Rugby league-could some lessons be learned from cricket?

[DOGFATHER]

Just as a thought on this. 

I didn't/don't see a need for the hundred at cricket. It is too close to the t20 format which is very popular.

We don't have a short format in RL like the popular t20 and I really think there is a market for it.

One of the things that makes the match day experience is the atmosphere. Go to any ground when it is a sell out, or close to it, the experience is somehow far absorbing than going somewhere half empty. 

Why not have a 9s competition 15 mins each way, with each round made up of a round robin of 4 teams. With each team playing twice. Winner of game, plays winner of game 2, in a final. For the losers from game 1 and 2, they playoff for 3rd and 4th place. League points awarded as 3, 2, 1 and 0. 

One big plus RL still has over football is, most fans from multiple club's can still mix in a stadium without segregation. 4 sets of fans in the stadium should be able to sell out most venues, or certainly close to it. Which should generate a good atmosphere and appeal for tickets and sponsorship. TV companies can show multiple club's from one venue, meaning less production costs per game. With such a short format, unlike magic for instance, most fans will probably watch most games, meaning the stadia should look full for most games too.

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

So how would you get more people, particularly those groups mentioned, engaged with RL? 

Or you just discard them, decide that we don't need them and accept the game's decline, just to preserve the "purity" of RL?

Tbf the man doesn't think women should play RL...

[Big Picture]

16 hours 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's a false premise.  Gridiron's popularity shows that such attritional battles can attract millions.

16 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

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's another false premise.  Sports don't need casual players to have millions of fans, so a touch or flag version of the game will only ever be in the nice to have category.

What the game needs is a built-for-purpose flagship league with much broader appeal than its current top tier.  Other than that it has nothing to learn from cricket.

 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

40 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

That's a false premise.  Gridiron's popularity shows that such attritional battles can attract millions.

The difference is that Gridiron is very adept at capturing and packaging the content that it produces. Those "plays of the day" montages are what get millions of YouTube views and go viral on the internet, not the battles between offensive and defensive linemen. 

Quote

 

That's another false premise.  Sports don't need casual players to have millions of fans, so a touch or flag version of the game will only ever be in the nice to have category.

What the game needs is a built-for-purpose flagship league with much broader appeal than its current top tier.  Other than that it has nothing to learn from cricket.

 

Sports need to be making themselves hard to ignore in a market where there is a lot of stuff competing for people's attention. Encouraging casual participation is very much a part of ensuring that a sport is "front of mind". 

This is all about understanding what audiences the sport wants to attract and ensuring that it is doing something for each and every one of those segments, which is what cricket has had some success is doing. Cricket understands some people want cricket in its purest, test form, some people who want 'hit and giggle' pyjama cricket and some people who want something more exciting and short-form that is easy to understand. 

If the RFL and the clubs have done the market research and found that nobody wants those things in RL, then consider my neck wound in. But I don't think they've done that market research. And if they have, they certainly haven't found an alternative way to address some very real concerns around viewership, spectatorship and participation.  

[GUBRATS]

9 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Just as a thought on this. 

I didn't/don't see a need for the hundred at cricket. It is too close to the t20 format which is very popular.

We don't have a short format in RL like the popular t20 and I really think there is a market for it.

One of the things that makes the match day experience is the atmosphere. Go to any ground when it is a sell out, or close to it, the experience is somehow far absorbing than going somewhere half empty. 

Why not have a 9s competition 15 mins each way, with each round made up of a round robin of 4 teams. With each team playing twice. Winner of game, plays winner of game 2, in a final. For the losers from game 1 and 2, they playoff for 3rd and 4th place. League points awarded as 3, 2, 1 and 0. 

One big plus RL still has over football is, most fans from multiple club's can still mix in a stadium without segregation. 4 sets of fans in the stadium should be able to sell out most venues, or certainly close to it. Which should generate a good atmosphere and appeal for tickets and sponsorship. TV companies can show multiple club's from one venue, meaning less production costs per game. With such a short format, unlike magic for instance, most fans will probably watch most games, meaning the stadia should look full for most games too.

