.

Mark

SLP

2017 Round 1 Crowds - Headline looks bad, context looks better

If you take a quick glance at the crowd figures for Round 1 of Super League they look bad. Really bad in fact. The worst opening round average gate since 2003!

The headline figure is an average gate of: 7,981.

That is the third lowest opening round average since Super League began in 1996, and compares to 11,421 for Round 1 last year.

The 7,981 is made up from:
12,208 at St Helens v Leeds
5,031 at Widnes v Huddersfield
8,522 at Castleford v Leigh
6,253 at Salford v Wigan
8,842 at Catalans v Warrington
7,027 at Wakefield v Hull FC

Whilst I'm not suggesting figures like this shouldn't cause the clubs and the governing body pause for thought - we all want higher crowds if we love the game - but I'm here to add a dose of perspective and context to 2017's poor early showing.

The first thing to highlight is that last year's four best attended Super League sides - Leeds, Wigan, Hull FC and Warrington - were all away from home to kick off 2017.

Compare that to 2016, when 2015's best 4 attended sides - Leeds, Wigan, St Helens and Hull FC - all began the season at home, and we already start to get context.

I'll now put things in to more context by sharing the average attendance for all Round 1 Super League fixtures each club has hosted, plus the details of the corresponding fixture in 2016's regular season and their 2016 league average:

*notes on the above: Green indicates figure is lower than 2017 Round 1 attendance, Red indicates figure is higher than 2017 Round 1 attendance. Figures taken from the start of Super League in 1996. All figures are correct to the best of our knowledge, Catalans only have two previous Round 1 figures available, one of which was their first ever fixture. The Round 1 Magic Weekend of 2011 is excluded from all figures. 

Addressing each match/home side in turn:

St Helens
Thursday's crowd represented a 3% increase on average Round 1 gates for them. It was 8% higher than their corresponding match-up with Leeds last year, despite this one being on a Thursday and last year being on the more popular Friday night slot. They also start 2017 off with a 14% hike from the 2016 average attendance for all their league games last year. All in all, a relatively positive start for St Helens.

Widnes
Probably the biggest disappointment of the round, but given the doom and gloom around predictions for both sides in 2017, not entirely surprising. Even so, there's still some green on the board as the corresponding match in Round 16 last year had a lower crowd than this one, a 7% increase was seen. The 36% drop on previous Round 1 Super League home game average and the 8% drop from last year's average crowd figure are both disappointments that Widnes will be working hard to address I'm sure.

Castleford
With no corresponding fixture to compare to, we can still see that Friday night's crowd was marginally up on the all-time Round 1 hosting average, albeit less than 0.5% up, but more promisingly 14% up on the 2016 home average for the Tigers. A start they'll surely look to build on as bigger clubs come to town.

Salford
Clearly a bright start to 2017 for the Red Devils off the field, helped it has to be acknowledged by a large travelling Wigan contingent. That contributed to a 6% bump on historic Round 1 crowds for Salford and a massive 94% uplift compared to 2016's home league figures. Still, 53% up on last year's match-up between these sides isn't to be sniffed at.

Catalans
2017 starts with a bit of a downer crowds-wise for Catalans, with the chart above showing all red. Worth noting though that the difference between this game and the 2016 regular season fixture between the two sides was only 17, so not really a difference at all. Perspective should be added around the Round 1 average figures for Catalan too. This was only their third Round 1 home opener since they joined the league. In their first, against Wigan, their first ever game, they had 11,000 watching. In 2009 they hosted Huddersfield in front of only 7,520, so its not a great sample size to draw from. Of course, the 5% drop at this game from their 2016 average isn't great and something they'll hope turns around as the summer months come along.

Wakefield
After a few years of disappointing crowds, three green lights for Wakefield is a big plus. A 5% increase on what was their second best 2016 home crowd is a great start. It's also a 5% increase on their longer-term Round 1 average. Even better, it's 41% up on their 2016 average crowd. Hopefully we'll see more of the same from the Trin faithful this year.

So, should we be happy with 2017's Round 1 crowd figures? No, not even in context, but that's because we should be striving for more and not settling for where we're at, and not because the figures for each of the games we saw were bad.

Thanks for reading, hope you found it interesting. Make sure you look out for our shows each week for more of this kind of stuff!

Mark
SLP

*Edit: I've now seen an alternative crowd figure for Salford v Wigan of 6,527, that takes the average crowds for Round 1 up to 8,026. My original figure was taken from the Salford Twitter feed. As this doesn't change the overall theme of this piece a full revisit isn't planned.

