Would anybody want the Widnes job? Are there any suitable candidates?

I don't have a preference....

For anybody who has read my blog or anything I have subsequently written on a Rugby League forum, you would be well aware that I am in favour of Widnes sacking Denis Betts and preferably Paul Cullen from their positions at the club.

Some people inevitably reply and do not agree. This is their opinion and they have a right to do so, this isn't going to be another blog pointing out why we should sack Denis Betts, so if that's your bugbear you can stop reading now...

However, they often state that sacking Betts is not preferable because currently the job is unattractive and that there are a paucity of suitable candidates. I disagree with this for a number of reasons. Firstly, in this country there are only a handful of positions available as head coach of a Rugby League club. In fact, if your chosen career is coaching, there are only 14 opportunities at any one time to coach at the highest level in this country. Inevitably, this is financially more beneficial as well. This is magnified if you are British, with currently only 5 British coaches in Super League. Therefore, the opportunity to coach a top level side doesn't come up very often.

As for coaching Widnes, the candidate would have the rest of this year in which to build a squad in preparation for 2013. As most fans are aware of our poor recruitment this year, he would have the backing of the fans for its remainder. However, this is all well and good if there is nobody of any quality available to take the position.

Are there any suitable candidates?

Recently, we have seen a trend of some of the bigger clubs opting for relatively unknown Australian coaches, that have never had a head coaching job. I'm not doubting that there are some of these around, but I'm not going to focus on these. I'm going to focus purely on people that do not currently coach a top level side but that have prior experience as a successful coach in Super League. There are a surprising number of candidates with differing degrees of success.

British coaches


Brian Noble - Noble is easily the most high profile option and has naturally been linked with a number of jobs. His record speaks for itself with 3 Grand Final wins, and he was the national coach during our most successful recent phase. I was also impressed with his time at the Crusaders, where he guided a team that finished last in 2009 to the playoffs in 2010. He is currently out of the game.

John Kear - incredibly experienced coach, perhaps best remembered for his against-the-odds Challenge Cup victory in 1998 with Sheffield Eagles. Renowned for his ability to quickly turn a club around and performed well at Wakefield, leading them to the playoffs and a consistent mid-table finish. With the resources he had available, this is an excellent achievement. Currently at Batley.

Daryl Powell - has coached Super League at the very top level with some success. Has translated this to Featherstone, where he recently led them to the Championship title. May wish to stay on and try and get Featherstone into Super League.

Karl Harrison -  held the reigns for years at Salford. He was underrated by many but led them to the playoffs in 2006; their best season in recent times. Has since done a remarkable job at Batley with limited resources. Recently made Halifax coach.

Other coaches with Super League experience include Graham Steadman, Ellery Hanley, Jon Sharp and Neil Kelly.

Aside from Brian Noble and John Kear, none of these would be particularly popular choices. However, it is worth pointing out that they all have a better coaching record than Denis Betts.

Overseas coaches


Daniel Anderson - Has coached three clubs to a grand final, St Helens in England, New Zealand Warriors and Parramatta Eels in Australia. He has not had a head coaching job since 2010, but he was set to a coach Samoa last year, so he is still in the game.

Justin Morgan - Successful at Hull Kr, where he led them to promotion and then the playoffs in Super League. Would be familiar with our situation but has only recently left to become an assistant NRL coach at Canberra.

Matthew Elliot - Kick started the Bulls Super League success in the 90's. Has since continuously coached in the NRL at Canberra and Penrith. He largely struggled at these clubs but the NRL is very different to Super League and he may fancy a return to where he was most successful. Back to being an assistant coach at Sydney Roosters.

Stuart Raper - Had a successful time at Castleford, leading them to two top 5 finishes. Later moved to Wigan but was sacked after two 3rd place finishes. Struggled in the NRL with Cronulla and hasn't coached for 4 years. He is currently a sideline commentator in Australia.

Chris Anderson - Great record as a coach, coaching 3 teams to championship successes: Halifax, Melbourne Storm and Canterbury Bulldogs. He also coached the Australian Kangaroos. Turns 60 next year which may be too old.

Other notable mentions - Shaun McRae, Terry Matterson, and Kevin Walters.

Conclusion

In my opinion, there are a number of candidates here that would do a better job than what we currently have. However, as I stated, this is simply a list of those that are not in a head coach position but have previously coached Super League with success. This doesn't factor in: current Super League coaches; current NRL coaches; previous NRL coaches; assistant coaches or successful Championship coaches for instance. Who would ever have considered that Huddersfield would convince Nathan Brown to coach them?

It is of course worth pointing out, that it is not so straight forward as presuming that any of these coaches would want the job but I think there are enough options to suspect that we would get a high quality replacement. If Steve O'Connor decides not to sack Betts, then that is his choice, but I hope that it is not done because of some ill-conceived notion that there is nobody else out there to do the job.  

