The Kangaroos brand has been wasted & thrown away

[Gerrumonside ref]

10 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It’s what the crowds show both here and in Australia. 

I believe you’re comparing apples to oranges there and conveniently dropping the tv figure club vs country comparison to suit your argument.

I would argue a perceived lack of competition from the NH and England harmed the attendances and interest levels in Australia in 2017.  There’s no getting around the fact that England need to start beating Australia when it matters.

Fast forward to now and multiple factors not least of which is a cost of living crisis where people are being forced to choose between heating or eating in extreme cases.  The prices have been out of sync and we see that reflected in the make up of the crowds in an almost fully televised tournament.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Gerrumonside ref

[Anita Bath]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The Kangaroos are scandalously underutilised and undervalued as a global sporting brand.

There are many current and historical reasons for this and they are nuanced.

But underlying it all, all across the sport and in every country, it is self interest that holds Rugby League back.

No…its the harlem globetrotters effect. Having won every world cup bar one in the last 50 years (and were winning the other until that Billy Slater moment) international rugby league is not competitive.

 

They cannot sell international games at home because of that.

 

We seem to be forgetting, unlike other countries in Australia teams were relocated to bubbles away from their homes for the entire season during the pandemic.  

[UTK]

4 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

No…its the harlem globetrotters effect. Having won every world cup bar one in the last 50 years (and were winning the other until that Billy Slater moment) international rugby league is not competitive.

 

They cannot sell international games at home because of that.

 

We seem to be forgetting, unlike other countries in Australia teams were relocated to bubbles away from their homes for the entire season during the pandemic.  

Your first two sentences aren't in opposition to what Dunbar or anyone else has said, that harlem globetrotters effect is one of the very prominent nuanced reasons why they are underutilised.

As for the last sentence, it didn't stop Origin it only didn't happen because the ARLC didn't bother/see value in doing so.

Edited November 5, 2022 by UTK

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

No…its the harlem globetrotters effect. Having won every world cup bar one in the last 50 years (and were winning the other until that Billy Slater moment) international rugby league is not competitive.

 

They cannot sell international games at home because of that.

 

We seem to be forgetting, unlike other countries in Australia teams were relocated to bubbles away from their homes for the entire season during the pandemic.  

We keep hearing this. 

And then the Kiwis started beating them in Finals. And that changed nothing. 

[Sports Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

I don't think I need to compare these numbers with Wallabies, All Blacks or Springboks to see where the Kangaroos are falling short in terms of playing time. Even England have played 29 times in the same period not including world cup matches, and not including the 4 match 2019 GB tour, which even then is a really poor number.

Well you certainly shouldn’t when the RU governors of these nations have a club game that makes the SL look like the Premier League (ok, that may be a stretch).

All Blacks and Wallabies each have eight nations that can give them a competitive match and have done so for a good few decades.

Kangaroos on the other hand, bar the last three or four years have only had two nations that could give them a competitive game.

Australia’s lack of interest in internationals is simply down to the lack of competitive opposition.
 

Fortunate for the Aussies, they do have other more competitive brands to make them successful. So you can’t blame them for focusing on those other brands.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[Jughead]

Just now, Gerrumonside ref said:

I believe you’re comparing apples to oranges there and conveniently dropping the tv figure club vs country comparison to suit your argument.

I would argue a perceived lack of competition from the NH and England harmed the attendances and interest levels in Australia in 2017.  There’s no getting around the fact that England need to start beating Australia when it matters.

Fast forward to now and multiple factors not least of which is a cost of living crisis where people are being forced to choose between heating or eating in extreme cases.  The prices have been out of sync and we see that reflected in the make up of the crowds in a an almost fully televised tournament.

 

Club figures are utterly meaningless when discussing the international stage. It’s a desperate clutch of straws to go “well…well…look at Wakefield, nobody watches them”. Of course they’re not going to demand the television audience England do, for example, it’s a rubbish argument. There isn’t the interest in the international game because it’s been neglected for so long and for the most part, it’s predictable and dull, which as a spectacle isn’t interesting or enticing to attend. Comparing attendances to the club game is meaningless drivel to try and make a positive in a thoroughly negative and depressing Mens tournament (bar ten people jumping up and down in an Athens bar).

