Maximus Decimus
-
Posts
8,699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Maximus Decimus
-
-
The rugby league scrum is no different from the union scrum. The side that feeds it wins it 99% of the time, except in RL we don't waste half an hour of every game packing and re-packing pointless scrums and spending hundreds of hours training just so a team can nullify the other side's equally pointless scrum push.
I'm a bit of a Union novice but there is certainly more to the scrum than just winning the ball. I always thought it was similar to the way a forward pack gets on top in RL. If your forward pack are dominant then you stand a much better chance of winning. One of the ways they get dominant in Union is through the scrum. I remember seeing a match where England's scrum dominated Australia and effectively won the match because they couldn't compete.
Hardly riveting but it's not necessarily the same thing. We need to sort out our scrum, if not just to stop people unfamiliar with the game going on about it all the time. I twittered during Challenge Cup final and there were 3 types of comments, those praising the game, those saying it was awful and those saying what is the point in the RL scrum.
-
The ignore function is a good tool to use, have used it this evening and it works great.................
The only problem is if people ignored you they'd still know what you're saying,
blah blah money men blah blah money men blah blah money men...
-
Since Hunslet were denied SL Leeds have won SL four times mainly on the back of a local youth policy and attract 3-4000 more fans to Headingley. Just co-incidence?? If you want to say it is that's up to you.
Since Widnes dropped out of Super League, Rugby Unions crowds have gone through the roof. If you want to believe that's coincidence it's up to you.
Since I read Ricky Hatton's book he's been battered twice and found out as a Cokehead, coincidence? Again that's up to you.
Since Jbd left the board, the number of posts from you has massively increased, coincidence....
-
Why did fans turn up in the past and pay on the day. Was it magic
Did they?
Because if you look at the facts they used to attend in less numbers than they do now for the regular season games despite everything resting on the League table.
-
The viewing figures show that the play offs are better supported on thw whole but its a shame the fans don't get off their sofas and out of the bars till the final.
As a Wire fan to potentially watch all our play off games (including the final it could cost me 100 pound in tickets alone) a small fortune when you add beer money and travel.
It is but it's something that we're going to have to accept. If you have 10,000 ST holders and they aren't included then the only way is down regarding how many of them will turn up.
-
WOLVES centre Chris Bridge has ruled himself out of England's Four Nations squad so he can be present for the birth of his first child.
The 26-year-old centre, who has recently returned from injury, is expecting a baby girl in November with partner Kirsten McCourt and has put his international duty on hold so he can concentrate on being a first-time father.
He said: "We are expecting our first child in early November and we are very excited.
"I spoke with Tony and to Steve Mac as soon as I realised there was a chance I would miss it and I decided that even if I was picked, I would not go.
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/wolves...r_Nations_tour/
Bad planning but who can really blame him for doing the right thing.
I reckon England's centre prospects look even bleaker with Yeaman called up today.
My centres would be Shenton and maybe throw Gaz Ellis in there as we have quality in the pack.
[monotone]Oh no we might not stand a chance now....[/monotone]
-
People won't pay because they do not care about the play offs. The season ended when the league ended.
The Challenge Cup is struggling similarly
So you have to ask is RL heading in the right direction? Are the RFL capable of marketing the sport / driving it forward or are two finals all we can manage?
We had a sport where we were able to attract several / many large crowds, walk up pay on the day attenders. The RFL/SKY then told us Summer rugby, a salary cap, a play off system, a franchising system would lead to a boom in RL. Where the RFL / SKY wrong?
You're living in a dream world.
Are you seriously suggesting that 5,000 people in Leeds are more interested in watching them in Super League against the Crusaders than play Wigan in the Challenge Cup? It's all about season tickets and just because it doesn't fit your argument you ignore it. People pay out at the beginning of the season and then it is effectively free to go for around 10,000 fans. When you hit knock out competitions there are 10,000 people who now have to pay. Inevitably there will be people who cannot afford it and choose not to because it's on TV. They also often take people to games. If you're argument made any sense then the Challenge Cup attendances wouldn't have gone up massively when season tickets were allowed but they did.
You've also ignored how I pointed out the viewing figures go up by around 33% during the playoffs.
You've also ignored how I pointed out that the last time we didn't have a playoffs we had lower crowds than we do now. We didn't have several large crowds that you point out. Even in 1990 the average of the league was lower than it is now. You say we've always attended finals, well the last Premiership was dying and was finally attended by 33,000 at Old Trafford. The first Grand Final got 43,000 just 2 years later, it quickly rose to sell out because people do care.
