Martyn Sadler - Talking Rugby League

[Martyn Sadler]

Again, I don't think it helps the argument if you deliberately miss the point. One of the things that I actually like about the proposed system, and which should be considered very carefully in any new structure, is that it forces clubs to hit the ground running rather than coast through the spring.

That's an interesting point. I think a lot of players would be pretty displeased, when you consider what they go through, to be accused of "coasting". You would have made a good Victorian Mill owner.

[Martyn Sadler]

As last week Parky, a totally one sided, unbalanced article. Why wouldn't a RL journalist ask the clubs CEO/Chairmen what was going on so as to enlighten the fans as to the reasoning behind these proposals? They're the ones paying the bills, not the coaching staff.

Terry, it's not one-sided or unbalanced but unfortunately it's quite logical.

Just make sure that Featherstone's ownership of its stadium and surrounding land is fully protected, regardless of the club's fortunes.

[Martyn Sadler]

Don't know about the 12x12 8x8x8 proposal being flawed, the attack by Martyn Sadler on this proposal is being shot to pieces by members of this board.

I must have missed something! 

[Martyn Sadler]

Martyn Sadler should be receiving a copy of the latest Fev accounts soon. Thought this guy was meant to be a respected journalist?

I'll be glad to receive them. I'm sure you're a respected poster.

[Dave T]

So now we hear that the decline of the Challenge Cup has been happening since 1973?

 

What is this based on?

[Martyn Sadler]

So now we hear that the decline of the Challenge Cup has been happening since 1973?

 

What is this based on?

The evidence, which you should be able to see with your own eyes.

[Dave T]

The evidence, which you should be able to see with your own eyes.

I'm not sure why you think I would have this evidence, especially when it is not a claim I made.

 

I am genuinely interested in this one, as it is the first time I have heard this claim. I wasn't born in 1973 so I wouldn;t have a clue whether the crowds were better or worse prior to that, but in terms of interest, I believe the Challenge Cup gets more games than ever televised, played by more teams than ever, so based on that evidence I would challenge your claim.

 

Is your claim based on TV viewers or people at grounds? What evidence are you talking about?

[The Parksider]

We are already seeing signs that SL clubs are starting to recruit overseas stars for next season. Additionally, I've been told by one agent that some of the players he manages are already talking about not wanting to join teams that they think will not make the top eight under the new system.

This is the bit I am most interested in in terms of a logical and reasoned look at the effects of the controversial proposal.

The top eight superleague clubs were always bound to attract the top players, and given the shortage of quality players, they can swallow them all up into their 8 squads of 25. As you say the players and their agents will be willing to be swallowed up.

If your a bottom four club and your chairman isn't too keen on spending his brass as they aren't now, and if crowds go down for the "middle 8" competition as an analysis of the figures (rather than a burst of wishful thinking) indicate they will, then a gulf appears within Superleague of very large proportions.

It may not happen, but if it did I fear the top eight seeing off the bottom four year on year before the real competition begins.

[Padge]

So now we hear that the decline of the Challenge Cup has been happening since 1973?

What is this based on?

If you just take the trend of the average semi-final attendances over the past 50 years you will see a distinctive downward trend, there is a dramatic fall in the seventies with a slight recovery in the eighties but a continuing downward trend thereafter.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Padge

[The Parksider]

I am genuinely interested in this one, as it is the first time I have heard this claim. I wasn't born in 1973 so I wouldn;t have a clue whether the crowds were better or worse

I'm an old git Dave and I well remember league games at Headingley and wakefield attracting 4,5,6,000 fans early seventies. When the two met at Headingley in an RL cup quarter final I could hardly breathe on the packed out terraces with 20,000 plus crammed in.

Your lads attracted 21,000 to central park for the 1974 quarter final, and 22,000 for the second round at Wigan in 1975 also a massive 32,000 for the 1972 replayed semi final.

[Trojan]

We know full well those who support auto p & R are in the main those who will get it for their clubs.

 

 

 

I support P&R and will support regardless of its effects on my club. Since we lost our coach there is a genuine possibilty that we won't be in the reckoning this season. I support automatic P&R (with caveats over ground etc) because I believe it's good for the game. I was in a bar in Bridlington when Hull City got promoted - it was mayhem.  We've seen all the publicity Bradford City generated last weekend with their trip to Wembley.  At one point it was not clear whether Huddersfield Town, Wednesday or Barnsley would be relegated - as it turned out none of them were but there was interest right up to the last kick of the season.  That's what I want for our game. i want every game from day one to the last day of the season to count in all our comps.  None of this targetting games, beating the local rival and then getting beaten by 80 odd points in the next game because it doesn't matter.  That can't be right. The only way we'll every beat the Aussies consistently on a fairly regular basis is for our top players to experience pressure week in week out.  That's why I think this time we have a chance in the World Cup, because so many of our key players - James Graham, the Burgesses, and Gareth Ellis plus Widdop, have experience of the this sort of comp. and they'll pass it on to their British based team-mates, like Hanley, Schofield, Edwards, Offiah, Kevin Ward and Lee Crooks did.

