Jump to content

Rugby league-could some lessons be learned from cricket?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Seeing in the Hundred how an integrated event with equal attention and broadcasting has really helped the women's tournament take off, I reckon we'd have seen the same for the women's RLWC tournament. 

Another one of the many disastrous knock on effects of the world cup postponement, I just hope the beeb and everyone else still does the same next year and doesn't look to cut corners. 

The one thing that struck me about the 2013 RLWC was that around 90% of the crowd stayed behind and watched Australia lift the trophy - despite the scoreline being 34-2. It was full and it was an event crowd.

My feeling is that for the Women's WC at Old Trafford - there would have been 50% of the crowd there during the first half and probably 80+% in the closing stages. That would have been an experience of a lifetime for those women taking part! Hope that is not lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Women’s Cricket World Cup lifted the sport to another level especially with regards to raising awareness and yes it is different to the men’s game eg less power & strength but the skill levels are just as high.

The intention for the RLWC was to achieve something similar for Women’s RL and yes whilst it will be different to the Men’s game it will probably be more of a throwback to RL of previous years and none the worse for that.

As posted on this forum many times previously the real growth opportunity for RL is in the Women’s and Girls game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

I have to disagree.  A great many team sports, i.e. soccer, baseball, hockey, ice hockey, handball, basketball, gridiron, Aussie football, hurling and Gaelic football all do quite well while only offering one form of their respective sport.

There are five-a-side and six-a-side versions of soccer alongside beach soccer, and that's before you get to futsal and others.

Baseball has softball.

There are indoor and mixed versions of hockey.

Ice hockey, not sure of.

Handball has beach handball. Plus some informal 'park' outdoor versions. There also used to be an 11 a side version.

Basketball has two versions in the Olympics just gone.

American football has flag football and different versions of tackle for women and amateurs.

Aussie football has different rules to cope with different numbers and rectangle pitches in Europe.

Hurling has camogie.

Gaelic football? Maybe.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Indeed it was. Yet what was an act of cynical cost cutting ended up inadvertently creating one of the most engaging bits of the tournament. At the Rose Bowl last week I reckon at least 5k including myself turned up early to see the women, they definitely wouldn't have got that number separately at Hove. 

The little dears should be grateful.

The women's game being shafted by the double headers has been shown twice (I believe) in the past week as their games have been lost to the weather whilst the following men's games have gone ahead.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There are five-a-side and six-a-side versions of soccer alongside beach soccer, and that's before you get to futsal and others.

Baseball has softball.

There are indoor and mixed versions of hockey.

Ice hockey, not sure of.

Handball has beach handball. Plus some informal 'park' outdoor versions. There also used to be an 11 a side version.

Basketball has two versions in the Olympics just gone.

American football has flag football and different versions of tackle for women and amateurs.

Aussie football has different rules to cope with different numbers and rectangle pitches in Europe.

Hurling has camogie.

Gaelic football? Maybe.

I was speaking of offerings for the public in the form of professional competitions, other forms are of no consequence.  Softball is a separate sport from baseball too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

I was speaking of offerings for the public in the form of professional competitions, other forms are of no consequence.  Softball is a separate sport from baseball too.

Softball and baseball share a common global governing body. They're closer than rugby union and rugby 7s in many ways.

There are professionals in beach soccer, futsal, beach handball, 3x3 basketball and others.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The little dears should be grateful.

The women's game being shafted by the double headers has been shown twice (I believe) in the past week as their games have been lost to the weather whilst the following men's games have gone ahead.

Yes, I did see that as a huge flaw a couple of weeks back. The men's game was given every opportunity to be played, the women's game appeared to be written off rather early. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Softball and baseball share a common global governing body. They're closer than rugby union and rugby 7s in many ways.

No they're not closer than RU and rugby 7s.  The latter two are played under more or less the same rules and on the same size field with the same size ball, as far as I know only the number of players and playing time are different.