Rugby League Hierarchy - An Idea For The Way Forward

In my often stated opinion, the NFL is the best run pro sports league in the world. It isn't without it's issues I'll admit, but it leaves the way the Super League is run languishing way in the distance.

I'm not a token Red Hall basher. I think the people that run the sport genuinely care about the game, at all levels, and want it to progress. They have made and continue to make mistakes though. And they aren't always helped by the clubs, which aren't always particularly well run either and don't always look out for the interests of the game as a whole, sadly.

A big part of the problems and difficulties to me comes from the organisation that fronts our professional game also fronts our international side and our community game. I understand there will be degrees of separation, but the RFL sits at the top of it all and I'm certain nothing significant would go through without their stamp of approval. In my opinion, a whole game approach can be achieved successfully without hands on RFL involvement in all aspects.

The other big part of the problem to me, looking in from the periphery, is that clubs generally compete with each other first and support each other second.

I have an idea, of sorts, on how to address these feelings and concerns I have. Separate the professional game and the amateur game more decisively. Have the RFL run the wider community game, control the Challenge Cup still and oversee the international game in the UK, but take Super League and the Championship/League 1 out of their hands, to be run by the clubs. All the clubs.

I'm not suggesting the RFL wouldn't still have a seat at that table, they just wouldn't preside over it.

I feel that if you make the owners/executives of the clubs equally responsible for the professional game then they will work harder together to increase the size of the pie, rather than compete with each other or against the RFL for just a larger slice of the pie currently being served.

You would and should insist as part of the charter of this newly reinforced professional arm of the game that a certain proportion of the pie gets handed over to the RFL for their work in the community game. Similarly, revenues from the Cup final and internationals can be shared equitably from the other direction. You would also insist clubs have an in built responsibility for giving up a certain amount of their full time resources to local community initiatives.

Crucially though, the clubs would all get to play a part in moving the professional game forward, without wider political forces influencing decision making.

They would still, in some capacity, answer to the RFL and the wider interests of the sport. But, importantly, the RFL would also answer to the professional arm of the game in how it manages and allocates the resources handed to it.

In the NFL, focusing the progress of the professional sport on the team owners brought about great progress. The merger with the AFL, the rise to the top of America's sporting agenda, the increasing international expansion, progressive rules for interviewing minority candidates for key roles, successive collective bargaining agreements with players. All have been helped by the management structure of the league, largely able to make its own calls without having to spread itself so thinly to cover all aspects of the sport from grass roots up.

It's time the clubs ran the professional game and the RFL answered to them.

That's my opinion anyway. Well, my opinion today, at least. No doubt it'll swing the other way and back again regularly. Nothing is ever settled for long in rugby league after all.

Thanks for reading.

Mark
SLP

System Overload - Should we rethink the Super8s?

As a straightforward question, for me it has a simple answer: No, we should not rethink the Super8s at this point.

It is a little bit more complicated than that of course, but as this is an opinion piece I thought I'd make mine clear from the start.

If you asked me if the Super8s was my preferred league structure I'd have to say no as well, but there is no perfect structure for British Rugby League - us, the fans, won't let one exist.

Let's go through the options we've seen in my lifetime:

• 16 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 3 relegated
• 14 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 3 relegated
• 16 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 2 relegated
• 11 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, none relegated
• 12 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 1 relegated
• 12 teams, play each team twice (home & away) plus one neutral round, winner comes from 5 team play-offs, 1 potentially relegated
• 14 teams, uneven schedule (15 home & away games each), winner comes from 5 team play-offs, 1 potentially relegated
• 12 teams, uneven schedule (14 home & away games each), winner comes from 5 team play-offs, 1 potentially relegated
• 12 teams, uneven schedule (14 home & away games each), winner comes from 6 team play-offs, 1 relegated
• 12 teams, uneven schedule (13 home & away games each) plus one neutral round, winner comes from 6 team play-offs, 1 relegated
• 14 teams, play each team twice (home & away) plus one neutral round, winner comes from 8 team play-offs, no relegation (3 year license review)
• 12 teams, play each team twice (home & away) plus one neutral round, top 8 play each other once, winner comes from 4 team play-offs, bottom four play top of second tier for place in next year's top tier, 4 potentially relegated

A couple of those were contrived for bigger changes to happen or because teams dropped out of the league for whatever reason, but I'm 31. That's a new league system for every 2.5 years I've been alive.

Broken down though, there's four main types of system, or roughly one for each decade I've lived in. 

• First past the post league with promotion & relegation
• Play-off format with promotion & relegation
• Licensing
• Super8s

None have been universally popular. All have their supporters and their detractors, because all have their strengths and their weaknesses.