The worst Super League side ever?

The nightmare continues

Another day, another shocking defeat. Well, I say shocking but I did predict a 34 point victory on the Super League facebook predictor. I think the fact that we were nilled and still comfortably beaten in horrendous conditions was the worst aspect.

As per usual, I went on the TotalRL forums to discuss the games and found one comment by the user HKR AWAY DAYS. He said that:

"I Tweeted last night that Widnes are the worst team I've seen in Super League."


It's easy to get defensive but the poster then respectfully said that Widnes are a club he has a lot of time for and he doesn't like to see it. I originally thought that it was a slight over-reaction; after all it's easy to forget some of the shocking teams that have graced this stage. Still, I thought I'd look into the facts.

Are Widnes the worst Super League side ever?

In looking for the worst Super League side, I decided to look at a number of factors. First of all and perhaps most obviously is win percentage; how many games each side has won. Widnes are of course disadvantaged  in this aspect by having played only 5 SL games so far. Secondly, I decided to look at the average number of points scored and conceded. This then gives an average margin of defeat in the league. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number for ease of viewing.

The opposition
Two main contenders came to mind when I started this were 2 sides that Widnes met in our last outing in Super League; the Leigh side from 2005 that were relegated alongside us, and the Halifax side from 2003 that were suffering huge financial problems. Here are their records:


In 2003 Halifax had a record of 1-27 (3.6%) and on average lost 13-44 (31)

In 2005 Leigh had a record of 2-1-25 (7%) and on average lost 16-43 (27)

As you can see both had poor records. There have been others as well that competed whilst Widnes have not been in SL. The 3 worst were Celtic Crusaders in 2009, Huddersfield's 1998 team and Workington in 1996:

In 1996 Workington had a record of 2-1-19 (9%) and on average lost 15-46 (31)

In 1998 Huddersfield had a record of 2-21 (8.6%) and on average lost 13-36 (23)

In 2009 Celtic had a record of 3-27 (10%) and on average lost 13-32 (19)

On balance the worst side here is the Halifax side, with the lowest number of wins and the joint worst points difference with Workington. However, when you don't round the figures, Workington's points record is slightly worse with an actual difference of 31.63, which would then be rounded to 32. Halifax's actual record is 30.52, which only just rounds to 31.

Our record
Obviously, as we have yet to register a win we have a record of 0% wins. This is of course unfair and we would have to register just 1 win in the next 23 games to equal the record of Halifax. This is our points difference record so far,

We have an average record of 11-43 (32).

So the margin is the same as Workington's. However when we again don't round the figures, we actually have the worst record with a points difference of 32.4. So, the conclusion is that were we to continue this form across the season, we would be statistically the worst side to ever grace Super League. This to me, is a shocking conclusion.

Statistically the worst, but the actual worst?
There is a long time to go in the season before Widnes can be deemed the worst ever Super League side. Undoubtedly we have made a terrible start, but this means that there is considerable room for improvement. Perhaps most worryingly, the evidence doesn't suggest this this is likely with clubs that struggle. Halifax posted their only win very early in the season and ran clubs like Leeds and Castleford close in their first few games; Leigh put up some good performances against Warrington and Wakefield before getting their first genuine beating after 6 games of the season, admittedly they improved later on. The Crusaders side of 2009 held St Helens to 4 points early on and ran clubs like Hull and Salford close. Perhaps the only start as bad as ours amongst these clubs is with Workington but even they picked up points in their 6th match. We have only competed in 1 game so far and still ended up losing by 18 points.

That said, I don't think that we will end up as the worst side Super League has ever seen. We do have new players coming in there is certainly a huge scope for improvement. Perhaps the biggest factor will be if we do replace coaches and then turn things around. They aren't likely to change soon though, as Wigan on Sunday will probably see our record worsen.

The solution?
So far this season the comments have been about how we need to be realistic with our expectations and how it will take time to learn. I have posted before that I don't agree with this line of reasoning, many clubs have done better than we have and these stats show that in fact we have done worse than anybody else has in the history of Super League. Whilst these figures may even provide comfort to Betts and O'Connor, it's worth pointing out that a number of these clubs were either the result of huge financial problems or short turn-arounds to prepare a squad. We have had none of these issues and it isn't unrealistic to expect a club that can compete and pick up some wins. Currently, we are a laughing stock and are even making the whole licensing system look flawed.

The solution is easy; the excuses have to stop. Steve O'Connor needs to stop listening to Denis Betts and Paul Cullen and realise that they are not up to the job. Betts has no prior record to fall back on and with Cullen has created arguably the worst ever Super League squad. Giving something time is important but it is also foolish to give something time if it looks like it is failing as badly as this.

This Betts just too big a risk

For anybody who is not a Widnes fan, this blog will seem all too predictable. It will seem obvious that this a typical fan over-reacting to a poor result and calling for the coaches head. However, a majority of Widnes fans, not just the reactionaries and the boo-boys, will likely understand where I am coming from.

