Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zylya

  1. It's play, not tackle, which I believe is basically a tap or a play-the-ball. So play 0 happens if there's no play - e.g. intercept, loose ball. Play 1 happens before tackle 1 - think this would include 0-tackle calls and taps (e.g. penalties, tap 20 etc) Play 2 happens before tackle 2. Play 6 happens after a 5 and last call, but before tackle 6. Not sure whether a caught kick would count as Play 0 or Play 1. This is just the data I have - I haven't seen any additional info so couldn't tell you exactly what it means.
  2. Pythago NRL got back to me with some data - not something that he's looked at before himself, but had these stats from 2016 & 2017 NRL: Play # Tries 0 97 1 303 2 188 3 474 4 557 5 611 6 615 That's play number, rather than tackle number - so 0 refers to things like intercepts, loose balls scooped up as well (I believe) as 0 tackles. 6 would be after a 5-and-last call. Obviously this all pre-dates 6 again which may skew the results. Interesting that Tackle 2 is significantly lower than both 1 and 3 - I wonder if there's an element of people treating tackle 2 as a "safety" play and having a lot more hit-up style plays. No data within this of how many are kick vs pass.
  3. With all the stuff coming out around a community membership scheme, I imagine the reason that TTRL will stay as-is will be the franchising model. Obviously if tag remains entirely self funding (and profitable for franchisees of course) then it will continue to grow.
  4. Great question, would probably do it in categories - obviously player behaviour changes over the course of a set, likely based on tackles remaining rather than specifically what number (e.g. when I played our wingers would drop on 4th).
  5. I don't like it, for a number of reasons: I think, politically, it's a great way to turn people against you Making the community game more expensive could have an adverse effect if it starts to impact on player/volunteer numbers Some of the benefits are questionable - although insurance is fine, my question would be how that works. Since it's public liability insurance, I don't see how it can be applied to an individual. Would there be a minimum number of people paying before your insurance kicks in? I don't see how individual participants can confer a club benefit. It doesn't seem to suggest that a person gets their own health/loss of earnings cover for injuries sustained through Rugby League, making it zero benefit to a participant (and therefore a harder sell). At £30 per person, which I assume would include volunteers (although it doesn't specify either way, possibly because it'd be too unpalatable as part of their announcement), you're not really getting a lot for your money. Insurance for your club (not for yourself), discount on match tickets/merchandise - what match tickets? What merchandise? As someone outside the heartlands, realistically, is this discount going to give me any benefit at all? Also, discounts aren't a benefit unless I'm already going to purchase those products. Free DBS checks for coaches, fine, but that's the sort of thing most clubs would pay for already, I imagine. Also also, discounts are snide because you know they're going to offer a discount for Challenge Cup final etc and other things that they can't even sell out right now. Not specifically linked to this programme, but the RFL coaching courses are already higher priced than several other sports at the entry level - now you're asking coaches to pay an extra £30 per year to volunteer. Madness. Lots of vagueness around the method to ensure that participants who can't afford it don't have to pay. How are you going to deal with that on a national level? Far easier to let it be dealt with more locally. Also lots of vagueness around which other sports have membership systems - I'm heavily involved in a Rugby Union club and there's no participant fee, although clubs do pay an affiliation fee to the RFU and to their CB (constituent body, essentially the counties who have responsibility of running the sport at the amateur level within their counties). Based on their survey, where there's no option to say "this isn't a good idea" but instead can only choose from their pre-approved options, it seems like they're pressing ahead with this, come what may. I now get why they're so keen for every volunteer to be registered on their system! I also think it's a horrendously lazy way out - 'the community game is already a lifeblood so why not pump it for more money?!' What the RFL SHOULD be doing is: Hosting regular England internationals and trying to generate revenue streams. No need for a discount on these tickets - PEOPLE WANT TO WATCH THEIR NATIONAL TEAM and they're happy to pay for the privilege. If there has to be a fee per participant, it should be a lot cheaper and paid VIA THE CLUBS. People don't like having to pay a second time for things (look at how people would rather pay £25 for a product with free shipping than pay £20 + £5 shipping) - so you're making it harder for both club AND RFL to collect money. A participant fee of around £5-10 (even £10 is pushing it) per player for a season, paid via the clubs out of their subs money would work better. Clubs could then choose, if they wanted, to pass on the cost to their members, or could choose to pay it some other way. Actually coming up with a long-term vision for the community game. At the moment it's "pay us and we'll come up with a vision." There should be a vision already in place! Also, a vision doesn't have to include the need for lots of money - just an idea of the direction of travel. For example, if I wanted to start a new club - what resources are there for me? What information is out there? If the vision is or includes, for example, to grow the women's and girls' game - are there coaching cards for people who haven't coached much before so they're doing games that new players will enjoy? Is there a page on their website about creating a good environment? I can tell you, as someone who has been setting up a new club, that most of this stuff just doesn't exist. Come up with a "How to Start a New Club" pack - taking lots of good examples from clubs who have done just that and every person who wants to start a club has an easier time of it. FWIW, the guy at the RFL I worked with was great and had lots of good information for me - but I shouldn't have to send 3/4 emails to find the right guy and then go through that process one-to-one. It's so time inefficient. There should be a ton of resources on the website about how to get yourself set up, how to recruit players at different levels, how to market yourself as a club etc etc. I've actually had to stop here so I can go to work, but I'm sure I'll have more thoughts. The RFL talk about a consultation with the game that led them to this decision, but I can't see how they could have consulted with anyone outside their own organisation. It's actually baffling - their overarching goal must be to grow the game right? This decision looks like it's got a better chance of shrinking it.