Before then play-offs it was argued that too many seasons were done too long before the business end, and the eventual winner was becoming too predictable. That started to become the case with a 5 team play-offs too. Plus, the new teams that came up invariably struggled to compete.

The play-offs can be called contrived or artificial. In their 6 and 8 team versions there was criticism that average teams could win the competition and you didn't have to perform all year to be winners. 

Now, in the Super8s, the system is again being slated for too many dead rubbers, with a couple of teams in each of the 8s not having much left to play for with a number of games left. Unsurprisingly the leading calls for change come from clubs in those positions.

I'm not saying I love the 8s or that they're perfect. There are too many games played by our top players for a start. And I'm no real fan of promotion and relegation as a way to strengthen the top level of sport. But they do smooth out some of the problems seen by other systems. They combine being where you end up on merit with drama and excitement of one of occasions. They provide a rounded test for teams and offer an opportunity for staged progression up the leagues. They're not perfect for anyone, but they're not absolutely bad for anyone either.

What people have to realise though is there is no magic formula. There is no perfect fix. We should allow the system we have to settle in, become the norm, find a pattern, before we make wholesale changes again as a sport to the way our competition is formatted.

To be honest, all this fiddling ignores the the fundamental problem in the sport. There isn't enough money and there aren't enough well-run, well supported clubs.

The challenge I feel is for those clubs with 'dead-rubbers' to come up with inventive ways of selling these games to their fans. The challenge for them then is to be better next year, take more points more consistently off the teams ahead of and around them, so that they don't leave their fans with games at the end of the season that have relatively little hanging on them.

We shouldn't even be thinking about competition structure again until we have at least 16 full-time clubs all reasonably capable of recording double figure wins in a 'Super League' season. What we should, as a sport, be worrying about is getting to that point.

Increasing the cap for full-time second tier clubs is a step in that direction. What would be a better step is open and widespread knowledge sharing between clubs. What works well for one club in increasing revenues should be discussed with other clubs. The clubs should all recognise that they are not competing with each other off-the-field, they need to work together in that area for the good of the league and the sport in this country.

We should also be looking for a way in increase revenue sharing and look at ways of spreading out young talent distribution around the full-time clubs - these might be harder to achieve as they would have more impact on the on-the-field competitiveness of sides. Owners would be more reluctant to share things out in this area. Maybe if they had a chat with some of the club owners in arguably the best run and best off sports league in the world, the NFL, they might get a more rounded picture.

So back to my opening question. No we should not be rethinking the way the Super8s work right now. There are more fundamental issues that we should address that would make the system work how the RFL are looking for it to, but in a fair way, taking into consideration merit as well as excitement and competition.

Thanks as always for reading. Please let us know what you make of it and make sure you listen to our show every week to keep up with the latest from SLP!

Mark
SLP

RFL Disciplinary Process: Is it too lenient?

Here we are with the final instalment of my 'Disciplinary Trilogy'.

As you may have already read, I've compiled a comprehensive break down of every disciplinary panel charge made against a Super League player from the start of 2010 up to the weekend of Round 22 2016 - or at least every available charge*.  I started from 2010 as that is when the current version of the on field sentencing guidelines - or something very much like it - came in.

I'll be clear. This isn't a review of individual decisions or of individual offences. It's a review of whether the punishments handed out are generally a bit light.

One thing I've argued before is that the punishments handed out by the tribunal are too lenient. The data I'm about to present, I feel, backs up this opinion.

In more than 400 charges over six years of cases, only once has a case been given a higher grading by the tribunal than recommended by the Match Review Panel. This is compared to 13 cases where a charge has been downgraded.

Also only once has a case been given a ban higher than the recommended range for the grade charged. Compare this to 17 cases where the ban given has been below the recommended range for the grade charged.

Furthermore, almost four in five cases (79%) over the entire period see the ban imposed on an offender be at the bottom end of the recommended range or below. That compares to 3% of mid-range bans (only possible on Grade D and above charges, A is 0-1 games, B is 1-2, C is 2-3, D is 3-5, E is 4-8, F is 8+), and 17% at the top of the normal ban range or above.

This should all be viewed with the backdrop that 79% of charges come out at Grade A or B (once revised), so at the lower end of the available scale for a starter. That goes up to 94% for Grades A-C.

It's worth noting that EGP's came in from 2012 and account for almost half the charges since then (49%), but they could be argued as part of the problem that the system is too lenient. Adjusting for them 64.6% of cases that the Tribunal considered still came in at the bottom of the grade range or below. Only 29.5% were the top end or above in the EGP period, leaving 5.9% falling in the middle of a ban range.