Nobodies bothered about 9 s 

Our game is already shorter than a ' hundred ' match , why do we need to shorten it ? 

 

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf the man doesn't think women should play RL...

Correct 

[GUBRATS]

What we've learned from cricket is we need a new 5 day international RL game , as that's very popular as well 

We can call it the ' Forty ' , as thats how many hours we'll be playing

[DOGFATHER]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Nobodies bothered about 9 s 

Our game is already shorter than a ' hundred ' match , why do we need to shorten it ? 

 

Just my personal opinion, but, I really enjoyed the 9s format I saw from Auckland. The games were generally fast and open. It showcased the skills of players, (ability to beat men and offload). The game was opened up, by the amount of space you don't get to see in the 13 a side game very often. 

15 minutes each way shouldn't allow the audience to get bored (thinking of the younger generation here). In essence, taking some of the boring bits out of the game and highlighting the attractive bits, like T20 did for cricket. 

Has 9s been given an opportunity in this country? 

I'm not much of a football fan, but I have gone with a few mates to watch Huddersfield Town, Liverpool and Leeds Utd, and really enjoyed going. But, I find it very difficult to sit through 90 minutes of football on tv. It's like watching paint dry. It's hard to explain, but all I can think of, is maybe I get carried along by the atmosphere at the games, which I don't get at home on tv. With 4 teams' fans at the games, it should get a few bums on seats and less overheads, a better atmosphere that might just tip the balance in enticing people back week after week.

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Has 9s been given an opportunity in this country? 

Read it.

Weep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Floodlit_Nines

[Scubby]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Read it.

Weep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Floodlit_Nines

I think we were just a couple of quid behind the ECB in what we invested in that.

[Damien]

46 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Read it.

Weep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Floodlit_Nines

Things like this really do sum up how RL can do things very poorly. How did anyone really think this would succeed?  Did people at the RFL really think fans would come flocking to something like this shoehorned in on a Wednesday night? It beggars belief. 

[DOGFATHER]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Read it.

Weep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Floodlit_Nines

So no then?

It hasn't really had an opportunity in this country. 

[DC77]

On 09/08/2021 at 17:45, GUBRATS said:

Women's cricket can be as entertaining as men's , similarly football , RL ? Nope , isn't , can't , never will be 

Disagree with women’s RL. I thoroughly enjoyed a game a while back (watched as there was a Leeds woman playing who sometimes appears on forty20 podcast, great lass). They played an open attacking game that was reminiscent of how men’s RL used to be, according to Phil Caplan. 

Regarding women’s football, it generally is pretty average (trying to be diplomatic here). And I mean average by women’s standards when you see what women can do in tennis and increasingly in golf. The difference with tennis though is that women have been able to develop over the same time period as the men, while women’s football was basically blocked around the 1930s despite its popularity. So a debt is owed to women who should be given time to develop. 

Throwing a ball any able bodied person can do as we use our hands in everyday life, kicking a ball from A to B is a different story. It is easier to take up a hand based sport than a foot based one, hence the women RL players are able to put in long passing sequences while the female footballers struggle. In RL the ball generally isn’t passed that far either, so a woman can pull that off, whereas executing a hard 40, 50, 60 yard cross field pass with your foot (or a goal kick that needs to reach at least halfway), very few women can do that. There’s also an issue with goalkeeper height as the gap is too big with the 8 ft crossbar, so they get lobbed a lot. The field dimensions/goal posts were set up for men, so for the women I’d lower the crossbar and shorten the field that way it’s more suited to them. The one major thing women’s rugby doesn’t have is the rugged power, so you don’t get the same attritional stuff, which is a plus in many ways. 

In relation to the topic, rather than look for some RL variant, why not try to get the 13 man game more open like it used to be. Those turnstile defences actually make play more eyecatching. RL purists might like the grinding, defensive stuff but it’s those long runs past three and four players that grab the most attention. Amazes me whenever this topic comes up and people ask “what can we do”. The answer can be seen in what goes viral. Attacking play, flair...always has done. The Rangi Chase behind the back pass a notable example. RU has to hark back to Lomu for the eye catching stuff. We’ve just had a Lions series, instantly forgettable. Messi has been called a “tourist attraction” for the city he plys his trade and the reason for that is the eye catching stuff. He’s a global superstar because he’s in a skill based sport that allows him to showcase his talent to the full.