With baseball and softball the ball is a different size, it's pitched differently (overhand in one, underhand in the other) and from a different distance away from the batter, the diamonds are a different size, etc.  They're only under one governing body because the IOC classified them as two different disciplines of one sport rather than as different sports although no one in North America would say that they're the same sport.  If the IOC were to do that with RU and RL — which is certainly possible in view of that precedent — would you accept that those are disciplines of the same sport too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

No they're not closer than RU and rugby 7s.  The latter two are played under more or less the same rules and on the same size field with the same size ball, as far as I know only the number of players and playing time are different.

With baseball and softball the ball is a different size, it's pitched differently (overhand in one, underhand in the other) and from a different distance away from the batter, the diamonds are a different size, etc.  They're only under one governing body because the IOC classified them as two different disciplines of one sport rather than as different sports although no one in North America would say that they're the same sport.  If the IOC were to do that with RU and RL — which is certainly possible in view of that precedent — would you accept that those are disciplines of the same sport too?

So different size field, different size ball ... kind of like men’s and women’s cricket then.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I did see that as a huge flaw a couple of weeks back. The men's game was given every opportunity to be played, the women's game appeared to be written off rather early. 

It’s a massive flaw and rather shows, when combined with the salaries and the actual times the matches are playing at, what the organisers really think of the women’s side of things.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So different size field, different size ball ... kind of like men’s and women’s cricket then.

Interestingly the field size differs from the international to the domestic game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Interestingly the field size differs from the international to the domestic game 

I was in Derbyshire a couple of years ago assisting the logistics teams for my wifes business with the signage.

 

The boundary sponsors for the T/Twenty (Vitality) was set around 20m in from the county championship boundary and the  one for the women (Kia) another 10m seriously my 10 year would have been scoring sixes off every ball: ) LOL

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

So, just to recap, what lessons did everyone agree rugby league could learn from cricket? Can someone please make a list of them.

 1 Become a sport appreciated across much of England and bits of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales;

2 As a result, get some decent coverage in the national media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully we don't learn how to turn the game into a circus to attract a few non fans to the odd game.

The hundred is just woeful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I have to disagree.  A great many team sports, i.e. soccer, baseball, hockey, ice hockey, handball, basketball, gridiron, Aussie football, hurling and Gaelic football all do quite well while only offering one form of their respective sport.

Football offers 5-a-side, 6-a-side, 7-a-side, indoor football, beach football and (yes, I'm counting it) e-football - all well organised and accessible to encourage participation. These forms of the sport are particularly good at engaging demographics that don't ordinarily attend live games. 

With RL, whilst there is some work being done in areas like touch and tag, it is seriously under-funded and under-promoted. If you want to participate in the community game, you're largely expected to commit to the full amateur 13_a-side game or not at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

Football offers 5-a-side, 6-a-side, 7-a-side, indoor football, beach football and (yes, I'm counting it) e-football - all well organised and accessible to encourage participation. These forms of the sport are particularly good at engaging demographics that don't ordinarily attend live games. 

With RL, whilst there is some work being done in areas like touch and tag, it is seriously under-funded and under-promoted. If you want to participate in the community game, you're largely expected to commit to the full amateur 13_a-side game or not at all. 

Those don't get big crowds or get on TV though, do they?  Are they anything more than purely recreational games?  If so then they don't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Picture said:

Those don't get big crowds or get on TV though, do they?  Are they anything more than purely recreational games?  If so then they don't count.

I'm not saying they do. I'm talking about how we get people engaging with the sport in one way or another - watching, playing or enjoying. 

I'm sure than many of those forms have been some sort of "gateway" for people to get further invested in the sport. For example, I don't see many people from Asian backgrounds at English football stadia, but go to any 5-a-side centre and you will see plenty of people from that demographic playing the sport, fully kitted out In Premier League gear. That has value to the Premier League. 

The core point here is that if "original" flavour of RL can't attract enough people to engage with it, RL needs to offer things that people will engage with (assuming, that is, it wants to grow). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

So, just to recap, what lessons did everyone agree rugby league could learn from cricket? Can someone please make a list of them.

