TV viewing figures

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

Not sure how you can say that marra when every team plays each other and then the top 4 go through - Cant really see how that benefits India compairer to any other team.

The whole tournament structure is designed to give India as many opportunities to be on TV as possible. It doesn't benefit them so much as maximise the eyeballs for ICC revenue. There is genuinely no other reason the CWC is structured how it is.

[Keith989]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

In the 2011 Rugby Union World Cup Japan lost to hosts New Zealand 83 - 7 conceding 13 tries in the process.

In the last World Cup Japan pulled off the biggest shock in the tournaments history by beating South Africa and this year are all set to host the World Cup.

I bet if you had asked the JRU if they would have preferred to avoid playing New Zealand in 2011 because they were being 'thrown to the wolves' they would have said no... and quite rightly.  That game will have generated loads of publicity for the game in Japan.

Another example is in the 2007 WC when Portugal played the All Blacks and the Portugese players were in tears of joy before the game despite knowing they were in for conceding 100+ points.

I really don't understand this fear of blow outs in RL. It's simply unavoidable and the world cup is a celebration of the sport anyway.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Allora said:

That may well be so although I was not around to see it, nor the battle of Hastings.

What happened 100 years ago has little or no relevance to today's market and the state of the game we have today.

Christ half the punters here want to load an English/GB team with castoff heritage players from Australia, you tell me how that will sell downunder.

I normally respect and have time for your posts Dunbar.

The game has moved on and if you think a win by England (or GB) will change much in the scope of things then you Sir are dreaming.

The damage has been done in the last four decades, what we had will never be the same again.

The game has diminished in England and Australia has gone down the path of doing its own thing at home and in the Pacific.

I wish this was not the case but it is.

I was at the 2017 World Cup games and even allowing for the fact it was badly promoted and the media coverage was ordinary the enthusiasm from the Fans was just not there.

 

 

Maybe I jumped on you too quickly but I find the whole thing frustrating.

When the All Blacks have a 77% winning record without a single loss in their history against the likes of Argentina, Italy and Scotland and only 5 losses against Wales and Ireland combined the Rugby Union mentality is to build the All Blacks up into a global sporting brand of invincibility.

When the Kangaroos have a 69% win record we give up on international Rugby League and do something else instead.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

When the Kangaroos have a 69% win record we give up on international Rugby League and do something else instead.

Yes it's infuriating. The Kangaroo jersey should be as iconic as Brazil in soccer or All Blacks in RU. When the likes of Tiger Woods became the dominant force in golf, and Serena Williams in tennis, and Usain Bolt in athletics, they became global megastars. Australia - arguably the best rugby team of any code on the planet - hide themselves away and hardly play. 

[Mr Frisky]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It is.

But right now I'm watching the Cricket World Cup on the TV. These days it's entirely designed to give India as many matches as possible without knocking them out too early in the 

You do realise that every match is filmed and that Indian TV will choose which matches it shows dont you? Just like UK TV,  NZ TV,  South African TV etc etc will do. 

India is only 4/5 hours ahead of the UK and 50 over matches last all day anyway so not sure how they are being given special treatment if you are talking about start times.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

You do realise that every match is filmed and that Indian TV will choose which matches it shows dont you? Just like UK TV,  NZ TV,  South African TV etc etc will do. 

India is only 4/5 hours ahead of the UK and 50 over matches last all day anyway so not sure how they are being given special treatment if you are talking about start times.

I'm not talking about start times.

The structure of the World Cup has been created to give Indian TV nine guaranteed India games to show. There is no other reason for this structure.

This is not a controversial statement. It's not even anything the ICC would want to deny.

[Dave T]

We have seen that England games on the BBC get c1.5m figures. In a World Cup with promotion and 15 games televised those figures should be exceeded, but there won't be a massive difference between Eng v Aus and Eng v somebody else. And ticket sales certainly won't be too different - we have seen 24k sellouts in the 2013 World Cup for games against Ireland and Fiji. 

There is no reason why we can't get full houses in group games for three England games irrespective of who we play. Viewing figures will be relatively similar in the grand scheme of things, so I'm not sure of the reasons to artificially force these teams together.

[The Great Dane]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

When the Kangaroos have a 69% win record we give up on international Rugby League and do something else instead.

I think it's largely cultural, tall poppy syndrome has huge influence on Australian culture.

Unless it's done in a sarcastic manner, talking yourself up, bragging, etc, are all big no no's in Australian culture, and even just on a local level rolling around murdering all the other teams in a competition that had no hope in the first place and acting like you achieved something is seen as you just being an unsporting ######, and frankly I tend to agree with that sentiment (then again I am a product of that culture).