[Padge]

I'm an old git Dave and I well remember league games at Headingley and wakefield attracting 4,5,6,000 fans early seventies. When the two met at Headingley in an RL cup quarter final I could hardly breathe on the packed out terraces with 20,000 plus crammed in.

Your lads attracted 21,000 to central park for the 1974 quarter final, and 22,000 for the second round at Wigan in 1975 also a massive 32,000 for the 1972 replayed semi final.

And in 74 following the introduction of P&R Warrington played to a semi final crowd of 11,789 and the other semi managed a mere 7,971. In the next 10 years only 2 semis managed a crowd of over 20,000

 

The start of a startling downward trend over the next 10 years that has continued until today.

[The Parksider]

I support P&R and will support regardless of its effects on my club. Since we lost our coach there is a genuine possibilty that we won't be in the reckoning this season. I support automatic P&R (with caveats over ground etc) because I believe it's good for the game. I was in a bar in Bridlington when Hull City got promoted - it was mayhem.  We've seen all the publicity Bradford City generated last weekend with their trip to Wembley.  At one point it was not clear whether Huddersfield Town, Wednesday or Barnsley would be relegated - as it turned out none of them were but there was interest right up to the last kick of the season.  That's what I want for our game. i want every game from day one to the last day of the season to count in all our comps.

I so so much want that too Tro. But we can't stop SKY requiring all their money goes to one elite division.

I'd love them to sanction £400K for every club from Wigan down to Gloucester.

[John Drake]

I support P&R and will support regardless of its effects on my club. Since we lost our coach there is a genuine possibilty that we won't be in the reckoning this season. I support automatic P&R (with caveats over ground etc) because I believe it's good for the game. I was in a bar in Bridlington when Hull City got promoted - it was mayhem.  We've seen all the publicity Bradford City generated last weekend with their trip to Wembley.  At one point it was not clear whether Huddersfield Town, Wednesday or Barnsley would be relegated - as it turned out none of them were but there was interest right up to the last kick of the season.  That's what I want for our game. i want every game from day one to the last day of the season to count in all our comps.  None of this targetting games, beating the local rival and then getting beaten by 80 odd points in the next game because it doesn't matter.  That can't be right. The only way we'll every beat the Aussies consistently on a fairly regular basis is for our top players to experience pressure week in week out.  That's why I think this time we have a chance in the World Cup, because so many of our key players - James Graham, the Burgesses, and Gareth Ellis plus Widdop, have experience of the this sort of comp. and they'll pass it on to their British based team-mates, like Hanley, Schofield, Edwards, Offiah, Kevin Ward and Lee Crooks did.

 

Football has automatic promotion & relegation, but the England football team haven't won a major international tournament for decades.

 

The NRL doesn't have any kind of promotion & relegation, but Australia have been the dominant force in world Rugby League for decades.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of promotion & relegation as an issue, it is a complete red herring in terms of achieving international success, IMO.

[The Parksider]

Football has automatic promotion & relegation, but the England football team haven't won a major international tournament for decades.

 

The NRL doesn't have any kind of promotion & relegation, but Australia have been the dominant force in world Rugby League for decades.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of promotion & relegation as an issue, it is a complete red herring in terms of achieving international success, IMO.

I've no doubt that many people in our game are looking to copy a model that works.

I've no doubt that many people in our game will feel disenfranchised if we make that copy and will resist it with gusto.

For me our game has to go for it, copy the NRL or copy the RU premiership, because we can't come up with anything of our own....

If it doesn't work we can always choose another sport/pastime to follow. It ain't life or death?

Or is it??

[John Drake]

I've no doubt that many people in our game are looking to copy a model that works.

I've no doubt that many people in our game will feel disenfranchised if we make that copy and will resist it with gusto.

For me our game has to go for it, copy the NRL or copy the RU premiership, because we can't come up with anything of our own....

If it doesn't work we can always choose another sport/pastime to follow. It ain't life or death?

Or is it??

 

If league restructures really resolved anything, or delivered what they promised, they wouldn't need to keep happening.

 

Not happy with this one, or the next? Don't worry, there'll be another one along in a minute.

