Neil_Ormston

I found this thread whilst doing some work for the Record Keepers' Club on the international games this season. I thought this would be of interest: https://www.intrl.sport/news/why-sims-not-tests/ Well worth reading the full piece, as it's not too long, but in short, IRL's official term for a match played for world rankings points is "Recognised Senior International Match". At the RKC we use the shorthand "Full International" for this, as it's more commonly used and has historical relevance. The RKC worked with IRL in provided the summary linked above, and was part of IRL's History & Heritage Group who compiled the historic list of Full Internationals, which are used as IRL's official records; the RKC has also aligned to this list for all the international stats on our website. HTH.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the Huddersfield-Swinton Park score was 119-2. This is now corrected on the RKC website - apologies for the error here, and thanks to those that raised it on here. Whilst every league score on the website has been validated, there could be the odd typo on cup matches, which are a little bit harder to validate en masse. https://stats.rugbyleaguerecords.com/matchdetails.php?tselect=106617 Huddersfield scored 27 three-point tries & 19 two-point goals.

I’ve run some scenarios and by my reckoning Hull will be a grade B club in the final gradings unless they can either improve their on-field performances (they need to finish above Leigh and Cas at least), or secure c0.1 points elsewhere (I’ve not seen their detailed split, so don’t know how likely that is). So it might be that we only have 6 A grade clubs next year.

I used the methodology provided in response to a query in August about how ties are treated. Salford’s disclosure suggests either 1) I misinterpreted, 2) the info was wrong, 3) something has changed. I’m seeking confirmation, but it seems likely that it is as you suggest. Either method is valid, though I’d argue splitting the points for 2nd and 3rd is better (otherwise you’re increasing the total number of points awarded, and there’s an easy solution to avoid that). But I’m not really that bothered, other than it being my clear what the right method is. I’ll revert as and when (if) I get confirmation btw, I haven’t seen Wigan, Catalans or Wire publicly share anything; if anyone has, could you ping a link please, as this will help corroborate what Salford have shared? TIA

I have queried this, as my calcs were done based on the official explanation I was given. Salford and Wire are actually level on placings, and as I covered above, my understanding was this meant they would share the points for 6th and 7th; Salford seem to have been awarded the points for 6th, whilst Wire haven’t declared there’s publicly yet. Regardless, it’s not immediately obvious why this is the case, but as soon as I find out, I’ll share

Yes, I’ve just seen. Thanks @Spidey.

As per my response: posted by @RL_RKC, RT by me (search Neil Ormston, you should find it easily!) edit: someone posted on the previous page. Sorry, I’m playing catch up

Your edit is right re how it works. 3 season average position calculated; teams ranked in order. 1st get 4, 2nd gets 3.89, down to 35th getting 0.11. Of two teams are tied they share the points. So for example, Wigan and Catalans both average 3.33 over the past 3 seasons, they both therefore get 3.83, being the average of what 2nd and 3rd should get. Simples

I’m having some tech issues, but do have a bad photo of the list (league derived only, awaiting final ratification that I’ve done it right (!), and with a technical query of no consequence on Cornwall). Hopefully it’ll be attached here. If not, it’s posted on Twitter by RL_RKC, and I’ve retweeted it in my own name edit: it’s too big to attach here, so check Twitter out!

That’s not how it works. You take an average of positions for the 3 seasons: Bradford have been 17th, 21st and 16th, giving an average of 18. Ranked against all other teams this is the 17th best, which based on 35 teams gives them 2.1714 points (but looks like they’re working to 2 decimal places, so 2.17 )

I’ve just got around to updating my spreadsheet on this (that’s how I roll!). All scores I’ve seen quoted (Bradford, Cas and Hunslet) tally to what I have, so rest assured, these look Ok. Happy to check others for people. The RL Record Keepers’ will be running a live performance table next year so fans can easily see where their club is. More details to follow (once I’ve designed it ).

