Well Done RLWC Team! Best yet!

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, yipyee said:

I know, the players wanted to come, I think if the tournament went ahead the players union would have forced the issue and they would have come.

If it had gone ahead they would have had to plan it without NZ and Australia in it - guess what, you’d be calling it farcical im sure.

the ARL and NZRL would not have backed down.

[The Masked Poster]

To the people dismissing people's concerns or opinions that there were serious failings in this WC as "negative moaners". ....

A genuine, true friendship is one where you can tell that friend that actually, you look a bit ridiculous in those trousers. Or maybe he should not try to chat up that woman as she's young enough to be his daughter. Not just pretend all is ok. 

[dkw]

10 hours ago, yipyee said:

I know, the players wanted to come, I think if the tournament went ahead the players union would have forced the issue and they would have come.

Absolute nonsense, incredible that you have managed to turn the NZ and Australians refusing to come into a failing of the RLWC. Its a monumentally moronic point of view.

[Tommygilf]

The combination of the womens and wheelchair world cups with the mens is to be truly applauded (as should the Festival of World Cups that also happened around the tournament). I note France will be adding the Youth world cup to that headline roster too.

The mens tournament progressed in some ways, went backwards in others, however I think it ultimately just failed to live up to expectations.

That can be really tough as a criticism as it is often ethereal and unspecific, but it doesn't make it invalid. The sentiment I have gathered is that whilst it did kick on from 2013, it didn't kick on far enough. 

On a personal note, it was disappointing because so many of the "problems" were easily identifiable and apparently self inflicted. The opening ceremony and stuff like that doesn't bother me, it happens. But core organisational stuff wasn't to the level it needed to be when planning this competition.

[frank]

Be interesting to find  out the ones decrying the Cup actually went to a game.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, frank said:

Be interesting to find  out the ones decrying the Cup actually went to a game.

Rather proves their point if they didn't but, say, did in previous tournaments.

(I did go to the final double header.)

[Griff]

Well, I really liked it anyway.

Probably the last one I'll attend.

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The combination of the womens and wheelchair world cups with the mens is to be truly applauded (as should the Festival of World Cups that also happened around the tournament). I note France will be adding the Youth world cup to that headline roster too.

The mens tournament progressed in some ways, went backwards in others, however I think it ultimately just failed to live up to expectations.

That can be really tough as a criticism as it is often ethereal and unspecific, but it doesn't make it invalid. The sentiment I have gathered is that whilst it did kick on from 2013, it didn't kick on far enough. 

On a personal note, it was disappointing because so many of the "problems" were easily identifiable and apparently self inflicted. The opening ceremony and stuff like that doesn't bother me, it happens. But core organisational stuff wasn't to the level it needed to be when planning this competition.

I think if we keep the conversation on the men's comp specifically, and was asked to name the things that had progressed, i think it would be a tough conversation. 

The positives broadly come in the form of the up front planning - the BBC deal and the government funding. Those things should have enabled us to deliver a bigger, better tournament than ever. 

IMO the only mens event that could be described as better than anything before it would be the opener. I thought it was an outstanding event (I'll ignore the failed ceremony) - it felt grand, we took over the city of Newcastle, the stadium looked great, the crowd was strong and it obviously helped that England smashed it. I was full of optimism (and beer) at 5pm on day 1.

I can't really say the same of any other mens event this tournament. The final was great, but we've had great finals before, that's not new, the Leeds semi was very strong, so maybe that was progress instead of relying on a double header. 

But I can't thing of anything else that moved us forward. There were loads of other little geeky things I liked by the way, so I'm mot saying it was rubbish, just that I don't see progress. 

The progress other than those two events highlighted, absolutely came from women and wheelchair which were like a breath of fresh air. Instead of them possibly being seen as a novelty, or a spin-off, imho, they were RLWC 2021.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Dave T

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, frank said:

Be interesting to find  out the ones decrying the Cup actually went to a game.

Two things. 

The majority of criticism on the attendance thread as an example is absolutely based on people's personal experiences attending

But secondly, there is a fair argument that the views of those who didn't buy your product (but have an interest and could have attended) have the most valuable views of any of us. 