People follow a sport for two main reasons: 1.they have a team in it, so will watch them and their competition (so, the entire league) 2.they follow an individual (I was glued to the screen watching Ronaldo (Brazilian) when he was at Barcelona). It’s very hard to follow a RL club side as they are based in towns that are detached from outside. It’s very geographic specific, regional, thus hard to connect/identity with. Therefore it’s even more imperative it has eye catching players, and in the case of RL (and RU) its players who make those runs/make dummy passes. Players who light up a game. The way RL is played today with much tighter defences, the wrestle, bigger players etc. it’s infinitely harder to really stand out. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Things like this really do sum up how RL can do things very poorly. How did anyone really think this would succeed?  Did people at the RFL really think fans would come flocking to something like this shoehorned in on a Wednesday night? It beggars belief. 

Shoehorned on a Wednesday night like the ' 100 ' you mean ?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, DC77 said:

Disagree with women’s RL. I thoroughly enjoyed a game a while back (watched as there was a Leeds woman playing who sometimes appears on forty20 podcast, great lass). They played an open attacking game that was reminiscent of how men’s RL used to be, according to Phil Caplan. 

Regarding women’s football, it generally is pretty average (trying to be diplomatic here). And I mean average by women’s standards when you see what women can do in tennis and increasingly in golf. The difference with tennis though is that women have been able to develop over the same time period as the men, while women’s football was basically blocked around the 1930s despite its popularity. So a debt is owed to women who should be given time to develop. 

Throwing a ball any able bodied person can do as we use our hands in everyday life, kicking a ball from A to B is a different story. It is easier to take up a hand based sport than a foot based one, hence the women RL players are able to put in long passing sequences while the female footballers struggle. In RL the ball generally isn’t passed that far either, so a woman can pull that off, whereas executing a hard 40, 50, 60 yard cross field pass with your foot (or a goal kick that needs to reach at least halfway), very few women can do that. There’s also an issue with goalkeeper height as the gap is too big with the 8 ft crossbar, so they get lobbed a lot. The field dimensions/goal posts were set up for men, so for the women I’d lower the crossbar and shorten the field that way it’s more suited to them. The one major thing women’s rugby doesn’t have is the rugged power, so you don’t get the same attritional stuff, which is a plus in many ways. 

In relation to the topic, rather than look for some RL variant, why not try to get the 13 man game more open like it used to be. Those turnstile defences actually make play more eyecatching. RL purists might like the grinding, defensive stuff but it’s those long runs past three and four players that grab the most attention. Amazes me whenever this topic comes up and people ask “what can we do”. The answer can be seen in what goes viral. Attacking play, flair...always has done. The Rangi Chase behind the back pass a notable example. RU has to hark back to Lomu for the eye catching stuff. We’ve just had a Lions series, instantly forgettable. Messi has been called a “tourist attraction” for the city he plys his trade and the reason for that is the eye catching stuff. He’s a global superstar because he’s in a skill based sport that allows him to showcase his talent to the full.

People follow a sport for two main reasons: 1.they have a team in it, so will watch them and their competition (so, the entire league) 2.they follow an individual (I was glued to the screen watching Ronaldo (Brazilian) when he was at Barcelona). It’s very hard to follow a RL club side as they are based in towns that are detached from outside. It’s very geographic specific, regional, thus hard to connect/identity with. Therefore it’s even more imperative it has eye catching players, and in the case of RL (and RU) its players who make those runs/make dummy passes. Players who light up a game. The way RL is played today with much tighter defences, the wrestle, bigger players etc. it’s infinitely harder to really stand out. 

Completely agree , so what do you suggest we do ?

[GUBRATS]

12 hours ago, Johnoco said:

So the sum total of RL is that it amounts to tackling? Sounds like a really interesting game. 
 

Oh and it wasn’t born as a professional sport, the only payments were for bona fide loss of earnings. 

