Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Staggering stat from Sunday’s games: the average ball in play time was 66mins, up 13 mins from the 2020 average pre-lockdown.

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/1490/faster-&-harder-six-again-and-no-scrums

I’m not sure I believe it, to be honest.

Loads of more tackles, metres, and - yes - errors, of course. You certainly get your money’s worth with rugby league!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

From a purely entertainment perspective the key stat for me was the length of the (Saints) game at just 84 minutes and 30 seconds.

Before the shot clock came in the 2018 the average game was 96 minutes minutes long and all the stoppages were really harming the game for me. To bring the elapsed time down 12 minutes while cramming more action in is fantastic. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Very interesting.

From a purely entertainment perspective the key stat for me was the length of the (Saints) game at just 84 minutes and 30 seconds.

Before the shot clock came in the 2018 the average game was 96 minutes minutes long and all the stoppages were really harming the game for me. To bring the elapsed time down 12 minutes while cramming more action in is fantastic. 

In the NRL  I have noticed a couple of times now the game has been done and dusted several minutes before its allotted timeslot on TV concluded. They will have to make those post-match segments now a bit more compelling.

And that is despite the fact there being on average just over 31 more play the balls in every game.

Edited by The Rocket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Staggering stat from Sunday’s games: the average ball in play time was 66mins, up 13 mins from the 2020 average pre-lockdown.

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/1490/faster-&-harder-six-again-and-no-scrums

I’m not sure I believe it, to be honest.

Loads of more tackles, metres, and - yes - errors, of course. You certainly get your money’s worth with rugby league!

SL seem to take an age posting the Player and Club stats for the game, so I can understand the scepticism.

Ive watched Touch Rugby a good few times and its like people passing each other on the concourse of a supermarket on occasions.  I hope the game doesnt degenerate to that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/08/2020 at 05:37, Man of Kent said:

Staggering stat from Sunday’s games: the average ball in play time was 66mins, up 13 mins from the 2020 average pre-lockdown.

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/1490/faster-&-harder-six-again-and-no-scrums

I’m not sure I believe it, to be honest.

Loads of more tackles, metres, and - yes - errors, of course. You certainly get your money’s worth with rugby league!

 

On 06/08/2020 at 13:21, Lowdesert said:

SL seem to take an age posting the Player and Club stats for the game, so I can understand the scepticism.

Ive watched Touch Rugby a good few times and its like people passing each other on the concourse of a supermarket on occasions.  I hope the game doesnt degenerate to that.

I am amazed that this thread hasn`t attracted a lot more comments. 3 comments on something that you would have to say  is really  a game changer (pardon the pun ).          

According to MOK figure quoted above that is a 25% increase in ball in play. That is significant. Early days and even if it settles at 20% its a huge increase.

I think I read somewhere that in one game that there was 11 minutes of play before a break. That`s madness.

There is a contradiction between the game being so fast on the field,  also finishing faster that I think everyone agrees has made it a better viewing experience and on the other hand is it providing value for money for fans and broadcasters ?

But it is the implications of these changes that have yet to be considered. 

1. Much less scope for ad breaks, broadcasters mightn`t  like this,

2.I am finding at home now the game is over so quick you don`t feel like you`ve had enough. Especially if you don`t have pay, alternatively this may drive pay subscriptions if you want more - good thing,

3.How is this going to effect the game day experience, will people be less likely to travel X amount of time for something that is over so quickly given the amount of time they have travelled to get there and home.

4. Following that how will clubs make it worth your while then to get you there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good weather conditions will account for some of the increased game play compared to pre-lockdown, plus Saints played a fast style to wear down Catalans. Despite this, it's still a very big increase. 

I enjoyed the pace of both games and looking at the viewing figures perhaps the overall TV audience did too.

Never been a fan of scrums or of the trundling impact players coming on and just using their weight to barge through. It's entertaining when they come on and go on a barnstorming run, but they are generally knackered after that. These players have pretty much disappeared from the NRL already and there are fewer in SL so these changes are speeding up (excuse the pun) natural evolution of the game.

Be interesting to see how the TV figures hold up and what the players think of it after a few rounds, SL should do a player survey similar to the NRL one a few weeks ago.

Perhaps the halftime could go to 20 minutes if player fatigue becomes a concern, that also gives extra time for adverts to keep the TV people happy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

I am amazed that this thread hasn`t attracted a lot more comments. 3 comments on something that you would have to say  is really  a game changer (pardon the pun ).          

According to MOK figure quoted above that is a 25% increase in ball in play. That is significant. Early days and even if it settles at 20% its a huge increase.

I think I read somewhere that in one game that there was 11 minutes of play before a break. That`s madness.