When higher grades are given, on those rare occasions, there is a movement towards higher bans within the normal range. Although not at the top of the range, really serious offences do get serious punishments.

However, the system seems clearly skewed towards leniency. More charges at the bottom end of the scale suggests a light touch approach to discipline, but doesn't quite demonstrate leniency. The amount of bans at the bottom end of the grade scale or below, and the amount of downgrading compared to upgrading, do demonstrate leniency.

If there wasn't leniency bias in the system, you'd expect a similar amount of top of grade range bans as bottom of grade range bans. You'd expect the same amount of charges upgraded as downgraded. That we don't see this is clear demonstration of a skew towards a lenient handling of cases by the Tribunal. And that's without highlighting any individual cases.

Hopefully down the way we'll see it more than just once that aggravating factors mean higher bans than the normal range. Or we'll see a serial offender get pinned for being reckless, or maybe even intentional, rather than just careless, based on track record.

I hope you've found this read informative and make sure you check out my last two posts on the topic too. Let us know your thoughts and don't forget to listen to the show and tell your friends about SLP.

Mark
SLP

(*when I say every charge, I mean in Super League or Challenge Cup games, but unfortunately excluding the 2015 Super 8s as they don't show in the search filters on RFL website at time of writing, and missing any other errors or omissions from the records)

RFL Disciplinary - Is there a 'Big' club bias?

I'm back and on that favourite of topics again - the RFL disciplinary.

Bias in the system was the first thing I ever looked at for one of my blogs. What kicked me off was actually Wigan fans suggesting that Wigan were on the rough end of systematic bias against them. Although I'm a very passionate Wigan fan, I felt the need to take an objective look and see if the feelings some fans had were merited.

Funny then that now, almost four years later, I'm looking into whether there's any bias from a starting point at the exact other end of things.

Listeners to SLP will know I'm fairly fed up with the notion popularised by many fans of an RFL bias towards the so called 'Big clubs' when it comes to matters of discipline. Largely in recent times that's focussed on Wigan - be it Sean O'Loughlin, Taulima Tautai or Josh Charnley, Wigan's recent trips to Red Hall of a weekday evening have been talked about plenty.

Again, I've tried to conduct an objective review, to see if these views of 'Big club bias' and 'Wigan running the RFL' are merited.

The table below shows a comprehensive break down of every charge made against a Super League player from the start of 2010 up to the weekend of Round 22 2016*. I'll go over some of the headline figures below, the table might not show up great on the blog so head over to our Facebook page for a larger version. I start in 2010 as that is when the current version of the on field sentencing guidelines - or something very much like it - came in.

(*when I say every charge, I mean in Super League or Challenge Cup games, but unfortunately excluding the 2015 Super 8s as they don't show in the search filters on RFL website at time of writing, and missing any other errors or omissions from the records)

So, is there a big club bias? Well first I need to understand who are the 'Big' clubs. 

Obviously people use this term to mean Wigan and Leeds. They are the best attended and the most successful clubs in the 2010-2016 time period I'm looking at. St Helens have been very successful throughout the Super League era and are pretty well attended too - although I don't see 'big club bias' attached to their name too much, lets assume they're a big club. Hull FC and Warrington are the only other current Super League sides to win major finals in the Super League era and to regularly draw five-figure gates, so lets say they're big clubs too.

Huddersfield have a fairly recent League Leaders Shield and been runners up in the Cup in recent memory, but then crowds aren't great and they're in the Qualifiers this year, so let's assume medium size for them. Catalan have had a Cup final appearance and get reasonable gates so we'll lump them in there as well. Castleford and Hull KR on similar criteria might just be medium sized too - although both have missed some of the Super League years, just like the other two in this group. Bradford can also fit in here - they can't beat part-timers now but they were massive once upon a time, not so long ago.

That leaves London, Salford, Wakefield and Widnes as the small clubs - because to have big clubs you must have small ones, otherwise they'd all be normal sized! But seriously, by most metrics they must be what people mean in the big/small club divide. Oh, and League 1 Crusaders, though with so few charges from their Super League run (something ain't right in the RFL website data there) they're barely relevant to this review, so I won't mention them again.

