Jump to content

General British perception of RL in Oz


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Unfortunately salary and reputation come into when analysing players. No different to imports that come to super league.

Take Ryan Sutton for instance. I think the general consensus is hes doing really well. Now I don't know the ins and outs but I assume hes on a modest wage, putting in a good 30 minute stint off the bench with some weeks not even making the Raiders match day 17 (I.e during last years raiders final run).

But what if that was Luke Thompson? Coming over on a large wage with some people saying hes 'the best prop in the world'? Would a 30 minute stint off the bench and coming in and out of first grade be considered a success for Luke Thompson? Of course not. He would be deemed an absolute failure.

 

Yes, I agree with all of this.

But I still maintain that Tomkins did not 'fail in every way' as asserted.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Don’t how to reply to multiple comments, but I just wanted to make it clear I never said SL is bad or less entertaining than the NRL, I just said the NRL is by far and away better, and I’m not saying that because I’m Australian, I watch all RL including most televised SL games whenever they’re on fox league. IF SL was better I’d say so. But here’s a few points:

In regards to the roosters only winning by 8 in the WCC, let’s look how heavily favoured it was for St. Helens, home ground advantage which is a huge advantage in the UK due to the English atmosphere being much better than Aus. I know this is a cliche but saints had already started their season and The roosters hadn’t played since the GF in October. It was the roosters first game without Cronk and Latrell Mitchell (Two of their best players), they were also missing their captain Boyd Cordner and it was their first game with a new young halfback in Flanagan (the Roosters also lost their opening two games of the season learning new combinations). The roosters aren’t the best team hence why the are currently 5th. Sure they’ve wiped the floor with some of the bottom teams but they’ve lost to 3 of the top teams. Whenever the Aussies have taken over a full strength squad or played in Aus they’ve wiped the floor with their opponents and won by 20 or 30+ points. 
 

Point two, Jackson Hastings was SL’s best player last year, even though he wouldn’t have been in the top 20 playmakers during his time in the NRL. Blake Austin wouldn’t have been in the top 10 of his position during his time here, yet he is one of the best in SL. David Fifita (the average one that’s Andrews brother) wouldn’t have been in the top 30 forwards here and he’s one of the top forwards in SL. Lachlan Coote wouldn’t have been in the top ten fullbacks in the NRL yet he’s the best in that position there. George Williams was rated in the top 10 players in SL by the SL website itself and he would probably only just crack the top 50 players here. Sam Tomkins was by far and away the best Player in SL and he only just cracked the top 40 in his first season here. Kallum Watkins and Ryan Hall were England internationals, Two of the best in their positions and couldn’t even crack the first 17 at their respective NRL clubs. They would walk into any SL side at the moment. I could keep going but I think I’ve proved my point.

 

SL is more entertaining at times because of the worse defence and more open playing style, both the QLD and NSW state comps are also more entertaining than the NRL at times as well. The NRL has a salary cap more than double the size and maybe even closer to triple the size of SL’s. How can SL compete with that? In my opinion I enjoy the better defence and grind and it being so much harder to score try’s in the NRL, because when they do score try’s they are usually better to watch than just players falling off tackles and defence lines getting broken at ease. I enjoy SL too but sometimes the defence is so bad it defies belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Aussie Bronco said:

Don’t how to reply to multiple comments, but I just wanted to make it clear I never said SL is bad or less entertaining than the NRL, I just said the NRL is by far and away better, and I’m not saying that because I’m Australian, I watch all RL including most televised SL games whenever they’re on fox league. IF SL was better I’d say so. But here’s a few points:

In regards to the roosters only winning by 8 in the WCC, let’s look how heavily favoured it was for St. Helens, home ground advantage which is a huge advantage in the UK due to the English atmosphere being much better than Aus. I know this is a cliche but saints had already started their season and The roosters hadn’t played since the GF in October. It was the roosters first game without Cronk and Latrell Mitchell (Two of their best players), they were also missing their captain Boyd Cordner and it was their first game with a new young halfback in Flanagan (the Roosters also lost their opening two games of the season learning new combinations). The roosters aren’t the best team hence why the are currently 5th. Sure they’ve wiped the floor with some of the bottom teams but they’ve lost to 3 of the top teams. Whenever the Aussies have taken over a full strength squad or played in Aus they’ve wiped the floor with their opponents and won by 20 or 30+ points. 
 