[Dave T]

And in 74 following the introduction of P&R Warrington played to a semi final crowd of 11,789 and the other semi managed a mere 7,971. In the next 10 years only 2 semis managed a crowd of over 20,000

 

The start of a startling downward trend over the next 10 years that has continued until today.

I only have access to stats using rugbyleagueproject, which does have some discrepancies, but from 84 there were around a dozen 19-20k crowds in the next 10 years. This doesn't appear to follow the trend of the 70's.

[RSN]

Football has automatic promotion & relegation, but the England football team haven't won a major international tournament for decades.

The NRL doesn't have any kind of promotion & relegation, but Australia have been the dominant force in world Rugby League for decades.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of promotion & relegation as an issue, it is a complete red herring in terms of achieving international success, IMO.

How much does the structure of the top end of the game affect the national side though? I personally think it has very little compared to other aspects of the game.

We need more kids playing the game which I feel is much more important. One of the reasons why Brazil have won the most world cups is how literally every Brazilian child is introduced to football. It's played throughout the country and the majority have such a passion for it, so they have a greater selection pool than a lot of countries. Not saying the England doesn't introduce football to kids at a young age, but the sheer passion Brazilians seem to have when spreading the game isnt comparable. You see videos of Neymar and Ronaldinho ect growing up playing football and you literally see 20 - 40 kids playing it on an awful surface with barely any footwear on absolutely loving it. This is why they have the most world cups, although they are having a bad spell at the minute. Obviously there is other aspects coaching and how to develop the players but I feel having a greater choice of players is much more important than the structure of the top end of the sport.

The 3 x 8 format will IMO make the sport the most entertaining it can be. It will provide intensity in most games and be much better as a spectator sport. Hopefully this will result in more people wanting to take up the game as they are watching competitive games on the tv. Currently I don't think the 14 team format provides this to get people into the sport. I mean which kids from London would want to play for them after watching Sam Tomkins constantly running through the London defence? I ccan't imagine many.

That's why I personally think the 3 x 8 system will be much better as an all round. It has it's flaws as most systems do, which have been pointed out in great detail on this thread.

If the RFL want to change the system to make the sport more attractive to spectators then I'm not going to knock them for it. If it means more intense games week in week out, then I'm not going to complain, and I'm sure people watching the game for the first time won't either.

Edited May 21, 2013 by barrowraiderskid

[Padge]

If league restructures really resolved anything, or delivered what they promised, they wouldn't need to keep happening.

 

Not happy with this one, or the next? Don't worry, there'll be another one along in a minute.

And that's the crux of the problem, we never address the real issue. All we ever do is change the one thing that we have always changed thinking eventually we'll hit on the winning formula.

 

The first restructure was in 1896, the games second season. That lasted until 1901/02 season when there was the first attempt at a Super League, which only lasted one season. Then we had two seasons of two divisions until we went back to one in 1905/06. In 1906/07 we decided to introduce the play-offs, top 4 being the first option. This format lasted until WWI which put everything on ice.

 

That only covers the games first 20 years.

 

The game needs to grow up and learn to live with the realities of the modern world, pandering to those that hark back to the sixties and seventies as a golden era is a lost cause. P&R has never worked for the game in the way that it was thought that it would, the number of times it changed from 73 - 95 showed it wasn't working, the continual changes of number of divisions, the numbers in each division, the numbers promoted and relegated each season showed that in the years from 73 - 95 the system was failing.

[Padge]

I only have access to stats using rugbyleagueproject, which does have some discrepancies, but from 84 there were around a dozen 19-20k crowds in the next 10 years. This doesn't appear to follow the trend of the 70's.

I did say that there was a slight recovery in the eighties if you read my earlier post in response to your initial questioning of where Martyn got this 'assumption' from, however the trend has been continually downward overall.

[Dave T]

I did say that there was a slight recovery in the eighties if you read my earlier post in response to your initial questioning of where Martyn got this 'assumption' from, however the trend has been continually downward overall.

Don't worry if it's any effort, but what kind of drop have we seen? Did we used to get 30k semis in the 60-70's and now we sit at 10-15k?

 

Genuinely interested in this btw, I was born in '78 and was brought up on RL during the 80's when the Semis and finals got big crowds. Many people quote that the advent of SL has ruined the cup - I'm interested in this alternative theory.

[Padge]

Don't worry if it's any effort, but what kind of drop have we seen? Did we used to get 30k semis in the 60-70's and now we sit at 10-15k?

 

Genuinely interested in this btw, I was born in '78 and was brought up on RL during the 80's when the Semis and finals got big crowds. Many people quote that the advent of SL has ruined the cup - I'm interested in this alternative theory.