So:

BIG - Hull FC, Leeds, St Helens, Warrington, Wigan

MEDIUM - Bradford, Castleford, Catalan, Huddersfield, Hull KR

SMALL - London, Salford, Wakefield, Widnes

The clubs with the most charges in the period are:

1. Catalan (Medium) - 52

2. Hull KR (Medium) - 40

3. Leeds (Big) - 38

The clubs with the fewest, that have played in all 7 seasons (i.e. not Bradford, Widnes or London), are:

1. St Helens (Big) - 22

2= Wakefield (Small) - 29

2= Huddersfield (Medium) - 29

The overall 'Guilty' verdict average across all 438 charges is 93%.

Clubs with above 93% of guilty charges:

Castleford (Medium) - 97%, Catalan (Medium) - 94%, Huddersfield (Medium) - 97%, Leeds (Big) - 95%, Salford (Small) - 95%, St Helens (Big) 95%, Widnes (Small) - 95%, Wigan (Big) - 94%

Clubs with below 93% of guilty charges:

Bradford (Medium) - 89%, Hull FC (Big) - 90%, Hull KR (Medium) - 90%, London (Small) - 86%, Wakefield (Small) - 91%

Warrington (Big) have 93%

Across all 409 guilty verdicts, 4% of bans are below the normal grade range, 75% are at the bottom of the normal range, 4% in the middle of the range somewhere and 17% are at the top of the normal grade range or above. (normal ban ranges are: Grade A is 0-1 games, B is 1-2, C is 2-3, D is 3-5, E is 4-8, F is 8+)

Warrington (Big) have seen the most bans below the normal range - 11% (Wigan are actually the only 'Big' club with less than 4% - meaning they're less likely than average to get a cushy lower ban handed to them).

Castleford (Medium), London (Small) and Widnes (Small) have had no bans below the normal range (Another 'small' club Wakefield do have 6% bans below the normal range - the only 'small' club to be above 4%, so more cushy lower bans than average).

Wigan (Big) and Catalan (Medium) both have 65% of bans at the bottom end of the normal range, the joint lowest figure - meaning they get fewer lenient bans than are given out to any of the small clubs. 

Hull FC (Big), St Helens (Big) and Widnes (Small) all get the lowest normal ban most - 86% of the time.

Castleford (Medium) get the maximum normal ban most - 28% of the time - followed by Wigan (Big) 26% and Catalan (Medium) 24%.

Widnes (Small) get the maximum ban the least - 5% of the time - followed by Huddersfield (Medium) and Hull FC (Big) on 7%.

It does appear that on average the five 'Big' clubs get more charges downgraded, although it's 'Small' Salford who've had the most charges downgraded by the Tribunal. It does also appears that the 'Big' clubs get more punishments below the normal ban range, although this is skewed somewhat by 'Big' Warrington having three of 17 such cases. With such cases, though, we're talking small volumes.

With the larger volume 'bottom of normal range or below' and 'top of normal range or above' categories, the 'Big' clubs are just about more likely on average to get more of the softer punishments, but they're also quite a bit more likely to get more of the tougher punishments than 'Small' clubs too. Trust me, this does make sense when you notice Wigan are the only one of the 'Big' clubs to have had a mid-range ban handed to them, when smaller clubs like Widnes and London had a few of those.

What of appeals? Well there haven't been loads, so there's no firm conclusions to take away, but as a group the 'Big' clubs are more likely to make an appeal and more likely then to see success. I probably put this down more to making sure they have a better handle on the process rather than the process being biased towards them.

I would explain that success doesn't mean a guilty decision was overturned - in all but one case the success was only partial, in that there was a reduced ban but not a complete overturning of the decision. For the sake of colour, I'll also add that three of Wigan's six appeals have been made this season, and both partial successes were this year too - Flower and Tautai had bans reduced on appeal. I can't say there's a 'big club bias' from appeals though. The numbers are fairly low and the teams with the best success rates (Bradford, Hull FC, London and Warrington) come from all across the club size scale. 

In conclusion, I'm not convinced from looking into charges over this lengthy period that there is any evidence of a 'Big' club bias. The spread of guilty charges, lenient punishments, lengthy bans and successful appeals cuts across all clubs. 

'Small' clubs are slightly less likely to get a guilty charge than larger sized clubs. 'Big' clubs are slightly more likely to get a lenient punishment at the tribunal, although it's 'Medium' clubs that fare worse than 'Small' clubs in this regard. 'Medium' clubs will also get more top-end bans, with 'Big' clubs also more likely to see lengthy bans than the 'Small' ones. 'Big' clubs do have more success when appealing decisions. 

There is one firm conclusion I can make from the data though - the disciplinary process errs on the side of low grades and lenient punishments. That will be the subject of my next blog post.

As always, thanks for reading and I hope this has been informative. And don't forget to listen to the show every week and tell your friends about SLP.