Take the All Blacks as an example, most people in Australia see them as bunch of douches that brag about beating up on smaller men, and the Australians a little more in the know see them not only as douches but as douches that owe their whole popularity and existence in the first place to a piece of historical dumb luck that Australia took more interest in RL than in RU, because if things were just a tiny bit different and all the resources that Australia dumps into Aussie Rules and RL were dumped into RU then I think we can all agree that the All Blacks prospects suddenly look very different... 

In the long run it'll probably turn out as a good thing for international RL as well, as it's lead the NRL to focus it's efforts on developing international players in a concerted effort to not only feed more talent into the NRL, but to create international opposition that can actually compete with the Kangaroos, and that tactic has been pretty successful so far.

If you actually think about it for a second the international game would defiantly be in a much worse position than it's in if the NRL just rolled the Kangaroos out to play a bunch of meaningless games all the time instead of investing in developing the rest of the pacific's players for them. I also don't think that the correlation between the steady increase of English players playing in the NRL and the steady increase in the English national RL teams competitiveness in recent times is a coincidence either, and having an English team that eventually can actually beat the Kangaroos is much better then screwing around playing games in England where the English team consistently gets thrashed and nothing actually changes to improve that situation.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

I think it's largely cultural, tall poppy syndrome has huge influence on Australian culture.

Unless it's done in a factious manner, talking yourself up, bragging, etc, are all big no no's in Australian culture, and even just on a local level rolling around murdering all the other teams in a competition that had no hope in the first place and acting like you achieved something is seen as you just being an unsporting ######, and frankly I tend to agree with that sentiment (then again I am a product of that culture).

Take the All Blacks as an example, most people in Australia see them as bunch of douches that brag about beating up on smaller men, and the Australians a little more in the know see them not only as douches but as douches that owe their whole popularity and existence in the first place to a piece of historical dumb luck that Australia took more interest RL than in RU, because if things were just a tiny bit different and all the resources that Australia dumps into Aussie Rules and RL were dumped into RU then I think we can all agree that the All Blacks prospects suddenly look very different... 

In the long run it'll probably turn out as a good thing for international RL as well, as it's lead the NRL to focus it's efforts on developing international players in a concerted effort to not only feed more talent into the NRL, but to create international opposition that can actually compete with the Kangaroos, and that tactic has been pretty successful so far.

If you actually think about it for a second the international game would defiantly be in a much worse position than it's in if the NRL just rolled the Kangaroos out to play a bunch of meaningless games all the time instead of investing in developing the rest of the pacific's players for them. I also don't think that the correlation between the steady increase of English players playing in the NRL and the steady increase in the English national RL teams competitiveness in recent times is a coincidence either, and having an English team that eventually can actually beat the Kangaroos is much better then screwing around playing games in England where the English team consistently gets thrashed and nothing actually changes to improve that situation.

I think there are some fair points here, and I'm definitely not qualified to comment on the sporting landscape in Australia. However in the non-heartland areas of the UK, having England playing more meaningful internationals that are properly promoted as legitimate events would be the single best way to raise the profile of the sport, regardless of who the opposition is or how strong they are.

[fighting irish]

I confess, I haven't read the whole thread but can't we keep the top four nations in four different groups, with the second four (4th - 8th) kept apart also and so on and have the top two in each group qualifying for a knock out quarter final round.

That way, the minnows will have their day in the sun (although probably get whacked) and the average class of competition will improve towards the latter stages, building momentum and intrigue as we go along. (Isn't this what they try to do with the soccer World Cup?)

I haven't counted how many games that will make in total, perhaps that's a reason not to do it, but it makes sense to me.

If England were to open the show against 5th seed (Fiji say) what's wrong with that? Especially if its a fast open game, which we win!

[The Great Dane]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think there are some fair points here, and I'm definitely not qualified to comment on the sporting landscape in Australia. However in the non-heartland areas of the UK, having England playing more meaningful internationals that are properly promoted as legitimate events would be the single best way to raise the profile of the sport, regardless of who the opposition is or how strong they are.

Yeah you tell yourself that, but when you get down to it it's nonsense.

England showing up and playing a game is just fleeting publicity, in the long run it doesn't really have any real impact on the sport on the local level, and if there's no actual growth on a local level then whats the point.

You won't see any real change until there is actual on the ground growth in those regions, and if you want to see that growth happen quickly then not only will the RFL have to be intrinsically involved that but the rest of the clubs and existing fans will have to be willing to sacrifice things to see it happen.

