The Real Battle of a Code War

[JonM]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

What I'm suggesting is that by introducing the footy (ball and the rules) to children in an environment where they can play the game with the emphasis on fun, they are likely to view the game positively, for the whole of their lives.

That's whether they go on (in later life) to play, officiate, spectate, fund raise, form and administer clubs, etc. etc.

Teaching the games skills at a young age, will convince more kids that they ''can do'' rugby league and want to be involved, in some way.

For the majority, who don't go on to play, or those whose playing days are over, then having an elite club, or national team, they can align with makes it easier to hold their interest, (which might explain why the Australians haven't developed pro Soccer clubs) so I agree, there's more to developing the game quickly, than just increasing participation numbers but what i'm saying is, that whatever else you do, you must do the grass roots development, to ensure increasing numbers are exposed to it.

Absolutely agree with this.

The Richard Lewis era RFL published data from fan surveys showing that 90% of people who watch live club RL either played as a child, or they were taken to their first game by a family member. I would be quite surprised if that wasn't true for rugby union and cricket too.

Of course, there are other models. NFL games get huge crowds at Wembley of whom only a tiny proportion have ever played. Plenty of people who haven't driven an F1 car are happy watching them go round and round in circles for hours on tv. Soccer in Australia & N. America have achieved wide participation without corresponding levels of spectator interest. (Although frankly, the A-league appears to be bigger in terms of attendance and tv contract than British RL is and MLS is orders of magnitude bigger).

The line "For goodness sake, lets get our ars...s in gear and focus on increasing participation numbers year on year." is the single most important thing Ralph Rimmer needs to do, IMO, but I almost never hear the post-Lewis RFL talk about such things. 

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, JonM said:

Absolutely agree with this.

The Richard Lewis era RFL published data from fan surveys showing that 90% of people who watch live club RL either played as a child, or they were taken to their first game by a family member. I would be quite surprised if that wasn't true for rugby union and cricket too.

Of course, there are other models. NFL games get huge crowds at Wembley of whom only a tiny proportion have ever played. Plenty of people who haven't driven an F1 car are happy watching them go round and round in circles for hours on tv. Soccer in Australia & N. America have achieved wide participation without corresponding levels of spectator interest. (Although frankly, the A-league appears to be bigger in terms of attendance and tv contract than British RL is and MLS is orders of magnitude bigger).

The line "For goodness sake, lets get our ars...s in gear and focus on increasing participation numbers year on year." is the single most important thing Ralph Rimmer needs to do, IMO, but I almost never hear the post-Lewis RFL talk about such things. 

If 90% of our fans were introduced that way, surely it makes sense to replicate that process (of introducing them) as often as possible?

You are right about the NFL crowds at Wembley, not being populated by people who once played the game but our needs as a game are quite different. Yes we need to grow the fanbase but we are experiencing a dearth of high quality players at the top end, so its vitally important (if we don't want to appear second rate when compared to the dark side) that we increase the number of players of that class, emerging from the amateur clubs as we go along. For every SL quality player, we need hundreds of participants to cream off the best. The NFL don't need London to produce players for them. 

I've no doubt, that in time, Soccer will continue to grow and prosper, not only in Australia, but across the world. 

Just look at the Hemel Hempstead story, and the North East's fully integrated approach to embedding the game in the community (Wales too, to some extent)? It can be done. They've proved it, It does work, if you do it right, for long enough.

Apart from the aforementioned actual evidence of success, the reason for my confidence, my unapologetic optimism is the game itself.

I believe it really is (for people like us) the greatest game of all.

So if we show it to enough people it will stick, with many many more ''people like us''.  

[unapologetic pedant]

When a town`s Soccer team has an upturn in fortunes following a generation of failure, their crowds quickly rise back to the level enjoyed when they were previously successful. When a town`s RL team follows a similar pattern, the crowds may increase but to nothing like the previous level.

