Jump to content

RL is in the best shape it's ever been


Recommended Posts

In the early 1990s we were a small sport with lower crowds than now, little media coverage with poorly run clubs. 

Whenever people mention household names they mention Hanley and Offiah - two absolute legends of the game, one with a RU pedigree. 

What was different to back then? Grandstand and Rugby Union signings. 

Andy Farrell, Sam Burgess, Rob Burrow, Jamie Peacock, Kevin Sinfield absolutely have awareness wider than the game. 

Times change, yearning for times that are distorted in the memory isn't helpful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

In the early 1990s we were a small sport with lower crowds than now, little media coverage with poorly run clubs. 

Whenever people mention household names they mention Hanley and Offiah - two absolute legends of the game, one with a RU pedigree. 

What was different to back then? Grandstand and Rugby Union signings. 

Andy Farrell, Sam Burgess, Rob Burrow, Jamie Peacock, Kevin Sinfield absolutely have awareness wider than the game. 

Times change, yearning for times that are distorted in the memory isn't helpful. 

I'm not sure anyone is yearning for anything, we are simply describing change.

I think it is a characteristic of all modern consumption that pretty much all sports have become more niche in the way they reach audiences.

When the choice on a Saturday was Grandstand or ITV sport you tended to watch watch you were given. When the choice of sports news was which paper's back pages you read you again consumed what you were given.

Today, almost all sports have retreated behind a pay wall of some kind and fans congregate on message boards or Facebook groups to get news. There is more sport available than ever but the volume means that people are more selective in what they consume.

I cannot name as many boxers as I could, or Rugby Union players... as I have more choice today about what content to consume and the 10 or so live Rugby League games I can see every week during the season fills up a lot of my sports consumption. 

The way we, as a sport, evolve to meet these changes on consumption will no doubt go a long way to shaping our future.

"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

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not sure anyone is yearning for anything, we are simply describing change.

I think it is a characteristic of all modern consumption that pretty much all sports have become more niche in the way they reach audiences.

When the choice on a Saturday was Grandstand or ITV sport you tended to watch watch you were given. When the choice of sports news was which paper's back pages you read you again consumed what you were given.

Today, almost all sports have retreated behind a pay wall of some kind and fans congregate on message boards or Facebook groups to get news. There is more sport available than ever but the volume means that people are more selective in what they consume.

I cannot name as many boxers as I could, or Rugby Union players... as I have more choice today about what content to consume and the 10 or so live Rugby League games I can see every week during the season fills up a lot of my sports consumption. 

The way we, as a sport, evolve to meet these changes on consumption will no doubt go a long way to shaping our future.

Agree with that, apart from the first line, people absolutely yearn for those household names to return, personally I'm not sure they were ever there. People use Hanley and Offiah as examples of how we have become invisible on a regular basis. 

I accept that's not what you are doing, but it's a regular point made here and elsewhere. 

On the terrestrial vs pay wall point, I find it interesting that RL is one of the few major sports that has always retained terrestrial live coverage of its club game. Maybe that reflects a bit of an issue that we are too focused on that rather than the international game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Sinfield would certainly only be known by the majority outside Rugby League to his recent exploits and Burrow sadly because of MND and the huge amount of awareness the BBC have done. I'd even doubt Farrell too as he is probably more well known these days for his work in RU than his previous life.

I heard something on Radio 2 in the last 7 days about a breakthrough in research in MND at (I think) Glasgow University. They mentioned Doddie Wier (being a Scot and suffering from the disease).  I'm sorry I don't have any more information but they seemed very excited about the development. So I thought I'd mention it for those who have been following Rob Burrows story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Hanley and Offiah are actually a perfect example of lack of star names. They're probably still the players most likely to be known by Joe Bloggs. Yes, some sports fans will know Burgess or Farrell etc but let's be honest, it's probably down to their RU connection. 

It's not about pining for the past or rose tinted glasses, it's just acknowledging that in the past the 'famous' RL players were more famous than current 'famous' ones. Primarily due to the reasons illustrated by Dunbar but nonetheless true. 