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I confess, I haven't read the whole thread but can't we keep the top four nations in four different groups, with the second four (4th - 8th) kept apart also and so on and have the top two in each group qualifying for a knock out quarter final round.

That way, the minnows will have their day in the sun (although probably get whacked) and the average class of competition will improve towards the latter stages, building momentum and intrigue as we go along. (Isn't this what they try to do with the soccer World Cup?)

I haven't counted how many games that will make in total, perhaps that's a reason not to do it, but it makes sense to me.

If England were to open the show against 5th seed (Fiji say) what's wrong with that? Especially if its a fast open game, which we win!

That's the way it is.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We arent RU. 

The arguments you are making are on two incorrect premises in my opinion. 1 that having these other format means we cant make every game an event outside of the game and 2 that I am arguing the smaller teams playing the big teams is bad, rather than what I'm actually saying is that the other format was better. It worked well

 There is nothing wrong with International RL leaning in to what makes it a brilliant and unique spectacle. That is England v Australia and NZ NZ v Fiji and Tonga, Tonga v Samoa, the Haka vs Noqu Masu, Sipi Tau v Siva Tau these are the tent poles International RL its culture is built around. That doesnt diminish Jamaica v Wales it raises it up

I provided a very good example (Japan) of how 'throwing teams to the wolves' as you call it in international competition does not harm the development of that nation as you claimed it would (in this instance Jamaican RL).  And it has in fact helped that nation to grow into a serious player in the sport who is now in a position to host the world cup themselves this year.

It was a perfectly reasonable analogy to draw.

However, I recognise that (as usual) you are now firmly dug into your position and nothing will budge you from it.

[fighting irish]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's the way it is.

Oh ok, I didn't know that. cheers

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

18 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Yeah you tell yourself that, but when you get down to it it's nonsense.

England showing up and playing a game is just fleeting publicity, in the long run it doesn't really have any real impact on the sport on the local level, and if there's no actual growth on a local level then whats the point.

You won't see any real change until there is actual on the ground growth in those regions, and if you want to see that growth happen quickly then not only will the RFL have to be intrinsically involved that but the rest of the clubs and existing fans will have to be willing to sacrifice things to see it happen.

These are fair points. I consciously used the wording "raise the profile" in my post, as I strongly believe this to be the case based on living in these areas for years. It isn't nonsense to say that the majority of the wider public in these non-heartland areas only start to take any interest in rugby league when the national team is playing.

However, I completely agree with your points that the long term development of the sport will depend on the grassroots development on the ground, and that the RFL would need to be involved in this. Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence currently that the RFL are interested in doing this.

[Dunbar]

52 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

I think it's largely cultural, tall poppy syndrome has huge influence on Australian culture.

Unless it's done in a sarcastic manner, talking yourself up, bragging, etc, are all big no no's in Australian culture, and even just on a local level rolling around murdering all the other teams in a competition that had no hope in the first place and acting like you achieved something is seen as you just being an unsporting ######, and frankly I tend to agree with that sentiment (then again I am a product of that culture).

Take the All Blacks as an example, most people in Australia see them as bunch of douches that brag about beating up on smaller men, and the Australians a little more in the know see them not only as douches but as douches that owe their whole popularity and existence in the first place to a piece of historical dumb luck that Australia took more interest in RL than in RU, because if things were just a tiny bit different and all the resources that Australia dumps into Aussie Rules and RL were dumped into RU then I think we can all agree that the All Blacks prospects suddenly look very different... 

In the long run it'll probably turn out as a good thing for international RL as well, as it's lead the NRL to focus it's efforts on developing international players in a concerted effort to not only feed more talent into the NRL, but to create international opposition that can actually compete with the Kangaroos, and that tactic has been pretty successful so far.

If you actually think about it for a second the international game would defiantly be in a much worse position than it's in if the NRL just rolled the Kangaroos out to play a bunch of meaningless games all the time instead of investing in developing the rest of the pacific's players for them. I also don't think that the correlation between the steady increase of English players playing in the NRL and the steady increase in the English national RL teams competitiveness in recent times is a coincidence either, and having an English team that eventually can actually beat the Kangaroos is much better then screwing around playing games in England where the English team consistently gets thrashed and nothing actually changes to improve that situation.

The problem with this post is that it contradicts itself.  The first half is a critique of the New Zealand All Blacks and how they operate and the second half says that rolling out the Kangaroos to play 'meaningless' games would not be beneficial.