Mark

SLP

Rip It Up And Start Again: The RFL Disciplinary Process

I've researched and written about this loads in my time as a blogger and podcaster. Each time I think I've gained more understanding of how things work.

I've got some things wrong in the past, or had my views change and evolve. One thing I'm certain of though is the system isn't fit for purpose. It hasn't moved with the times and its also held back by other aspects of the way our game is run not moving on either.

It might be a good idea to start the whole thing from stage one. Forget the past. Write off what has been in place for as long as I've known it. Put something new in place that better reflects the modern views on player welfare and what is or isn't a serious offence.

Let me make this clear, this isn't about the Sean O'Loughlin tackle (I'm a Wigan fan so at least 11/12ths of you will disregard my opinion anyway), but that whole issue has encouraged me to write about the disciplinary again.

So, as I've said, I'd scrap the old system altogether and bring in a new one. I would change the types of offences, the scale of grading, the level of punishments. I would, as much as is fair, limit the amount of incidents reviewed where no action is taken at all. Here goes...

Type of offence
This is the categorisation I would use in my new world order (n.b. list may be incomplete, and there would be room to add other specific offences that I've missed or start to occur).

Type A - Dangerous Contact

• (Aa) High Tackle
• (Ab) Shoulder Charge
• (Ac) Eye Gouge
• (Ad) Chicken Wing / Ankle Twist
• (Ae) Cannonball / Attacking Knees
• (Af) Crusher / Undue Pressure On Neck
• (Ag) Lift / Throw
• (Ah) Late hit
• (Az) Other Dangerous Contact

Type B - Fighting/Striking

• (Ba) Fighting / Punching
• (Bb) Use Of Forearm / Elbow
• (Bc) Raising Knees
• (Bd) Tripping
• (Be) Kick / Stamp
• (Bf) Headbutt
• (Bz) Other Fighting/Striking

Type C - Other non-contact offences

• (Ca) Dissent
• (Cb) Foul / Abusive Language
• (Cc) Contact With An Official

The specific offences should be outlined in the laws of the game as being illegal and have examples of these offences for players, coaches and fans to reference. It should be made clear that this isn't a limit to the offences and anything previously unspecified can come under the (z) options.

Grading scale

I would get rid of the ABC etc. grading system and introduce a simplified three level structure. I would be keen for it to include cautions in this scale and would also be keen to see more cautions handed out. Too many cases where on another day an injury could have resulted in the disciplinary archives have no charge, saying something like: 

• "Tackle is high. Player is reaching. Worthy of on field penalty."
• "Level of force used is not overly excessive."
• "Player is lifted beyond the horizontal but lands safely."

If the sport wants to get serious on player welfare and cut out dangerous tackles with potential for serious injury, the disciplinary process needs to show more effort to punish poor technique that increases the risks that already exist in our physical collision sport.

My scale would be:

Level 1 - Caution for an offence made that did not warrant a ban/fine

Level 2 - Offence that warrants low level ban/fine

Level 3 - Offence that warrants high level ban/fine

I would also want to impose a 'quality check', so that week's tribunal will assess a random selection of cases that the match review panel (MRP) have seen as 'no charge' cases. If they would have imposed a ban for the action considered, the MRP will fail quality. The MRP would then be required to reconsider every case considered from the game with the 'fail', with any new charges to be heard at the following week's tribunal.

Level of punishments

I'm in favour of a system that punishes physical offences with potential for serious injury with a higher ban, and other types of offences with a higher fine. I'm not saying the other offences are less serious, quite the contrary really - I'm saying they ones with potential to injure are more serious.

Level 1 grading:
These would only warrant cautions, but if a player had three cautions for the same type of offence in any rolling 6 month period they should be given an automatic 1 match ban. This would apply to each of the three types of offence.

Level 2 grading:

For Type A offences these would have a ban range of 1 to 5 games and a fine of £300. All cases would start at a 3 game ban, with the final ban imposed by the tribunal being decided by aggregating the mitigating and aggravating factors that apply. I'm happy with the factors currently given in the rules, but just would like them to go both ways and increase as well as decrease bans.
For Type B offences I would change the ban range to 0-4 games, starting at 2 games as default before factors are considered. £300 fine. I would qualify that I expect this type of offence to be more readily picked up and punished in-game, so that's why I'm starting from a lower ban range on review.
For Type C offences the ban range would fall again to 0-3 games but still start at 2. Fine would be £500.