  6. Thanks all - I tried emailing the guy at NRL Pythago to see if he had any data on this but didn't hear back. I think I'm going to have to watch some games and start counting myself if I want this info...
  7. Didn't Newcastle get promoted from League 1? Why would they have gone to the Super League?
  8. Yes - agree with all of that, and I've been following your posts (I think it was you who wrote about a schools programme that focused on the teacher CPD opportunities rather than just delivering sessions) to help with some of the stuff I'm trying to do myself, as well as trying to read & follow what clubs are doing well. You're right - almost every new club was founded by volunteers and I know, more than most, just how important they are to the growth of the sport. My point was more that if we wait for volunteers to take up the mantle, then the game may grow in a haphazard fashion. As I'm sure you've come across in your own experience - it's much easier to get things going when there are several clubs starting at the same time, as Coventry are doing so well with these satellite clubs, because you can play against each other. If we rely on volunteers, then clubs may pop up in all sorts of areas, with no real focus - not that these clubs can't survive and thrive, just that it'd be easier if 6 new Midlands clubs were all getting started at the start time, as an example. I also think that sharing of best practice is a key driver - so that club leaders can learn off of each other. None of these are absolutely essential, but I think they'd go a long way towards improving the chances of any/all of these new clubs surviving.
  9. Not saying you're wrong, but unless there's some "development framework" applied then leaving it up to volunteers is basically gambling as to whether it happens or not. I don't believe any league administrators (in any sport for the record... not just a rugby league thing) aren't interested in growing the game. But organising the fixtures and helping teams to grow are two different skillsets and not necessarily transferable.If there was a proper set of guidelines created by an NGB or regional GB then it might be more achievable. But for that to happen, the RFL would have to have a plan for what they want for the game - and that's the bit that's missing. I look at the RFU's Inner Warrior campaign for getting more female players into the game vs the RFL's 21 by 21 programme and the difference is stark. The former has a lot of shared assets for clubs to use, encourages clubs to sign up to host events (so the volunteers do the bulk of the work) and the RFU helps them promote through their channels (map of events etc). The 21 by 21 (21,000 women and girls in England RL by 2021 if you're unfamiliar with it) is just an aim. Until you create some guidelines and branding around your plans, you're relying on people taking the initiative, which is very hard to do. What Coventry have done is incredible and shows amazing vision - but that vision should really be coming from the top. If the RFL had a "whole game plan" along with various campaigns that made it easier for volunteers to spin up their own growth initiatives, you'd see faster growth in those targeted areas (targeted could be geographical or format of the game).
  10. Me too. I don't play the lottery, so it's an academic discussion, but if I won, say, £10 million then I'd try and create 8 community clubs in my home county and have a genuine RL structure - men's/women's/junior/X-League/touch/tag etc. I'd put some of the money aside as a funding source for clubs who want to do new projects and award cash for initiatives to grow the game (e.g. club needs £1000 to start a girls team or wants £2000 to take their juniors on tour). I'd also invest in a personal development programme for coaches, referees and volunteers so that all the people involved in RL had the best chance of making themselves and their clubs a success. If I won enough, I'd also try and invest in a 3g pitch somewhere with decent facilities to have a "home base" for things like club & school finals days etc and to make sure there was somewhere for players to train in a good environment. Probably also make some of that funding available to new countries that wanted to start up as well, because I think developing the international game is really important. If a team managed to get themselves semi-pro or pro, that would be cool, but not the aim of the project. I would just try and get a load of people playing and enjoying Rugby League. Maybe name the trophy after myself but that would be it.
