Super League finals crowds are dire, especially compared to NRL

[CGD]

If you can't contribute to a discussion, then try to stay out of it.

[Lobbygobbler]

Perhaps it is more sense to look at cumulative crowds rather than averages at least when comparing a 12team SL to a 14 team SL. Cannot compare SL with NRL due to the reasons already discussed. I would go as far to say that NRL crowds are actually #### if you add in the fact that it is the no. 1 sport.

SL crowd averages are poor perhaps because of the lack of P&R and more meaningless games for the bottom 3-6?

[Hannibal]

Great contribution mate.

Well done, and thanks.

[Hannibal]

SL crowd averages are poor perhaps because of the lack of P&R and more meaningless games for the bottom 3-6?

Oh my God.

For the sake of your own sanity, why don't you change the record?

[boxhead]

Ditto

Edited September 19, 2010 by AndyCapp

[Hannibal]

Ditto

Another magnificent contribution. You should be proud.

[my missus]

no way has aus rugby been better than super league the number of blow out games in aus has been ridiculous this season teams have been putting 40 and 50 on their opponets regularly, also defenses don't seem as solid there have been a lot of high scoring games.

[Allan Marsden]

no way has aus rugby been better than super league the number of blow out games in aus has been ridiculous this season teams have been putting 40 and 50 on their opponets regularly, also defenses don't seem as solid there have been a lot of high scoring games.

I have watched every game in the NRL in 2010 and wevery televised game of SL + Wigan games. Sorry but the standard is far higher in the NRL. I hate the fact it is but I refuse to pretend it is not. However, the bigger gulf is at schoolboy and Toyota/Academy level.

[Hannibal]

Great, so now have the answer why crowds are so much better.

The NRL is just awesome, and SL is just plain sh!te.

Can we now move on? Discussion about the NRL should be on the correct forum.

[Allan Marsden]

And you would know all about that after 168 posts?

Your attempts to be controversial come across as inane and puerile.

How on Earth do the demographics favour us? Do you even know what it means?

If you can't contribute to a discussion, then try to stay out of it.

I am educated to Postgraduate standard in Geography. Hence I think I understand demographics be it from the various uses and even demography.

Given the biggest % of Australian residents from overseas were born in the UK and that many Australians come from UK parents and that Australia does not benefit from the superior athletic genes of an Afro-Carribean population like the UK then I would argue that even taking into account other demographics then Australia has no advantage, some may say a disadvantage. You then look bluntly at 22 million v nearly 70 million aprox and even if we had a disadvantage demographically then we should still on sheer number overcome it. Do not use the ah but we have soccer argument because as a self confessed demographics expert Mr Hannibal (very stupid name BTW) a growing number of Australians come from footballing countries and Australia does well at many sports. Likewise demographics does not explain why Australia has been more successful than the U.K re tennis.

Personally, I think demographics is a poor excuse for failure. I mean in 1958 or 1962 the demographics of our players was far worse than it is now but the players / the country was the world leader in RL. Maybe the personal qualities of the population/players and coaching was better then in the UK then whereas now it is better in Australia.

Hey though what do I know compared to the great Hannibal.

I have been a member since 2006. I prefer quality over output whereas you clearly do not.

[Maximus Decimus]

They are two very different competitions.

The reality is that we do extremely well to get the numbers through the gates that we do, especially in comparison to the NRL. However as somebody has pointed out they do a relatively poor job.

The biggest difference between the two is season tickets and the NRL are only starting to wake up to this. Often in SL season tickets can make up to 2/3rds of the attendance. I'd be surprised if it was 1/3 in Australia and in some cases a lot less. As a result attendances fluctuate a great deal between big games and small games. South Sydney can get less than 10,000 but more than 30,000 for games. Compare this to Wigan who fluctuate between 12,000 and 20,000 or Wire who fluctuate between 8-14,000.

The NRL has a lot more floating fans and they have a history of attending the big games rather than going to all games. Take the NRL grand final, in Sydney a city of 3million people, 1 million might watch it on FTA TV. In the UK around the same number will watch the Challenge Cup final in a country of 65m people.