You yourself have used lack of household names now versus the likes of Hanley and Offiah as a failing of RL. 

Is it a failing of RL or is it how the sporting world has moved on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You yourself have used lack of household names now versus the likes of Hanley and Offiah as a failing of RL. 

Is it a failing of RL or is it how the sporting world has moved on? 

Maybe RL hasn’t moved on with the rest of the Sporting World. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnoco said:

There are still famous sportspeople so I'd suggest it's a failing of RL.

I used those two because I'd heard of them when I wasn't remotely into RL - or even any sport. Whereas now I don't think someone in the same position is very unlikely to know any RL players.

Were you in Bradford at the time mate? 

I expect plenty of non-RL fans in Warrington, Leeds, Hull etc will have heard of famous RL players nowadays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You yourself have used lack of household names now versus the likes of Hanley and Offiah as a failing of RL. 

Is it a failing of RL or is it how the sporting world has moved on? 

Not addressed to me but I will answer anyway!

I think a little of both.

I have mentioned how sports consumption has changed and I think that it is a pattern across all sports that audiences are more niche so no fault or exception there for League.

But without doubt the best vehicle to raise awareness of the sport and players is internationals. Sports like cycling, hockey and RU have seen the boost you get from international success.

Our lack of focus on the international calendar is well and truly our own fault.

"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

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not addressed to me but I will answer anyway!

I think a little of both.

I have mentioned how sports consumption has changed and I think that it is a pattern across all sports that audiences are more niche so no fault or exception there for League.

But without doubt the best vehicle to raise awareness of the sport and players is internationals. Sports like cycling, hockey and RU have seen the boost you get from international success.

Our lack of focus on the international calendar is well and truly our own fault.

You won't get me disagreeing much on internationals, but we have now gone back to England being a BBC thing again, and it has been for a fair while now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnoco said:

I was in Bradford yes. But I had absolutely no idea who played for them despite having a mate into RL. 

I suppose my point is more generally that RL will get mentioned in towns with RL clubs. People talk about it, it's on TV in pubs, it makes local papers, there is an awareness. Even within those who don't follow the sport. 

Where I live now I could see no mention of RL all year if I didn't look for it. I am aware of some Scotland RU stuff though now, despite not caring about them one jot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2021 at 12:15, Dave T said:

Whenever people mention household names they mention Hanley and Offiah - two absolute legends of the game, one with a RU pedigree. 

What was different to back then? Grandstand and Rugby Union signings. 

Andy Farrell, Sam Burgess, Rob Burrow, Jamie Peacock, Kevin Sinfield absolutely have awareness wider than the game. 

Times change, yearning for times that are distorted in the memory isn't helpful. 

....and the way the game was played, with much less emphasis on defence, and more wide open attacking play which elevated players who stood out.

i bring up RU often on the subject of household names, and do so purely to knock down the two reasons you put forward as to why there aren’t any today in RL.

RU has the same Six (Five) Nations it has always had. It has the same RUWC coverage it has always had. It has MORE club RU coverage than it’s ever had. And yet, despite all this, there is not one household RU name playing today.

So your coverage argument doesn’t wash, nor does your RU signings argument given there are no high profile players in RU today.

The difference is what I’ve bolded, the change in playing style. An Ellery Hanley highlight reel was posted on here a few weeks back. Those eye catching runs he made back then, running through non existent defences, that made him a star, could be make those same runs today? Absolutely not. Ditto Offiah, ditto Robinson.

In RU, Jonah Lomu became an overnight star when he scored four tries vs England in a tournament he lit up, could he produce those displays today? Not a chance.

England beat NZ in the last RUWC, and there was nobody from that game that stood out to write about. England reached the final, and still joe public couldn’t name an England player. The talent hasn’t changed, the way the game has.

The game that stands out for me that best sums up the change in play is the 2015 RUWC game between England and Wales. There was one line break in the whole of the first half. One. When it happened the roof almost came off the place. If an attacking player can’t stand out, he will remain anonymous to joe public.