People are apathetic to the Australians and the international game. You only need to have a look on here pre-tournament when this place turns into Ancestry.com where people are suddenly “interested” in the birthplaces of player’s grandparents and whether they’re suitable to be even playing at the international stage, in the first place. If people are moaning about this sort of thing, they’re almost certainly not going to go and watch a game.

Ticketing and the inadequacies of the ticketing portal has been a farce, too. That does nothing for the international game, either.

[Gerrumonside ref]

29 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I just think it is being sold to less people frankly.

Football in this country is hardly a toffs game and yes whilst gentrification has happened and masses of wealth have flooded into the sport, there is still a core of support that isn't dissimilar from RL's core base in this country. Its just massively bigger in number.

I would argue that the development of the Premier League branding and the influx of foreign stars into that league has had a damaging effect and stunted the growth of rugby league in this country (U.K.)

There’s really been nothing in comparison in Australia for the NRL to have to battle against domestically that is on the scale of the most commercially important soccer league in the world.

Theres no doubt in my mind that the Australians have done well to develop New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa etc, but the challenge here is not comparable to that faced by the RFL or Super League by the Premier League for fans and headlines.

 

[Gerrumonside ref]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Club figures are utterly meaningless when discussing the international stage. It’s a desperate clutch of straws to go “well…well…look at Wakefield, nobody watches them”. Of course they’re not going to demand the television audience England do, for example, it’s a rubbish argument. There isn’t the interest in the international game because it’s been neglected for so long and for the most part, it’s predictable and dull, which as a spectacle isn’t interesting or enticing to attend. Comparing attendances to the club game is meaningless drivel to try and make a positive in a thoroughly negative and depressing Mens tournament (bar ten people jumping up and down in an Athens bar).

People are apathetic to the Australians and the international game. You only need to have a look on here pre-tournament when this place turns into Ancestry.com where people are suddenly “interested” in the birthplaces of player’s grandparents and whether they’re suitable to be even playing at the international stage, in the first place. If people are moaning about this sort of thing, they’re almost certainly not going to go and watch a game.

Ticketing and the inadequacies of the ticketing portal has been a farce, too. That does nothing for the international game, either.

Sorry, why is comparing Super League Grand Final viewing figures to international rugby league matches ‘desperate’?

Surely it’s the obvious barometer of interest levels isn’t it?  

I know you personally have little interest in international rugby league and I wonder how much this clouds your opinion?

[Jughead]

1 minute ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Sorry, why is comparing Super League Grand Final viewing figures to international rugby league matches ‘desperate’?

Surely it’s the obvious barometer of interest levels isn’t it?  

I know you personally have little interest in international rugby league and I wonder how much this clouds your opinion?

If you’re trying to compare clubs to England of course England v whoever is going to garner more national interest then St Helens v Leeds. 

I have plenty of interest in international rugby league, very little in England. There’s a difference. Not that I need to justify it but I’ve enjoyed a couple of games this tournament (mainly the close ones) and many of the sights associated with the Mens tournament. Many of the games, the ticketing, the ticketing portal, the crowds and the lies from the RLWC have been utterly woeful and embarrassing.

[UTK]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We keep hearing this. 

And then the Kiwis started beating them in Finals. And that changed nothing. 

Those final wins don't even begin to scrape the surface on eroding decades of no competition, especially when Australia has still maintained an 80% win record vs the Kiwis since 2000. Even QLDs Origin dynasty only rendered around a 70% win record in favour of QLD during those series, I don't think those outside Australia really grasp how much damage was done to the International game here.

This is why the Tongan rise is so important, finally we have a second nation capable of besting Australia and the scorecard is now even between the two nations. We're no longer pinning our hopes on the Kiwis showing up to see a competitive International game involving the Kangaroos. The lack of a follow up since 2019 has probably killed some of the momentum but nonetheless we now have a solidified Tongan brand that brings an unprecedented offering to the International game here, would be very interesting to see how an Australia v Tonga clash would received in Australia now - hopefully we'll find out in 2023.