Point two, Jackson Hastings was SL’s best player last year, even though he wouldn’t have been in the top 20 playmakers during his time in the NRL. Blake Austin wouldn’t have been in the top 10 of his position during his time here, yet he is one of the best in SL. David Fifita (the average one that’s Andrews brother) wouldn’t have been in the top 30 forwards here and he’s one of the top forwards in SL. Lachlan Coote wouldn’t have been in the top ten fullbacks in the NRL yet he’s the best in that position there. George Williams was rated in the top 10 players in SL by the SL website itself and he would probably only just crack the top 50 players here. Sam Tomkins was by far and away the best Player in SL and he only just cracked the top 40 in his first season here. Kallum Watkins and Ryan Hall were England internationals, Two of the best in their positions and couldn’t even crack the first 17 at their respective NRL clubs. They would walk into any SL side at the moment. I could keep going but I think I’ve proved my point.

 

SL is more entertaining at times because of the worse defence and more open playing style, both the QLD and NSW state comps are also more entertaining than the NRL at times as well. The NRL has a salary cap more than double the size and maybe even closer to triple the size of SL’s. How can SL compete with that? In my opinion I enjoy the better defence and grind and it being so much harder to score try’s in the NRL, because when they do score try’s they are usually better to watch than just players falling off tackles and defence lines getting broken at ease. I enjoy SL too but sometimes the defence is so bad it defies belief.

There are a few small points I could pick up on but it would only be nitpicking, I agree with the overall comparison of the NRL and Super League.

Although, I have to say I prefer watching the NRL precisely because it is the highest standard Rugby League. Inwould rather see a team earn a win than be 'entertained' by lots of tries and poor defence. This is the reason why 9's is not for me, it is the reward without the effort (this is purely my own opinion and happy that others love it).

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

There are a few small points I could pick up on but it would only be nitpicking, I agree with the overall comparison of the NRL and Super League.

Although, I have to say I prefer watching the NRL precisely because it is the highest standard Rugby League. Inwould rather see a team earn a win than be 'entertained' by lots of tries and poor defence. This is the reason why 9's is not for me, it is the reward without the effort (this is purely my own opinion and happy that others love it).

Just a quick bit of extra "nitpicking". I`m a big advocate for 9s, but as a development tool to boost participation and general interest  levels, not in any way as a rival to 13s as a spectator sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Just a quick bit of extra "nitpicking". I`m a big advocate for 9s, but as a development tool to boost participation and general interest  levels, not in any way as a rival to 13s as a spectator sport.

I agree.  I don'r particularly enjoy 9's but I recognise the value that it could have for our game if it is used as a development tool.  In fact, I think more effort should be put into building this format. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

There are a few small points I could pick up on but it would only be nitpicking, I agree with the overall comparison of the NRL and Super League.

Although, I have to say I prefer watching the NRL precisely because it is the highest standard Rugby League. Inwould rather see a team earn a win than be 'entertained' by lots of tries and poor defence. This is the reason why 9's is not for me, it is the reward without the effort (this is purely my own opinion and happy that others love it).

To me it’s all rugby league so I’ll watch it, that’s just my perception of the two. But SL doesn’t really have a chance to compete against the NRL due to the smaller cap and less exposure. Saints definitely punched above their weight in the WCC, as for earlier comments calling Tomkins a failure. He was far from a failure, he just came over with too big of expectations. I think the “English Billy Slater” was his biggest downfall. People expected another Slater when they are not even close to being similar players. Tomkins did well in his first year and injury ruined his second. Would’ve liked to see him stick it out a little longer, same with Bateman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Vaguely back on topic, the answer to enhancing the British perception of RL in Oz - and the British perception of RL full stop - is internationals on terrestrial TV. 

They are the gateway drug. Automatic buy-in, innit.

Would you say that the current NRL games on T.V. in England are  very popular or get much media ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Would you say that the current NRL games on T.V. in England are  very popular or get much media ?

They get no media other than the actual games that are shown on Sky. Unless you are a fan or stumble across them flicking through Sky Sports then you wouldn't be aware of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Would you say that the current NRL games on T.V. in England are  very popular or get much media ?

I understand they get decent ratings on Sky Sports but they exceptionally rarely get coverage in mainstream British media other than results on the BBC website. 