[The Masked Poster]

 

 

21 minutes ago, frank said:

Be interesting to find  out the ones decrying the Cup actually went to a game.

Why? You are probably addressing this to the existing RL fan base, IE on here. They are pretty much the people who attend games anyway and are more likely to make up the bulk of the crowd. 

What you should maybe be asking is why more people who have never been to a RL game before, didn't go. Did they not know about it? Were they not interested? If not, why not? 

Yes, you need the existing fan base to get on board but you also need to get new people interested. Just an extra thousand people at each game could have made a big difference. 

Plus I don't think people are decrying the cup at all, it's more the organisation of it. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think if we keep the conversation on the men's comp specifically, and was asked to name the things that had progressed, i think it would be a tough conversation. 

The positives broadly come in the form of the up front planning - the BBC deal and the government funding. Those things should have enabled us to deliver a bigger, better tournament than ever. 

IMO the only mens event that could be described as better than anything before it would be the opener. I thought it was an outstanding event (I'll ignore the failed ceremony) - it felt grand, we took over the city of Newcastle, the stadium looked great, the crowd was strong and it obviously helped that England smashed it. I was full of optimism (and beer) at 5pm on day 1.

I can't really say the same of any other mens event this tournament. The final was great, but we've had great finals before, that's not new, the Leeds semi was very strong, so maybe that was progress instead of relying on a double header. 

But I can't thing of anything else that moved us forward. There were loads of other little geeky things I liked by the way, so I'm mot saying it was rubbish, just that I don't see progress. 

The progress other than those two events highlighted, absolutely came from women and wheelchair which were like a breath of fresh air. Instead of them possibly being seen as a novelty, or a spin-off, imho, they were RLWC 2021.

I agree totally. As I said I think the main failing of the mens tournament specifically is that it just didn't kick on from 2013 as much as many of us hoped it would.

Lots of this year was more professional, but that should be expected progression IMO. As I said what is most disappointing for me is that so much of what "went wrong" seemed obvious and predictable from the moment each thing was announced.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think if we keep the conversation on the men's comp specifically, and was asked to name the things that had progressed, i think it would be a tough conversation. 

The positives broadly come in the form of the up front planning - the BBC deal and the government funding. Those things should have enabled us to deliver a bigger, better tournament than ever. 

IMO the only mens event that could be described as better than anything before it would be the opener. I thought it was an outstanding event (I'll ignore the failed ceremony) - it felt grand, we took over the city of Newcastle, the stadium looked great, the crowd was strong and it obviously helped that England smashed it. I was full of optimism (and beer) at 5pm on day 1.

I can't really say the same of any other mens event this tournament. The final was great, but we've had great finals before, that's not new, the Leeds semi was very strong, so maybe that was progress instead of relying on a double header. 

But I can't thing of anything else that moved us forward. There were loads of other little geeky things I liked by the way, so I'm mot saying it was rubbish, just that I don't see progress. 

The progress other than those two events highlighted, absolutely came from women and wheelchair which were like a breath of fresh air. Instead of them possibly being seen as a novelty, or a spin-off, imho, they were RLWC 2021.

The competitiveness of the QFs and Semi Finals and even the final involving a tier 2 nation are improved from 2013

 

You seen to be focussing solely on attendances?

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The competitiveness of the QFs and Semi Finals and even the final involving a tier 2 nation are improved from 2013

 

You seen to be focussing solely on attendances?

I'm focusing on organisation, that's true. I always enjoy the rugby, and I'm not sure RLWC organisers get credit because the NRL players are representing their heritage more and more. In fact, the RLWC organisers role in that is filling the grounds to cheer on the great rugby. 

But if you are going to celebrate better quarter finals, as an RLWC success, then we can't ignore the less than competitive group stages. Personally that's not an issue for me, but is is for some. 

So, I won't criticise the RLWC organisers for one-sided games, nor praise them for competitive games. Their job is to stage the events. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Dave T

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm focusing on organisation, that's true. I always enjoy the rugby, and I'm not sure RLWC organisers get credit because the NRL players are representing their heritage more and more. In fact, the RLWC organisers role in that is filling the grounds to cheer on the great rugby. 

But if you are going to celebrate better quarter finals, as an RLWC success, then we can't ignore the less than competitive group stages. Personally that's not an issue for me, but is is for some. 

