Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Heritage XIII

Rugby League no longer on telegraph main page

26 posts in this topic

Sorry if covered before but I notice rugby league is no longer on the main Telegraph sport's page but UFC is!

 

if this is the case, it is a disgrace that such a proud sport with over 100 years of history has been banished to other sports'.

 

Can anyone confirm if this is for outside UK readers??

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory, the Telegraph did some excellent writing about the game during the RLWC.

 

Anyone tempted to fire up the green crayon might at least like to praise them for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory, the Telegraph did some excellent writing about the game during the RLWC.

 

Anyone tempted to fire up the green crayon might at least like to praise them for that.

All the more puzzling our sport has gone from the main page and UFC is there. Does UFC attract more spectators than SL? More sponsorship? More TV viewers? Would be interested to know. This is nothing but a disgrace. It makes a mockery that SL doesn't quite fit (the excuses) the demographics of readership, TV viewers etc etc that's trotted out all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The print media's website relationship with rugby league is a strange one.  A quick look at the broadsheets:  I noticed yesterday that the Indy had put rugby league back on its top bar on its sports section, after a few years off, but the latest article was 17th January (still is).  The Guardian still has RL on its sports bar and publishes a few articles.  I've no idea what the Times does behind their paywall...

 

Then there's the Telegraph, it looks like they've had to drop one headline sport for the RU 6N and someone's decided to just arbitrarily cut rugby league despite the Telegraph being the most prolific of rugby league article media sites, why not drop the football World Cup headline for the 6 weeks of the 6N or even golf considering we're smack in the middle of the off-season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The print media's website relationship with rugby league is a strange one.  A quick look at the broadsheets:  I noticed yesterday that the Indy had put rugby league back on its top bar on its sports section, after a few years off, but the latest article was 17th January (still is).  The Guardian still has RL on its sports bar and publishes a few articles.  I've no idea what the Times does behind their paywall...

 

Then there's the Telegraph, it looks like they've had to drop one headline sport for the RU 6N and someone's decided to just arbitrarily cut rugby league despite the Telegraph being the most prolific of rugby league article media sites, why not drop the football World Cup headline for the 6 weeks of the 6N or even golf considering we're smack in the middle of the off-season?

The Guardian seems to have three times more articles on Aussie RL than on British. I know they're keen on both the US and Australian markets but it's getting a bit silly tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian seems to have three times more articles on Aussie RL than on British. I know they're keen on both the US and Australian markets but it's getting a bit silly tbh.

 

Their Australian sporting stuff got good last season.  Good coverage of A-League and AFL as well.

 

Tis frustrating to see what they can do when bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian seems to have three times more articles on Aussie RL than on British. I know they're keen on both the US and Australian markets but it's getting a bit silly tbh.

They have an Australian edition, so the NRL coverage will be shared by both papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous. I feel bad for cycling, boxing and F1, too. I am a fan of UFC but it is nowhere near as important as those and RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the more puzzling our sport has gone from the main page and UFC is there. Does UFC attract more spectators than SL? More sponsorship? More TV viewers? Would be interested to know. This is nothing but a disgrace. It makes a mockery that SL doesn't quite fit (the excuses) the demographics of readership, TV viewers etc etc that's trotted out all the time.

It is baffling that anybody would consider it a disgrace. The DTs own stats showed little interest in RL despite it's increased coverage and since it did beef up it's coverage interest has been waning. 

 

How does it make a mockery that SL does not fit the demographics of the readership ? All the known indicators suggest for the Telegraph, SL commands very little interest. There are sports much more important to the DT readerships that is not on the main page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly Yes UFC is bigger than RL right now, bigger tv and ppv deal, lower overheads. Its like boxing was 40 years ago. Very popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to google UFC to know what it is...

Care to share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian seems to have three times more articles on Aussie RL than on British. I know they're keen on both the US and Australian markets but it's getting a bit silly tbh.

 

 

They're launching a new website, and the "Alpha" release lists Football, Cricket, Tennis, Rugby Union, Cycling and US Sports in the sports section.

 

Hopefully this will change.

 

The new site looks very pretty though.   They have a seriously good design team at the Guardian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to google UFC to know what it is...

 

Utah Fried Chicken?

 

I've seen a few articles about UFC in the Torygraph and advertising also. They seem keen on it for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utah Fried Chicken?

 

I've seen a few articles about UFC in the Torygraph and advertising also. They seem keen on it for some reason.

A few years ago, it had a big growth in interest and coverage, and much was talked about it overtaking boxing in popularity. I don't know if it has kept on growing, found its level or dropped back. 

 

I've occasionally tried watching it, but the programmes seem to be 80% chitchat, 20% action and lots of ad breaks. And it's usually on late, so I sometimes doze off before anything happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly Yes UFC is bigger than RL right now, bigger tv and ppv deal, lower overheads. Its like boxing was 40 years ago. Very popular.

 

figures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea about this UFC lark but here's something I found on t'web about it's UK TV figures in 2012:

 

UFC 146 - 45k
UFC 145 - 67k
UFC 144 - ratings unavailable
UFC 143 - 88k
UFC 142 - 39k (listed as UFC 140 but on 142's date - looks like typo)
UFC 141 - 50k
UFC 140 - 80k
UFC 139 - 36k
UFC 138 - 100k
UFC 137 - 62k ... TUF also got 66k this week
UFC 136 - 50k
UFC 135 - 43k
UFC 134 - 69k

 

I must confess that I've only ever had one person ever mention it to me. I was only two 40 years ago but I can tell you boxing was a lot bigger than that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, it had a big growth in interest and coverage, and much was talked about it overtaking boxing in popularity. I don't know if it has kept on growing, found its level or dropped back. 

 

I've occasionally tried watching it, but the programmes seem to be 80% chitchat, 20% action and lots of ad breaks. And it's usually on late, so I sometimes doze off before anything happens.

Without wanting to sound like an old man, it was a lot better in the old days. These days all of the fighters have a genuinely mixed training regime dominated by wrestling and ju jitsu, but also including various other styles depending on their background. In the early 90's, when UFC videos were doing the rounds and it was banned in almost every state in the US, you had a wider variety of fighters. So you'd get a boxer against a judoka or muay thai versus a wrestler, etc. It was a lot more interesting IMO because of that mix. It was the dominance of Royce Gracie that got everyone into Brazilian Ju Jitsu and that trend changed the dynamic of the fights. Now, because they mostly have similar backgrounds, there is a lot less variety in styles and the fights can become a little familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wanting to sound like an old man, it was a lot better in the old days. These days all of the fighters have a genuinely mixed training regime dominated by wrestling and ju jitsu, but also including various other styles depending on their background. In the early 90's, when UFC videos were doing the rounds and it was banned in almost every state in the US, you had a wider variety of fighters. So you'd get a boxer against a judoka or muay thai versus a wrestler, etc. It was a lot more interesting IMO because of that mix. It was the dominance of Royce Gracie that got everyone into Brazilian Ju Jitsu and that trend changed the dynamic of the fights. Now, because they mostly have similar backgrounds, there is a lot less variety in styles and the fights can become a little familiar.

I have seen a few fights from that earlier era, and it was more interesting, for the reasons you state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017