When an individual cannot generate headlines due to the more defensive, attritional, wrestling aspect of the game, it’s impossible for them to become a household name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DC77 said:

....and the way the game was played, with much less emphasis on defence, and more wide open attacking play which elevated players who stood out.

If there is far more emphasis on defence in the modern game and the game was more wide open with attacking play in the 1980's, why do teams today score more points than they did in the 80's?

in 1988-89 there was an average of 19 points scored per team per game and in 2019 it was up to 23.

"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

I think DC77’s comments are totally fair when it comes to RU, however with RL we have been pretty defence focused since we got our butts kicked big time by the Aussies in the 1980’s, even so since then we have produced some excitingly talented players, plus as has already been highlighted, we see more points per game now than we did in the 1980’s.

Our problem is we don’t seem to know how to make our talented players into guys that get the media spotlight. Look at Tom Johnstones try scoring exploits as an example, that doesn’t seem to get promoted by the sport, something that’s essential when so much of the game is hidden behind a TV paywall. Hopefully the World Cup, which we can pretty much guarantee will have plenty of spectacular moments, such is the nature of the game, will see the organizers being able to generate plenty of positive PR for the sport, if not I just don’t know what to say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Oldbear said:

I think DC77’s comments are totally fair when it comes to RU, however with RL we have been pretty defence focused since we got our butts kicked big time by the Aussies in the 1980’s, even so since then we have produced some excitingly talented players, plus as has already been highlighted, we see more points per game now than we did in the 1980’s.

Our problem is we don’t seem to know how to make our talented players into guys that get the media spotlight. Look at Tom Johnstones try scoring exploits as an example, that doesn’t seem to get promoted by the sport, something that’s essential when so much of the game is hidden behind a TV paywall. Hopefully the World Cup, which we can pretty much guarantee will have plenty of spectacular moments, such is the nature of the game, will see the organizers being able to generate plenty of positive PR for the sport, if not I just don’t know what to say!

As long as "our talented players" play what is perceived (by the minority out there who even know that two versions of rugby exist) as a small time down-market sport of limited interest, just how do you expect the World Cup organizers to generate plenty of positive PR for the sport?  I suggest that the perception which we both know exists has to be changed first, and for that the reality of who plays the sport and where they play it will have to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dunbar said:

If there is far more emphasis on defence in the modern game and the game was more wide open with attacking play in the 1980's, why do teams today score more points than they did in the 80's?

in 1988-89 there was an average of 19 points scored per team per game and in 2019 it was up to 23.

Indeed, the version of RL that they watch is not the one I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Big Picture said:

As long as "our talented players" play what is perceived (by the minority out there who even know that two versions of rugby exist) as a small time down-market sport of limited interest, just how do you expect the World Cup organizers to generate plenty of positive PR for the sport?  I suggest that the perception which we both know exists has to be changed first, and for that the reality of who plays the sport and where they play it will have to be changed.

Just by being a World Cup helps, the average general sports viewer would not be bothered by Wigan v Warrington ( probably not even Leeds v London), but England v Fiji  or New Zealand is much more eye catching and likely to attract interest. The problem is, especially for NH RL, is that the guys that end up in the shop window are almost certainly going to be lured either to the NRL, or RU, since SL will be unable to afford to pay them. What needs to be changed, is the amount of money in SL, so that players can have a lucrative career without having to move to the other side of the world or switch code, how that happens, with the current leadership, is the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/01/2021 at 16:47, langpark said:

I mentioned it elsewhere, but I feel it deserves its own thread.  Seeing as we always hear people saying the game is declining in the UK or some even go as far as to say things like "dying a slow death", I dug up some figures that prove otherwise:

2015:  Increase of 9,900 reported on previous year:  https://www.rugby-league.com/article/33357/participation-increases-are-testament-to

2017:  Year-on-year increases since 2012 confirmed as well as a 40% increase over the last 10 years:  https://www.totalrl.com/exclusive-rfl-issue-response-participation-figures-sport-england/

2020:  RFL reports increase in participation in 2019, from 102,304 to 109,501:  https://www.rugby-league.com/article/56906/rfl-confirms-return-to-profit-and-increased-participation-in-

This is not even factoring the (undeniable) growth of the international game either.  I don't have any figures of other countries, but I know there has been significant growth across Europe in the last decade as well.