This suggests that Soccer`s residual support base is being constantly replenished in a way that RL`s is not. When clubs like Salford or Huddersfield are successful, there are no longer that many people in their areas able to appreciate the success. The media coverage of Soccer and the number of people who have played it, particularly as children, have to be the differentiating factors.

There is another, often-overlooked aspect to this. I`ve never accepted that RL is a simple game with simple rules. Learning how to watch and enjoy RL is a more complex and subtle process than for Soccer. I think the main reason I`ve got increasingly bored with Soccer, after being a huge fan as a child, is precisely because its appeal is so obvious.

The ability to grasp RL sufficiently well to enjoy watching it does not proceed ipso facto from growing up in a traditional RL town. The experience of playing may differ from the experience of watching. But when the quantity and quality of our media coverage is too limited or superficial to impart an understanding, the only option is to maximise the number of people who have played some form of the game (contact or non-contact).

[The Great Dane]

12 hours ago, Griff said:

Because there's no evidence to suggest that "the vast majority of people's experience" (and I'd suggest that "perception" is a more accurate word) is correct.

It's just somebody's opinion.

Nope experience is definitely the right word.

The army of people whom can’t afford the time to both play the game and watch it just isn’t a thing.

[The Rocket]

13 hours ago, fighting irish said:

What I'm suggesting is that by introducing the footy (ball and the rules) to children in an environment where they can play the game with the emphasis on fun, they are likely to view the game positively, for the whole of their lives.

That's whether they go on (in later life) to play, officiate, spectate, fund raise, form and administer clubs, etc. etc.

 

11 hours ago, JonM said:

Absolutely agree with this.

The Richard Lewis era RFL published data from fan surveys showing that 90% of people who watch live club RL either played as a child, or they were taken to their first game by a family member. I would be quite surprised if that wasn't true for rugby union and cricket too.

 

The line "For goodness sake, lets get our ars...s in gear and focus on increasing participation numbers year on year." is the single most important thing Ralph Rimmer needs to do, IMO, but I almost never hear the post-Lewis RFL talk about such things. 

Well let us talk about it. 

How about a few ideas how we can reach these kids.

It is so easy for us to sit here and talk `development officers` and expect someone else to wave a magic wand and they will have hoards of kids around them clammering for the ball or to go to a game.

We need short and long term strategies.

How about this. Having League sympathetic Teachers in schools is gold. Scholarships for young people to attend university are not expensive. You don`t have to pay for the whole course, may be just part of their course cost, say $5000( AUS), convert it if you want, kids apply for these scholarships before they start Uni. who ever is distributing the Scholarship decides who gets it. If it is a scholarship from a RL body, kids that have RL backgrounds can apply and perhaps get it. Young players coming up through the grades can apply and start on their teaching Degrees, they might not make it in the League they will go on to become School Teachers who are sympathetic to RL. And they may just be the the one, who one day organises a RL team or a touch comp in that school. Or who meets with the regional RL Development Officer to discuss a strategy.

We need ideas.

[Griff]

6 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Nope experience is definitely the right word.

The army of people whom can’t afford the time to both play the game and watch it just isn’t a thing.

Keep saying it - but it doesn't make it true.

[redjonn]

23 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

You make a good point Copa, but, the trouble that soccer has in Aus is that the public don’t have access to top level soccer. The A League is far from a top standard in comparison to Prem or B’liga.

A more accurate example would be the large viewership for important Socceroos matches and Euro club tours. That would lend support to the claim that if you played it growing up, you are more likely to watch.

Not so sure... not many play NFL here in the UK, almost non existent playing but get huge attendance now some games are played here in the UK...

I know I'm nit picking.... 

[redjonn]

A good marketing organisation would tell you why we watch or follow RL in preference or together with another sport. Why we spend money on one rather than the other choices available, etc.

That's the starting point... market analysis. The no need to be guessing as we are on this thread.

[JonM]

4 minutes ago, redjonn said:

That's the starting point... market analysis. The no need to be guessing as we are on this thread.

