Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Daddy

Jacksonville Axemen

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

You still can't beat RL with PNG as a country with it as its national sport.

He claimed the Philippines and Lithuania I think - massive. Though having googled it isn’t the National sport of the Philippines, something called Arnis is. So there’s Lithuania. 

Edited by Eddie
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, westside said:

It’s the national sport of Lithuania and the Philippines.

Africa has about four cricket playing nations.

You’re clueless.

Other countries where basketball is a strong second (there are more, this is just what comes to mind):

China, USA, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, various west African countries.

National sport of Lebanon too. 

People think because sports are popular here they're popular the world over. Cricket is virtually unheard of in continental Europe. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eddie said:

He claimed the Philippines and Lithuania I think - massive. 

Philippines has over 100m people. If RL was their top sport, we'd be boasting over it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we chose six countries, doesn't matter which, and say sport A is the national sport in none of them, but 2nd or 3rd in all of them, and sport B is national sport in one and not played in the other five, which is the more popular? A I think. Field Hockey probably isn't the national sport anywhere but is played all over, while RL has PNG and bits of Oz , North England and Pacific islands. So being a national sport isn't necessarily a deciding factor. Truth is we all know which sport is truly global, American sports because of the vast finances carry on in their merry way, not global but they couldn't care less, cricket is massive in the sub continent and does okay in half dozen other countries, Union despite what they want to believe is pretty small, and all other team sports are niche to some extent.

Single player sports are a whole new can of worms, lets not go there!, and geez, I forgot Motor Sport , big eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

Philippines has over 100m people. If RL was their top sport, we'd be boasting over it. 

We would, but it isn’t so we’re not. Arnis is the national sport there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Yes, jumpers for goalposts as the saying goes. Another simple sport is Basketball, also hugely popular and pretty much global.

As for football, Arsene " the professor" Wenger was theorizing about why football is so popular and said something extremely interesting. It is the only sport that no hoper, outclassed, outskilled teams can be competitive against strong opposition by employing negative deadening tactics.

Parking the bus in front of the goal as they call it. Basically this is simply not engaging with the opposition, not even trying. This is sensible if you're up against say Man City and if you play their attacking game you'll get slaughtered. This means the little guys have a chance, the result can be unpredictable. Last season I think Man City lost at home to Crystal Palace despite having about 75% possession and Palace just sat back. I'm convinced this is part of why football is so popular. RL and Union has no such rules within the game to allow disengagement from underdogs, you can't do it, in RL you must engage,that's why we love it, attack attack attack. I just can't think of any sports whatsoever where a totally outplayed team wins . Also luck plays a part in winning football matches, the ball hitting the bar and going in off the goalies head, comical own goals, ridiculous 40 yard shots that swerve and go in. In contact sports generally the better team on the day wins, of course better teams have off days, but that's something else. For example could Halifax have put in place a tactical dampening plan to defeat a rampant Saints, nope, not possible. The thrill of RL as a game is evident but it carries within it a flaw , as do most contact sports , that prevents true greatness.

Any views on Arsene Wenger's theory about why football is popular, that I posted earlier. See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Any views on Arsene Wenger's theory about why football is popular, that I posted earlier. See above.

No one could make their way all the way through all that lad, so no views at all.

Maybe break it up next time to keep intrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Football is essentially the simplest team sport in the world , you can play football essentially on your own against a wall to improve your skills , then with 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 more people and so on 

 

This 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we know , no need for Arsene to tell us the blinding obvious that anybody has known for ever 

Football is the simplest sport in the world and yes , you can just defend and hope you get a break or a bit of luck , with the various dead ball situations in football then yes miracles like the 2013 FA Cup Final ( I was there 🤗 ) do happen 

Edited by GUBRATS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes we know , no need for Arsene to tell us the blinding obvious that anybody has known for ever 

Football is the simplest sport in the world and yes , you can just defend and hope you get a break or a bit of luck , with the various dead ball situations in football then yes miracles like the 2013 FA Cup Final ( I was there 🤗 ) do happen 

Why what happened in 2013 Cup final? All I remember that year from Wembley was the heartbreak of the WC semi final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

Why what happened in 2013 Cup final? All I remember that year from Wembley was the heartbreak of the WC semi final.

FA cup final

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

But what I want to know is, how popular is basketball in Jacksonville? 😂

What about how popular Jacksonville are in the middle east - there must be some of those millions of netball fans who are members of the Axemen fan club.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Using what criteria? Certainly not attendances. 

Of Cousy not. Baseball stadia hold between 30-60,000 people and basketball stadia max out at 21,000. 

By your same logic Canadian football is more popular than hockey in Canada because CFL stadia can fit more people than hockey arenas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eddie said:

He claimed the Philippines and Lithuania I think - massive. Though having googled it isn’t the National sport of the Philippines, something called Arnis is. So there’s Lithuania. 

Basketball is massive in the Philippines. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eddie said:

We would, but it isn’t so we’re not. Arnis is the national sport there. 

And the national sport of Canada is lacrosse despite it not having high participation numbers or high attendance. Just because it is a national sport doesn’t mean it is popular. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DC77 said:

Scotland has a population of 5.4 million, almost identical to the county of Yorkshire. Given the difference in size between the country and the county (result being Scotland is sparsely populated, Yorkshire is densely populated) you can not compare the two. 

Yorkshire is 4500 square miles. Scotland is 30900 square miles. So, based purely on distance, you would have to travel roughly seven times to see a team in Scotland than you do in Yorkshire. Therefore, an 8k attendance figure in Scotland is more significant/impressive than a similar figure in Yorkshire. 

The only comparison you can make is with the same region as it doesn’t have variables. So, football clubs in Yorkshire, with rugby league teams in Yorkshire.

