RICHARD de la RIVIERE is an advocate of the women’s game but was dismayed to see the recent one-sided Challenge Cup scorelines. In this article, he sets out some proposals that he believes could ameliorate this problem. He runs the website www.womensrl.com.
THE SATURDAY before last was a bleak day for Women’s Rugby League, with Leeds putting 104 unanswered points on Sheffield in a match cut short by 20 minutes before St Helens thrashed Warrington 102-0 – both in the Challenge Cup.
What can be done to minimise the regularity of such ugly results?
Let’s take a look at the Challenge Cup and the Women’s Super League competitions.
A new Cup format is needed to ensure St Helens, Leeds Rhinos, York Valkyrie and Wigan Warriors (hereby known as The Big Four) never play lower-division teams again. Featherstone and London may have been more competitive on Sunday against York and Wigan, losing 54-6 and 44-0 respectively, but those matches were still foregone conclusions.
From 2026, I would change the competition format, so it comprises two stages. First, have a knockout section involving Championship clubs and the WSL’s bottom four until you have one team. Second, that team would join The Big Four in a five-team pool. A round-robin set of fixtures would see each team play four games, after which the top two sides would qualify for the final at Wembley.
The advantages of this are The Big Four would play no side lower than the fifth-best team, thus eradicating scorelines like Saturday’s. And crucially, it would increase the number of games between Wigan, Leeds, Saints and York. Instead of just two semi-finals, there would be six matches between the quartet, all of which, you would imagine, would be played with the intensity of a semi-final.
It would also be vital to remove the concept of points difference to avoid The Big Four seeking to annihilate the fifth team. If, for example, York and Saints finished the pool in second and third but on equal points, then the runners-up spot – and a place at Wembley – would go to the team which had won their fixture. Because of the necessity for a winner in all fixtures, golden point would be played after any drawn game.
As for the Women’s Super League, I’m anticipating more lopsided scorelines than ever before in 2025 with The Big Four growing ever stronger while Barrow and Warrington have each lost several players. Indeed, the Wolves look like they will struggle to keep any of their upcoming eight WSL matches against The Big Four to margins of under 70.
As long as points difference is a factor in the league table, then the coaches of The Big Four will continue to encourage their players to gain as big a victory as possible.
If two of The Big Four finish level on points, it doesn’t feel right that the higher ranking should go to the team that has dished out the bigger kickings to the bottom four. Again, it should go on the relevant head-to-head match-up.
So, if York and Wigan are the top two at the end of the regular season with the same number of points, then you would look at the scores of their two matches. If Wigan have beaten York at home by ten points and lost by eight in the return fixture, they would win the Minor Premiership.
This used to happen in soccer’s Champions League group stage before a drastically different format was introduced this season.
If three or four teams finish level on points, then examine the six or eight fixtures involving those sides and base the final league standings on those scores.
By removing points difference, there’s no need for Wigan, for example, to inflict a century of points on Huddersfield as they did last season. The margin of victory simply would not matter. They could rest a few of their stars and bring in some fringe players or even change their tactics when the game is in the bag – kick on the third tackle, but beforehand, chuck the ball around and try some miracle plays!
You could also look at increasing the number of substitutes that each club can name and introduce unlimited interchange. Why not name matchday squads of 25?
Men’s soccer now has nine subs in the Premier League and 12 in the Champions League. In Australian Rugby League in the 1980s, clubs named their entire reserve-grade teams as substitutes for the first team!
If the WSL follows suit, then the underdog team can withdraw more of their exhausted players rather than just the front row, while the winning side can hook several of their big names and introduce fringe players who would benefit from first-team experience.
Here are some other ideas.
Offer the bottom four WSL sides coaching support if they want it. Can we be sure that the standard of coaching is as good as it can be? Could, for example, England coach Stuart Barrow offer his services to the bottom four to put on coaching sessions or work with staff on whichever specific issues need addressing? Maybe this already happens – I’m not sure – but if it does, could it be ramped up?
And here’s something that used to happen in the men’s game.
Allow the scoring team to kick off after each try. Whatever the possession stats in last Saturday’s maulings, they would be vastly different had Leeds and Saints restarted proceedings after each try. If you reverse which team kicks off, the huge scores won’t be as common.
It did happen in the men’s first Super League season of 1996 when my team, Workington, came last. Had they had to kick off after every try they conceded as Sheffield and Warrington had to on Saturday, their defeats would have been much greater.
It’s a simple rule change that can be made in time for the new WSL season.
Then there’s the subject of 70-minute games.
From a players’ survey I conducted last year, it seems most players would rather stick with 80, but with Australia hosting the next World Cup, it’s likely those games will last for 70, which is the same as the Pacific Cup and the Las Vegas international.
We need consistency between the two Hemispheres and it’s obvious that 70-minute games will increase intensity and reduce scorelines – two things we really need. There’s no reason it can’t be introduced for the new WSL season, which begins in mid-May.
Reducing the number of WSL clubs is another step, but the actual number needs to be properly debated and it’s understandable that nothing has happened for this season, although I would have supported Warrington’s immediate removal.
It’s such a shame that one of the wealthiest Rugby League clubs just won’t invest properly in their women’s team. That mammoth defeat to Saints, as well as recent home defeats to Barrow and Cardiff, tells us they’re going to be on the receiving end of some horrible scores in 2025.
I’m guessing it’s too late to remove them now, but something could have been done during the winter when many of their best players like Grace Burnett, Anna Dennis, Michelle Davis and Sammi Simpson left and weren’t suitably replaced. Even with those players, they only finished above Featherstone in 2024.
Unless something unexpected is around the corner, last Saturday won’t be the last time they concede three figures. It’s not the fault of the players and the coaches – they are merely lambs to the slaughter. It’s the club which is failing them, and Saturday’s result falls squarely upon the decision-makers at Warrington Wolves.
We can’t have clubs coming in, making no attempts to strengthen. When Warrington were promoted two years ago, they told me they didn’t have the money to invest because they were still struggling with the financial effects of Covid. Well, that excuse isn’t there now.
The new WSL begins on May 16th. Changes are needed, but how quickly can they happen?
Apart from reducing the number of WSL clubs, I don’t see why every other suggestion here can’t be implemented in the next few weeks.