Not the ' sum total ' , no , I didn't say that , but it is a vital part in my opinion 

Not going to get involved in minutiae of RLs birth , but it is the hardest most physical team sport played on the planet 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Shoehorned on a Wednesday night like the ' 100 ' you mean ?

I'm not sure the point of completely ignoring the context and quoting half a sentence just to make a lazy comparison.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure the point of completely ignoring the context and quoting half a sentence just to make a lazy comparison.

Lazy it might be , but as you say , it is ' comparable ' , sorry but I just don't get this shortening of our game to compare it with a different sport that takes longer than our original game 

An equivalent to a RL nines 8 team comp would be an 8 team 20 ball cricket comp , not a 200 ball match played over 3/4 hours 

Nothing like it 

What we can learn from Cricket is you can chuck tens of millions at a comp , and it will probably still fail and disappear in a year or two 

[DC77]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Completely agree , so what do you suggest we do ?

The only thing I can think of is those who run the game/make the rules are able to analyse plays that have gone viral (eye catching runs/dummies etc.) and figure out how they can be a common feature in the game. I know it’s of no concern on here but RU I think would be much easier to solve as it’s main issue is obvious, namely player bulk is out of control. Two sets of XV pretty regular sized blokes on a field afforded players some space to run, now thanks to their mammoth size it’s completely overcrowded with space at a premium. This combined with the tighter defensive structures that are now in place have also made it infinitely harder to make a line break. What made Lomu a star, those rampaging runs in open space with opposition players hanging off him, he’d get completely shut down in todays game. I used to watch lots of Ireland, mainly to see O’Driscoll. Much like the rest of RU they are now unwatchable. It’s an attrition dominated game. South Africa’s bish bash RU was limited to them, now it’s the norm. RL the defences look to have got better, to the detriment of the attacking stuff. 

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Johnoco said:

I've just seen some of this on TV and the main thing I would say that RL could learn from it is to get several hours coverage on BBC 2 on an evening. 

And we already know how to do that.

Internationals and Challenge Cup get FTA coverage. Build those up and we'll get *more* FTA coverage.

[gingerjon]

11 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

So no then?

It hasn't really had an opportunity in this country. 

Until we have spare millions lying around, it will always look like some variation of the above.

[graveyard johnny]

really enjoyed that 100 thing last night and so did the mrs! the only thing it has against a prolonged success is that it is going to be exactly the same thing every single time and how much they can gleam out of the format before it becomes 3 hours of repeating the same old same old is questionable 

[gingerjon]

26 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Whilst I agree with you in theory, how do you know that the coverage would automatically follow? Do you think BBC2 would cover live RL on an evening multiple times? ie not just the odd one off like has already happened. 
 

I don't know specifically about midweeks but the evidence we have from the past 20 or so years shows that they will cover it if it's there to be covered and they get the chance.

There is zero evidence, for example, that they would show a 9s tournament at any time.

Given the comparison, which would it make sense to invest our meagre resources in if the priority is FTA coverage?

[gingerjon]

Just now, Johnoco said:

There could be a social version of RL that isn’t televised nor for spectators. I know various versions do exist but they certainly aren’t pushed much. 

This is another area where we constantly seem to be reinventing the wheel. There have been tag/touch/roll in the hay versions of rugby league for as long as I've been watching and I am very old. Just stick with them.

A few years ago the RFL - with Sport England support - did seem to be stronger on pushing the social/recreational side of non-tackle/short form versions. I'm not sure why that dwindled.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

And we already know how to do that.

Internationals and Challenge Cup get FTA coverage. Build those up and we'll get *more* FTA coverage.

Agree, but also Superleague. At the top end, it's the best product we have, so we need at least a handful of SL games on terrestrial. I'd favour 4-5 games over a condensed period rather than one popping up every 6 weeks. Doesn't the new mini-contract allow some terrestrial coverage, or is it just YouTube? 

On a related point, the Grand Final absolutely has to be on terrestrial, even if the bulk of the rest of the competition isn't. Both the Hundred finals will be, the Champions League final is free on the BT app. One night won't be a dealbreaker for Sky and it's a question of believing in our product: if we don't go out of our way to share the biggest night of our year, why would people think SL is something to take an interest in?