 

This being positive will never catch on. However, I agree with his post - which doesnt even mention how brilliant our sport is. If RU sport had produced a game like that (as if) a DVD of the game would have been invited to the palace and a monthly slot on QoS. PLUS how good are our players on and off the pitch, they really are true role models.

RL deserves better. Our sport deserves more funding. What we do in communities where the streets are not paved with gold is amazing.

Great thread. All sports have challenges, ours repeatedly rises above them because it truly is the greatest

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Just by being a World Cup helps, the average general sports viewer would not be bothered by Wigan v Warrington ( probably not even Leeds v London), but England v Fiji  or New Zealand is much more eye catching and likely to attract interest. The problem is, especially for NH RL, is that the guys that end up in the shop window are almost certainly going to be lured either to the NRL, or RU, since SL will be unable to afford to pay them. What needs to be changed, is the amount of money in SL, so that players can have a lucrative career without having to move to the other side of the world or switch code, how that happens, with the current leadership, is the challenge.

The leadership isn't the obstacle, the location of the teams in what Sean McGuire has called smallish economically deprived towns is the issue.  No broadcaster is ever going to pay the sort of money needed to enable British RL to compete with RU or the NRL for a league full of teams from places like that because as you said the average general sports viewer would not be bothered by Wigan v Warrington and probably not even Leeds v London so matches like those won't get the ratings the broadcaster would need to justify paying that much for the rights.

The reason Sky cut back the rights payments in 1999 was precisely that SL wasn't getting the kind of ratings needed to justify the original amount negotiated by Maurice Lindsay four years earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

The leadership isn't the obstacle, the location of the teams in what Sean McGuire has called smallish economically deprived towns is the issue.  No broadcaster is ever going to pay the sort of money needed to enable British RL to compete with RU or the NRL for a league full of teams from places like that.

The Super League TV deal is arguably better than the RU equivalent and reaches a wider audience on Sky than BT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

The Super League TV deal is arguably better than the RU equivalent and reaches a wider audience on Sky than BT.

Not quite, the Gallagher Premiership's three year extension covering the period from 2021 to 2024 is worth 110 million £, or almost 37 million £ a year, plus they're getting 10 million £ a year from Gallagher for the naming rights sponsorship.  Their salary cap is still three times the SL salary cap even after they reduced it, and only a handful of SL clubs can even afford the current SL cap.  Even after accounting for their bigger rosters that enables them to pay players double what the few SL clubs able to afford the current SL cap can pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

The leadership isn't the obstacle, the location of the teams in what Sean McGuire has called smallish economically deprived towns is the issue.  No broadcaster is ever going to pay the sort of money needed to enable British RL to compete with RU or the NRL for a league full of teams from places like that because as you said the average general sports viewer would not be bothered by Wigan v Warrington and probably not even Leeds v London so matches like those won't get the ratings the broadcaster would need to justify paying that much for the rights.

The reason Sky cut back the rights payments in 1999 was precisely that SL wasn't getting the kind of ratings needed to justify the original amount negotiated by Maurice Lindsay four years earlier.

The leadership is a major obstacle, the game is run by club chairmen, who obviously have self interest at heart. Expecting major changes from them is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Fair play to their efforts in keeping the game alive for so long, however to move forward in the modern era is going to require more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Not quite, the Gallagher Premiership's three year extension covering the period from 2021 to 2024 is worth 110 million £, or almost 37 million £ a year, plus they're getting 10 million £ a year from Gallagher for the naming rights sponsorship.  Their salary cap is still three times the SL salary cap even after they reduced it, and only a handful of SL clubs can even afford the current SL cap.  Even after accounting for their bigger rosters that enables them to pay players double what the few SL clubs able to afford the current SL cap can pay.

You talked about broadcasters. Super League rights have been broadly similar or better than the RU equivalent for years. The geographic spread of teams has had no impact on that. You were wrong and so now are moving the goalposts.

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.