Which the RFL did actually do some years ago. Can't find it on google, but it pretty clearly said that a substantial majority of people who watch club RL first went either because they were taken by a family member or because they played themselves. The audience for internationals is different, of course.

[redjonn]

anyway as we lack the marketing analysis my tuppence worth is:

we are influenced greatly by our first visit to a stadium... thus parents or colleagues or friends or relatives  taking us along with enthusiasm and we find an exciting experience gets us into it.

Aiming promotional products to bring along others and then ensuring an exciting experience may be more key then whether played the game or not. 

[redjonn]

3 minutes ago, JonM said:

Which the RFL did actually do some years ago. Can't find it on google, but it pretty clearly said that a substantial majority of people who watch club RL first went either because they were taken by a family member or because they played themselves. The audience for internationals is different, of course.

guess needs updating on a regular basis.

Myself I think from my experience its family/friends taking me along. No doubt playing increases the interest... although would like a deeper analysis of percentages etc... as to which is the more importance... but attacking both seems reasonable.

[Sports Prophet]

39 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Not so sure... not many play NFL here in the UK, almost non existent playing but get huge attendance now some games are played here in the UK...

I know I'm nit picking.... 

... and you are mistaking the line “more likely to watch if they have played” with “will only watch if they have played”.

As someone mentioned earlier, F1 isn’t followed by millions of racing car drivers. But I’m sure that those who did participate in karting at a junior level are very likely to be following and watching motor racing of some description in adulthood.

[Griff]

10 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

... and you are mistaking the line “more likely to watch if they have played” with “will only watch if they have played”.

As someone mentioned earlier, F1 isn’t followed by millions of racing car drivers. But I’m sure that those who did participate in karting at a junior level are very likely to be following and watching motor racing of some description in adulthood.

Do they participate in karting because they're interested in motor racing ?  Or are they interested in motor racing because their parents were loaded and packed them off karting ?

Chicken or egg ?  Which is it ?

[Sports Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

Do they participate in karting because they're interested in motor racing ?  Or are they interested in motor racing because their parents were loaded and packed them off karting ?

Chicken or egg ?  Which is it ?

It doesn’t matter to the discussion at hand. That child will more likely grow up as an adult with an interest in motor sport even if not competing at an elite level than an individual that had no engagement with motor racing as a child.

[JM2010]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

Not so sure... not many play NFL here in the UK, almost non existent playing but get huge attendance now some games are played here in the UK...

I know I'm nit picking.... 

Yeah but they are one off well marketed events. If an NFL league was set up in the UK I doubt there would be much interest but if there was a big push over the next 10 years to get kids playing American Football then a pro league was introduced then I'm sure they would get much bigger crowds 

[fighting irish]

Where's the Rocket? You wanted to discuss this so here are some of my ideas. I think its critically important how we approach schools and that we clearly define, what we have to offer and what the ''price'' is. 

When I began, as a development officer, it was clear that the process of ''development'' was in its infancy and ill defined.

After visiting some more experienced blokes it was apparent that we were going into schools (at no cost to the school) and giving the children ''an experience'' of rugby league (often a very thrilling and enjoyable one) and then withdrawing from the school to move on to another.

In order to make it more attractive to the school, the development officer took over the lesson and often allowed the teacher to do some marking, take a rest, and/or have a cup of tea.

At the end of the ''experience'' the development officer moved on and the game collapsed and disappeared in their wake.

This was a tragic waste of time and effort (and money) having raised the children's hopes and then leaving them to wither on the vine.

I came to the conclusion (as a former salesmen) that we were so diffident about what we had to offer, we were afraid to ask the schools to ''pay'' for what we were ''selling''.

We lacked confidence in our own product (the curse of the vacuum cleaner salesman)!

Anyway, the RFL had created a modified version of the game called ''Little League'' which I used as a medium to introduce the game to kids in their final year of junior school (10 - 11 year olds). I had mapped out the territory, selected  my ''target'' schools, clustered around the high schools they fed and went to work.