There is a contradiction between the game being so fast on the field,  also finishing faster that I think everyone agrees has made it a better viewing experience and on the other hand is it providing value for money for fans and broadcasters ?

But it is the implications of these changes that have yet to be considered. 

1. Much less scope for ad breaks, broadcasters mightn`t  like this,

2.I am finding at home now the game is over so quick you don`t feel like you`ve had enough. Especially if you don`t have pay, alternatively this may drive pay subscriptions if you want more - good thing,

3.How is this going to effect the game day experience, will people be less likely to travel X amount of time for something that is over so quickly given the amount of time they have travelled to get there and home.

4. Following that how will clubs make it worth your while then to get you there.

 

I dont have Sky, but they didnt normally break other than at half time, but the game still has to be 80 minutes so nobody should be short changed.

For me, the balance has to be right.  I've already said I don't want to see a frenetic rush akin to Touch Rugby, that why, again imo, scrums should remain.

The key for measurement will be after, say, a months worth of games to be more meaningful.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

I am amazed that this thread hasn`t attracted a lot more comments. 3 comments on something that you would have to say  is really  a game changer (pardon the pun ).          

According to MOK figure quoted above that is a 25% increase in ball in play. That is significant. Early days and even if it settles at 20% its a huge increase.

I think I read somewhere that in one game that there was 11 minutes of play before a break. That`s madness.

There is a contradiction between the game being so fast on the field,  also finishing faster that I think everyone agrees has made it a better viewing experience and on the other hand is it providing value for money for fans and broadcasters ?

But it is the implications of these changes that have yet to be considered. 

1. Much less scope for ad breaks, broadcasters mightn`t  like this,

2.I am finding at home now the game is over so quick you don`t feel like you`ve had enough. Especially if you don`t have pay, alternatively this may drive pay subscriptions if you want more - good thing,

3.How is this going to effect the game day experience, will people be less likely to travel X amount of time for something that is over so quickly given the amount of time they have travelled to get there and home.

4. Following that how will clubs make it worth your while then to get you there.

 

I said to your goodself a couple of weeks ago when we were discussing theTongan team how I believe it will change the physicality - body mass - of high impact player's in favour of leaner men with more aerobic capacity with the 6 again rule, nothing I have been witness too changes my opinion.

The highlighted bit, no problem over here we don't have "in match" ads like they do in Aus.

Edited by Harry Stottle

Share this post


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

 

I am amazed that this thread hasn`t attracted a lot more comments. 3 comments on something that you would have to say  is really  a game changer (pardon the pun ).          

According to MOK figure quoted above that is a 25% increase in ball in play. That is significant. Early days and even if it settles at 20% its a huge increase.

I think I read somewhere that in one game that there was 11 minutes of play before a break. That`s madness.

There is a contradiction between the game being so fast on the field,  also finishing faster that I think everyone agrees has made it a better viewing experience and on the other hand is it providing value for money for fans and broadcasters ?

But it is the implications of these changes that have yet to be considered. 

1. Much less scope for ad breaks, broadcasters mightn`t  like this,

2.I am finding at home now the game is over so quick you don`t feel like you`ve had enough. Especially if you don`t have pay, alternatively this may drive pay subscriptions if you want more - good thing,

3.How is this going to effect the game day experience, will people be less likely to travel X amount of time for something that is over so quickly given the amount of time they have travelled to get there and home.

4. Following that how will clubs make it worth your while then to get you there.

 

Four 20-minute quarters? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

in favour of leaner men with more aerobic capacity

Thank goodness though there still seems to be a place for the Josh Papalii`s and Junior Paulo`s in the game so far. Our game would be poorer if we didn`t have the sight of blokes like Papalii`s fat ###### motoring towards the tryline.

I realised after I posted that you get all your League on Pay over there, so you have the option of watching multiple games to get your fix.

There is still the issue of getting people to games, not such an issue though if you are all within walking distance, just kidding, no seriously are people going to travel 1-2hrs for a shortened game.

And lets face even though you don`t have ad breaks there are other sponsors who rely on the exposure on hoardings and advertising around the ground. They will get less exposure.

To answer my own question , if it leads to higher ratings that increases exposure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thank goodness though there still seems to be a place for the Josh Papalii`s and Junior Paulo`s in the game so far. Our game would be poorer if we didn`t have the sight of blokes like Papalii`s fat ###### motoring towards the tryline.

I realised after I posted that you get all your League on Pay over there, so you have the option of watching multiple games to get your fix.

There is still the issue of getting people to games, not such an issue though if you are all within walking distance, just kidding, no seriously are people going to travel 1-2hrs for a shortened game.

And lets face even though you don`t have ad breaks there are other sponsors who rely on the exposure on hoardings and advertising around the ground. They will get less exposure.

