Really? Honestly at least 1/3 of Super League games are so imbalanced as to be a foregone conclusion.
St Helens/Wigan/Warrington could likely drop their entire first 13 and still beat the likes of Wakefield. At least the top-to-bottom gap in the NRL is small enough to make all games at least competitive.
The "competitiveness" of the NRL is a fallacy in two ways.
1. Its not actually that competitive. Of 80 games so far this season, over half (42) have been decided by 10 points or more, and 15 (nearly 1 in 5) have ended with a difference of 20 points or more. Picking out Wakefield in particular in the ESL gives a skewed perspective as they are an absolute basket case at the moment. They will get dumped from ESL the moment a decent Div 1 team (Leigh Centurions perhaps) can put together a sufficient application for ESL status.
2. "Competitive" is actually relative to expectation. This is the area the NRL has dug a massive hole for itself. It has explicitly communicated a desire for a competition where all 16 teams are theoretically on equal ground. This has shaped club and fan expectations in a way that leads to a lot more disappointment. It has driven the game into a state where game play margins are slim and coaches feel massive pressure to micro-control. The ESL is frequently more entertaining than the wrestle-a-thon we see dished up every week over here. It reminds me more of Rugby League in the late 80s and 90s, when footy was genuinely fast paced. It annoys me no end when comms these days say "this is an incredibly fast-paced game". Go back and look at the old clips, tackling players rolled off their opponents so much quicker 15-20 years ago.