I'm not somebody who makes rash decisions and I am also reluctant to make snap judgements. However, I completely agree that after just 3 Super League games in charge, that Denis Betts should be dropped as Widnes Vikings coach. This is far more than blaming the coach for a poor team's results; the significance goes much further.

Why can't Denis just be given time?

The opinion of most Rugby League fans will be that Denis should be given some time to let his squad gel together and to see if we can get any improvement. I personally feel that this should not be the case, Denis has already been given time to prove himself and in fact done the opposite.

A prior record

When Denis Betts was originally given the Widnes head coaching job, most people welcomed the decision and presumed that his appointment had been a lengthy deliberation. Even at this stage, taking on Denis was something of a leap of faith. Apart from a period of time as acting Wigan coach from May 2004 to May 2005, where Denis took over Mike Gregory's side, he had no experience being a head coach. Not long after he left Wigan, the side that he had assembled lost 75-0 to St Helens. Of course, Ian Millward was the coach at this stage so you can make the argument that he was where the blame lie.

Betts then left Rugby League for Rugby Union until returning to the Widnes club in November 2010. Some concerns were raised about Denis at this stage and his absence from Rugby League, but he was given the benefit of the doubt. Here was my opinion at the time as voiced on the TotalRL forums:

"For Widnes, it's a bit of a risk. He's been in Union for 4 years and who knows how closely he has observed changes in RL. However he is young, has coached a SL club and has played NRL. His playing credentials aren't a problem. I'll look forward to seeing how it pans out."

Initially, his contract was to be for one year and was seen by many as a trial for a Super League contract. Despite having a full off-season, Betts's team started poorly and were clearly having issues in defence. Things were sufficiently bad that when it was announced that Widnes were going to name their Super League coach for 2012, almost nobody expected that it would be Betts. He simply hadn't done enough in the time that he'd had. There was near outrage when the re-appointment of Denis Betts was made. Some of this was anger at how it had been built up but there was genuine concern. Here was my opinion again, just 6 months after the initial decision,

"Denis Betts is totally unproven and what little evidence we have suggests that he is going to be a poor coach. He has overseen our least competitive period on the pitch for probably a decade, with defence being atrocious. This apparently being his speciality. 


I honestly don't care if the board think he might be good, or shows promise. Re-signing him is a PR disaster and a massive momentum killer. The fans haven't taken to him and don't believe he deserves a shot as a SL coach based on current evidence."

Most fans were bemused at the appointment as not only was he now unproven, what proof we had was poor. It seemed a big risk to be starting Super League with. Things certainly didn't improve as the year went on and we were dumped out of the playoffs embarrassingly by Sheffield. The excuse was again made that Betts had not had enough time.

Super League 2012
Time can be a great healer. A mixture of excitement about the new Super League season and some promising friendly results helped to distract most Widnes fans from the issues surrounding Denis Betts.

As we have seen, this has quickly changed. After an OK performance against Wakefield, which I commented on with some concern, we have been embarrassed by Huddersfield and now Salford at home. It seems pretty clear that we are a long way away from the rest of the pack. Whilst it was always going to be hard, Betts has to take a large amount of this blame. He has once again failed to create an adequate squad built for purpose. It may seem harsh but as we have seen, Wakefield have managed to create a competitive squad after signing more players than we did. What's more, the players have continued to look poor in defence, this comes down to coaching. Once again, all Betts has in his favour are excuses: he couldn't talk to players until September; some players are injured; it will take us time to get up to speed etc.

Why the pressing concern?
Last year, Steve O'Connor created a new membership system to revolutionise the way that supporters watch games. At the time it seemed exciting, now it seems like suicide. The Stronghold system inevitably means that more people signed up than would have bought season tickets, but it also means that fans can cancel whenever they wish.

Into just our second game of the season, the attendance was already down to 5,055. This is actually one of the worst Super League attendances we've ever had. This is clearly because of the Huddersfield result and the lack of enthusiasm for a likely defeat to Salford. After today's result we are likely to see people cancelling their Stronghold memberships in their hundreds. Who is going to pay to see us get battered by most clubs and maybe even see records tumble?

In an ideal world Betts could be given a few more games; under this system he needs to leave now. Steve O'Connor needs to accept that he has made a mistake or we could see some the lowest crowds Widnes have had in this division. This could also prove to be a mistake that we struggle to recover from in time for the next licensing period. Many fans will take a great deal of convincing to return if we have gone half a season without a win.

Steve O'Connor has done great things for Widnes RL but his biggest flaw is being too loyal to coaches. He brought back and then held onto Steve McCormick, when most were relieved that he had gone in the first place. Now he appears to be sticking with Denis Betts and listening to the excuses; all Denis Betts seems to have on his CV is excuses. Barring a miracle, it is inevitable that Betts will eventually be sacked later in the season. O'Connor needs to bite the bullet and do it now before the situation is irreparable; bring in somebody like Brian Noble who could at least steady the ship and provide some optimism. 