So, I won't criticise the RLWC organisers for one-sided games, nor praise them for competitive games. Their job is to stage the events. 

And the way they organised the structure led to more competetive final games.

The blowouts didnt really bother me but i think they could have organised the group games a bit better to potentially spread the blowouts out over the first few weeks.

The question was what people thought was better about this tournament so i stand by my point about the final games

[Oxford]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The question was what people thought was better about this tournament

That RL is TGG is obvious but it's inclusivity of this WC was the pinnacle of why that's true.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Oxford

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

That RL is TGG is obvious but it's inclusivity of this WC was the pinnacle of why that's true.

 

I agree and that’s why I don’t think stripping the women’s pdrl and wheelchair is fair when making comparisons to other world cups because that was a major part of this one.

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And the way they organised the structure led to more competetive final games.

...

I don't follow.

We've had QFs, SFs and Fs before. We just have 5/6 very strong sides now rather than 3/4. There is a better argument to be made that the structure made minimum advantage of this.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

I don't follow.

We've had QFs, SFs and Fs before. We just have 5/6 very strong sides now rather than 3/4. There is a better argument to be made that the structure made minimum advantage of this.

The way the groups were structured meant the strongest teams would meat each other from the QFs onwards, i could be wrong but haven’t we always used a ‘super group’  in the group stages

I get your point but this time it looked more like a proper WC rather than one that was contrived because we didn’t have enough teams that were competitive 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

And the way they organised the structure led to more competetive final games.

The blowouts didnt really bother me but i think they could have organised the group games a bit better to potentially spread the blowouts out over the first few weeks.

The question was what people thought was better about this tournament so i stand by my point about the final games

That's your pretogative, we will all judge based on what's important to us. 

The reason I am sticking with organisational efforts is due to the thread title, which is congratulating organisers. 

But if close games are important, then 2013 delivered 57% of games with a winning margin of 18 or less. 2017 at 36%, and 2021 at 29% 

2017 had 4 very close finals games just as 2021 did. 

My personal view is that I'd still take the lower % as I prefer the variety and move away from super groups. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Dave T

[Dave T]

51 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The way the groups were structured meant the strongest teams would meat each other from the QFs onwards, i could be wrong but haven’t we always used a ‘super group’  in the group stages

I get your point but this time it looked more like a proper WC rather than one that was contrived because we didn’t have enough teams that were competitive 

I prefer the current group structure to super groups, but it has always been structured to get the best 8 into the quarters. 

[Chrispmartha]

Interesting that I’ve just caught the National Anthem in the Australia France Soccer WC game - no singer doing it! Some were having a go at our organisers for not having them in the group stages.

Just going to start counting empty seats  

[RL Tragic]

10 hours ago, frank said:

Be interesting to find  out the ones decrying the Cup actually went to a game.

I went to 9 in total and have aired my disappointment at the organisers since day one . It’s a very flippant comment to assume people rightly pointing out that the organisers have failed to perform to there pay pack are professional moaners . Other sports fans simply would not shrug their shoulders and accept some of the bloopers and missed opportunities that we have suffered in this World Cup . It harks to the RL fans stoic acceptance of poor leadership that people are mobbing those who dare to  point out obvious failings.

[gingerjon]

32 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Interesting that I’ve just caught the National Anthem in the Australia France Soccer WC game - no singer doing it! Some were having a go at our organisers for not having them in the group stages.

Just going to start counting empty seats  

“Not as unwelcoming as Qatar”

Our excellent motto for future tournaments 

[RL Tragic]

30 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Interesting that I’ve just caught the National Anthem in the Australia France Soccer WC game - no singer doing it! Some were having a go at our organisers for not having them in the group stages.

Just going to start counting empty seats  

Football doesn’t have an issue with 

Funding 

Participation

Attendances

Popularity

thats why it doesn’t matter so much . No one’s pointing out failings in RL for fun .  I’m sure your in agreement that with our sports product it should be vastly more popular than it is . People just want to see the game getting the support it deserves 

[RL Tragic]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

I prefer the current group structure to super groups, but it has always been structured to get the best 8 into the quarters. 

Would Groups of 3 , one less group game quarters semifinal final be a possible.