I approached each school in turn and told them that I had a ''package'' of benefits but could only supply 4 schools (so making them aware of a certain scarcity) in each half term.

The main ''shift'' in my own approach was that I sold the ''package'', not as an experience for the kids but as an in-service training opportunity for the teachers, culminating in a nationally recognised coaching qualification. (a c.v. builder for a young teacher).

I made it clear the teacher would be ''coached'' to teach the game to kids using his/her class as the medium, over a six week (half term) period. I then told them ''the price''.

The teacher would have to commit to attending and taking part in the 6 lessons and at the end, attend a one day basic skills coaching course (to get their Nationally recognised coaching qualification) and AND they had to agree to enter a team into my local tournament-style ''little league'' for the rest of the year.

I made them sign a contract. I sold it (not gave it away) showing the respect I had and the value I placed on what we had to offer.

After the course,  I asked the teachers to fill in a ''customer satisfaction survey'', comments from which I used as testimonials when trying to ''sell'' to other schools.

It was very popular, although not all took up the offer.

The main advantages of my approach were:-

1. The school was convinced of the ''value'' of what we were offering.

2. The teachers gained new skills and a worthwhile coaching qualification that they could ''boast'' about on their job applications.

3. When I withdrew, I left behind a teacher, confident that they could run ''Little league'' games during their                  games lessons and introduce it to new classes each year.

4.The kids loved the game and the ''Little League'' tournaments and could play on after I walked away.

Some of the schools were still running with it, 10 years after I finished. 

After 3 terms, the Ra Ra introduced their ''Teach the Teachers'' scheme!!!!! I wonder where they got that idea? 

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Where's the Rocket? You wanted to discuss this so here are some of my ideas. I think its critically important how we approach schools and that we clearly define, what we have to offer and what the ''price'' is. 

When I began, as a development officer, it was clear that the process of ''development'' was in its infancy and ill defined.

After visiting some more experienced blokes it was apparent that we were going into schools (at no cost to the school) and giving the children ''an experience'' of rugby league (often a very thrilling and enjoyable one) and then withdrawing from the school to move on to another.

etc etc etc

Liked your contribution.

Leeds do something similar to your overall contribution and schools make a payment. The schools have some monies allocated from government for such, I think Leeds costs to school is around 2000 per year.

[The Rocket]

52 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Where's the Rocket? You wanted to discuss this so here are some of my ideas. I think its critically important how we approach schools and that we clearly define, what we have to offer and what the ''price'' is. 

When I began, as a development officer, it was clear that the process of ''development'' was in its infancy and ill defined.

After visiting some more experienced blokes it was apparent that we were going into schools (at no cost to the school) and giving the children ''an experience'' of rugby league (often a very thrilling and enjoyable one) and then withdrawing from the school to move on to another.

In order to make it more attractive to the school, the development officer took over the lesson and often allowed the teacher to do some marking, take a rest, and/or have a cup of tea.

At the end of the ''experience'' the development officer moved on and the game collapsed and disappeared in their wake.

This was a tragic waste of time and effort (and money) having raised the children's hopes and then leaving them to wither on the vine.

I came to the conclusion (as a former salesmen) that we were so diffident about what we had to offer, we were afraid to ask the schools to ''pay'' for what we were ''selling''.

We lacked confidence in our own product (the curse of the vacuum cleaner salesman)!

Anyway, the RFL had created a modified version of the game called ''Little League'' which I used as a medium to introduce the game to kids in their final year of junior school (10 - 11 year olds). I had mapped out the territory, selected  my ''target'' schools, clustered around the high schools they fed and went to work.

I approached each school in turn and told them that I had a ''package'' of benefits but could only supply 4 schools (so making them aware of a certain scarcity) in each half term.

The main ''shift'' in my own approach was that I sold the ''package'', not as an experience for the kids but as an in-service training opportunity for the teachers, culminating in a nationally recognised coaching qualification. (a c.v. builder for a young teacher).

