Jump to content

The Great Dane

Coach
  • Posts

    1,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Great Dane

  1. They probably wouldn't, but then again nothing in PNG generates a great deal of money. If they were played in Australia on the other hand. . . Well who knows. Look I'm not necessarily saying it should happen, in fact because of the impact it'd have here in Australia I'd be pretty against it, but you can't deny that it might be a good way to get them a games more regularly against strong opposition (stronger than most test teams frankly) that might also be more commercially viable. Also an organised calendar will never happen unless the rest of the RLIF agree to let the NRL organise it, which will never happen.
  2. Anybody can pull good numbers for a one off or rare novelty event. Look at the Olympics, every four years everybody is suddenly a massive fan of track and field, gymnastics, dressage, shooting, etc, etc, etc, when a year earlier you couldn't have paid 99.999% of them to watch even 10 minutes of any of them.
  3. I'm not writing it off, I'm simply saying I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it is actually true. For all I know it could be true, but so far as I have seen there's little to no actual evidence to suggest that it is the case and a fair bit of evidence to suggest that it's not. Also we don't know that Richard Hinds is more informed than us, nor do we have any reason to believe that he is, and given his track record on any sport that isn't Aussie Rules I highly doubt that he is more informed than your average Joe. At this point I'm an old ###### man, and for at least the vast majority of my life, and possibly even all of it, soccer has had the highest participation rates of all the football codes in Australia, and possibly all other team sports as well. The only sport that might have pipped them is Cricket on occasion. My whole life Australian soccer has utterly failed to convert those massive amounts of participants into supporters, and on top of that they were failing to convert them into supporters long before supporting European leagues was accessible or trendy in this country. If all it took was time for those participants to suddenly start supporting teams then it would have happened by now, in fact it would have happened at least 30 to 40 years ago, so obviously it's a little more complex then simply persisting for an extended period of time. On top of that you have Basketball whom have had good participation rates since at least the late 60s or early 70s, and have been growing at a steady rate since then (and had boom periods in the 90s as well as recently). Yet despite those facts it has also utterly failed to convert those participates into supporters as well. So without looking at other counties (because I know for a fact that soccer has had a similar experience in all of the Anglosphere outside of the UK) we have the start of a pattern where sports with good, and in soccers' case the best, participation rates for decades now and that hasn't resulted in strong support for the local top competitions. Now it could turn out that there are other factors in play and that participation does have a big impact, but given the evidence to hand it really doesn't seem like it does it!?
  4. Kangaroos vs Kumuls games are at best a break-even proposition, and realistically make a loss more often than not. Maybe PNG vs the SOO teams would be a better commercial proposition, which would lead to them getting more games against better opposition.
  5. This is one of those things that I see repeated all the time but I’ve never seen any really hard evidence to suggest that it actually true.
  6. Yeah and every game a player plays was ‘a tough one’, every team a ‘threat’, every player ‘a good player’, etc, etc. It’s almost like the players get media training and always say what is expected of them and will look best in the media...
  7. PNG are mad for SOO, they’d probably love it if the Kumuls played against the Blues and Maroons. Not saying that I necessarily think it should happen, but who knows, if the business case was good maybe it’d be worth looking into.
  8. In RL sure, but again RL came after the formation of the commonwealth. In other sports, and in the Australian culture more broadly, not so much. You are massively oversimplifying the situation in Australia at that time, and now frankly, and I don't think you could do much more to devalue the international game in Australia than has already been done.
  9. Of course QLD didn't decry Inglis playing for QLD, he was on their team and wouldn't you know it's only ever a problem when the other guys do it lol. Look mate, you're just wrong about this one and I'm done arguing with you about it.
  10. I'm not sure, and I think it would depend on which colony we are talking about, but generally speaking there wasn't really the money in sports in Australia in that time period to go on what we'd call tours to other nations these days, and if there was it would have been a very rare and special thing. However, representative games between the colonies were definitely a thing (obviously not in RL because the Commonwealth of Australia had formed before RL was brought to Australia), how early on they started and how often they were played I don't know, but you have to keep in mind that holding a game between two of the colonies in Australia in 1800s would have been a much larger, and more expensive, undertaking than holding tests between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland during the same time period, which would have required the teams to sometimes take weeks off work simply for them to travel to and from the matches. For example, I highly doubt there were representative matches between e.g. WA and NSW very often, if at all, simply because of the distance and expense it would take to make them happen. I also think that whether or not the colonies played representative sports is totally redundant to the point I was making, and I think the fact that initially both the Wallabies and Kangaroos wore sky blue if they were playing Sydney, maroon if they were playing in Brisbane, and wore sky blue and maroon hoops if they were touring should tell you something.