I organise the work of the RL Record Keepers' Club (https://stats.rugbyleaguerecords.com/), so it's fair to say, I'm a fan of stats! One of our members sent me this link, so I thought I'd chip in with my twopen'orth To answer the question in the OP: the root cause, as with most things, is money (or more specifically, lack of it). This results in detailed match stats not being widely available, or adequately analysed by media / broadcasters. To give a more complete overview of the landscape: there's a few companies out there who gather data for rugby - the best known is Opta, although ironically they don't actually run under that name anymore (they are now Stats Perform ("SP")); they are the market leader, and forerunner in this area. Rob Lowe, their founder, has since sold the company & I believe has set up a new organisation, and we may see more of them soon; equally IMG have their own data arm, so they may be a potential source in future. But in the UK SP have had pretty much a monopoly position, and barriers to entry are fairly high. SP provide data to the RFL/SL, but this is not a 'real time' deal which is more expensive, so info isn't available immediate. Those with a keen eye will have seen that RLWC2021 had a different agreement with SP and this info was available live across all 3 competitions. As a result, broadcasters don't have access to this info, so have to employ their own people if they want any of this sort of data - this is why you only get very limited in-game data for TV games (again, you need a team of a fair few people to record this properly live, and the money isn't there). Likewise, SL clubs employ their own analysts, and usually have 1 or 2 guys doing this, as it's a much cheaper option to do in-house - obviously this isn't publicly available. The SP data is good, and covers most, if not all, the info that people would want to see. However, there are then problems with public availability: the RFL / SL websites are poor, info doesn't appear in a timely fashion, there are problems with completeness, links don't work, etc - this is an issue with the websites I believe, rather than the underlying data itself; however, it essentially makes the data inaccessible. One other point to note: each club analyst, broadcaster & SP will use different methodologies to record their stats, so you can't compare between them! This can also mean you get different stats for the same game if covered by more than 1 source (e.g. you might see a player with a different number of tackles on Sky than in his SP data - if you can track it down!). FWIW, on behalf of the RKC I've offered to the RFL (or strictly speaking RL Commerical) that we could host the SP data for free on our website: we could easily present this alongside our existing data, and do some fairly basic rankings and analysis, and it would at least make it available for further interpretation. This would at least allow journalists to do more in-depth analysis, but this is a specialised area, and they may not have the expertise to do a huge amount more; as a voluntary organisation (focused on sharing a history of the sport back to 1895) the RKC wouldn't have the resource to do much more than be a conduit for the information. I live in hope that we might be able to play a role helping to share this data though; maybe if enough people contact RL Commercial requesting it, they might be more willing to discuss my offer further, as I am awaiting a response from them here. Regardless, I would hope that with IMG's involvement, and desire to drive fan engagement (especially with younger audiences, who have higher expectations here) we will see more development in this area soon.

The summer era stats are now freely available on the RKC website. Direct link here: https://stats.rugbyleaguerecords.com/

Toulouse are doing a 16 page programme (journal du match) given out for free at or around the ground. Leeds also do a digital programme for free-I don’t think they advertise the link, but it gets sent to season ticket holders, and anyone with the link can access the web page that hosts it (it’s the same platform that Wire are using).

At 13:00 on 2 April 2022 the Rugby League Record Keepers’ Club (RKC) will release a comprehensive record of the British game covering the entire summer era. In addition, full match and player details for the national teams of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and France will also be freely available to the public on their website www.rugbyleaguerecords.com. More details of the specific information included in the release will be made available prior to the launch, with further updates provided at www.rugbyleaguerecords.com, on the club’s Facebook page (search Rugby League Record Keepers’ Club) and Twitter account (@RL_RKC), or for any other queries contact neil.ormston@gmail.com.

Wakey are doing a monthly printed mag ‘The Trin’ again, available for £2.

I'm delighted with Wire's offering, and IMHO this is the perfect operating model, striking a compromise between cost management, availability, and crucially making a hard copy available to collectors. I've no idea if my constant badgering of them on this over the past 12 months worked or not, and TBH I don't care, as the end decision is one I can completely agree with! I'm not commercially naive or idealistic enough to think that it's 'right' in the modern day to print off hundreds of these, and be left with the wastage of what's unsold (or worse for the collector perhaps - missing out on one if they don't do enough! As happened to me at Leeds, where the guy in front of me got the last one at half-time, though I've been able to call in a favour to track one down since!). So I think this is the perfect solution: content available to read on the day / at the game, and for 'the kids' on your phone; subscription for the season available for home collectors; away collectors can still pick up a copy too. Long may it continue! Please support with clicks and more importantly purchases It means I'll be stopping The Unofficial Programme, which thankfully only lasted one season! But I am contributing to the official one this year (p23 of the latest edition), though anyone that knows me won't be surprised to hear I struggled with my 300 word count limit, so I'm hoping a sponsor drops out soon so I can negotiate a double page spread