In 1964 the two semis averaged 28k, by 74 a downward trend had set in which bottomed out at at low of 8k a loss of 20k for the semis. There then followed a period of slow growth, it wasn't until 1983 that we returned to continuous averages above 15k, they peaked at 23k in 87 but then set on another major continual decline, we are now down at around the 12k mark.

[keighley]

And that's the crux of the problem, we never address the real issue. All we ever do is change the one thing that we have always changed thinking eventually we'll hit on the winning formula.

 

The first restructure was in 1896, the games second season. That lasted until 1901/02 season when there was the first attempt at a Super League, which only lasted one season. Then we had two seasons of two divisions until we went back to one in 1905/06. In 1906/07 we decided to introduce the play-offs, top 4 being the first option. This format lasted until WWI which put everything on ice.

 

That only covers the games first 20 years.

 

The game needs to grow up and learn to live with the realities of the modern world, pandering to those that hark back to the sixties and seventies as a golden era is a lost cause. P&R has never worked for the game in the way that it was thought that it would, the number of times it changed from 73 - 95 showed it wasn't working, the continual changes of number of divisions, the numbers in each division, the numbers promoted and relegated each season showed that in the years from 73 - 95 the system was failing.

 

By the same token, SL started with 14 and no p and r, then it went back to p and r, then the number dropped to 12, then they went back to 14, then they put Catalans in as a franchise but exempted them from relegation but not for everybody else , then they scrapped p and r. then they introduced licencing. The numbers in the playoffs fluctuated depending in which way the wind was blowing.

 

But according to all the cast iron defenders of SL, it's a vibrant league and only needs a further tweak, to whit, kick out a couple of stragglers.

 

I don't think the " if it ain't broken, don't fix it" method you are advocating has been applied to SL so maybe the SL concept has not been an unparalled success either given the chopping and changing that has gone on.

[Padge]

By the same token, SL started with 14 and no p and r, then it went back to p and r, then the number dropped to 12, then they went back to 14, then they put Catalans in as a franchise but exempted them from relegation but not for everybody else , then they scrapped p and r. then they introduced licencing. The numbers in the playoffs fluctuated depending in which way the wind was blowing.

 

But according to all the cast iron defenders of SL, it's a vibrant league and only needs a further tweak, to whit, kick out a couple of stragglers.

 

I don't think the " if it ain't broken, don't fix it" method you are advocating has been applied to SL so maybe the SL concept has not been an unparalled success either given the chopping and changing that has gone on.

 

I am no lover of the continual changing of SL format, it means we have learned nothing, we are still pandering to those rooted in the 60s and 70s. The original opportunity was not embraced and Super League only happened partially. Clinging to the the discredited idea of P&R has held SL back from day one, SL hasn't failed, it has merely been held back by pandering to the lumbering dinosaurs.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Padge

[keighley]

I am no lover of the continual changing of SL format, it means we have learned nothing, we are still pandering to those rooted in the 60s and 70s. The original opportunity was not embraced and Super League only happened partially. Clinging to the the discredited idea of P&R has held SL back from day one, SL hasn't failed, it has merely been held back by pandering to the lumbering dinosaurs.

 

I ask this question with no rancour.

 

Do you think that if there was a small rump SL of the top few clubs, unchanging and unchangeable and all the rest were left to their fate and died off or reverted to being amateur clubs, that the SL would continue to be successful.?

 

Much as the games between the elite are compelling theatre, don't you think that by the time if the fourth set of repeat fixtures, the mega important TV audience might be bored and even the fanatics attending in the flesh might be getting weary of the same old same old ? 

 

The footprint of the game would be very small and parochial with maybe Catalans as an isolated exception and no chance ever of London or Wales or the midlands or south Yorkshire or anywhere else joining the party.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum and RU might just fill the gaps,

 

Don't you think that Sky might also balk at supporting such a small regionalised competiton especiaally if the rating were falling due to the overkill factor.

 

Wouldn't it be better to speculate to accumulate and persevere with increasing the size of the top league and getting a bigger mix of successful clubs and the resulting variety of fixtures and extra interest.

 

Wouldn't a fixture between a successful London and a David v Goliath like Fev or a vibrant Crusaders filling the Racecourse ground for an important fixture against Wigan, interspersed by the regular fare of Leeds v Bradford and the Hull derby be better than the repetitive five fixture revolving door fare put up by a ten team SL.?

 

I know all the arguments that have been put forward against any expansion of of SL and dissolution of the Sky money but I don't think the game can sustain itself on a top level league of the small numbers that seem to be being touted as nirvana.