Sacking Denis Betts wouldn't be a rash decision but an acceptance of a mistake made. The only question is how long will it take Steve O'Connor to realise he has made a mistake?

World Club Change?

Tonight sees the eagerly awaited World Club Challenge match between Leeds Rhinos and Manly Sea Eagles. It is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the calendar for British Rugby League fans and contains some of our most cherished moments. Who can forget Wigan's defeat of Manly in front of 37,000; Widnes's triumph over Canberra at Old Trafford; Wigan winning in Brisbane in front of 52,000 against all the odds and Saints coming from behind to beat Brisbane, with the aid of the fiercest hail shower Bolton can muster. Often these have partially compensated for failures on the international stage.

I recently wrote a blog about Jamie Peacock's idea that Super League should be reduced to 10 clubs. On Twitter, Jamie replied and outlined in a bit more detail the direction the game should go in. Within this, he included an extended World Club Challenge including the top 3 clubs to be played before the season. He is certainly not alone in calling for changes to the current format.

What direction should the World Club Challenge go in?

The Status Quo
Currently the World Club Challenge is played as a one-off game between the winners of Super League and the NRL. In the UK it enjoys good attendances, viewing figures and a high profile. It is viewed in sufficient esteem that the RFL start the season a week earlier than usual to accommodate the match. In press conferences this week, Rob Burrow said it was: "As big as it gets." The atmosphere at the games is usually excellent and the action intense. Last year there were a number of high profile celebrities tweeting about the game including Rio Ferdinand. However, the image in Australia couldn't be more marked.

Apart from 1994, all the one-off events have been held in the UK. The official reason for this is that the interest is higher in the UK, which is of course true, but you can't help but suspect it is also to give the British clubs an advantage; the fear being that in Australia they would suffer a big defeat. Perhaps more damaging to the credibility of the event is that it is a pre-season game in Australia, coming two weeks before the start of the season. The British club on the other hand is usually 2 or 3 games into the new season. With regards to how it is viewed by the public, it is not on regular Free To Air television any more, which almost all big games in Australia are. Also, in the past Australian teams have been criticised for not taking the event seriously, although recently this has been much less the case. The result is a situation where the Australian fans and media either criticise the British clubs for losing at home to a team still in pre-season or claim that the clubs were not taking it seriously if they lose.

So you can see that as event there is certainly call for it to change, or at least be straightened out. The easiest way to do this would be to ensure that the game alternated between the two hemispheres and to give it a more prominent place in the calender. This would not satisfy most people however, many of whom are calling for an expanded World Club Challenge.

Expansion
A couple of years ago, Rugby League's most high profile fan, Russell Crowe, made the headlines by calling for an 8-team end of year tournament to be held in Las Vegas. Whilst at first appearing radical even for RL, it gained much support, even from a number of NRL bosses.

The benefits of an expanded competition could be huge for RL, especially in Britain. At the moment, we have a successful domestic league, one that is comparable to what the much higher profile Rugby Union can offer. However, where it suffers in comparison to Union and other sports such as Football is the lack of a second-tier competition. The Heineken Cup has been a revelation for Union since the advent of professionalism and gives Union another international dimension that attracts outsiders to the sport. I believe that it is an important factor to a number of RL players when considering the switch. We are of course hindered by the fact that the game in Europe is nowhere near big enough to attempt a European competition of this sort. In reality the only thing we could have to recreate this second tier of competition is an expanded WCC. If for instance, it was a top 4 competition, it would place greater importance on finishing in those positions and then give those clubs a genuine reward, with a genuine event to look forward to. It would also add variety to the league. With the rewards so obvious, why hasn't this been done sooner?

It has, and on a much greater scale; it was a disaster. There will be few of us who can forget the ill-fated WCC 1997. Even taking into account the 2000 World Cup, I doubt there has ever been a RL tournament that did more damage to the game. After the 1994 WCC and the advent of Super League, the plan was devised to create a tournament including all of the clubs of SL Australasia and SL Europe. The result was worse than could ever have been envisaged. European clubs won just 8 out of 68 matches, suffered some huge defeats and despite a system that guaranteed 4 clubs from each hemisphere in the quarter finals, not 1 European club made the semi-finals; this was made worse because it was against only half the strength of the domestic Australian game. It is perhaps no surprise then that the powers that be have been reluctant to face our best 4 clubs against their best 4 clubs again. Another competition where we were humiliated could potentially damage the image of Super League.