There was feature about all the poms at Canberra in The Times about a year ago, and coverage of the Dominic Cummings cardboard cut-out, but that’s about all I can recall recently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I understand they get decent ratings on Sky Sports but they exceptionally rarely get coverage in mainstream British media other than results on the BBC website. 

There was feature about all the poms at Canberra in The Times about a year ago, and coverage of the Dominic Cummings cardboard cut-out, but that’s about all I can recall recently. 

Sounds positive regards the ratings on Sky , I suppose it would be unrealistic for it to get much coverage on mainstream media ,unless something like Canberra winning the comp with all the Poms down there. But the Sky is positive ,if people are enjoying it these spread by word of mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Would you say that the current NRL games on T.V. in England are  very popular or get much media ?

I work near London ( which is well away from the heartlands) and had a couple of non rugby people talk to me about it (they know I'm a RL nut) 

The timings aren't great as the games are on early. Myself I record them and watch 'as live',on the evening bit casual viewers might not do that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I work near London ( which is well away from the heartlands) and had a couple of non rugby people talk to me about it (they know I'm a RL nut) 

The timings aren't great as the games are on early. Myself I record them and watch 'as live',on the evening bit casual viewers might not do that

Join the club , I don`t have pay T.V. so I only get the three FTA  each week .  I`d love to see all Rugby League on one Pay T.V. channel ,esp. SL and NRL and internationals . I reckon that might increase the value of those rights as well. What`s the story w/ league in London ,I keep reading stories of players coming out of that region and going onto SL and that the community game is quite strong , so how come the Broncos are in and out of the SL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Join the club , I don`t have pay T.V. so I only get the three FTA  each week .  I`d love to see all Rugby League on one Pay T.V. channel ,esp. SL and NRL and internationals . I reckon that might increase the value of those rights as well. What`s the story w/ league in London ,I keep reading stories of players coming out of that region and going onto SL and that the community game is quite strong , so how come the Broncos are in and out of the SL?

Broncos youth system is strong.... Our youth team heat Saints at start of season. All London born and bred

We need SL status to keep them though 

I pay for WatchNRL and Sky.... I like cricket and a bit of the kick and clap so don't mind paying for both. The shows (360 and Matty Johns etc. are fun) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL isn't the domainat code in britain. Just compare to two codes world cups(2013 & 2015) in terms of coverage and spectators. Also RU had a more diverse hosting cities. Its just how it is. It's the other way around in Australia how many people know about england RU? Not many but they know british RL. RL just isn't as entrenched culturally and institutionally in britain as much as ru is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget about Brits not knowing the popularity of League over Union in Oz, I’ve known many an Australian from states other than NSW or Qld, that do not really follow either Rugby code, who think that RU is bigger in Aus and each of them attributed that opinion based on the profile of the Wallabies over the Kangaroos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Themusician_2 said:

RL isn't the domainat code in britain. Just compare to two codes world cups(2013 & 2015) in terms of coverage and spectators. Also RU had a more diverse hosting cities. Its just how it is. It's the other way around in Australia how many people know about england RU? Not many but they know british RL. RL just isn't as entrenched culturally and institutionally in britain as much as ru is.

The 2003 RUWC in Aus was far bigger than any RLWC hosted in Aus. 

Should the 2023 RUWC be held in Aus, it would still be bigger than any historical Aus RLWC, despite the calamity the ARU finds itself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

The 2003 RUWC in Aus was far bigger than any RLWC hosted in Aus. 

Should the 2023 RUWC be held in Aus, it would still be bigger than any historical Aus RLWC, despite the calamity the ARU finds itself in.

But you get my point the NRL not being well know here is because RL isn't big in Britain. it's big in the heartlands yes but not britain as a whole. Also there's plenty of RL fans who don't follow the NRL and just follow their super league team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

Forget about Brits not knowing the popularity of League over Union in Oz, I’ve known many an Australian from states other than NSW or Qld, that do not really follow either Rugby code, who think that RU is bigger in Aus and each of them attributed that opinion based on the profile of the Wallabies over the Kangaroos.

