Rugby league-could some lessons be learned from cricket?

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Have to step back from the technical aspect of the game and identify what the underlying benefits the cricket 100 brings to the overall sport.   It seems to me its FTA coverage (takes limited broadcast time for the TV companies), shortened game and a format they can tinker with to maintain its real or imaginary excitement.  Plus a change of style or perceived style as in different than the more traditional game - namely colour and maybe under lights plus it doesn't require people to take time off to attend during the week and hence different week days covered.

Worth pointing out - and this is the thing that makes it clear that it's an ownership/franchise change not a format one - that the BBC and Sky both signed up as broadcasters when it was going to be a T20 competition.

[Tommygilf]

46 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The Blast got record crowds the season before COVID struck. The fixture list was correct after much messing around and the counties bought into it.

Meanwhile England are World Champions in the 50 over game so the ECB devalue that domestic competition for The Hundred that isn’t required and adds what exactly?
 

BTW the domestic 50 overs comp is still “List A” status so technically first class despite some counties being without 11 or more players….

I know, I'm not a massive fan of the Hundred as it goes, but I can see what they are trying to achieve with it and why. 

I don't think they had to do any focus groups to work out that Cricket in this country had a major disconnect from young urban demographics over the past decades. Both because access to play is limited, and that access to play establishes the connection for younger generations. Cricket being described as "slow" "boring" and "confusing" isn't a problem inherent with the game, but a problem of understanding. Much like Rugby Union fans who go to 2nd division games and talk about nuances, to appreciate what is going on and take an interest often requires the spectator to have previously played the sport. If you have grown up in an urban environment where there aren't the village green cricket pitches and the sport certainly isn't played at school, there is a good chance you will have literally zero connection or understanding of the game. When that is a multi generational phenomena it is compounded and exponentially increased.

Screwing the 50 over comp for it was stupid. Keeping the blast alongside the Hundred was a poor compromise. 

Cricket have been quite honest with themselves about what they think the issues the sport is facing are. They have reviewed and come up with ideas. The Hundred is part of their solution. Will it work, who knows? But they are trying something.

Most times someone comes into a management position with an appraisal of RL, they usually last 5 minutes before they are hounded out. Can we as a sport even countenance being honest about the issues we face? 

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes.

The "problem" that The Hundred solves is the governing body not having complete control over and ownership of the franchises in its league.

Nothing else.

That is a pretty major point though that gives them a hell of a lot more control over direction of the sport.

Like I said earlier in the Thread, if the counties would have accepted the t20 being cut to 8 teams we would probably not be here. 

[Smudger06]

EcB pays off the CCCs to the tune of 18 x £1.3m. For the RFL to do something akin to this it would need to pay off Clubs something like 12 x £1.3m SL, 14 x £400k Champ, 10 x £150k L1 to get the ball rolling on a brand new comp with brand new League owned and operated teams. Then all the other operating costs on top, not least players pay comes to £40m in total, would be similar for the RFL. Then could be 8 teams at 8 selected venues.

Then what?  

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Like I said earlier in the Thread, if the counties would have accepted the t20 being cut to 8 teams we would probably not be here. 

The counties didn't to cut.

None of the arguments for The Hundred as anything other than a ECB cash grab make sense.

For example, you mentioned how this would be the only way to get world class players to come to England. I've just checked the squads for the (rain affected) 'London derby' about to take place and, across both teams, there is one player, a franchise journeyman not a 'name', who hasn't played in an English competition before.

 

[LeeF]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That is a pretty major point though that gives them a hell of a lot more control over direction of the sport.

Like I said earlier in the Thread, if the counties would have accepted the t20 being cut to 8 teams we would probably not be here. 

One of the earlier ideas was a second T20 competition running alongside the existing one with 8 teams or actually franchises but that got knocked back hence The Hundred which only got through by the ECB dipping into its, at the time, vast reserves, and buying off enough counties to vote “Yes”

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Absolutely, that's the crucial difference. It's not so much about generating income for cricket as gaining new punters. 

Nope.

The Hundred is meant to deliver a massive profit. That's the point of it. It is literally why it was created.

If it does not do that *from the off* then it is a failure - on its own terms.

[ATLANTISMAN]

33 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What happens to the ' hundred ' when it rains all August ?

Hopefully called off and the rain starts pouring down around 7PM once the test match is over

 

Paul

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think they had to do any focus groups to work out that Cricket in this country had a major disconnect from young urban demographics over the past decades.

Have a look at the crowds for the opening matches.

It is the same (albeit fewer) people who usually go.

If you actually wanted to address what you've said there then you'd invest further - which they are doing - in the All Stars and Dynamo programmes, and do more along the lines of Ebony Rainford-Brent's ACE programme.

[Smudger06]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Nope.

The Hundred is meant to deliver a massive profit. That's the point of it. It is literally why it was created.

If it does not do that *from the off* then it is a failure - on its own terms.

A big part of that is for it to gain traction in the sub continent.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Smudger06 said:

A big part of that is for it to gain traction in the sub continent.

There is more chance of India winning the next RL World Cup.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Johnoco said:

Then why is all the advertising blurb about new people, diversity etc?

Because it's the marketing angle they chose to run with.

[Smudger06]

They are already trying to float selling teams to the same or similar ownership groups as the IPL teams.......says it all really........

[PhilCarrington]

6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think the short format is what we can take from the Hundred, though I think there are 3 key areas that are perhaps relevant.

Firstly, free to air is a key part of this. Cricket went even more down the pay TV route (and therefore behind a Paywall) than RL. Working out a balance to that is something RL is far closer to getting right -though I think we should be doing more international games and less club games as they are more widely relevant than club cup competitions.