So when finals comes around more of these latent fans are likely to get on the bandwagon and go when they don't usually, whereas in the UK, a large number of our fans are ST holders who are being asked to pay for games that they have usually already paid for.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

The NRL has a lot more floating fans and they have a history of attending the big games rather than going to all games. Take the NRL grand final, in Sydney a city of 3million people, 1 million might watch it on FTA TV. In the UK around the same number will watch the Challenge Cup final in a country of 65m people.

Agreed, Fan Loyalty in the UK is greater than that in Australia where many consider themselves to be League Fans and will go to watch whoever is winning, which is not hard in a geographically compact place like Sydney.

By contrast, I think you will struggle in this country to find fans who have swopped allegiances between say St Helens, Wigan and Warrington. Granted most of us do favour a "second" team but that does not extend to much more than infrequent attendance and watching them on TV. By and large in the northern hemisphere you support a team and stick with them through thick and thin (or in my case thin and postively anorexic).

[Marty Funkhouser]

Sorry mate, but I don't see it that way.

Different races of people, different competitions, different upbringings, different motivations, etc, etc, etc.

You might as well compare it to attendances in the Stanley Cup competition.

Of course but the point re regular season v play off matches is surely worthy of investigation...

Why do Rugby League fans in Australia flock to play off games, whereas here more would watch a match with sometimes absolutely nothing at stake...??

[Maximus Decimus]

I have been a member since 2006. I prefer quality over output whereas you clearly do not.

Quality over quantity and yet you're suggesting we have an advantage over the Aussies? They have something like 4 times more registered RL players than we do.

[Hannibal]

I am educated to Postgraduate standard in Geography. Hence I think I understand demographics be it from the various uses and even demography.

Given the biggest % of Australian residents from overseas were born in the UK and that many Australians come from UK parents and that Australia does not benefit from the superior athletic genes of an Afro-Carribean population like the UK then I would argue that even taking into account other demographics then Australia has no advantage, some may say a disadvantage. You then look bluntly at 22 million v nearly 70 million aprox and even if we had a disadvantage demographically then we should still on sheer number overcome it. Do not use the ah but we have soccer argument because as a self confessed demographics expert Mr Hannibal (very stupid name BTW) a growing number of Australians come from footballing countries and Australia does well at many sports. Likewise demographics does not explain why Australia has been more successful than the U.K re tennis.

Personally, I think demographics is a poor excuse for failure. I mean in 1958 or 1962 the demographics of our players was far worse than it is now but the players / the country was the world leader in RL. Maybe the personal qualities of the population/players and coaching was better then in the UK then whereas now it is better in Australia.

Hey though what do I know compared to the great Hannibal.

I have been a member since 2006. I prefer quality over output whereas you clearly do not.

Demographics is not the direct comparison of the total of one population over another.

Surely, as such a learned person, you should know that.

[Maximus Decimus]

Of course but the point re regular season v play off matches is surely worthy of investigation...

Why do Rugby League fans in Australia flock to play off games, whereas here more would watch a match with sometimes absolutely nothing at stake...??

There's far more of them but they attend games less often. I've already explained the season ticket difference.

Take this for example, Wests Tigers averaged 19,000 this year with approximately 4,500 ST holders. Wigan however averaged 15,700 yet have something like 10,000 ST holders.

Therefore we have far more regular fans attending games through season tickets. We are comparing ourselves with the NRL when the reality is that the NRL does poorly for it's size. They get barely double what we do despite much higher viewing figures and exposure. The AFL shows what crowds they should be getting. They tend to have a walk up culture where fans pick and choose the games. This inevitably means that come the finals time they are more likely to attend.

[Allan Marsden]

Quality over quantity and yet you're suggesting we have an advantage over the Aussies? They have something like 4 times more registered RL players than we do.

You are actually qualifying and supporting my POV Maximus. Quantity should produce more potential players but quality of development and subsequent standards is far more important and can overcome disadvantages.