I made it clear the teacher would be ''coached'' to teach the game to kids using his/her class as the medium, over a six week (half term) period. I then told them ''the price''.

The teacher would have to commit to attending and taking part in the 6 lessons and at the end, attend a one day basic skills coaching course (to get their Nationally recognised coaching qualification) and AND they had to agree to enter a team into my local tournament-style ''little league'' for the rest of the year.

I made them sign a contract. I sold it (not gave it away) showing the respect I had and the value I placed on what we had to offer.

After the course,  I asked the teachers to fill in a ''customer satisfaction survey'', comments from which I used as testimonials when trying to ''sell'' to other schools.

It was very popular, although not all took up the offer.

The main advantages of my approach were:-

1. The school was convinced of the ''value'' of what we were offering.

2. The teachers gained new skills and a worthwhile coaching qualification that they could ''boast'' about on their job applications.

3. When I withdrew, I left behind a teacher, confident that they could run ''Little league'' games during their                  games lessons and introduce it to new classes each year.

4.The kids loved the game and the ''Little League'' tournaments and could play on after I walked away.

Some of the schools were still running with it, 10 years after I finished. 

After 3 terms, the Ra Ra introduced their ''Teach the Teachers'' scheme!!!!! I wonder where they got that idea? 

Wow !  I am impressed. 

When I hear problems Irish I like to hear solutions as well.. It sounds like you were really on to something. I thought it would be much more difficult to find League sympathetic teachers and that was a really neat solution. There is nothing like beefing up somebodies regime. My idea of scholarships for League may still have some merit especially in this age of preparing players for life after League.

I have to admit that after I made the above post I went back and read the last page and a bit of the `London Strategy` thread and realised that there was already some great input on the topic.

The question is where do we go from here. Especially given the financial restraints on league in your half of the world. I suppose Irish it just means efforts would have to be very well targeted ,say like Newcastle, a region I hear a lot of people seem fairly optimistic about.  I would love to know how many DO`s the RLF actually employ.

I read an interview with Dave Solly, Souths CEO today, he was critical that the NRL had spent $100 million on grass roots RL in the last 3 years and had really made no progress in participation numbers. He hinted that Souths had some new grand master plan for changing that. I thought I might send him a letter telling him to keep his players out of the headlines for the wrong reasons and that might make the NRL`s job a little easier. Think Cody Walker and Latrell Mitchell scandals this year. I won`t bang on about that.

You are obviously passionate about this and your frustration is palpable. And your line " get your ar__s in gear " reveals the former coach in you speaking to your players at half time. It also happens to be one of my favourites when I am doing cattle work with my kids, but I abbreviate it to "a__e in gear".

 

[The Great Dane]

23 hours ago, Griff said:

Keep saying it - but it doesn't make it true.

You are the one making the claim mate, not me. The onus is on you to provide evidence that it is real not me.

[Griff]

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

You are the one making the claim mate, not me. The onus is on you to provide evidence that it is real not me.

Au contraire.  I presented my case as an alternative hypothesis.

You claimed that your view was a fact.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Have to agree with people talking up football here in Aus - the domestic game is zero threat to AFL or RL.  It gets a lot of headlines every time Australia get to a World Cup, but aside from that hardly anyone cares.  And for all the very high levels of participation (and I've seen first hand pretty good coaching and fantastic facilities for juniors), the standard of the A League is truly awful.  I can only think its a lot to do with the best athletes wanting to play AFL in Victoria, SA and WA and RL in Queensland and NSW.

What IS different about Australia is the willingness of Aussies to change which sport they "follow" in a way I'd never seen in England. 

In AFL, the Brisbane Lions won the comp 3 years running, and back then almost everyone you met claimed to be a Lions fan.  AFL supporting media types think they'll take over on the back of COVID, and yet as soon as the success of the Lions evaporated, so did the fans and interest.  Ditto to a fair degree the Swans in Sydney.

