Dave T
-
Posts
45,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
296
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
22 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
I think TO scored 4.15/5 on fandom and Wigan scored 4.75/5. Both are well above 75%.
And this leads to a related point.
You are of course right that you don't get an A for each pillar; that was me being a bit provocative. But my point is that it ought to be just as challenging to get 75% on fandom as it is to get 75% on community. Fandom is obviously not working as intended.
The Fandom category is quite a generous one, but if you add in utilisation which could easily be factored in under here and it gives a better reflection of crowds etc. If there was an anomaly with the Sky figs this year, you'd also expect Wigan to.be a full 5 and Toulouse to remain around 4.15 (in fact drop lower as SL crowds roll off). So there is a clear differentiator there.
But if we added in utilisation, making it out of 6, then it would add even more of a differentiator.
-
21 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
Because if you have the data to allow for a continuous score, selecting thresholds adds an additional, unnecessary bias. Who decides the thresholds and why? Thresholds also incentivise odd behaviours - invest heavily to get from 2.75k to 3k fans, then stop.
You are also throwing away useful data. If you know that club A gets 6k crowds and club B get 4.5k crowds, why actively choose not to differentiate?
I would be intrigued to be have been party to the discussions.
We need to be careful about stating things are wrong or poor because they may not be exactly how we would do it. Weightings need to be carefully considered when deciding the scoring and there is also the point about keeping things as simple as possible, while allowing for as much flexibility to move and improve.
It would be interesting to see every single metric set as a ranking system where possible, but then in reality this isn't necessarily a competition, it's about your own standards being the best they can.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
Both exercises have been categorically poor.
The survey was abysmal - dreadful questions, a self-selected sample, opportunity for one person to respond multiple times, etc.
For the grading, I can keep drip feeding examples but everyone knows them by now.
Here's another. Both TO and London scored A grades on fandom. They have very small fan bases indeed. Does anybody really think these two clubs are pretty much in the same space on fandom as Wigan? Indeed, from what I can gather, achieving 1.5-3k fans allowed several clubs to score an A for fandom.
There is no such thing as an A grade on fandom.
Wigan have more fans, higher utilisation, higher digital numbers and would ordinarily have higher viewers (it's mentioned there is an anomaly this year).
Their score would be different to London and Toulouse.
-
31 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
Their core business is not grading sports clubs. Nor is it running surveys. They've done both things for us really quite poorly.
For the grading, let me provide just one example out of probably 20+. The attendance scoring is based on passing thresholds such that clubs fall into 'bins' (categories). But the utilisation scoring - same principle - is scored as a continuous variable. It's this kind of inconsistency - found throughout the criteria - that shows me this is not their area of expertise.
As I say, there are loads of other examples of oddities in the grading that an expert in measurement just wouldn't have made. Other posters have pointed them out.
I'm not sure that different approach is a problem. Why is a differing approach across two measures a bad thing?
-
8 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:
I wish someone would also ask why you get 0.5 for not meeting the stadium criteria. In fact, there are a couple of places in the gradings where free points are handed over. This creates a weird distortion of the category weightings.
This is one of the things i don't like. It's pretty much so it's scored out of 20 points, with 15 the cutoff for A grade.
-
7 minutes ago, Damien said:
Yeah seems a bit daft when there's only 2 games. Maybe it's a bit of poetic license from the journalist. I certainly don't see the point of playing the likes of Hill.
No, I can understand Nsemba, Thompson and maybe Walker, but there should be no messing around for the sake of it.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Griff said:
Yeah, nice little ground. Hard to find, though.
Lived in Edinburgh for 12 years and still couldn't direct you to it
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:
Meggetland has been used previously if memory serves me right, but I suppose it all depends on what is considered to be anything close to a RL hub in Scotland, even if that means playing in Falkirk or wherever.
Had an absolutely superb day watching that match at Meggatland, nice little venue and many, many beers were had.
-
39 minutes ago, Damien said:
Maybe they should organise more games then if they want squad rotation of any kind.
-
7
-
-
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
Not sure why you are saying 'grow up', it seems to have been a sensible and adult discussion so far.