From what I can tell, that’s your subjective opinion. Likewise me saying it’s the greatest sport in the world, would be mine. You are in Canada, where Ice hockey is the biggest sport...an activity I’d rank somewhere near Kabaddi or cheese rolling, so your theory doesn’t quite work.

 

Regarding those asking the question, what can Rugby league do? It doesn’t need to look at other sports. You cannot replicate what other sports bring, as they are different. What both rugby codes could grasp, is what generates most interest in the codes...and that’s open, attacking, running rugby. And yet, both are moving away from this, with both being more attritional, more physical, more risk averse, more defensive. Garry Schofield couldn’t watch GB in that four game tour. 

The contrast in open play from 25 years ago to now is vast, and is the reason why it’s much harder for individuals to stand out now. Stars increase interest, make kids want to emulate them in the park, buy their jersey...so more fans, and more participants...sport grows. Neither code produces stars as the attritional nature of both means they don’t have the platform to become one. We just had a Rugby World Cup, not one stand out player. None. The talent is no different to say 20 years ago, but the way game is played is different, and the talent doesn’t get the chance to shine as they used to. I’ve said this repeatedly, an Offiah wouldn’t get the space to run riot now like he did when he played, likewise Lomu. They would get shut down much quicker. They’d have their moments yes, but far fewer that when they played, and as a result they wouldn’t stand out (and become stars) like they did in their era. 

RU has deteriorated as a spectacle for many reasons, bigger, bulkier players, less skill, less running etc, and another issue is the influx of Rugby league coaches making the game much tighter defensively. Making the sport harder to play, is not good. Turnstile defences, easier to run past people yes, but much more exciting too. Shaun Edwards gets acclaim for his work with Wales, and Wales are now turgid to watch. In football, Jose Mourinho is hugely successful, and his teams play defensive, risk averse football. Both codes of rugby are littered with Jose Mourinho types. Shaun Wane, only a diehard would pay to watch his team. 

The biggest question, if either code ever decides to look inward, is what can be done to make rugby more open and exciting like it used to be. Rangi Chase did a moment of magic about four years ago and was brought on Sky Sports News, it generated a modicum of interest. But such moments are scarce in a more attritional game. 44k play RL in England, that’s a tiny figure. Physically it’s an ultra demanding game to play...you need to be a gym bunny to get anywhere near a field for your own safety with the constant hits. A more open, skilful game is more enticing to most people. The Tony Collins podcasts address the increasing issues both codes are facing with the increasing demands on the body. I get that a Sam Burgess battering into people and doing all sorts of damage to himself is enticing to some who would like to do similar, whatever floats your boat, but you only need to see what generates views to know it’s skills that grab the most interest. Both rugby codes have gone too much in the direction of the former than the latter.

 

Great post. 

What can be done to encourage more attacking play? Reducing interchanges and introducing shot clocks are one thing, but how about limiting the number of players in a tackle to two? The third player generally joins the tackle post contact anyway, with the sole aim of slowing the play the ball down. Getting rid of this cynical defensive play would speed up play no end and give attacking players more opportunities to express themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Damien said:

That's a bit disingenuous when the vast majority of Scotland's population is concentrated in a much smaller area. There is no real population in much of Scotland's 30900 miles. Glasgow metro is home to about a third of Scotland's population by itself. The Edinburgh region is another 25%. Dundee to Edinburgh is no further than Leeds to Hull. The only real outlier of any size is Aberdeen.

His whole post is 100% disengenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, League of XIII said:

Great post. 

What can be done to encourage more attacking play? Reducing interchanges and introducing shot clocks are one thing, but how about limiting the number of players in a tackle to two? The third player generally joins the tackle post contact anyway, with the sole aim of slowing the play the ball down. Getting rid of this cynical defensive play would speed up play no end and give attacking players more opportunities to express themselves. 

Why not play in giant ovals and abolish  cross bars and introduce a Rover.   If my uncle could wear a skirt I could call him my auntie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eddie said:

Basketball isn’t even in the top 5 spectator sports in the world. 

Are you being ironic? 

It's easily top 5. Football, baseball, American football, ice hockey, basketball. There are your top 5 spectator sports by the total number of people that attend in any given year. 

7 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Of course , because Lionel Messi is huge height wise ?

Being abnormally tall is a requirement of basketball , not so in most other team sports , or even individual ones 

It isn't. Just like in football, most people who play it are not going to be professionals. To be a professional you need to have a certain size or ability that overcomes your lack of size, but it doesn't mean that the people growing up playing it need to be abnormally tall. I never played 5 v 5 basketball, am average height, but I did 'shoot hoops' with one or two other people enough times to get me interested in the sport. 

4 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Funny I thought the Americas were mainly Football and the same for Europe just about all of Europe.

Middle east definitely not and no chance Africa , more cricket playing nations.

We are going to need some names of countries I'm afraid kidda.

I bet we can name a nation with cricket as its national sport for every nation you can name as basketball- in fact you still haven't trumped RL and PNG.

Your first task is to beat RL so you need to name 2 nations who's national sport Is basket ball, then you can move onto beating cricket. We will accept netball if that helps 🤣

While Westy off to Wikipedia fir his "reasurch" has anyone got anymore crack on the Axemen??

Americas and Europe are mainly football. But that doesn't mean other sports are unheard of. The original question was where basketball was number 1 or 2, not where it was the most popular sport outright.

Edited by Mr Wind Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael1812 said:

Basketball is massive in the Philippines. 

Also a widely supported game in China as well, as the conflict between the CCP and the NBA over Daryl Morey's tweet proved. Basketball also delivers players with mass cultural appeal the transcends the game, Larry Bird, Magic, Michael Jordan, Lebron James etc, it is a massive sport. I reckon you could make a pretty decent argument that the NBA after the EPL it is the 2nd most popular league in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...