  11. Boring as in it doesn't give you flashy headlines, or interesting soundbites. Obviously there's a deep personal reward for people involved on the ground, but a slow increase in number of players doesn't make for an interesting story. Of course, once you start to aggregate your gains, you end up with a situation like Newcastle, where they're now sitting on an excellent community programme and suddenly it is an interesting story. Boring as in it doesn't generate forum discussion. People are generally conditioned to look for magic bullet solutions - the kind of "if we just did this, then we'd have everything we need" when the reality is it's a long term application of small efforts. You're right though - it's not boring for the people involved!
  12. Real development is absolutely "boring", small marginal gains type work. Sometimes you'll get lucky and hit a perfect storm of factors - e.g. if Scotland do well in the 2021 RLWC then there'll be a corresponding jump in interest in community RL in the country. But for the most part, it's a case of showing up every week, providing quality experiences for players and trying to create something meaningful.
  13. Does anyone know if the data exist for tries scored by tackle number - either SL or NRL and any amount of seasons etc. Interested to see where the majority of tries are scored in a set, but a Google search hasn't given me much.
  14. Yeah, it's interesting, I've got a mate who is trialling for one of the England touch teams (over 35s I think?). For a lot of players where I am, touch is a Union thing for Union players but if you're in a League session and you say "let's play touch" people will naturally do League things (PTB, retreat on touch etc). For Union, although they roll the ball (although everyone calls it a chicken scratch) there's no retreat on a tackle mirroring the back foot rules of Union. So I think that this idea that people naturally associate Touch with either code just depends on your existing bias - if you're a League person, you'll see it as a non-contact version of League and same if you're a Union person, the same thing. And the players who play Touch under England Touch rules see themselves as very separate to either - they're trying to get people to recognise their sport as its own thing. There's a lot of benefits to having a social touch thing - both the local Rugby Union and Rugby League club are now running "social touch" which are a weird conglomeration of various rules (and another Union club locally has just started advertising to do the same), mostly played for a social outlet and a bit of fitness between older lads. As someone who coaches at both clubs, what's interesting for me is that there are generally more people at Touch sessions than at 1st team sessions. So it seems to me like the best thing for clubs to do, especially community clubs, is to run their own touch sessions - especially if it's attracting players who are too old for full contact RL any more. Not only are they engaging with the club, but they're of an age where they might become volunteers or own their own business/know someone who does, and therefore could become a sponsor. I think it's difficult/impossible to gain any real traction just by saying "ok it's Touch RL now." Even if you slap RFL branding on everything and use the word League over and over again. I think clubs have to build their own Touch/TTRL offers into their regular activities and get people engaged. A good example would be how active Cov Bears are in the Warwickshire TTRL. Especially for clubs outside the traditional Heartland areas, having non-contact versions is a good way to get people involved from a broader sphere than your contact players. Perhaps we have to broaden our definition of what counts as a "player" but also be aware of the opportunities to transition someone from touch player to contact player or to a different role within the club: volunteer, sponsor, supporter etc. Perhaps something that professional clubs could run in association with their local grassroots clubs - players could then transition into volunteer and playing roles with the grassroots clubs, and supporters for the pro club.
  15. Absolutely - I almost certainly wouldn't have been good enough as a player, but definitely would've rocked up for the tryouts if I lived on the West Cost in my 20s before family/job etc. Accommodation paid for plus a bonus $5k-10k (even more if you're one of the top players) for a season that looks like May through til August/September sounds like a great summer. Even if you didn't make much money, would still be an awesome experience.
  16. The initial argument was that France made more sense because in the English leagues they'd have to fly and the associated cost... if they're flying to France, why not fly to England?
  17. It's a 6 hour drive to Perpignan and a 7 hour drive to Toulouse. The longets journey in Elite 1 would be Avingnon at just under 8:30. In Elite 2, the longest journey would be Lyon at 12 hours but would also feature a drive to Toulon at 10 hours. To get from Valencia to the French border is around 5 and half hours drive - I assume a little slower on a coach and worse if there's traffic. That means, at best, you're looking at 6 hour drives to games - it'd be like having Newcastle and Newquay in the same league. 8 hour coach ride also means that you're either leaving at around 5am to arrive around 1pm for a 2:30 kickoff and assuming you get on the road at 5pm (leaving very little time to finish the game and get some food) you'll be getting home at 1am. If you stayed overnight, your costs would rise. I'm not saying that you're wrong that it might be trying to attract UK fans to travel and that it might not be sustainable - I don't personally think the RFL structure is the right decision long term for Spanish clubs (a proper Spanish domestic scene would be the best thing in my mind) but at the moment there's no good competition for them to be in. If they go semi-pro and the rest of the Spanish clubs in the domestic comp they're forming now stay amateur then there's no competition. If they go to France, there's a huge travel burden for not much return. As strange as it sounds, the RFL system isn't strictly worse than their other options, and has the upside of the chance to play in comps like the Challenge Cup and, if they do well and invest right, the Championship and Super League. I think it highlights just how much work is needed to develop RL on the continent - apart from a few small pockets, there's no infrastructure to allow clubs to grow in other countries.