Despite this, I think it is time for it to be expanded. If we are ever to create a competition close to theirs, we need to play them regularly. In hindsight (and probably even at the time), the WCC 1997 was always going to be a washout, standards across the board were never going to match the Australians. However, we now have 16 years of full-time professionalism behind us and you would hope that our top 4 would be able to put up respectable displays. It would take some inevitable adjustment but there is no reason why it couldn't raise standards across the board and create some essential exposure for the game.

A logistical nightmare?
Perhaps the bigger problem to creating a respectable competition is timing and geography. You have essentially 3 options: play it as a pre-season competition; have it during the season or have it as an end of season series. None of these are without problem.

If it is pre-season, then it will always be viewed as a pre-season tournament, similar to one of those Football tournaments like the Emirates Cup. Whilst it may be fun, it would not quite be the reward that clubs would be after. It would also be unlikely to encourage the southern hemisphere teams to treat it seriously. We would probably see a situation where weak teams were put out, similar to when Warrington played South Sydney a few weeks ago.

Post-season has an equal number of problems. In the early days, it was played after the ARL Grand Final and their clubs didn't treat it particularly seriously. The reason was obvious, the GF was the real prize for Australian clubs and they treated the trip to England as an end of season jolly. You cannot usurp 100 years of tradition with a new competition. The same would be true today. It also begs the question as to what happens with the international game; you cannot play both at the same time.

Unfortunately for those hopeful of change like myself, mid-season doesn't fare much better either. The reality is that due to the geographical and time differences, it is most plausible to hold the tournament in one place - requiring a probable 3/4 week period away from the regular season. This creates all sort of problems with  regular season games and having to catch up, especially for the travelling sides. It would only be possible in the UK with a big reduction in the number of games teams play. Alternatively, it could be spread out over the season but this would be more expensive and prove a great distraction for those clubs involved when you factor in issues such as jet lag. Are clubs going to be willing to risk their regular seasons for a new tournament? 

A pipe dream?
A 4-team tournament would require a huge amount of desire on both sides of the world for it to work. Whilst the benefits could be great it would still need big TV interest; a changing to both the NRL and Super League seasons and potentially a change to the international structure of the game, just to get off the ground. The cynic in me doesn't think this is likely to happen. The main opposition as usual is likely to come from the NRL clubs who would see less benefit and would see victory in it as less prestigious. Also, whilst the new independent commission could be great for the game down-under, I've heard rumours that a number of influential people on the commission are not great supporters of international RL.

Perhaps our greatest hope is to build some momentum. We need to make them sit up and take notice and believe that it is worth while. This could start tonight with Leeds hopefully giving Manly a beating. Maybe then it will be given a chance in Australia with a more prominent date; if our clubs continued to compete well maybe then that would wake up the NRL to the benefits of an expanded competition.

It's a lot of maybes but let's take it one step at a time. Good luck to Leeds tonight, do it for European Rugby League!

Jamie Peacock - A False-Starter For 10

Is Peacock right to call for 10 clubs?

Jamie Peacock is the epitomy of a modern Rugby League legend. A selfless captain for club and country and a man who always leads from the front. Despite not being known as the most articulate person, he commands respect. So when he talks about an issue, people listen.

For the past few years, he has been most vocal about calling for a reduction in the number of Super League clubs, from 14 to 10. Perhaps most tellingly, he has repeated this call whilst he has been involved in the creation of the new players union, 1eague3. This new union has player welfare at its heart, yet Jamie Peacock is calling for a situation which would cause many players to lose their full time status and perhaps even his own, if he wished to carry on playing. This shows that he is not motivated by self interest but the interests of Rugby League.

Is Jamie Peacock right to call for a reduction in the number of Super League clubs?

The case for...
There are two main reasons why a reduction to 10 clubs (or to a lesser extent 12) is often seen as desirable, and both come with the end goal of catching the Australians. By having a league with fewer teams, you are concentrating the player pool, meaning that on average the clubs are stronger. This therefore, creates a higher standard of competition and ensures that the players are subjected to more intense level of rugby, hopefully emulating the NRL. In support of this idea, recent evidence does suggest that British RL cannot sustain 14 competitive clubs. Just this week, only the second of the new season, the newly promoted Widnes side suffered a huge blow-out against a Huddersfield side that looked to be in second gear for large parts. This mirrors the experience suffered by the Crusaders and Salford since their promotion in 2008; there simply isn't the pool of players to sustain 14 competitive clubs.

Inevitably, fewer clubs should also mean fewer games. One of Peacock's biggest complaints is that our players suffer burnout. It is hard to argue this point when the season starts in the first weekend of February and doesn't end for international players until November; Kevin Sinfield for instance, played over 40 competitive games last year. In contrast, the NRL doesn't start until March and their players on average play fewer games. This inevitably means that their players come into international tournaments fresher. It also means that players should, in theory, be able to prolong their careers as they have fewer miles on the clock.

If only things were so simple
It would appear that it is a clear cut case and that a reduction would benefit the game. There are however, big reasons as to why this will never happen and it is purely to do with the licensing system.