To answer my own question , if it leads to higher ratings that increases exposure.

3 big guys, Papalli, Haas and Tuimalolo still gobbling the metres up though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Four 20-minute quarters? 

Could be an option, would League fans cop it ? Hard to say.

I just think of sports with massive TV deals and many can last for over 2hrs, lots of exposure for companies.

I think the short fast adrenalin fix that League has become is a real point of difference with those sports but as I said there may be drawbacks that will have to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whippet13 said:

Never been a fan of scrums or of the trundling impact players coming on and just using their weight to barge through. It's entertaining when they come on and go on a barnstorming run, but they are generally knackered after that.

Would be a real shame if we lost those players to the game. I think also League provides a great option for those kids who are naturally bigger and may not be so mobile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Would be a real shame if we lost those players to the game. I think also League provides a great option for those kids who are naturally bigger and may not be so mobile.

It is up to the coaches how the game will go forward, put yourself in their shoes, would you play a guy capable of 60/70 mins or a 3 x 10 minute man.

At the moment we still have like for like teams, it will come a time when a coach is brave enough to put out a streamlined go faster set, and if it works everyone follows suit. 

I have for a long time called for a big reduction in the number of interchanges allowed to a maximumof 4, to make the game more open through fatigue setting in that would have seen the end of the behomoths, it would also make the wide playing - second centres - back row forwards obsolete they would be required in field leaving more space outwide for centre v centre and winger v winger contests, also the playmakers would not be targeted with fresh players being interchanged and hopefully they could express themselves more, in a nutshell with this new rule if it could be played with a reduction to just 6 interchanges would radically change the game completely faster, more open rugby and more skilful, no more 5 drives and a kick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Would be a real shame if we lost those players to the game. I think also League provides a great option for those kids who are naturally bigger and may not be so mobile.

That Rocket explains, in a nutshell, the popularity of Ra Ra. It makes room for the whole spectrum of the human form but in the process of fitting them all in, their hapless fans have to accept their inept, disfunctional, clumsiness and in-built inertia.

They recently made a Welsh Ra Ra second row forward the international ''player of the year''. (Which made me laugh out loud). His chief talent is having longer arms and legs than most people and weighing more than 150 kg. He can't pass, can't run faster than my Nan and he can't change direction quicker than the queen mary, let alone sidestep.

Taumalolo on the other hand is a real rugby (league) player.

I agree we shouldn't alienate the extremes but I'm sorry, the Eton Wall game, just can't hold my attention for more than a minute or two.

I quickly end up talking to my wife, or the lads in the pub, or doing the crossword, or walking out the kitchen to make a cup of tea.

Nothing comes near NRL or SL quality in terms of sporting entertainment. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

their hapless fans have to accept their inept, disfunctional, clumsiness and in-built inertia.

I think we can safely put you down on the non-fan side of the ledger.

Reading your description of ` International player of the year` reminds me of an ex-wallaby Union writer over here who absolutely hates Rugby League, never misses an opportunity to put the boot in, similar in dimension to the bloke you mention. Peter Fitzsimmons is his name. Anyway in the 70`s a first grade League coach, Roy Masters  told him he was coming to watch him play to see if he was suitable to come over to League, story goes Masters left after about 5 minutes. He`d seen enough.

Any way I just read your article and got a good chuckle again and my wife has gone to bed now and it might be time to put my night cap on as well. 

Hopefully I can give you a chuckle as well before I go , Sterlo said recently all good Frontrowers should be filthy on other Frontrowers, bit like the way Roosters Prop Hargreaves wouldn`t shake the hand of the Warriors Prop after the match the other day, anyway Sterlo said he bumped into Bob ` The Bear` O`Reilly the other day and he was still dirty with some other Props from 40+ years ago. Now that`s dirty.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/08/2020 at 04:21, Lowdesert said:

SL seem to take an age posting the Player and Club stats for the game, so I can understand the scepticism.

Ive watched Touch Rugby a good few times and its like people passing each other on the concourse of a supermarket on occasions.  I hope the game doesnt degenerate to that.

A new company has taken over doing super league stats in Sydney so I would take any of these comparisons with a grain of salt. They priortise NRL stats over super league so the stats wont be posted until Monday's I think from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, m brooksy said:

A new company has taken over doing super league stats in Sydney so I would take any of these comparisons with a grain of salt. They priortise NRL stats over super league so the stats wont be posted until Monday's I think from now on.

Fair enough mate but from a visual point of view they are not a good look compared to the NRL stats which are updated as the game progresses, to the SL stats which arent even added for a few days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree its poor. Stats should be available as soon as possible. In terms of live stats the RFL has never wanted them done for some reason and has always just let SKY do their own which i've always thought has been to a poor standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...