Just because you don't like the playoffs doesn't mean that you are in any way in the majority. Just because you keep repeating it on numerous threads doesn't make it true either. You can't simply ignore the facts.
-
The play offs are a failed marketing gimmick.
You get all these posters on here saying oh everybody is in favour of the play offs look at the crowds blah blah blah. Those figure tell you people do not believe in the play offs and are not supporting them.
If a Hull Derby cannot sell out what hope is there. Wigan's attendance was awful, Saints not impressive given they have the last games at KR as a booster to selling tickets and Huddersfield was the only one boosted by the one positive, Crusader away support.
Stupid concept
Hull KR-Wigan (9,007) regular season 2009. Sky 174k
Hull KR-Wigan (8,162) first round playoffs 2009. Sky 224k
Saints-Wigan regular season 2009 (15,563). Sky 218k
Saints-Wigan (13,087) playoff semi-final. Sky 296k.
Why are these viewing figures way higher if people aren't supporting the concept?
Crowds are lower because take today's Wigan game, they have already sold 10,000 tickets before the regular season game kicks off. Today they are starting from scratch and sad as it is, people don't want to pay.
-
The play offs are a failed marketing gimmick.
You get all these posters on here saying oh everybody is in favour of the play offs look at the crowds blah blah blah. Those figure tell you people do not believe in the play offs and are not supporting them.
If a Hull Derby cannot sell out what hope is there. Wigan's attendance was awful, Saints not impressive given they have the last games at KR as a booster to selling tickets and Huddersfield was the only one boosted by the one positive, Crusader away support.
Stupid concept
Are people not in favour of the Challenge Cup?
Is that a failed gimmick?
-
Season tickets are the only reason.
The RFL gets the money and it needs to decide whether it wants this money or it wants full stadia for its showpiece events.
With ST's I've no doubt we'd have saw sellouts at Hull and Saints, with 18k odd at Wigan. Hudds would have even probably hit 8-9k.
Next week we'll see 9k at Wire and probably about 10k at Wigan. It would be a fair bit of revenue lost for the RFL but surely there has to be a solution to the problem?
-
Whilst I'm not against the club call in principle I think it practise it won't work. I'd be very surprised if the team making the club call did anything other than pick the lowest placed side still in the competition. Saints aren't going to pick Wigan over Wire if that is what the two line ups are. Wigan have just finished top of the league. In the same way they won't pick Wire over Hull KR if they pulled off an upset.
It would be great motivation for say Wigan if they were picked and it would come across as cocky. If it didn't come off they would end up looking stupid. The least controversial thing to do is to pick what it would be in the first place.
-
Poor game this one I'm afraid. Hull KR look too solid for Hull FC who need a new coach a la Michael Maguire. They've got the names they should be better than they are.
-
Well okay then explain to me how RU having full time professional teams in all 9 regions of England is just as regional at the pro level as RL only having full time pro sides in 3 regions, and even including semi pro sides only has them in 4 out of 9 regions and that's a stretch including a side that is semi-pro in little more than name.
Seriously how can your statement be anything but an extreme lie, not just a small one, but an absolute extreme black is white level one? You may as well say RL is bigger than soccer on the grounds you like it more and it would be no more a lie.
I know you obviously like RL more than RU, as do I, but that's no excuse to make up childish lies
The strength of the game is definitely in the south.
The 3 northern clubs first home games got 5,000 5,500 and 7,500. This is against the Aviva league average of 12,000.
Of course it is bigger and more spread but as far as the Aviva league goes the real interest lies in the south.
When you consider that Exeter are new this year and that the 3 Northern clubs are not well supported, it is a fairly regional league. Compared to the amount of press it gets, how many people do you think are genuinely interested in the results of the Aviva Premiership. I would suggest there are a handful of people in the north.
League clearly deserves to be in the National press in comparison and it would be if the M62 happened to run through London.
-
It wasn't a high quality game but it was high in drama.
Feel genuinely gutted for the Crusaders.
-
Max and you want to talk about unfair comparisons
1995 to 1997 was one of the lowest ebbs in RL with a civil war tearing the game apart
Why was it a low ebb when we had P&R and a league system for people to get excited by? That was my whole point, you can't attribute all the problems down to one thing and then pick and choose examples. You were pointing out how attendances will be so poor for these playoffs, yet for whatever reason they are much much better than they were the last time we had the Premiership.