Anyway, one of the points being made is that the aggression is performative and it has moved from being a cultural element to being about two groups of players goading each other.
If you are correct in saying that "players know it's going to happen and know they have to restrain themselves but also know they can push it to the limit for maximum impact" (and I think you are), then surely this is the definition of performative - all a bit WWE for me.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Isn't this all performative and always has been?
New Zealand.com says this about the Haka:
Traditionally, haka was a customary way to welcome visiting tribes, but it also served to invigorate warriors as they headed into battle. It was a show of physical prowess but also an embodiment of cultural pride, strength, and unity.
I know it was a different dance, but I think the one the other day met the brief of that.
it's absolutely performative, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
In terms of managing these though, I think there is a level of control that's needed - you don't want, and can't really have contact every time, and these have been managed differently over the years, but ai think we are fine just now.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:
The ANZAC Test no longer being played is solely down to the NRL and reasons pertaining to 'player welfare'.
Indeed. And nothing has changed to bring it back.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:
I think it's fairly easy to guess that it was Wilkin...
I'm shocked.
-
9 hours ago, Mojo said:
I thought calling out Tuivasa-Shocking and having a laugh about it was pretty disrespectful.
Ah, I didn't see that. Which pundit was that?
-
8 hours ago, Big Picture said:
That's an understandable mistake at that time though, Australia always played England in RL internationals until Great Britain's debut in 1946.
Yes they have. If memory serves Bob Fulton mistakenly called England "Great Britain" in an interview after the 1995 World Cup Final.
I wasn't pointing out a mistake. I was highlighting that we have used England as the name in the past for the Ashes.
-
2
-
-
Its always interestibg to look back over history when talking about this.
A google search for the 1946 RL Ashes in Australia shows a program with Australia v England on it, and the team photo from that tour shows them wearing the blue and red chevron that we recognise as the GB kit.
-
2
-
-
-
9 minutes ago, Mojo said:
Geez I thought the commentary was biased as always. The HT show was even worse. Instead of talking about the assessment of the first half they were bagging the samoan team the whole time. I guess I'm used to this sides commentary and HT assessment but geez I was close to putting my tv on mute lol
To be fair, I think the commentary was relevant to what was happening in the game. Did it have an English bias, sure, but it mirrored the chat on the thread, the Samoa team let themselves down for large parts of the first half and were frustrating. When they started to play a bit of Rugby and entertain, they did some good stuff and got the credit for that.
But it's no surprise that the half time analysis was down on Samoa imo.
-
3
-
-
Just now, Chrispmartha said:
Yes ooops
I thought that was a very bold schedule!
-
-
8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
Id go
1st test London (THS or Wembley)
2nd test Emirates
3rd Elland Road
I hate ER but I think it would sell out even if the series is already decided
London game after noon kick offs the other two 6pm all on Saturdays
Do you mean Etihad?
-
-
1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:
What about the 1992 WC final? I seem to recall that got around 73k at Wembley..
Yes, missed that one, it was 73k
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Hopie said:
And we beat them in front of 41,271 in the first game, optimism sells a lot of tickets.
This is one of those things we need to be careful of. The first game is often a cold start. That 41k for that World Cup opener was seen as a disaster at the time.
-
1
-
-
London has proven itself many times, particularly for games against the Aussies:
1990 - 54k (Wemb)
1994 - 57k (Wemb)
1995 - 41k and 66k (Wemb)
1997 - 41k (Wemb)
2000 - 34k (Twickenham)
2011 - 42k (Wemb)
2013 - 67k (Wemb v Kiwis)
2015 - 45k (Olymp v Kiwis)
2016 - 36k (Olymp)
2022 - 40k (Emirates v Samo)
We do need to be cautious of a couple of those attendances. Crowds don't just turn up. If I was a betting man, I'd say 40-45k is our level in London for a standard Test match - but if we get anything wrong (playing Sunday, poor stadium choice etc) then it can easily drop. On the flipside - get things right, and we can see that there is some huge potential. Having two finals that are around 65k and an international that is 50k plus would be really positive, and hopefully start to change the narrative.
-
3
-
IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Which ones?