That sounds like most of the Aussies we get in BC, mostly AFL nuts from Melbourne or cricket nuts from Adelaide, all say RU is bigger, all based on the Wallabies and RU’s international scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Broncos youth system is strong.... Our youth team heat Saints at start of season. All London born and bred

We need SL status to keep them though 

I pay for WatchNRL and Sky.... I like cricket and a bit of the kick and clap so don't mind paying for both. The shows (360 and Matty Johns etc. are fun) 

II suppose the point I am trying to make is that why aren`t the Broncos a more successful club, ,one city club, large pop.base , producing lots of players , is it a lack of financial backing? By the way what is " kick and clap?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

II suppose the point I am trying to make is that why aren`t the Broncos a more successful club, ,one city club, large pop.base , producing lots of players , is it a lack of financial backing? By the way what is " kick and clap?"  

The sport has never committed the funding needed to really have a go at cracking London. Think about Melbourne as a comparison, they received tens of millions of dollars more than the other clubs over a 20 year period. The game in England doesn't have the money to do that, and even if it did there's no way the RFL would be able to do it without the northern clubs entering apoplectic spasms of rage. All the while the club was in SL there'd be northerners complaining about the RFL wasting money on London, ignoring that they never got a penny more than the others. 

Bearing in mind that we're taking about a sport that most Londoners don't know exists, and if they do then they think of it as a lesser off-shoot of rugby union.

Add to that a succession of terrible decisions - the current owner has pumped in £20million over the past 18 years which has basically kept the club going, but at the same time he's employed people who actively attacked the fanbase and diminished the club. Average crowds are now about 1/4 of those when he took over. Even when fans with knowledge of running sports clubs have offered help the Broncos have ignored them. 

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, nadera78 said:

The sport has never committed the funding needed to really have a go at cracking London. Think about Melbourne as a comparison, they received tens of millions of dollars more than the other clubs over a 20 year period. The game in England doesn't have the money to do that, and even if it did there's no way the RFL would be able to do it without the northern clubs entering apoplectic spasms of rage. All the while the club was in SL there'd be northerners complaining about the RFL wasting money on London, ignoring that they never got a penny more than the others. 

Bearing in mind that we're taking about a sport that most Londoners don't know exists, and if they do then they think of it as a lesser off-shoot of rugby union.

Add to that a succession of terrible decisions - the current owner has pumped in £20million over the past 18 years which has basically kept the club going, but at the same time he's employed people who actively attacked the fanbase and diminished the club. Average crowds are now about 1/4 of those when he took over. Even when fans with knowledge of running sports clubs have offered help the Broncos have ignored them. 

To match Melbourne’s assistance, London Broncos would want to be owned by Sky Sports. 

I wonder if people on this forum would be open to Sky Sports owning one of the sides...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Rocket said:

II suppose the point I am trying to make is that why aren`t the Broncos a more successful club, ,one city club, large pop.base , producing lots of players , is it a lack of financial backing? By the way what is " kick and clap?"  

Kick and clap is union..... A deliberately derogative term I like to use

Broncos need success. Of course all teams do but particularly outside of heartlands. Melbourne success has made them what they are, to an extent Wolfpack winning almost 100% of the games they have ever played has made the locals flock in

If we could get to some finals over say a five year period and a decent sized stadium I'd be confident we could get attendances up near the SL average 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Kick and clap is union..... A deliberately derogative term I like to use

Broncos need success. Of course all teams do but particularly outside of heartlands. Melbourne success has made them what they are, to an extent Wolfpack winning almost 100% of the games they have ever played has made the locals flock in

If we could get to some finals over say a five year period and a decent sized stadium I'd be confident we could get attendances up near the SL average 

  Jeez,  I thought you were referring to "the silly game" my derogative name for the afl.  A mate of mine once said he only watches union when there is no league on t.v. With regards to London I think you have summed it in one word and that is probably the distinguishing feature in the difference b/w these two teams.(i.e. success ) Is that just a matter of more money though?     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

  Jeez,  I thought you were referring to "the silly game" my derogative name for the afl.  A mate of mine once said he only watches union when there is no league on t.v. With regards to London I think you have summed it in one word and that is probably the distinguishing feature in the difference b/w these two teams.(i.e. success ) Is that just a matter of more money though?     

 

Yep.... Success brings people in and the only way we will get it initially is bring in great players

We have had many Aussies /Kiwis down here over the years but never a squad that would always be a shoe in for finals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.