I am a firm believer that the licensing system is the best system for British RL, at this time. That is not to say that it doesn't have flaws. Were we to take Jamie Peacock's advice and move to a league of 10 teams, we would have to drop 4 current clubs. For argument's sake, assuming that Super League wanted to retain a London presence, let's say that those clubs were: Wakefield, Widnes, Salford and Castleford. These clubs would then drop down into the Championship.

Initially, this would be a great boost for the Championship, creating a much better middle tier competition with higher crowds. However, since the abolition of yearly Promotion and Relegation, we are left with a system where clubs are only promoted every 3 years. This creates a situation, where it is unlikely that most of those clubs will see Super League for a long time, if ever again. Inevitably, over time crowds would decrease and interest would wane. Unfortunately, we have seen this happen at a number of clubs whose Super League ambitions have slowly faded such as: Oldham, Whitehaven, Workington and Keighley. The sad reality is that these clubs look unlikely, under the current system, to ever be in a position again where they could make the step up.

The RFL are currently trying to balance a vibrant Super League with licensing, whilst trying to sustain interest in a Championship without P & R. The current situation is sustainable because there is not an outstanding candidate for promotion and a number of clubs could put themselves forward for a place. This for the time being, is helping to sustain a level of interest amongst those clubs. As a Widnes fan, I am all too aware of this factor. Prior to the acceptance, the dream of Super League was all that kept many fans going and attendances had already suffered. Had we been rejected in 2011, Widnes may not have been in a position to reapply in 2015, as crowds would have been likely to drop considerably. Some people like to think that the Championship is enough in its own right but the reality says otherwise. It is no coincidence that attendances are highest at clubs where Super League is still a goal.

In relegating those 4 clubs, the RFL would be virtually eliminating the chances clubs like Leigh, Halifax and Featherstone have of ever being promoted, whilst making it unlikely for probably 2 of the 4 newly relegated clubs. Without the prospect of Super League you would have to expect that many of these fans would be lost to the game amounting to a potential huge loss of support for Rugby League as a whole. Whilst the top division could see a boost in its attendance, it would be unlikely to cover these lost fans and would be reducing their spread.

Currently British RL has 13 clubs in Super League, with approximately another 5 that have it as a realistic goal. A reduction, like that suggested by Jamie Peacock, would see 9 British clubs in Super League and the strength of the newly relegated clubs may mean than only 3 clubs could now have it as a realistic goal. It is for this reason that the RFL will not reduce to 10 clubs. They are not going to risk the future of a number of relatively strong RL clubs for a marginally more intense competition. They also don't want to envisage a situation where a couple of Super League clubs start struggling and there is nobody left to replace them.

What are the alternatives?
A solution we often hear is the creation of a 'Super League 2.' This idea involves creating 2 leagues of 10 clubs and reintroducing P & R. The problem with this idea is that, without adequate funding to ensure that the clubs could stay full-time, you are simply re-branding the old P & R and the issues that it had with short termism, boom and bust and expansion. Also, a second tier will always be viewed as a second tier. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the RFL see this as a long term goal, but only when the standard has increased to the point we have comfortably too many strong clubs for SL.

In my opinion, we must persist with the status quo for the time being, albeit with a few adjustments to make it easier on the players. Firstly, I would scrap the Magic Weekend or at the very least make it a regular season game. I would also reduce the number of rounds to 22. The playoff system means that playing every team home and away has become less important; this is how the NRL get around having 16 clubs. This could then allow us to start the season later and give the players a shorter season. We could also introduce a cap on the number of games that international players can play. If I recall correctly, Rugby Union introduced a similar law some years ago.

Unfortunately for Jamie, I cannot see him getting his way on this issue in the near future. Hopefully though, he will encourage the RFL to make some changes, to take the burden off some of our star players.

Farce! Joke! Disgraceful!

Moan, moan, chuffing moan

Being a Rugby League fan can be challenging sometimes. Not because it's particularly difficult watching highly skilled athletes playing a highly exciting game played at a blistering pace but because of the attitude of some of the fans. For those of us like myself who like to talk about Rugby League through on-line forums and elsewhere it can be a depressing experience.

At any given point there are a number of talking points in the game, many that have come from difficult decisions. We are at the stage where almost any decision made in our game is faced with calls of farce and ridicule from certain quarters. Famously, League Express once had to create a section in its Mailbag purely for positive letters because the editor was fed up with the sheet number of negative letters. This has never been more evident than at the start of this season where there has been a number of controversial talking points.

Whenever this is discussed a number of theories are put forward. For instance some think it is linked to the culture that created the split in 1895 and some think it is do with the innate northernness of the game and the associated stereotypes of moaning northerners.

Why are Rugby League fans so negative?