Level 3 grading:
For Type A ban range of 4 games up to a time period ban. Default starting point would be 7 games, with factors then considered for final ban - here's where 'other aggravating factors' might have a big role to play. £500 fine.
For Type B, the range would be 3 games upwards, starting at 5 games before factors are aggregated. £500 fine.
For Type C it would also be minimum 3 games upwards, and start at 5 too before considering other factors. The fine would be a minimum £750, but could also be increased based on any aggravating factors.

An obstacle to my idea
If I was in any position to have the powers that be consider my ideas, I'm sure there would be friction from the clubs and players at the idea of more games being missed through suspensions.

One solution would be a bigger salary cap that would allow a bigger squad to be bought - I'm not an advocate of removing the cap, but I would be looking to increase it. This isn't about the cap, just a note on how the current cap level would be an obstacle to my ideas as if more games are missed through bans, you need a bigger squad to cover that. For what it's worth though, a salary cap of £2.75m (that also actually increases by some sort of measure, be that average RPI/CPI or average wage inflation), with a marquee player allowance taking the full wage of the highest paid player off that cap total, is what I would go for.

That's where my mind is at on the disciplinary at the moment anyway. I'm sure it'll change in the future, but right now I'm convinced that the system has to take a harder line on cases where the possibility of injury is increased by poor technique and execution. I don't want to hang any players or clubs out to dry, but we need to prioritise the welfare of the current and future stars of our game.

Mark
SLP

Super League Thursdays

I've wanted to write something about Thursday TV games for a while, but not known what to say. Or, more precisely, how to say what I want to say.

Thursday TV games are great. I love them. If my team are playing it means I get to go see them and then have the full weekend to spend with the wife, keeping her happy. It gives me some quality sport entertainment to watch during the week too - I'm not one for darts and I find it harder and harder to enjoy a football match, so having mid-week Rugby League for me is brilliant. It's something to look forward to watching.

That's the easy bit to say.

The harder bit to say is all you out there that don't like them, that moan about them, just like to use the Thursday thing as an excuse to stay at home and watch the game on the TV and not be there to support your team. There I said it. It feels good to get that off my chest.

I'm not saying there aren't genuine reasons for some people not going to games on Thursdays, just as people have genuine reasons that they can't attend games on any day of the week. Awkward work shifts, trouble getting babysitters, need to attend other functions and events, going on holidays, sickness, affordability. There are loads of acceptable reasons.

Apparently though, only Thursdays are bad. Ruining the game, No good for supporters. No good for families. I can't agree, and I don't really believe most of you lot out there really think that way too.

Fridays tend to have more 'headline' fixtures in the TV spot, but the available Thursday TV viewing figures from 2015 stack up pretty well against them. An overall average of a touch over 110,000 for the regular season Thursday fixtures and a best of 156,000 according to Rugby League on TV data. That best figure being the 5th best overall regular season viewing number. We also know from our experience that plenty of you guys tune in to the Thursday games, based on the massive amount of your reviews we get on these each week.

It also can't be financial, because ticket prices are no higher for Thursday games. We now have free away travel for all season ticket holders too, although that is a fairly new initiative. Basically, there's no reason a Thursday game is less affordable than a Friday, Saturday or Sunday game.

So, it must be getting to the games that's the problem. Well, all the Thursday TV games are scheduled for the whole regular season from the off, so that gives plenty of time to plan for them. They kick off at the same time as Friday games, so in theory people have the same amount of time to finish work and get to games - most people that work a Monday-Friday 9-5 work week will have the same working hours on a Friday as a Thursday I assure you. I can't imagine traffic is much easier on a Thursday than a Friday either - although I have no empirical support for that statement.

I know one thing for sure, it's not because of the travel distance. Using an unwieldy but not entirely unreasonable assumption (that all fans travel from the home stadium to the away one!), the average away travel distance for UK fans in Super League is 55.8 miles, with an average journey time of 68 minutes - or about half an SLP episode! The average away travel distances on Thursday games since they became a firm feature for 2014 is 42.3 miles and less than an hour travel time - it falls to 36.7 miles if you take out the two 2014 fixtures that included London Broncos. I also looked at the correlation between travel distance and change in crowd size from the same fixture the previous year - there is none. Well, there's a weak negative relationship between the two with an indication that the two variables - distance between teams and change in crowd - have almost no link or causality (a correlation coefficient of -0.110 and an r-squared value of 1% if you're interested).