[Dave W]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

For various historical reasons of geography, rugby league tends to be in the working class areas with less money to begin with.

This is exactly why rugby league came into being in the first place. Working men couldn't afford to take time off to play rugby and wanted recompense. The resulting schism was entirely class based. 

[Jughead]

4 minutes ago, UTK said:

Those final wins don't even begin to scrape the surface on eroding decades of no competition, especially when Australia has still maintained an 80% win record vs the Kiwis since 2000. Even QLDs Origin dynasty only rendered around a 70% win record in favour of QLD during those series, I don't think those outside Australia really grasp how much damage was done to the International game here.

This is why the Tongan rise is so important, finally we have a second nation capable of besting Australia and the scorecard is now even between the two nations. We're no longer pinning our hopes on the Kiwis showing up to see a competitive International game involving the Kangaroos. The lack of a follow up since 2019 has probably killed some of the momentum but nonetheless we now have a solidified Tongan brand that brings an unprecedented offering to the International game here, would be very interesting to see how an Australia v Tonga clash would received in Australia now - hopefully we'll find out in 2023.

The Tongan rise is important. It’s wasted if Australia v Tonga happens twice in five years in the same way England won’t ever lose to France if they play them twice in five years, as has been the case for all four of those nations at present. We will never see change or even more jeopardy in fixtures if, as is the case, fixtures at international level are so infrequent. If they’re so infrequent, there’s little appeal to attend and people don’t attend and the cycle continues. 

[Anita Bath]

Given that GB split to enter 4 teams in the WC perhaps we could have the Aussies split and have Queensland and NSW enter as seperate entities.

[UTK]

 

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

The Tongan rise is important. It’s wasted if Australia v Tonga happens twice in five years in the same way England won’t ever lose to France if they play them twice in five years, as has been the case for all four of those nations at present. We will never see change or even more jeopardy in fixtures if, as is the case, fixtures at international level are so infrequent. If they’re so infrequent, there’s little appeal to attend and people don’t attend and the cycle continues. 

Absolutely, and that's why the failure to make Kangaroos matches happen between 2019 and now was so disgraceful. We were on the precipice of something gamechanging and yet the opportunity has been left to wilt despite the ultimately more difficult yet in no way prohibitive circumstances.

Again I would suggest there is no coincidence that this stance was taken post-V'landys rise to chairman which funnily enough only happened 3 days before Tonga beat Australia. There was a markedly different approach between 2017 and 2019, Tongas landmark topping of the supergroup in 2017 was followed up by guaranteed games against both Australia and NZ in 2018/2019, even creating an entirely new tournament to facilitate this on an ongoing basis. Now we've thrown out their remaining consistent fixture in the mid-season test, a fixture that really began building the Tongan brand and we've yet to see what the calendar holds for them in 2023.

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It didn't stop basically every other nation in every other sport playing international matches. Indeed Australia played several cricket, Rugby Union and soccer matches...

This comment and many similar is routinely thrown around, without any consideration to the bubble the NRL players were confined to for 2020.

The longevity of no Kangaroos fixtures from 2020 to the WC is solely down to the pandemic.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

No…its the harlem globetrotters effect. Having won every world cup bar one in the last 50 years (and were winning the other until that Billy Slater moment) international rugby league is not competitive.

 

They cannot sell international games at home because of that.

 

We seem to be forgetting, unlike other countries in Australia teams were relocated to bubbles away from their homes for the entire season during the pandemic.  

So, a couple of points.  Firstly, a pass by Billy Slater is hardly looking at the big picture.  And while Covid has had disruptive effects on all sports, the Wallabies played at least 20 tests in between the Kangaroos last game in 2019 and the first game at this world cup.  It is only an unsurmountable task if you let it be unsurmountable.

Where I do agree with you is the competitive aspect of international Rugby League.  But the fact of the matter is, you don't make things more competitive by doing less of it.  You invest time and energy into developing the international game and giving countries the best chance of success.  And you are patient, knowing that things don't change overnight.

The macro picture for international league is this.