  11. A lot of people from overseas seem to fail to understand that the thing that made SOO so successful was that it was an outlet for the real historic disdain that QLD and NSW have for each other. You take that away, you take away what made SOO what it is, and a sure fire way to take that away is if you add a bunch of people into mix whom don't really understand that history or disdain, which is what you'd be doing if you allow a bunch of people whom, whether we like it or not, aren't really Queenslanders or NSWelshmen to participate. SOO isn't a glorified All Stars match, and if you treat it as such it will die. I can see why you think that, but I fundamentally disagree. If we ever get to a point where SOO is incapable of picking most of the best players in the world then that will mean that RL growing out of SOO, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all as it'd mean that a lot more people from much more diverse groups, even just within Australia BTW, are watching and engaging with the sport to an extent where RL is truly larger than just NSW, QLD, and the redhead stepchild that is the ACT. It'd be RL becoming a national sport, which would only be a good a thing, and I think if that ever happens that you'd pretty quickly see internationals take more of the focus as SOO slowly became redundant. That's what happened when the AFL grew out of their SOO in the late 90s, but that's a story for a different time. I do however think that screwing up or sabotaging SOO before it's readily replaceable internationals, or other representative competition, would be a massive mistake, and that comes from a person who is proudly not from NSW or QLD and finds SOO to be an annoying distraction that ruins the NRL for a few months each season.
  12. Sure one or two at any one time didn't kill it, but the greater part of each team would, and if you are going to open it up to people that don't declare for Australia then why not let effectively anybody that has resided in NSW or QLD play as well? Making NSW and QLD residents teams again is the next logical progression of this line of thinking, to suggest it's not is rather silly frankly. By the way, many from within Australia and abroad (if anything more so from NZ in particular) would, and did, argue that your Uate's and Tamou's of the world had not had the time to truly become NSWelshmen, and were just mercenaries after the money. Not saying that I necessarily agree with that (I think it's too simplistic if you must know), but there are large groups of people whom do think that way.
  13. There's no interpretation needed, it's a fact, and we can't go about changing it until we accept that it is.
  14. Trust me it did. Plenty of people were genuinely furious, same is true of when Tamou and Uate played for NSW, or any number of NSW born "Queenslanders" and vice versa. Adrian Lam is the only one I can't remember causing a stink, don't know why, maybe nobody realised he was from PNG lol . Make SOO open to anybody and the controversy would eat it alive, especially if players fresh off the boat were lining up for either team.
  15. Yeah and with the exception of the ACT, NT, and some of Australia's other territories, each of the states were separate colonies, with separate cultures and identities, whom don't really get along more often than not, that came together to form one nation. I'm not saying that that means that NSW and Queensland should play in internationals, in fact I think that would probably be a very bad idea, but at the end of the day it's really not so different from the situation in the United Kingdom.
  16. Which would instantly turn SOO into a laughing stock and kill it dead. So maybe some of you guys should be applauding the moves V'landys is making.
  17. People go into establishments associated with Bikies (and other organised crime) without even realising it all the time. So it’s very harsh to condemn him for that. Also a bunch of players and officials have broken the covid protocols, frankly there seems to be a bit of confusion around what they can and can’t do at times, and he’s not really any more prone to trips to the judiciary then a lot of players, particularly in his position. I don’t think you have to worry about him going to SL anytime soon either...
  18. Frankly I think you are projecting English attitudes... The reality is that, as with all things to do with NZ, most Aussies would be totally apathetic to the Warriors winning a GF. Of the rest that did care enough to really take notice most would celebrate their success.
  19. Indigenous round is normally played during NAIDOC week (sort like a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander week), but because of covid NAIDOC week was moved this year until after the NRL's regular season, but normally that's why Indigenous round has to certain round. In the past people used to complain when clubs either didn't have indigenous jerseys or didn't wear their indigenous jerseys during Indigenous round, we won't go into peoples' reasons for demanding that the clubs be forced to have indigenous jersey (it's deeply political), but apparently it makes the NRL look "amateur" if the clubs don't wear their indigenous jerseys during indigenous round. So the NRL made indigenous jerseys mandatory and made it a rule that they have to be worn during Indigenous round.
  20. The jerseys were produced before the draw was changed because of covid, so they would have been designed to be worn against other teams, and to be fair jersey clashes during indigenous round were probably the furthest thing from the NRL's mind when they were redrafting the draw. The real problem with the indigenous jerseys are that they are mandatory and have to be worn during indigenous round, get rid of those two things and there's no issue.
  21. Rabbitohs were rabbit hunters, but the clubs’ colours were red and green from 1908 and the club didn’t pick up the Rabbitohs nick name until the depression, i.e. 25-30 years later. So yeah the bit about rabbitohs wearing green shirts then playing the game with blood on it and that being the inspiration for red and green colours is utter BS, and if you don’t believe me just look up their 1908 team photo. BTW, many of the clubs have real stories and meaning behind their choice of colours, so that’s not particularly unique either.