Don't change the game so it lasts 8 hours 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm not saying they do. I'm talking about how we get people engaging with the sport in one way or another - watching, playing or enjoying. 

I'm sure than many of those forms have been some sort of "gateway" for people to get further invested in the sport. For example, I don't see many people from Asian backgrounds at English football stadia, but go to any 5-a-side centre and you will see plenty of people from that demographic playing the sport, fully kitted out In Premier League gear. That has value to the Premier League. 

The core point here is that if "original" flavour of RL can't attract enough people to engage with it, RL needs to offer things that people will engage with (assuming, that is, it wants to grow). 

Playing football with 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11 or 20 players a side is still football , reduce the size of the pitch or double it , it is still football 

Remove the physical tackling of RL and it isn't RL 

Everybody keeps forgetting , we were born as a professional sport , that does make us different 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Playing football with 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11 or 20 players a side is still football , reduce the size of the pitch or double it , it is still football 

Remove the physical tackling of RL and it isn't RL 

Everybody keeps forgetting , we were born as a professional sport , that does make us different 

What's your point?

That there is nothing that RL can do to broaden it's appeal to people who perhaps aren't enthused by the attritional nature of tough 80-minute forward battles?

That there's nothing that the sport can offer people who want to see more of those box-office skill players doing what they do best? 

That's there's nothing the sport can do to lower the barrier to entry for people who want to casually play the game, but don't want the commitment of training two nights a week and giving up their Sundays?

That there is no point promoting low/no contact versions to people who might want to play RL (let's say for social of fitness purposes) but can't afford to get injured, perhaps because they work in physical jobs, or have insecure contracts, because "RL is supposed to be tough"?

That there's nothing the sport can do to find a way that encourages parents to let their kids play a sport with a reputation for being very physically tough amid a growing conversation around head injuries? 

That there's nothing we can do about any of these challenges because "that's just who we are"?

These are all issues that could be addressed by promoting those different flavours of RL. Nobody is trying to reinvent the sport here or take the RL that you know and love away from you. But I think there is a credible argument for the sport to find ways to cater to those audiences that could be tempted to enjoy their RL with a slightly different zest. Because if we know nothing else, what we do know is that the number of people that the clubs seem to be able to attract to enjoy 'original' flavour seems to be falling year by year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

What's your point?

That there is nothing that RL can do to broaden it's appeal to people who perhaps aren't enthused by the attritional nature of tough 80-minute forward battles?

That there's nothing that the sport can offer people who want to see more of those box-office skill players doing what they do best? 

That's there's nothing the sport can do to lower the barrier to entry for people who want to casually play the game, but don't want the commitment of training two nights a week and giving up their Sundays?

That there is no point promoting low/no contact versions to people who might want to play RL (let's say for social of fitness purposes) but can't afford to get injured, perhaps because they work in physical jobs, or have insecure contracts, because "RL is supposed to be tough"?

That there's nothing the sport can do to find a way that encourages parents to let their kids play a sport with a reputation for being very physically tough amid a growing conversation around head injuries? 

That there's nothing we can do about any of these challenges because "that's just who we are"?

These are all issues that could be addressed by promoting those different flavours of RL. Nobody is trying to reinvent the sport here or take the RL that you know and love away from you. But I think there is a credible argument for the sport to find ways to cater to those audiences that could be tempted to enjoy their RL with a slightly different zest. Because if we know nothing else, what we do know is that the number of people that the clubs seem to be able to attract to enjoy 'original' flavour seems to be falling year by year. 

Pretty much , yes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

So, just to recap, what lessons did everyone agree rugby league could learn from cricket? Can someone please make a list of them.

One that a lot of people agreed on was offering a consistent and high quality match day experience which The Hundred seems to do very well as it centralises the offer across the league so all grounds have the same tiered ticketing, roughly the same corporate and definitely the same family stands.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

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.