1. The launch of Super League and summer Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere.  This changed the dynamic of international Rugby League overnight as many said that the traditional Kangaroo, Kiwi and Great Britain tours were no longer possible as the seasons in the NH and SH ran concurrently.  This was not true of course.  You can run tours any time you want, but you can't if the value of what you want to achieve cannot overcome the interests of those who may be negatively effected in the short term.

2.  Abandoning winning formulae.  We used tri-nations and four-nations to replace the internationals that typically came from tours.  In the most part, these were competitive and successful. And in typical Rugby League fashion, dropped. 

3. The rise of State of Origin.  State of Origin and international Rugby League sat happily side by side through the 80's and 90's.  I don't blame the Australian sporting public for looking internally for competitive and regular representative fixtures.  But it then became branded as the highest level in Rugby League (and it is commercially valuable for the Australian Rugby League leaders to keep it this way).  It was hailed as the highest level of Rugby League even in years where New Zealand were beating Australia in Tri Nations or World Cup finals.  Now, representative decisions in Australia always start with Origin first and foremost.

Unlike many posts on here, I am not blaming anyone.  I am blaming the attitude that prevails our sport where the big picture is always sacrificed for what suits the individual nation, state or club.  We see other sports commit to international fixtures during the regular season.  Sometimes begrudgingly (FIFA World Cup) and sometimes because the value of the international game can be clearly seen by all parties (Cricket, RU).  Rugby League cannot see this.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Dunbar

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, a couple of points.  Firstly, a pass by Billy Slater is hardly looking at the big picture.  And while Covid has had disruptive effects on all sports, the Wallabies played at least 20 tests in between the Kangaroos last game in 2019 and the first game at this world cup.  It is only an unsurmountable task if you let it be unsurmountable.

Where I do agree with you is the competitive aspect of international Rugby League.  But the fact of the matter is, you don't make things more competitive by doing less of it.  You invest time and energy into developing the international game and giving countries the best chance of success.  And you are patient, knowing that things don't change overnight.

The macro picture for international league is this.

1. The launch of Super League and summer Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere.  This changed the dynamic of international Rugby League overnight as many said that the traditional Kangaroo, Kiwi and Great Britain tours were no longer possible as the seasons in the NH and SH ran concurrently.  This was not true of course.  You can run tours any time you want, but you can't if the value of what you want to achieve cannot overcome the interests of those who many be negatively effected in the short term.

2.  Abandoning winning formulae.  We used tri-nations and four-nations to replace the internationals that typically came from tours.  In the most part, these were competitive and successful. And in typical Rugby League fashion, dropped. 

3. The rise of State of Origin.  State of Origin and international Rugby League sat happily side by side through the 80's and 90's.  I don't blame the Australian sporting public for looking internally for competitive and regular representative fixtures.  But it then became branded as the highest level in Rugby League (and it is commercially valuable for the Australian Rugby League leaders to keep it this way).  It was hailed as the highest level of Rugby League even in years where New Zealand were beating Australia in Tri Nations or World Cup finals.  Now, representative decisions in Australia always start with Origin first and foremost.

Unlike many posts on here, I am not blaming anyone.  I am blaming the attitude that prevails our sport where the big picture is always sacrificed for what suits the individual nation, state or club.  We see other sports commit to international fixtures during the regular season.  Sometimes begrudgingly (FIFA World Cup) and sometimes because the value of the international game can be clearly seen by all parties (Cricket, RU).  Rugby League cannot see this.

Excellent post. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The Kangaroos aren't the draw they once were. They don't play. People don't know who they are. If they do, many just assume they will win easy anyway.

But that was great in the days before the micron videos, and then pay TV, the Aussies would come over here and we would not know much about them the newbies were just names we didn't have any idea about them what they could do or not do.

I remember in '82 arriving at the Boulevard and coincidently the Aussie team coach just arrived and getting of the coach about a couple of yards away looking straight in my direction was this little lad with long whispery blond hair, I thought to myself "really" we must have a chance, the little lad was Peter Sterling I think I just stood in awe of him during the game, I think that unknowing and intrigue and then witnessing how good these players were was much better than today when lots of us know all the tourists very well.

[Madrileño]

9 hours ago, IM2 said:

 In many ways the game should move on without them. It didnt in the past as they were a massive draw, the biggest! 