We have the demographic advantage. In terms of market appeal we have far less. However, the Australians have fostered a winning mentality, a greater drive towards participation and the coaching / competition thereby provided is far better. They have made more from a position of disadvantage. Perhaps if people stop trying to pretend we are this great nation and that there are farcical so called reasons like demographics then we would move forward internationally. Unfortunately, our culture is detrimental to sporting success. It wasn't in the past and the Australians learnt about modern RL from ourselves, advanced it, took knowledge from elsewhere, the USA etc and got better and better. In 1982, so called respected figures were trotted out to say ah but ah but they are only fitter, we are proper RL players with more skill (Ironic you still get some British fans that believe that) We actually started to close the gap between 1986 - 1992 but thwe great British trait of envy and jealousy resulted in this overwhelming and ridiculous shout for equality and the gap now is greater than then and will widen unless more British players play in the NRL.

In terms of attendances. Every game is televised in Australia, some on terrestrial TV so we cannot blame TV. Maybe TV helps or should help promote a sport. Some Australia games have teams far further geographically apart than we encounter so we cannot say ah but disance etc. Maybe the simple truth is RL is high profile in Australia compared to Britain and that Australia develop sportsmen / women far better than Britain to the point the profile of the sport becomes less important. We are a low profile sport in a country that poorly develops sportsmen and women IMO.

[Hannibal]

You are actually qualifying and supporting my POV Maximus. Quantity should produce more potential players but quality of development and subsequent standards is far more important and can overcome disadvantages.

We have the demographic advantage. In terms of market appeal we have far less. However, the Australians have fostered a winning mentality, a greater drive towards participation and the coaching / competition thereby provided is far better. They have made more from a position of disadvantage. Perhaps if people stop trying to pretend we are this great nation and that there are farcical so called reasons like demographics then we would move forward internationally. Unfortunately, our culture is detrimental to sporting success. It wasn't in the past and the Australians learnt about modern RL from ourselves, advanced it, took knowledge from elsewhere, the USA etc and got better and better. In 1982, so called respected figures were trotted out to say ah but ah but they are only fitter, we are proper RL players with more skill (Ironic you still get some British fans that believe that) We actually started to close the gap between 1986 - 1992 but thwe great British trait of envy and jealousy resulted in this overwhelming and ridiculous shout for equality and the gap now is greater than then and will widen unless more British players play in the NRL.

In terms of attendances. Every game is televised in Australia, some on terrestrial TV so we cannot blame TV. Maybe TV helps or should help promote a sport. Some Australia games have teams far further geographically apart than we encounter so we cannot say ah but disance etc. Maybe the simple truth is RL is high profile in Australia compared to Britain and that Australia develop sportsmen / women far better than Britain to the point the profile of the sport becomes less important. We are a low profile sport in a country that poorly develops sportsmen and women IMO.

And you still don't know how to use the term demographic.

It is not purely a study of how big a country's population is.

Anyway, it's still a daft argument. Two different countries 10000 miles apart with totally different motivations.

No comparison whatsoever.

[Allan Marsden]

And you still don't know how to use the term demographic.

It is not purely a study of how big a country's population is.

Anyway, it's still a daft argument. Two different countries 10000 miles apart with totally different motivations.

No comparison whatsoever.

Nobody has said it was or is apart from you Hannibal. I think you need to think before you type and stop trying to cash cheques you cannot afford.

If there was no comparison because the 2 countries are so far apart then why did you try to make one but more importantly why did Australians start coming across the globe to learn about RL and take back what they learned in the late 50's and 60's. The international transfer ban was and ignorance always is the biggest hinderance to RL development wherever it may be.

[thirteenthman]

Comparing attendances between England and Australia is pointless owing to the different standing of the game in each country. Then there's the fact that the play-offs in this country are a relatively new invention. Actually a re-invention, but the majority of current fans won't remember play-offs (pre-1973) from the first time round. Should they be included in season tickets? No, because the RFL and the clubs should be working hard to push the fact that these are the most important games of the season.