Secondly, Women's sport being placed in a prominent position. Women's sport is the single biggest growth area for both cricket and RL. If you're seeking to grow interest and awareness, recognising that half the population is a potential market is a simple start.

Finally, the Hundred is the simple rationalisation of the number of Cricket teams in this country. 18 first class counties, more than in India or Australia where interest in cricket is far higher than the UK, is not sustainable commercially, especially when competing with the likes of the IPL. The T20 Blast was/is nice but ultimately because of the county championship structure enforcing 18 teams it can never grow to the level of the IPL or Big Bash. There isn't enough money to go round for that and it is still fundamentally tied to the Sky Sports paywall and Cricket's general image problem. The Hundred is distinctly different to that on purpose.

With regards to RL then, its telling that the first two points particularly are being taken on by the World Cup organisers, and to a lesser extent by Super League and the RFL.

We may very likely be facing a problem like the third point very soon. Indeed the current super league chairman thought we were already at that point half a decade ago. Will RL rationalise in a way that makes sense at least like The Hundred has attempted to though? Or will it just be musical chairs?

38 first class teams play in the Indian domestic competition (Ranji Trophy) but I'm sure you are right about the aim to rationalise the number of cricket teams.

[Griff]

I don't really get the point of the Hundred.  Unless you're replacing the Twenty20 with it.

They're far too similar to each other.  A few balls different in the length of innings and ten ball overs instead of six.

I'm not even sure that speeding the game up is right for selling the game to TV.  Where's the space for the ad-breaks ?

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

I don't really get the point of the Hundred.  Unless you're replacing the Twenty20 with it.

They're far too similar to each other.  A few balls different in the length of innings and ten ball overs instead of six.

I'm not even sure that speeding the game up is right for selling the game to TV.  Where's the space for the ad-breaks ?

There's a mandatory 50 second break with each change of ends. Kate Cross gave that away in commentary yesterday.

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

EcB pays off the CCCs to the tune of 18 x £1.3m. For the RFL to do something akin to this it would need to pay off Clubs something like 12 x £1.3m SL, 14 x £400k Champ, 10 x £150k L1 to get the ball rolling on a brand new comp with brand new League owned and operated teams. Then all the other operating costs on top, not least players pay comes to £40m in total, would be similar for the RFL. Then could be 8 teams at 8 selected venues.

Then what?  

Nobody would watch it , the TV companies wouldn't be willing to pay to televise it , and it doesn't allow the type of advertising cricket does 

So it would fail horribly

[JF1]

We currently have two topics on the go which are,to some extent,connected.

Namely Rugby league-could some lessons be learned from cricket? and RUGBY LEAGUE IN THE OLYMPICS .

It was suggested today,by former Sri Lankan batsman Mahela Jayawardene,that the Hundred could be cricket's way of gaining access to the Olympic Games

Given that skateboarding and golf are now Olympic sports,including cricket in the future certainly seems feasible.

I still think any form of rl is a non starter,however. The other lot will probably have the IOC,who have previously  been shown to accept favours,in their collective back pockets.

[whatmichaelsays]

For me, the question that RL faces is what we offer punters who don't want the full fat, 80 minute version? Nothing. We offer nothing at all. We have this sense of hubris that "there's nothing wrong with the product" and that our problems can just be fixed with advertising. It's nonsense. 

The Hundred (and T20) is the result of targeting an audience, understanding what they want and delivering it. Ask the SL chairmen what the target audience is for Super League or their clubs, and where they see the growth audiences being and how they plan to reach them. At best, you'll get an answer that's far too generic or, most likely, they won't know. That should petrify anyone with an interest in RL. 

I honestly don't even think that the ECB are that bothered about ticket revenues at this stage - the audience that they want to reach will consume sport and media very differently to the typical fan - this is cricket for the social media generation and that is where (or where the ECB believe) the growth is. If the ECB can build an online audience that it can then sell, that's arguably more valuable than a few thousand additional ticket sales and that is the mindset that I think RL has really failed to grasp (certainly many on here have). 

So what does The Hundred teach RL? That in a world with 40+ varieties of Coca-Cola, you can't afford to only offer 'original'.

[whatmichaelsays]

On 24/07/2021 at 21:43, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Basically you want a made-for-TV 9s competition. No thanks.

What's your fear? That the sport might create something that people might like? 

Oh the horror. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Johnoco said:

That’s what I would have said, had I been able to string two sentences together. We’re still fixated on the bums on seats angle and tend to ignore the online/SM angle. Obviously you need people at the event but it’s daft to not pursue the other side.

And judging by the crowds this weekend, we're not even good at the bums on seats bit!

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

And judging by the crowds this weekend, we're not even good at the bums on seats bit!

10,324 at the cricket at Headingley which is less than the Rhinos got despite the massive hype and promotion and very cheap tickets for the former

[The Hallucinating Goose]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

What's your fear? That the sport might create something that people might like? 

Oh the horror. 

I just personally aren't a fan of 9s and hate franchised, manufactured, TV leagues. That's just my personal preference. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

10,324 at the cricket at Headingley which is less than the Rhinos got despite the massive hype and promotion and very cheap tickets for the former

One is a new team in its first season (first ever home game too?), the other has been going for 150 odd years included away fans, and the difference was less than 250 people?

I'm not here to defend the Hundred, certainly not its execution, but the principles behind it are at least understandable and are out of some sort of research.

[LeeF]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

One is a new team in its first season (first ever home game too?), the other has been going for 150 odd years included away fans, and the difference was less than 250 people?

I'm not here to defend the Hundred, certainly not its execution, but the principles behind it are at least understandable and are out of some sort of research.

One was a very special event. The other a run of the mill league game