Some examples

It's important to state that we are not talking about criticism when we say RL fans are negative. There is of course a crucial place for criticism within any organisation or sport. I'm also not talking about in game reactions to referees for instance, which are part and parcel of any sport. The difference is the over-reaction and the outrage that we often see professed about off-field matters. To illustrate my point I'm not going to focus on the obvious examples from the past few weeks like the Stobart deal (called the "saddest day for a medium sized sport" by one) or the I-pitch. Some fans can overreact about the most trivial of things:

Widnes vs Wakefield on Sky - As would normally be the case, Sky chose a promoted club's first game in Super League for an opening weekend game. This didn't go down well amongst some fans who would rather have had a more high profile game start the season. 

"the first half of the season fixtures that Sky have chosen are garbage, my subscription is getting cancelled tonight.
as for Widnes and Salford starting the season, a total joke." (Standee RLfans)

This is a classic example of an overreaction. One made all the more silly the the record opening TV figures we saw at the weekend. 

The Sky advert - An advert made by Sky TV for the new season of RL. They came at it from a different angle for a change. Instead of plenty of action, they went for the funny side. You either like it or you don't. Maybe not...

"It is just about the naffest, least exciting piece of nonsense you could possibly dream up for advertising a fast collision sport. It says nothing at all about the game and in many ways reinforces many stereotypes that non-RL fans have about the game......." (Derwent TotalRL)

He couldn't just not think the advert was funny could he?

The Margin Meter - Now I'm not for one minute going to defend the margin meter as a credible analytical tool and there was plenty of scope for mickey taking. I wanted to show it as an example of just how RL fans can overreact,

"What a load of Sh** this all sounds and even more so what a load of nonsense too. I tune in to watch R/L not some set of infantile idiots playing out their fantasies over playthings that children might even shun. I cannot think that I have heard of anything dafter connected with a serious sporting event." (Petero TotalRL).

We are talking about something that means very little, yet here we have a classic exaggeration. This is while he was talking about cancelling his Sky subscription. The game of RL is apparently damaged by an in-game analysis tool. 

I have just touched on three examples here from the last couple of weeks but I could easily have chosen a multitude of others, not to mention the numerous examples that come up year on year like expansion, licensing, crowd fudging and apparent wrong venue choice. Controversial issues never seem to be far away for people to overreact too. 

Is it a myth?

It's not just my opinion, RL is well known for having fans that are negative. It's worth pointing out that impression can in itself give a false impression and mean we focus too much on the few examples. A quick look at the threads on TotalRL and RLfans shows that in all of these discussions there are a sizeable portion, almost certainly the majority, who are talking reasonably and are actually positive about the decisions or issues. Also, if you were to check out other forums of other sports, say for instance the Liverpool Football forum, they often contain some laughably ridiculous overreactions. 

I would probably have subscribed to this opinion until fairly recently. As some of you are aware, I was involved with the campaign to get fans to use specific game hashtags. During initial attempts to get it off the ground I e-mailed journalists and received positive replies. I also received one reply from a journalist where he stated that whilst he was sceptical about the idea he would still give them a try and wished it the best. However, this is in clear contrast to how a significant number of people reacted. Whilst I anticipated a degree of indifference and disinterest, I did not anticipate how many would actively dislike them to the extent that they were starting their own versions or actively tweeting others telling them not to use them. 

What is important with this example is that we are talking about something that contained no risk. If it was a bad idea then absolutely nothing was lost and all would go back to normal. Yet this didn't stop the vehemence that still continues from some quarters today. Even Liverpool FC fans are usually coming from a position of worry about their team which makes their negativity more understandable, it is an issue they care strongly about. Twitter hashtags or the Margin Meter aren't. Since then I have kept more of an eye on opinion on Twitter and I think that the over-reactive element in RL is still very significant there. They do still crop up on the forums but the difference is that it very quickly becomes difficult to justify that position when it is challenged from many quarters. On a platform such as Twitter they can make their comments knowing they are unlikely to be challenged. 

Here comes the Science bit!

Well not exactly, I'm not a scientist or a psychologist but here is my theory as to why RL has such a strong negative aspect. I think it comes from the apparent fragility of the game. 

Whether we like to admit it or not, Rugby League isn't the most secure of sports. That is to say we don't enjoy a great deal of support or favour and are almost constantly under different pressures to survive. We often pride ourselves on being the sport with the greatest amount of obituary notices written about it. The game continues to have a lot of issues and the RFL are constantly making tough decisions about the future of the game. This is where I think much of it comes from. It's more comforting to imagine that there are a bunch of inept clowns in Red Hall than to think that the game has some serious problems that can not be easily solved. Therefore, I think it is a defence mechanism that certain fans use whenever a decision has been made. Rather than wait and see if the decision is the correct one, they quickly jump and proclaim that it is a pathetic decision. In this way they are protecting themselves from a potential fall if it does go belly up, whilst at the same time making themselves look like they are wiser than perhaps they are. If they are wrong it is relatively quickly forgotten and often it is difficult for them to be proven wrong as it is based on a decision where the opposite decision can not be analysed. There is a large element of game playing going on. 