"Move on without them"?

Without them, rugby league globally would fail to exist as a professional sport. It would be a few small town teams in England playing part time. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Colin James said:

There's an element of TV coverage playing a part. In the past if you wanted to see great Australian players you'd be waiting for a Kangaroo tour or world cup. Now with the NRL so widely covered on UK TV, it possibly reduces that feeling that your're seeing something special.

Ticket prices and the walkover nature of their opponents so far are also big factors.

Beat me to it Colin.

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

This comment and many similar is routinely thrown around, without any consideration to the bubble the NRL players were confined to for 2020.

The longevity of no Kangaroos fixtures from 2020 to the WC is solely down to the pandemic.

I don't buy much of the criticism thrown at the Aussies - but I dont get the point you are making. They chose that approach. Other sports didn't take that approach, they toured. 

My personal view is that I am more forgiving of cancelled tours, despite being frustrated at the time. Last year when the RLWC would have been played, we were in a bit of a mess with covid in this country and we were talking about whether we'd be locked down over Christmas again. 

[Sports Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, a couple of points.  Firstly, a pass by Billy Slater is hardly looking at the big picture.  And while Covid has had disruptive effects on all sports, the Wallabies played at least 20 tests in between the Kangaroos last game in 2019 and the first game at this world cup.  It is only an unsurmountable task if you let it be unsurmountable.

 

The Wallabies have 8 teams that will give them a competitive game. Not that those at least 20 tests have done anything to improve the Wallabies or the state of RU in Australia.

Had the Kangaroos matched them with say 20 matches in the same period, 15 of those against Eng or NZ and won a very likely 20 of them, many at a canter, do you think this would have improved the Kangaroos brand?

I would even go as far as saying that the shear lack of Kangaroos fixtures is what makes them more susceptible to a loss in this WC.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I actually don't think there's much difference. The general RL fanbase in England is reflected in our sponsors - lots of trade related stuff. We don't have mass industry such as mining, dockers or factories anymore which was the bedrock of many RL club fanbases. To some extent this has been replaced with services jobs, which obviously have a broad range from super market workers to legal assistants, catering and leisure work to education and healthcare.

The difficulty in this world cup has been relying on a limited number of those people to go to a large number of games in a small area.

There are wealthy RL fans, indeed arguably most of the UK is now effectively if not mentally lower middle class at this point. The world cup has just doubled down on the existing fanbase and asked a lot of them.

The last point is the key. The cost of living crisis is a factor but it’s overstated………the fact is we’re fishing in the same pond over and over. The pond is not large and has become massively oversaturated. The real error by the organisers was not pushing packages of multi tickets for games. 

When all matches are on terrestrial TV for all to see, people will just pick and choose the games they go to watch. If the tournament had a greater geographical spread and this QF was held in Bristol for example, I’d expect a crowd 2-3 times more than last night 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

The Wallabies have 8 teams that will give them a competitive game. Not that those at least 20 tests have done anything to improve the Wallabies or the state of RU in Australia.

Had the Kangaroos matched them with say 20 matches in the same period, 15 of those against Eng or NZ and won a very likely 20 of them, many at a canter, do you think this would have improved the Kangaroos brand?

As I say, in order to build a competitive international scene, you have to invest time and resources and be patient.

You are looking at the short term negative effects, I am talking about the long term value of having a strategy and committing to it.  These are very different. 

And, please take this is an observation, not a criticism, it is the attitude that you are displaying about the negative short term consequences effecting decides that is the problem with the sport as a whole.

[Dave T]

Just now, DoubleD said:

The last point is the key. The cost of living crisis is a factor but it’s overstated………the fact is we’re fishing in the same pond over and over. The pond is not large and has become massively oversaturated. The real error by the organisers was not pushing packages of multi tickets for games. 

When all matches are on terrestrial TV for all to see, people will just pick and choose the games they go to watch. If the tournament had a greater geographical spread and this QF was held in Bristol for example, I’d expect a crowd 2-3 times more than last night 

I can't believe that we wouldn't have done better in London with Australia v Lebanon. 

But if we know these are hard sells, then appropriate sized grounds is a must.