I think the travel distances and times also shut down some of the criticism that it's no good for fans who work during the week. Yeah, it's no good for people who work Thursday nights! But there will be shift workers who'll miss games whenever they are scheduled for - that's the nature of shift work, and not all Rugby League fans can get to all games if they work shifts. Simple. (although I've already pointed out the whole Thursday schedule is laid out before the season, but I digress.) Many fans that stay in and watch the games on TV will enjoy the coverage until it's 10:30 end to catch Jon Wells at the touch screen with one of the stars on show. The game ends at say 9:50. Give it 10 minutes to get to the car and get going. Then your average 50 minute travel time for an away fan. Most fans will still be home by 11:00 - and with a big majority of any crowd being home fans, you'd argue they're mostly back much earlier than that, probably the same time the TV viewers are heading off to bed.

Yes, there are some people who legitimately travel long distances to see their team play, making a weekday game very difficult for them to travel to and from on a regular basis. They are the minority though. Probably not even 1%.

I think that really just leaves the 'it's no good for families' argument then. Ok. Soon I'll give you some numbers and graphs - although as always with statistics, they can be used to support different arguments and picked apart as widely as you want to. Before that though, what do we mean by families? I'd wager we mean parents with children aged between 5 and 12. Younger than that and you probably won't take them to loads of games anyway, and if even if you did, there's probably not much to stop them sleeping through the following day. Older than that and the odd later week night isn't going to do them any harm, they're probably up in their bedrooms snap chatting until late in any case.

Thursdays get the second best average crowds of any day in the history of Super League, dating back to 1996. Only Fridays have a better average all-time crowd number.

These figures are open to percentage skew because of the relative small number of Thursday games until 2013, before which they tended to just be big Easter derbies. (Also, I'm aware Fridays tend to be the normal home game of the best attended sides - Leeds, Wigan, Hull FC, St Helens - and Sundays are the traditional home day of lesser attended sides.)

You'll see from the changes through time that as Thursday games became more commonplace, their absolute and relative position in the averages has fallen. Despite overall average crowds trending upwards and being in a healthy relative position up to Round 11 2016, Thursday crowds are not doing the same. Mondays enjoy a relative bump though thanks to Thursdays no longer being an Easter preserve.

Still, they're commonly better attended than other days. You know, those days when you can get 'families' to and from the game between bedtimes, with no worry of school the next day - those days we call Saturdays. And, for that matter, in many cases Sundays too, where there may still be tomorrow's school to worry about, but not bedtimes.

Obviously, the 'family' factor is one that deserves more investigation - numbers of young fans that each club has for example - but I'm just not seeing it as the problem that it gets referred to as. The same goes for Thursdays as a whole. Like I said, I think people like the excuse - and to have something to moan about. We need to get used to it though - Thursdays aren't going away. We need to realise that the money is in the TV audience rather than on the terraces, even though we'd love them both to be bigger.

I've found that, on average, a Thursday fixture attracts a crowd 888 people less than that same fixture the year before - although these are imperfect comparisons as weather, significance of the match and also some of them being on Thursdays the year before aren't factors accounted for. 15 games saw an increase and 42 had a drop in crowds since the start of the 2014 season compared to the same fixture in the previous regular season.

We can play some very simplistic and crude number games from this. Lets assume a per ticket price of £20, which is generous given lots of children will get in free and many other attendees would be concessions of some sort. I'm also not considering if an extra 800+ on a crowd means more costs to the home side. You get an average loss on ticketing of £17,760. Based on what Leigh owner Derek Beaumont said during the 2015 Super 8s, Super League clubs can get £20,000 per TV game they host. That's outside of the per-team yearly riches that are handed out from the long-term TV deal the league is locked in to.

However you dress it up, Sky like Thursdays and the club owners and money men must like them too. Lots of fans aren't put off by them - far more than are, they're just less vocal about it. We have to get used to them. We should embrace them, they aren't going away any time soon. I say lets make Thursday nights great for the game. Plan ahead, make as many games as you can and watch all the rest. Treat the couple of home games you might get as a bonus, freeing up the rest of your weekend. Do the maths on the away games to figure out if you can make them, when you do you'll probably realise they aren't the inconvenience you've decided they are. If I can do it as a Wigan fan, who already lives almost the average Thursday travel distance from our home ground, then I'm sure most of you can too. (note: Wigan have had more Thursday games than any other side in the whole Super League era and the recent Thursday TV era.)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Before I leave this, a couple more points on the crowd by day numbers. Why aren't Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull KR, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Widnes trying more Friday night games? Why aren't Saints trying a few more Sunday games? And why oh why is anyone other than Catalan playing on a Saturday? I write this on the same weekend Salford set a new low figure for 2016 on Saturday 30 April of 3,048.

Anyway, rant over. I feel cleansed. Hopefully getting this off my chest will improve my focus on my Dream Team and SuperBru performance.

Mark
SLP