When the Wallabies were World Cup winners or a serious chance, RU was seemingly going to take over (signing a bunch of big-name RL players in the process). Now?  RU is on its arris here, with very little interest outside the hard core fan base.  But the next time Australia hosts a world cup, expect everyone you meet to be a huge Wallabies fan.

None of that means RL can be complacent here, but the ONLY game that matters as competition is AFL. AFL has two things the other competing codes don't - lots of money and a very professional administration.

[bennyboy]

On 04/09/2020 at 21:45, Copa said:

If it was true in Australia the huge numbers of junior soccer players over the last 3 or 4 decades would have thrust a professional soccer competition to the top of the mountain in Australia.. but that hasn’t happened.

Last week’s Raiders game out-rated the A-League grand final which was on at the same time.

So there’s more to it than just having lots of juniors..

It’s because AFL and NRL are the premier competitions of their respective sports, whereas the A League is not even in the top 10 of football. This is a huge factor in the greater scheme of things. For one, the Aussie psyche is to be the best, similarly to Americans. So when they realise they aren’t, they don’t concern themselves with a particular something in which they can’t claim to be or have the best. This is why there are probably more Premier League fans in Australia than A League fans. It’s also for this very reason that AFL and NRL have enjoyed the success they do in Australia. Australia can claim to be and have the best comps in the world 

[The Great Dane]

On 06/09/2020 at 22:36, Griff said:

Au contraire.  I presented my case as an alternative hypothesis.

You claimed that your view was a fact.

You didn't present a hypothesis, you presented a claim without any supporting evidence, and a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If what you said was true then you'd at least expect a huge amounts of anecdotal evidence to support it, and I simply do not see anybody, let alone a potentially measurable group, complaining that they can't find the time in a week to both play the game and watch it.

[The Great Dane]

23 hours ago, bennyboy said:

It’s because AFL and NRL are the premier competitions of their respective sports, whereas the A League is not even in the top 10 of football. This is a huge factor in the greater scheme of things. For one, the Aussie psyche is to be the best, similarly to Americans. So when they realise they aren’t, they don’t concern themselves with a particular something in which they can’t claim to be or have the best. This is why there are probably more Premier League fans in Australia than A League fans. It’s also for this very reason that AFL and NRL have enjoyed the success they do in Australia. Australia can claim to be and have the best comps in the world 

If participation rates are directly linked to support of the professional game, then using your logic you'd expect soccer's participation numbers in Australia to result in absolutely huge ratings and support for the top soccer leagues in the world. For example, since their participation rates are so much higher you'd expect that the EPL would out rate the NRL and AFL in Australia, but that simply isn't the case at all.

In fact if people disproportionately value a competition based of it's perceived quality, i.e. they're much more likely to support a competition if it's the "best" in it's sport, then surely you'd expect that to be repeated across the world. In other words wouldn't you expect there to be a disproportionate amount people in England supporting the NRL exclusively over the SL just as there are a disproportionate amount of Australians supporting the EPL over the A-league?

Also if Australians don't concern themselves with things that the nation can't claim to be, or have been, the the best at, then surely they wouldn't concern themselves with soccer and it wouldn't have the highest participation rate of all the football codes in Australia...

[HawkMan]

The main soccer leagues are in Europe,  so live matches shown in Australia would presumably be at night or early morning,  hardly peak viewing times. What are ratings for highlights shows  ? 

Also as in most " first world " nations the population demographics are changing,  more diverse, lots of ex pat communities,  that's why the RL WC has Italy, Lebanon,  Greece  in it, mostly made up of Australians , I'm guessing,  I genuinely don't know,  but is soccer popular among those communities? I expect the soccer world can happily cope with not being huge in Australia,  even though FIFA would like a WC there. I read somewhere that other codes have refused previously to accommodate a WC in Australia,  by steadfastly refusing to alter their fixture schedule to allow their grounds to be used. I think the problem is FIFA insist that any stadia used must not be used for anything else during the tournament,  and the other codes will allow the stadia use, but not this extra condition.