Anyway I'm fairly sure that the average attendance is higher now than it was in 1990. That certainly wasn't a low ebb for the sport.
-
It's this type of thing that could really make this club. If they hold on today, all 700 will return to Wales and tell their mates what a fantastic day out they've had - and that can only be good. Others will soon want a part of that.
I agree, I think last week will have done a lot for their season ticket sales.
For getting new fans you can't beat drama and success. Rugby League can provide games that are so intense that you are literally on the edge of your seat for a whole game. From reports the Cru had one last week.
Once you've seen that you'll put up with the rubbish games and the big defeats because you know that there'll be times like that again. It's the same for any sport. The problem RL often has is that people will only ever give it one chance and if it doesn't produce an absolute classic then they won't come back. The people of North Wales appear to have given them a real chance and been rewarded for it.
-
Very impressive and they sound really up for it.
Hopefully they can hold on in this next half.
-
I did a pretty decent job of defending it I think, take the Jenson Button example. He was the best racing driver last year but in the last 10 or so races he only got in the top 3 twice in a race. This was out of 17 races, that's hardly what I'd call a champion driver, yet a League system allows him to be called the best because he started well.
The Premier League is a different kettle of fish and utterly boring anyway, especially when one team runs away with it. Football doesn't suit a Playoffs because of the nature of the game and the likelihood of upsets. Greece won Euro 2004 despite being far from the best side. This wouldn't happen in RL.
My point is that you cannot look at crowds as a barometer of interest in these situations, especially one-off crowds or one-off periods. The reasons that play off crowds will not be better is because of season ticket holders, that's the main/only reason. The interest is there. However if you look at the seasons 1990-1997 the average attendance of the league was lower than it is now and by 1996 it was around 6,000. This was all under a league system with full promotion and relegation.
Look at the last Premiership final, Wigan vs Saints yet the crowd was only 33,000. 8,000 lower than Widnes and Hull had managed 7 years previous. The whole competition from the quarter finals to the final was only attended by 64,000 people, less than the SL grand final will be. Wigan-Leeds got 6,400, I'm sure it will be a lot more than that tomorrow. The world changes and people don't want as many competitions, look at Football. The Carling Cup is a joke and the FA Cup is nowhere near as prestigious as it once was. So it's safe to say that a Premiership trophy nowadays would be no better. If we'd never switched we'd probably be playing the final at Huddersfield by now.
So in essence not only is the league average higher than it was with a league and P&R, but we will have a playoffs system that this year will be watched by a conservative estimate of 170k, an extra 100,000 fans on the Premiership.
Everybody always says the standard is poorer. It isn't. The game changes that's all.
Clubs have always gone bust and always will. 2 years of licensing isn't going to change that.
I'm 27, my name isn't actually Maximus and my second name isn't Decimus. I was around for 1987-1990, but that would be a totally unfair comparison anyway. The same as it would be to ask Warrington fans which period was better.
The future and the present is not automatically worse either. The past was great at times but it can't easily be created when the world has changed.
Just to condense this argument.
1997 - last year with the champions decided by the league winners, with P&R and with a Premiership. Total attendance approx 980k.
2009 - Playoff system, no P&R. Total attendance 1.9m.
-
You find the figures my friend. I only gave you the figures I had to hand.You seem to want to do the same you have been accusing me of though
You cannot create something and call it a league then turn it into a cup knockout competition. Can you imagine the Premier League doing it. Exactly. Do not throw anything America my way. Any nation that calls a domestic competition the World Series is clearly retarded. Convceptually the concept is totally wrong. Morally it indefensible.
I did a pretty decent job of defending it I think, take the Jenson Button example. He was the best racing driver last year but in the last 10 or so races he only got in the top 3 twice in a race. This was out of 17 races, that's hardly what I'd call a champion driver, yet a League system allows him to be called the best because he started well.
The Premier League is a different kettle of fish and utterly boring anyway, especially when one team runs away with it. Football doesn't suit a Playoffs because of the nature of the game and the likelihood of upsets. Greece won Euro 2004 despite being far from the best side. This wouldn't happen in RL.