  22. @Copa @The Rocket, I could give a more comprehensive history of sport in Canberra, but I'm going to try to keep it detailed as necessary but as brief as possible. The first major group, and one of the biggest, to relocate to Canberra once it became a city were public servants from Melbourne, and obviously being from Melbourne they brought their culture with them. Particularly in the early years (20s-50s ish) that almost made Canberra like a colony of Victoria in NSW, and part of that was Aussie Rules being very popular and easily biggest sport in Canberra, however as soon as you crossed the border RL was king, and still is to this day. Aside from that you have a very strong private school culture in Canberra, and with that comes a strong RU culture, and after WWII a steady flow immigrants from Europe moved into the region, many of them to work on the Snowy Hydro dam, which gave soccer, which was already popular, a big boost. Jumping ahead to the 1970s (i.e. just before the Raiders) Aussie Rules was easily the biggest sport in Canberra it's self, followed by RU, but RU was only really big because of the private schools, take them away and it still would have been popular but nowhere near as big as it was/is, and RL and Soccer were just behind them (which was bigger is splitting hairs). However if you take the whole region into account, and not just Canberra, then RL was far and away the most popular sport. Basketball and the Canberra Cannons were the kings of Canberra in the 80s (I and many other people legitimately thought that it was going to takeover), but leaving that detour aside, the Raiders entered the NSWRL in 82, but that didn't really see an major change in the sporting landscape of Canberra until the late 80s and particularly through the 90s, starting in 87, when the Raiders made their first grand final, through to about 2000 when the golden era was over. RL exploded in Canberra through that time, it jumped straight to the most popular sport and peaked in popularity about 95-96, but since then it's always been one of the two most popular sports. For the sake of brevity I'm going to skip over the Brumbies and RU's boom in the early 00s and the AFL's continued forays in Canberra , but you should know that like the Cannons in the 80s those were an important time in the formation of Canberra's current sporting culture. So jumping to today; the suggestion that Rocket made that Aussie Rules had been driven out of Canberra is ridiculous, alongside RL Aussie Rules is one of the two biggest sports in Canberra by far. Which is the biggest of the two is hard to tell, I'd say that the perception that RL is bigger is only because it gets more exposure because of the Raiders, while Aussie Rules's fan base in Canberra is more split because they don't have a team to unify behind. Suffice it to say that if the AFL put a team in Canberra today it'd easily be as big as, if not bigger than, the Raiders, and the Raiders are going through a bit of a boom period because of their success in 2016 and last year. . . RU and soccer continue to follow behind, but again, which is bigger is hard to tell with any accuracy, and again you get a situation where RU gets more exposure than soccer because of the Brumbies, but if the A-league put a team in Canberra it'd be of similar size to the Brumbies overnight. But on top of that you have a situation where the Brumbies are suffering because RU is struggling in Australia in general, and I have no doubt that if the ARU could get it's together that the Brumbies would bounce back alongside it. Long story short, Canberra's is effectively on the front lines of a century old culture war between Melbourne and Sydney fighting to see which will inform the dominant culture of Australia, as such Canberra's sporting (and cultural) history is complicated compared to the rest of the country, and aside from in the early days of the city it's never been obvious which sport (or cultural influence) is dominant. Two things are for sure though, firstly currently Melbourne is winning that culture war, and secondly that RL should never get comfortable in their position in Canberra.
  23. People keep talking about a second NRL club in NZ, but the chances of it happening within the next couple of decades are slim to none. There’s two main hurdles in the way; firstly, nobody in NZ is standing up to own and operate it, and put simply, none of the markets in NZ are as valuable as the large markets in Australia (Bris, Perth, Adel, etc) the NRL still has room to grow into. So unless something unpredictable happens (like a Wolfpack situation), at the very least a second NZ club is probably fourth in line for an NRL license and chances are the by the time the NRL get around to them their will be legitimate demand for clubs in other places. Long story short, don’t hold your breath for a second NRL team in NZ anytime soon.
  24. I’m not saying it’s easy, nothing worth doing is, but it’s obviously possible otherwise RL never would have expanded outside of England.
  25. I understand all that, however RL's failure to have any significant growth outside of it's heartland in the UK is only the responsibility of the people in power of RL in the UK and not anybody else's. The same goes for RL in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter. Australian RL has almost completely failed to grow the sport in any significant way outside of NSW, QLD, and the ACT. It's our responsibility to grow the sport in Vic, WA, SA, TAS, NT, etc, not anybody else's, and excuse making and subtly trying to shift that responsibility onto other people is a large part of the reason why attempts at growth have failed.
×
×
  • Create New...