But here is the thing... the All Blacks playing their meaningless games where they have gone for over a 100 years beating certain nations has done wonders for the sport - the All Blacks are the single best marketing asset that the sport of Rugby Union has.  Rugby League could have the same asset with the Kangaroos.

There would be nothing wrong with the Kangaroos showcasing the skill and talent of the Australian national Rugby League team while the NRL helps to develop the other pacific nations... these two are not mutually exclusive activities.

[Damien]

29 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Oh ok, I didn't know that. cheers

It hasn't been that way for a few World Cups with the fixed 'Super' groups instead. I'm glad it's finally been changed.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I didn't say it harmed their development.

My apologies, I read your comment on Jamaica that (and I quote) "I think throwing them to wolves doesnt really help anyone" as a negative.

I didn't realise you meant throwing to the wolves in its most positive sense.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Aus, NZ, Eng, Tong

Fiji, Samoa, France, Scotland

Lebanon, PNG, Ireland, Wales

Italy, Jamaica, USA, Malta

Are the top 16 rankings. Although the RLIF appear to have missed off Cook Islands from their own rankings!

So you are right we may not get exactly what I suggested but one from the 4th pot instead of PNG maybe.

The groups below wouldn’t have the same old Eng v Aus opener, but would have brilliant games and every group would be competitive. 

Super Group A

England(2), Tonga(4), Samoa(7), Scotland(8)

Super Group B

Australia(1), New Zealand(3), Fiji(5), France(6) 

Group C

Italy(13), PNG(10), Lebanon(9), Jamaica(14),

Group D

Ireland(12), Wales(11), USA(15), Russia(29)

QF

A1 v B3

B2 v D1

B1 v A3

A2 v C1

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

All I have said, as I will restate, is that what we had was better. It wont make or break the world cup, its not an insurmountable hurdle, it doesn't mean the world cup will be bad. It just means that had we not made this decision. The world cup would be better. 

But what evidence do you have that it would be better? Crowd figures only tell a fraction of the story. The crowd figures of the current women's world cup haven't been outstanding, but the tv audience for the England games has been around 6-7 million.

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Why can't we do that whilst also have a close, attractive game?

The World Cup is our best chance to reach out to people who otherwise wouldn't see the game. I have no idea why people seem almost actively against showing it in its best light. People aren't going to give us points for trying. 

We have plenty of opportunities to see these games, and they will happen in the later stages. And I suspect new fans would be as delighted with a decent win in a full ground against France or Fiji as they would a plucky defeat against the Aussies.

I'm not seeing these massive benefits of keep staging these games between the top 3. As exposure grows, that can be harmful as people don't understand why you are structuring it that way. 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Or the more obvious one that it meant they are going to get beat pretty badly. 

I guess when you cut single sentences out of posts you lose a bit of context.

I asked you if you thought that Jamaica losing to England by 60 points in the World Cup was bad for Jamaican Rugby League (rather than just a bad result for the team) and your reply was that playing Wales in a tight game would be "Yes, better for the jamaican players, better for the jamaican RL, better for the world cup, better for the international game."

I posted an analogous situation with Japan taking a flogging in the (Union) World Cup but benefiting from the experience as a nation and yet now you are saying that you didn't claim it would harm development when you have stated above in clear text that it would be better for them to play a lesser nation in a tight game.  You are massively shifting your position on this.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But we will have a bigger fuller ground with more people watching a close defeat v the aussies than a walkover against Jamaica. 

There is a realistic chance, under this structure that Australia get to the final having won every game by 50+ points and that isn't some out there chance. They will probably be 40-50 point favourites until the semi-final and then probably 30pt favourites. A poor performance by the other finalist and the whole competition looks entirely pointless. 

Its also seeded draw, that's not really difficult to explain. 

It is your opinion that it would be pointless. Many would go and enjoy a world class event that we will be putting on.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I mean its france so its tv audience for England games are going to be the important measure for us. But those crowd figures have been pretty good. Certainly not something RL should sniff at. 

But im not sure of your argument here, is it that Jamaica v England is a more attractive spectacle that Australia v England?

Not at all. I'm just saying save the big clashes for later in the tournament. Let the tournament build in momentum and finish with a crescendo.

I previously gave the example of England stuffing Panama in last year's World Cup. Notbody complained that the game was too easy and the tournament was a joke – instead everyone started getting carried away and talking up England's chances of winning the tournament.

We need to sell the event. If we keep focusing on England vs Aus/NZ/Tonga as the only games worth watching, then that's what the wider public will believe.

[Lowdesert]

Every fffing thread.