All the clubs seem to spend a lot of time pushing their season tickets, which is understandable. But they really should be trying to attract the 'casual' fan much more than they do. For example, Wigan picked out the game against Warrington for a big marketing campaign and rightly got a big crowd. But did they do something similar for the play-off matches? Focusing on season tickets is fine if all your home matches are included, but when they're not it can work against you.

[Chairman M]

Garbage,people will willingly pay

[ParisSurtout]

Wouldn't it have been better -- from a crowd size point of view, and fairness -- to follow the example of the NRL and hold both the SL preliminary finals (next weekend's games) at larger, prestigious "regional" grounds, which are in the region of the "home" team but not its home ground?

This kind of ground choice would do two things: (1) it would make the event more prestigious and thus attract more "neutrals"(2) it would make the ground less intimidating for away supporters and thus attract more of these.

In the NRL the Gold Coast Titans vs Sydney Roosters is being played at Suncorp Stadium (capacity 52,500), which is the regional headquarters of rugby league in Queensland (thereby giving Titans an advantage, while not giving them their own home ground). St George Illawarra vs West Tigers is being played at Sydney's ANZ Stadium (capacity 85,500) which is regional headquarters for NSW where "home" side St George is located, but not a home ground of St. George. By these choices the NRL is saying that these matches are very prestigious and can cope with very large crowds.

The English equivalent would be to hold Leeds vs Wigan at Elland Road and St Helens vs Huddersfield at Reebok Stadium, Bolton. They would not sell out, but I suspect that they would get a lot more fans than will go to either Knowsley Road's dreadful stadium (how many dozen neutrals would be motivated to go there?) or to Headingley.

Edited September 20, 2010 by ParisSurtout

[Wendall]

Wouldn't it have been better -- from a crowd size point of view, and fairness -- to follow the example of the NRL and hold both the SL preliminary finals (next weekend's games) at larger, prestigious "regional" grounds, which are in the region of the "home" team but not its home ground?

This kind of ground choice would do two things: (1) it would make the event more prestigious and thus attract more "neutrals"(2) it would make the ground less intimidating for away supporters and thus attract more of these.

In the NRL the Gold Coast Titans vs Sydney Roosters is being played at Suncorp Stadium (capacity 52,500), which is the regional headquarters of rugby league in Queensland (thereby giving Titans an advantage, while not giving them their own home ground). St George Illawarra vs West Tigers is being played at Sydney's ANZ Stadium (capacity 85,500) which is regional headquarters for NSW where "home" side St George is located, but not a home ground of St. George. By these choices the NRL is saying that these matches are very prestigious and can cope with very large crowds.

The English equivalent would be to hold Leeds vs Wigan at Elland Road and St Helens vs Huddersfield at Reebok Stadium, Bolton. They would not sell out, but I suspect that they would get a lot more fans than will go to either Knowsley Road's dreadful stadium (how many dozen neutrals would be motivated to go there?) or to Headingley.

I agree we need a big shake up of the play offs to me as a fan who goes to all the games the regular rounds have a better build up and atmosphere than play off games.

Take this week for example we have two fixtures at ageing stadiums, compare it to the NRL who have Suncorp and Sydney Olympic Stadium.

We need to be bold and make the play offs an event, at the moment they are fairly poor as events for the live fan. On TV ratings are high but most people it seems would rather watch on Sky and save money till the final.

[dallymessenger]

dumb thread

but anyway -

when the nrl finals were first expanded to a top 8 crowds were poor but the concept has become more accepted

the idea of home state advantage to the higher ranking team has helped

we used to have cowboys vs storm semi played in sydney before 14,000 etc

now for example the titans get a semi final this week at brisbane, sucorp stadium which will likely get 45,000 +

the problem also appears to be with live coverage on tv fans are choosing to watch it at home

Edited September 21, 2010 by dallymessenger

[clement]

for gods sake what the hell have crowds got to do with anything, our games have been 10 times more entertaining than theirs, and for me that is all that matters, GET A LIFE.

you are joking arnt you