I agree completely that when it comes to these matters, they are indeed subjective. I just found it incredibly hard to read your earlier response without it feeling like an exercise in reverse engineering. There are valid points in what you say, such that if certain circumstances were different, continuity would be suggested - but they're not. Your 'facts and figures' line made me chuckle. The irony as I see it, is that I'm putting forward a case based on the evidence available, incomplete as it is, whereas by your own admission you were "trying to keep [the] who, when, where out of it as much as possible" - surely not something any historian worth his salt would do? This is compounded by the decision to ignore the specific points / questions raised and walk away from the discussion (and worth noting that these points tend to focus on the behaviours of these involved, rather than 'facts and figures'!) Again, just my opinion of course, but it look like considering the information available (some of it relatively new) threatens the fixed position you've taken. I'm not saying you're obliged to change your view of course (!), but I do think it's a shame, whether you respect me or not, that for the benefit of others you won't address some of the key points that seem to undermine your argument. It could even persuade others in the '1879 camp' to reconsider their view; certainly I'd be prepared to do so if faced with a compelling argument or new information. The floor is yours if you want it...

A shame Padge, but as you wish. I rather expected such a reply. Rather than simply swallowing the club's 'official' line on this, the evidence is there for people to make their own judgement, and I hope that people do. For anyone interested in further reading, I'd advise a good look around the Early Wigan Rugby site I mentioned above (https://www.earlywiganrugby.co.uk/) which makes it all very accessible. I'd be surprised if anyone having reviewed this / done their own research concluded other than 1879 being Wigan's formation date, but I'd be interested in others' views, especially if there was new information available. It's important these things are discussed and debated.

Thanks Padge. I read your perspective with interest, and I must say, some puzzlement. I think it's a rather novel and possibly convenient approach to judge whether one entity constitutes the continuation of another by essentially trying to ignore the facts of the situation, and gloss over the available evidence. Other than allowing for broad generalisations, and therefore a conclusion that fits with a pre-determined narrative, I'm not sure of the merits of such an approach. That said, I'll comment on a few points in particular that I think undermine your conclusion... What makes you say that? Is there any suggestion of anything that might constitute a 'club' remained from the original entity? Whilst I agree to a point with your comment that a club "isn’t a tangible thing that has clearly defined parameters", there are obviously tangible aspects of any club, and I'm struggling to see what of these remained from the first WFC. Certainly there is no suggestion that any assets the club may have had were passed to Wasps, neither does there seem much, if any, continuity of members (the playing members constituting the majority at the time it would seem) or committeemen. It would be rather odd if an entity which saw itself as the continuation of an earlier club didn't even adopt the most obvious tangible aspects, such as name and colours, from the outset. The gap of nearly two years between games has to be taken into account. At the demise of the initial club there would still have been ample time to arrange things for the following season, yet nothing was put in place for 1878/79. It seems it took the enthusiasm of a new group of players / organisers to make the necessary arrangements to start a new club; there certainly didn't seem that appetite from those involved in the original outfit, who were conspicuous by their absence when Wasps were formed, which is understandable given the struggles of the earlier team - this isn't a slight, as the here today-gone tomorrow nature of clubs at this time is something anyone looking at this period will recognise. I think this is a simple mis-reading of history. In the vast majority of instances the first clubs formed in a particular town / city took the name of their locale. Swinton Hornets & Liverpool Wanderers adopted their monikers simply because Swinton FC & Liverpool FC already existed; Hornets were formed from a merger of three clubs, including the original Rochdale FC who were again the first football club in the town. This makes the adoption of Wasps all the more interesting, as Wigan FC was an available name; indeed, it only took 12 months before they dropped the Wasps. The parallels to Warrington here are strong, where Warrington Zingari , faced with almost identical circumstances to Wasps, saw fit to adopt an alternative name to draw a distinction from the original Warrington FC, only to drop Zingari after a season and secure the vacant town team name. All this suggests that the guys involved with Wasps didn't see themselves as a continuation of the earlier club. This isn't the approach the Record Keepers' Club has taken in judging continuity in the post-1895 era; rather we have considered the varied tangible and intangible factors of what constitutes a club, including, but not limited to name, location (ground/town), members / players / fans, committee / management / ownership, colours / branding, league membership, etc. Each case is unique and must be judged on its merits. It seems that the main premise of your argument is that in the absence of a club, any club being formed in the Wigan area (as you define) would be a continuation of the earlier incarnation. This seems a rather odd interpretation of continuity: one might say "The King is dead; long live the King". By any objective judgement of the evidence available it would seem that Wigan Wasps, founded 1879, were a new club from which the current Warriors came. Maybe most importantly, this seems to be a point on which all notable historians of Wigan RLFC agree.