You talk about a GF yet Wire v Saints attracted 14K, Wigan v Leeds will not be high, Hudds v Cats 6K? the Hull derby will be a full house I presume. So we are down to one rain sodden evening that the RFL spend 12 months selling tickets for whilst other fixtures attract nothing crowds. Heavens above. Maybe we should have more competition, maybe we should have relegation / promotion because I fail to see where SL / the RFL are delivering what they promised on the back of the packet.My point is that you cannot look at crowds as a barometer of interest in these situations, especially one-off crowds or one-off periods. The reasons that play off crowds will not be better is because of season ticket holders, that's the main/only reason. The interest is there. However if you look at the seasons 1990-1997 the average attendance of the league was lower than it is now and by 1996 it was around 6,000. This was all under a league system with full promotion and relegation.
Look at the last Premiership final, Wigan vs Saints yet the crowd was only 33,000. 8,000 lower than Widnes and Hull had managed 7 years previous. The whole competition from the quarter finals to the final was only attended by 64,000 people, less than the SL grand final will be. Wigan-Leeds got 6,400, I'm sure it will be a lot more than that tomorrow. The world changes and people don't want as many competitions, look at Football. The Carling Cup is a joke and the FA Cup is nowhere near as prestigious as it once was. So it's safe to say that a Premiership trophy nowadays would be no better. If we'd never switched we'd probably be playing the final at Huddersfield by now.
So in essence not only is the league average higher than it was with a league and P&R, but we will have a playoffs system that this year will be watched by a conservative estimate of 170k, an extra 100,000 fans on the Premiership.
The standard in 2010 has been poor. Poorer than in previous seasons. As the salary cap cuts in we get poorer quality imports and despite being promised that franchising meant with no threat of relegation we would see youngster after youngster developed and clubs better off financially. I see neither. Bradford signing Sibbit says it all. Here is a club that needs to rebuild and they have already given up on youth development. Financially prosperous. Wakefield under threat of financial ruin, the future of Harlequins recently in doubt, still chirping about investment at Wrexham, several Championship clubs going under etc etc.Everybody always says the standard is poorer. It isn't. The game changes that's all.
Clubs have always gone bust and always will. 2 years of licensing isn't going to change that.
I have no idea how old you are Maximus, by the name a teenager I presume but ASK older Widnes fans whether they preferred Widnes 1987-1990 to Widnes 2010 ? Everything in the past wasn't so bad and everything in the future is not automatically better unless you swallow the guff proliferate by the two SKY clowns.I'm 27, my name isn't actually Maximus and my second name isn't Decimus. I was around for 1987-1990, but that would be a totally unfair comparison anyway. The same as it would be to ask Warrington fans which period was better.
The future and the present is not automatically worse either. The past was great at times but it can't easily be created when the world has changed.
-
I have no doubts that it's more exciting, that's it's purpose. But it does not give a truer test of a team or a squad, lets say wire get beat next week by huddersfield, I could not argue that because of a one off game they are poorer than Wire.
For the same reason I can't argue that Leeds are as poor as the CC final made them look. They may not be the best team but they were not that poor.
It doesn't necessarily make them worse than Huddersfield because they will have already lost a game to get there. As regards crowning a champion I'd say it's gets it right just as often as a League structure does.
My point is that the League system is not as perfect as most would have you believe when it comes to determining who are the best. A team could potentially win the league but lose every game they play against the team that finishes second by 60 odd points. However the team finishing second could have had a bad start to the year and lost a couple of games to make up for it. Which are the better team? A league system proves that they were consistent for longer but does this make them a better side? I would use the Jenson Button win as an example, he built up a sufficient lead at the beginning of the year when other teams were faltering but by the end of it they had ironed out their problems and he wasn't nearly winning races. Does that make him the best racing driver?
It clearly deserves rewarding and it should be rewarded more than it is now. But I still much prefer the playoffs for deciding who are the best side in the division. Everybody knows the exact moment that they need to peak for and then they have to play and beat the best sides to be crowned champions. It is still open to the odd result but that's why the teams that finished higher get two bites of the cherry.
If Wigan really are the best team in the league then they should be able to beat the sides around them when it matters.
-
why not have a top 14 playoff.
It's all abitary. Made just for what ever seams to market the game the best.
It's not about a true test of a team but keeping up the interest.
Also it's not comparable to any American style playoff system as that is a true playoff system where the conferences don't give a true measure of the best team and have cross divisional games and stronger and weaker conferances. The playoffs then take the winners and runners up from the conferances and allow the top teams to compete.
It was primarly a distance measure as a full league fixture would be impossible to maitain in the usa in the erly 20th century.
Does the American system not crown a champion from a single game after a selection of knock out games?