  18. Which appropriate competition do you suggest they join?
  19. The game in Manchester was against Uruguay, which they won 60-3 and this came about after England had already been knocked out in the group stages of their home World Cup. This was 6 years ago now with no real follow up - no England games played in the North. After the 2003 World Cup in Union, my local rugby club had a ton of new youth players - I think it increased number of players by around 1/3. I have seen from experience and therefore believe that an England RLWC win will do a huge amount of the game at the community level and will increase the interest in the game. However, it will be down to the various clubs to capitalise on that interest if it happens. I don't think anyone has yet reached the naivety where they're suggesting that an England World Cup win is going to create a Super League franchise in Manchester like you're suggesting here. However, it will definitely cause an uptick in interest if they win the competition. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a 20-30% increase in community players in the 2 years after the RLWC if England win. Figures like doubling or trebling are somewhat misguided. Circling back to my first paragraph - what's interesting is that England RU played one (throwaway) match in Manchester and that's considered "shooting their bolt." It's a similar mindset for RL these days - do one thing and hope for the best. The truth is that interest isn't created with a singular one-off, but by constantly reaffirming and building on initial successes. Newcastle remains a good example - the success isn't down to the money invested, or Magic weekend, or their excellent community programme. It's a combination of all of those things, done consistently over a relatively long period of time. If Manchester is/was a strategic target, then hosting the Grand Final isn't enough, in my opinion. You need lots of additional development and marketing work to grow the whole game there.
  20. I think RL's best chance of getting into the Olympics would be through Wheelchair RL in the Paralympics. I watched a handful of games to see what it was like ahead of the World Cup and it was actually pretty enjoyable. It helped that the rules made it somewhat recognisable to the 13-a-side version (although this wouldn't be a concern for the Olympic Committee - just my own personal enjoyment). If you're thinking path of least resistance, that's where I would be focusing. The fact that it is similar to the other versions of the sport would mean that countries who invested into Wheelchair RL for Paralympics reasons might also decide to invest in 13-a-side men's and women's for the trio of World Cups. I just don't see it being an easy sell to get it into the Olympics in the 9s format when they already have Union 7s in there. I know they mentioned as a demonstration sport which would increase the chances, but that'd just be a one-off.
  21. To do the professional side of it would cost a lot of money. Recreating some of the grassroots stuff they've done wouldn't cost anywhere near as much - that would be more about assessing the demand, generating some interest and setting up with a long-term structure in mind (e.g. you need 4-6 junior clubs to run a local league etc). I also think that if "the game" (I use the term loosely, it could be RFL-driven or just randomly pop up based on keen volunteers) developed more areas in this way, we'd see longer-term growth in the pro game as well - it would hopefully generate new supporters as well as players.
  22. Yeah, agree on this - would be good to see a charge down not reset the tackle count.
  23. I chose West Wales emotionally in the hope that they get a moral victory. The truth is that Widnes should be too good for them. It's the only game I'm interested in for this round because of Chase and Henson though so will be cheering on West Wales.
  24. Was looking at BBC sport earlier and Big Gav is in 3 of the top 5 RL stories. It's funny how a lot of people have said that they'd love to see more "names" in the sport - people who achieve wider recognition outside of the regular fanbase. You've now got someone who's brought interest to a bottom-of-the-table League 1 side, and yet some people are upset because... increased interest in the sport is a bad thing? Gavin Henson is not the right sort of person for rugby league traditionalists? I don't get it. When was the last time you saw BBC Sport writing about League 1 sides? It even got mentioned at half-time in the Wales vs France Six Nations game! I for one hope that Henson goes well and that his half-back pairing with Chase brings some success for West Wales. Even if Henson doesn't end up being a great league player, he's played at the highest level in union and that level of professionalism will help the other West Wales lads. Since becoming West Wales Raiders, they've won 1 league game out of 48... I sometimes wonder if people actually like this sport and want it to do well. I honestly can't see how anyone could see someone high profile saying something positive about the sport and think "well that's bad news."
  • Create New...