Your maths is correct, and that statement it true. However, that Wigan club merged / was taken over by Upholland a few years later, then disbanded in 1877. The current Wigan club was formed as Wigan Wasps in 1879, changing their name to Wigan Football Club the following season. I understand that the club are aware of this, but are persisting with claiming this is their 150th year. It is not. To Waynebennetswinger's point above, I have been in touch with the club, but they have so far failed to respond. I'm sure most people aren't really bothered, but to me, it's a matter of important historical accuracy, and quite disrespectful that the most illustrious club in our sport has such disregard for their own heritage. Still, nice shirts

I like the new Wigan shirts, and think the ability to buy without the main sponsors logo is great (whatever the circumstances behind it). However, for the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure that everyone's aware that they are re-writing history by celebrating it early, 2022 is NOT Wigan's 150th year.

Cheers Padge, look forward to it. No need for anything OTT, I just thought from earlier comments you'd looked into this in order to arrive at your conclusion. In terms of factors indicating Wasps were a new club, of the top of my head I'd note: Two year break in play following cessation of operation by the original (1872) Wigan club* New name New colours New governance structure (no connection with the cricket club seen previously) Specific formation meeting(s) stemming from advertisements pertaining to a "new club" New committee Lack of continuity of players (I think only one played for the earlier club?) *I've ignored discussion on whether the 1876-77 team could be considered a continuation of the original club, post-merger with Upholland, as whilst it's interesting in itself, it's a moot point to the main question of 1872 or 1879 given the apparent lack of ambiguity noted above. Other than the use of Dicconson Arms as HQ & Folly Field for games, I'm not sure what points to any hint of continuity, but would appreciate your perspective.

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that a club consists of many things, a fact I had to address when drawing up criteria to consider continuity questions at a number of clubs as part of the Record Keepers' Club work I lead. Indeed, I discussed this criteria and its practical application to a number of cases with Tony as he was part of the sub-committee I formed to rule on these matters. I could have discussed Wigan when I was with him for the Forty20 Live recording last night, but am actually on a call with him and IRL at 8 tomorrow, so if I get chance I'll ask him then. All of that said, I still think there are factual inaccuracies in what you said earlier that "Towards the end of 1878/79 season they failed to finish their last few games due to the number of injuries. In September 1879 some of the players and officials decided to carry on with the new season". Certainly this is a contradiction to the excellent work Marc Selby's done on the website I shared. Of course, by definition these matters are subjective, principally because of the numerous factors constituting a club. That said, I actually think Wigan 1872 or 1879 is a pretty clear cut case, and on the 'spectrum of continuity' (something I've talked about at length elsewhere) isn't even in the ambiguous category. What are the factors that you are judging as evidence of continuity here? I'd be happy to list the factors indicating Wasps are a new entity if needed, but it would be great to hear what sits behind your earlier suggestion of continuity.

Hi Padge. Your reply seems to suggest that you think the current Wigan Warriors are a continuation of the club formed in 1872. I think it's pretty clear this isn't the case, and unless you have some different evidence to what I've seen, I don't think your summary of what happened towards the end of 1878/79 & the formation of Wasps is correct. This website (www.earlywiganrugby.co.uk) is excellent, and comprehensively covers the topic. Despite the odd slip up reference to being formed in 1872, it's clear that this club disbanded, and Wasps were a new club. The current Wigan club was formed in 1879, and I think it's extremely disappointing that the club, seemingly aware of this, continues to push its formation as 1872, which to me seems a re-writing of history.