This has created a culture of sorts around Rugby League where it is OK and almost the norm to ridicule those in charge. This has spilled over from just the authorities to almost anybody involved with Rugby League. People are protective of the game and have become over sensitive to how it will be viewed by others. They have made RL into the Hyacinth Bucket of sports, so worried about how we will be perceived by the outside world and other sports that they don't want us to try anything that could potentially bring embarrassment. So for instance when Sky choose Widnes-Wakefield as the opening game, some instantly worry that it will not give a good impression of RL. The defence mechanism then kicks in and the decision rather than being one they disagree with becomes a farcical one. 

Of course some individuals are just moaners and that will always be the case but I think they have been accepted for too long and it has become cultural. There is also a large aspect of attention seeking amongst these people. Rather than disagree with a decision, if you call it a disgrace you draw more attention to yourself, especially if you are then later proven correct.

So what do you think, is RL as negative as it is made out to be or is it just a myth? Are there other reasons behind the negativity? One thing is for sure, most of those people should try living somewhere where there is almost no Rugby league. We'd see how negative about the game they are then. 

A Wildcat Wake up call

Wakefield once again teach Widnes a lesson

So the big day finally arrived and Widnes are now a proper Super League club once again. Unfortunately for us, Wakefield spoiled the party and in the end ran out fairly comfortable winners. After the match, it was quite easy to be down about the result and the implications it would have for the rest of the season. However, a mixture of continued controversy over the I-pitch and other club's fortunes on the field has taken the focus off the result on Friday. Now the dust has settled and we have seen all the other teams in action the question remains,

What does the result mean for Widnes' season?

History repeating itself?  

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Let me take you back to the 24th February 2002 and it was Widnes' first ever game as a Super League club against Super League opposition albeit in the Challenge Cup. We once again faced Wakefield and it was televised on national TV. Despite being fairly big favourites and tipped to finish above Wakefield we were taught a lesson and lost a dire tussle 12-4. The feeling afterwards was much the same and fans inevitably over-reacted. However we all know what happened next and the Wakefield defeat ended up being one of the best things that could happen to us. The lesson we learnt from that defeat was that we had underestimated the challenge and subsequently we went on a great run and narrowly missed out on the playoffs. Friday night could hopefully prove to be a similar experience.


Maybe not...


That said, I think the manner of defeat was very different. Some Widnes fans after the match were off the opinion that our discipline cost us but I think that the issues were far more fundamental than that. It was evident from very early on that Wakefield were making better yards than us, running with more purpose and looked far more dangerous when they were attacking than we did. Most importantly perhaps we seemed to have little control at the ruck. We did still manage to go in in front and in reality did a very good job to do so but the Sky statistics at half time provided very ominous signs. We had dominated territory and the majority of the play had taken place in their half. The second half was always likely to see this evened up and so it proved. The difference in quality of the sides meant that they were better able to convert and ended up winning fairly comfortably.

All is not lost!


My original opinion was one of worry. Many people had tipped the wooden spoon race to be between us and Wakefield. Therefore the fear was that if we are comfortably behind Wakefield, how far behind Warrington, Wigan or Leeds must we be? Were we looking at a season similar to that 'enjoyed' by Leigh Centurions in 2004? We of course have players to come back, and in some pretty crucial positions, but we are always likely to have some players out and Wakefield seemed dominant in many areas.

However, as the weekend wore on there did appear to be some grounds for optimism. After enduring the dire clash between Salford and Castleford and then looking at subsequent results it started to look increasingly like Wakefield had been underestimated. They certainly looked much better than Salford and Bradford to name two other sides that had bad weekends. We are not likely to make the top 10 this year, but hopefully with those players back and once the players start to gel better we will at least be competitive and maybe not get the wooden spoon. I think this is all most Widnes fans would hope for this year.

You never know, Huddersfield on Sunday might see a repeat of our first away game in Super League in 2002 when we shocked the RL world by going in at half time 30-6 up against Castleford. We can but dare to dream!

Quick word on the I-pitch


As I stated earlier, the result seems to have been overshadowed by the continuing controversy with the I-pitch. Much of this has focussed on Richie Mathers and his knees but I'm not going to criticise him for his opinion. After all, he has played on it and we haven't.

What I will say is that times like this bring out the worst in many Rugby League supporters although it doesn't seem to take much these days. So many people seem to be willing for this new pitch to fail and have been willing to jump on anything that has been said about it, even continuing to blame a broken leg on the pitch despite reports to the contrary.

Like with many new innovations only time will tell and I'd be more inclined to believe that in 10 years time many clubs in SL will have a similar pitch and all this will be forgotten.