Forbes > NRL for Americans

[Southerner]

Nice bit of positivity via Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2020/05/25/americans-this-is-why-the-nrl-should-be-your-new-favorite-sport/#597580664a3b

[Harry Stottle]

I believe that piece is ghost writen by Stuart Barnes, well he has to earn some money doesn't he

Seriously, it could do wonders for RL in the states Mike Meehall Wood goes at length to tell the readers not to compare it to the brand of Rugby (Union) they have probably seen, this Rugby League is by far the superior version.

[DavidM]

Excellent stuff 

[Damien]

Very nice.

[Damien]

Nice line here:

Rugby league is the lesser-known but infinitely superior form of rugby, and if you like your sport high-octane, occasionally violent, endlessly authentic and frequently spectacular, then you need to tune in this Thursday for the National Rugby League (NRL).

[Futtocks]

A bit of timely positivity, plus a little dig at the Roosters. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Good advertising from the NRL. 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Southerner said:

Nice bit of positivity via Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2020/05/25/americans-this-is-why-the-nrl-should-be-your-new-favorite-sport/#597580664a3b

I always baulk at the suggestion that RL is relatively simple, not least because whether new fans remain interested depends on their realising it`s nothing like as simple as they originally thought. Nonetheless, this is a remarkably well-informed piece. The comparison between Cameron Smith and Tom Brady is astute, and in the list of dark hints, which stay the right side of libel laws, about the Roosters and their creative budgeting, "seems to defy the salary cap", ranks pretty high.

[EastLondonMike]

Those two linked videos have got me looking forward to Thursday even more!

The lack of any content on one of the big sports networks will mean US sports fans probably wont take much notice, if any.

Though im sure the NRL were talking with ESPN. Not sure if any of those talks have progressed enough.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I always baulk at the suggestion that RL is relatively simple, not least because whether new fans remain interested depends on their realising it`s nothing like as simple as they originally thought. Nonetheless, this is a remarkably well-informed piece. The comparison between Cameron Smith and Tom Brady is astute, and in the list of dark hints, which stay the right side of libel laws, about the Roosters and their creative budgeting, "seems to defy the salary cap", ranks pretty high.

Good point.  Describing RL as less complicated or less technical would be better.

[Tonka]

Whether they're simpler or more complex is a bit of an irrelevance in my view, in the sense that neither guarantees a better product, per se.  I'd say they're more transparent and spectator-friendly, which is ultimately more important I think.

Anyway great article.

 

[iffleyox]

44 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Good point.  Describing RL as less complicated or less technical would be better.

Brian Redhead called it "intellectual" in The Game that Got Away - his point was that it wasn't remotely less complicated or technical. "Looks straightforward. Isn't." is probably fair.

[Eddie]

Great article, shame he only mentioned four teams in the who to support section though. 

[Tonka]

On the same point about "complexity", you could say that about any sport.  Boxing is just two people hitting each other.  Football is just kicking it in the goal.  But of course anyone involved in any sport knows that to play at the highest level there is great complexity in all the working parts that get you to the "simple" end product.

[fighting irish]

What a great article, lets hope it brings in a lot more ''eyeballs''. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Great article, really enjoyed reading that! 

[bentleyman]

Im stunned all this enthusiasm & positivity !! excellent article

[ATLANTISMAN]

One word BRILLIANT:))))

[Sports Prophet]

A great article, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The lack of a network partner and an article promoting a streaming service for a sport the reader is highly unaware of is likely to yield little new viewers. 

I hope I’m wrong.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

18 hours ago, Tonka said:

On the same point about "complexity", you could say that about any sport.  Boxing is just two people hitting each other.  Football is just kicking it in the goal.  But of course anyone involved in any sport knows that to play at the highest level there is great complexity in all the working parts that get you to the "simple" end product.

The simpler the rules, the more options the participants have and so the more complex the decision-making and range of potential outcomes. That’s why League is more complex than Union - in the same way chess (with relatively simple rules) has infinitely more in-game options than Dungeons & Dragons (with endless rules) 

 

I’ve never understood why people don’t see that 

 

 

[Pulga]

I hear that's Nigel's boy.

I'm not joking.

[Tonka]

2 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The simpler the rules, the more options the participants have and so the more complex the decision-making and range of potential outcomes. That’s why League is more complex than Union - in the same way chess (with relatively simple rules) has infinitely more in-game options than Dungeons & Dragons (with endless rules) 

 

I’ve never understood why people don’t see that 

 

 

I agree with that.  Union is better since it became professional, but at amateur level especially, decision-making can be dreadful and completely ad hoc.  I remember at university trying to coach a college union side to put together some basic pass options (a much boiled-down version of what I'd been coached in league).  They just couldn't comprehend it and eventually concluded it was a waste of time and they wanted to abandon it.  I decided not to argue it in the end (they were college mates after all).  They never improved - too busy doing their "complex" round the back passes to no-one.

[XIII_Winters]

3 hours ago, Pulga said:

I hear that's Nigel's boy.

I'm not joking.

You hear wrong. I was once stuck in a very small room with big Nige once, though, not an experience to be repeated. 

My actual Da sent me here, however, and it's nice to hear people like the piece. 

 

[Tex Evans Thigh]

That's fantastic. Shame it's only had 5000 views. 

Would be great if Bleacher Report or ESPN did something similar.

[unapologetic pedant]

23 hours ago, Tonka said:

On the same point about "complexity", you could say that about any sport.  Boxing is just two people hitting each other.  Football is just kicking it in the goal.  But of course anyone involved in any sport knows that to play at the highest level there is great complexity in all the working parts that get you to the "simple" end product.

The most over-simplified part of RL is the tackle and ruck. This must be related to its common portrayal as an alternative, even an antidote, to the assumed complexity of the Union ruck. Player gets tackled, gets up, plays ball - simple as that. It`s a perfectly reasonable starting point for the writer of this Forbes article. Problem is, an American reader could subsequently listen to hundreds of RL commentaries without their understanding developing much further. If they then joined this forum and went through the threads about correct PTBs, complaints about wrestling, read about completing the tackle, crowding the mark, slow peel, flopping, dummy-half, one marker or two etc, it would all be a long way from, "player gets tackled, gets up, plays ball".

Often the creation of time and space that leads to a try is at the ruck. A ball-carrier squeezes between tacklers, finds his front, and plays the ball more quickly. Rarely is that good work credited or even noticed by commentators and pundits, even when the replay goes back to the ruck and it`s staring them in the face.