I honestly don't think it is just about marketing. I always found the league system quite boring and I do now in Football. A team can make a bad start and their season is effectively over. Then you have the situation where one team runs away with it. Bradford comfortably won it in 1997 but it was boring and resulted in a lot of nothing games at the end of the season.
No system is perfect, even a league system doesn't necessarily truly define who are the best. It will still come down to individual moments, individual errors and one off games. For instance Wigan topped the league this year but I'm not 100% that they are the best team in the league this year. To be called so they will have to prove it by playing the rest of the teams around them.
Not perfect but much more exciting.
-
Do you not like hard facts and figures. How about this 1 for a Widnes fan
1988/89
Sun 16 Apr Widnes 17323
17K watching Widnes at Widnes
You only like hard facts and figures that you can pick. 17k for a Championship decider, this year the Championship decider will get something like 70k at it.
What was the Super League average the last year that the league winners were crowned champions and we still had promotion and relegation.
What is it now?
Also what was the last attendance for the Premiership final between Saints and Wigan?
-
It is actually IMO counter productive and fails to achieve the desired aim. Moreover, it is wrong.
The team that finishes top of the League after playing each team home and away are the true and deserved champions. That is why it is called a League. That is why the winners are called champions / championship winners. A knockout competition is called a Cup and the winners are called Cup Winners.
The desired aim? Apparently this marketing idea was supposed to sustain interest throughout the season and extend it culminating in much higher attendances. Does it do that? Possibly/probably interest. No in terms of attendances IMO.
The system previously sustained interest by having relegation / promotion. Now if sustaining interest is the only criteria you would bring that back would you not. What interest have Quins, Bulls, Reds fans had. I recall a Cas / Wakey relegation dogfight attracting a huge attendance for those 2 teams. We have probably as many dead rubbers or more than we ever did.
In a true Championship every win mattered. Teams played at their best week in week out. Now we have teams at the top virtually throwing fixtures away by resting umpteen players and shortchanging fans. In the past as the regular season reached its climax the quality of rugby got better and better and crowds went off the scale. Do crowds go off the scale in the play offs? No The GF gets a crowd but then in past RL was always able to get crowds for finals so that is nothing new. Indeed, some would argue the marketing for the GF has damaged the Challenge Cup. In the old system you had teams at the bottom fighting for their lives, teams mid table fighting for premiership places and top teams for the championships until the bitter end.
1989/90 Wigan last 3 fixtures
Tue 10 Apr Leeds Home Won 16-12 24462
Fri 13 April St Helens Away Lost 10-35 17176
Mon 16 Apr Leigh Home Won 34-06 19641
1990/91 Wigan last 6 fixtures
Mon 1 April Oldham Away Won 10-04 7399
Thu 4 April St Helens Home Won 28-14 17580
Sun 7 April Castleford Home Won 24-04 13948
Tue 9 April Widnes Home Won 26-06 29763
Thu 11 April Bradford Northern Home Draw 18-18 19112
Sat 13 April Leeds Away Won 20-08 15313
Here we are in 2010 and fans are saying 14K for Wire having just won the CC and Saints in their final games at KR is a good crowd
Whatsmore some of those fictures were 2 or 3 in 7 days and far more walk up fans.So maybe we should stop swallowing rhwetoric and think for ourselves
Talk about selective figures.
What were Warrington's attendances when they challenged for the title during the same period?
You can't go back to the past because the world is different. We used to have a variety of trophies well supported, now we can barely sustain the Challenge Cup. The premiership would be rubbish.
As a sport the league wasn't that important for the vast majority of our history, the Challenge Cup always had far more prominence.
-
Simple League System and a separate old style Premiership competition. However, if we have to have this ludicrous marketing gimmick which does not work then 8 is far too many. 5 or 6 maximum.
A ludicrous marketing gimmick that most fans are in favour of?
The playoffs are way better than the league system. The premiership was an after thought with no credibility. This way we end the season in the best possible way, like the Super Bowl, like the World Cup etc with the two best sides playing in front of 70,000 odd playing.
The system is fine and Wendall is being extremely presumptuous in thinking that we will end up with a repeat of the two games. It didn't happen last year and it probably won't happen the vast majority of times we have this system.
Do we deserve to be in the National Papers?
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
There would be on average 60-70,000 RL fans watching a game of Super League each week compared to maybe 3,000 watching a Championship 1 game.
That does look like a fair comparison in my opinion.