Rugby League Australia most popular sport?

[anjado]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

What does this 6 FT and 2 PT Sydney system look like and when was the perfect opportunity to create it?

1998/99

Balmain, Wests both knew they were at deaths door, Wests despite some successful seasons in the 90's had been on deaths door since the 80's when they were booted out with Newtown.  They moved to Campbelltown which was a good move for them but their 98/99 teams were the worst ever assembled in the NRL. 

Balmain had a really good support base but had been awful on the field since 1990. Had a stupid name change to the Sydney Tigers and moved to Parramatta stadium which was also a dumb move. 

Instead of merging two clubs which were 40-50 km apart where with other clubs stuck between them they should have seen the change in demographics of Sydney and merged them with other clubs. 

 

The most obvious merger in that whole period was the merger of Canterbury and Western Suburbs.

Canterbury were talking about relocating to Liverpool which had junior club sides in Western Suburbs district, the NRL should have helped relocate them and build their 30,000 seat stadium.  

Balmain and the Leichhardt area was becoming hugely gentrified in the 80's and 90's. Leichhardt oval was 5km from Henson Park and only 8km to the Sydney Football Stadium. 

They also had a good fanbase they were more supported than the Roosters were when I was growing up and had a decent junior base. 

Basically this merger makes sense Nick Politis could run the club, Balmain bring across their fan base and actual junior base, the roosters only have 4 junior clubs.  

They could play 3 games a year at Leichhardt.It just made sense. 

Balmain would have fixed the Roosters weaknesses and the Roosters fixed Balmain's. With both clubs being within 10km of each other and not being massive rivals. 

It would then require 2 more mergers one would have been reasonably tough and the other also makes some sense. 

Souths & St George merger makes sense from a geographical perspective. It wouldn't be the easiest sell but again they could have become a monster club. 

That leaves Cronulla who were never in danger in the criteria despite the fact since then they were always mentioned as the relocation club and Illawarra which also makes more sense than St George & Illawarra. Both relatively small clubs but would have a huge junior base basically another Penrith. 

 

Those moves leave the NRL looking like this. 

2 Part Time Sydney teams. 

Central Coast Bears - play 3 games out of NSO. They only didn't get to move to the central coast due to non stop rain in 1998. 

South Coast Sharks - Mainly based in Wollongong. 3-5 games in Cronulla. 

Full-time Sydney teams. 

South Sydney Dragons - Based mainly in the inner city but stretches from Redfern/Mascot to the start of the shire. (SFS)

Easts Tigers - Inner city based club you can chuck Newtown in too if you want they represent the inner city to Bondi. (SFS)

South-West Bulldogs - Bankstown to Campbelltown represents the whole south West with their Stadium in the middle. (Liverpool)

Parramatta (City in it's own right, should be the strongest club in Sydney)

Manly (Unique area difficult to merge with anyone but add value)

Penrith (Huge junior base can only realistically merge with Parramatta but that would affect the balance of the competition)

 

Basically this ensures every Sydney team is represented geographically correct. All have large catchment areas and you can still maintain a rivalry. The key was not forcing bitter rivals to merge like Norths and Manly. 

I think under this system everyone is fairly even and many clubs are stronger we don't disillusion too many supporters. 

I genuinely believe if we went down this route we would be getting over 20,000 people per game and selling out games. SFS I believe would have close to a sell out every week under this system.

It would also help with expansion

10 NSW clubs (including Canberra)

5 Queensland clubs 

Brisbane X2 

Gold Coast

Sunshine Coast

North Queensland 

2 New Zealand teams 

Auckland

Wellington.

Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide. 

From their your expansion is looking at Christchurch, Port Moresby or something crazier. 

One of the great strengths of Rugby League is  that it should be easy to expand. 

They could have used the under 20's competition as a way to help expansion too. Bringing in future expansion teams in this competition and allowing players who become to old to be loaned to NRL clubs until they are in the competition. 

What they have now doesn't work too many clubs based at Homebush, the tigers don't know what area they represent, the roosters the only club at the SFS which is a disaster. 

Those mergers would have covered each other's weaknesses, made sense geographically and made the weaker clubs stronger and every club would have a geographical identity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

On 08/12/2022 at 19:43, Sports Prophet said:

I think MZ is ripe for the picking. With union slumped in a five team Super Rugby competition, it doesn’t leave much viewing opportunities, although kiwi Super Rugby teams play the most enjoyable RU to watch. Anything else is a horror show to my eyes.

Make it a real gorefest -

Waratahs in tank tops, Touch Judges flinging the ball over their shoulder at lineouts, a point for missed penalty goal attempts...

[unapologetic pedant]

On 07/12/2022 at 22:52, Sports Prophet said:

 I comment on the basis of demonstrating an alternate position 

alternative

[Sports Prophet]

10 minutes ago, anjado said:

1998/99

Balmain, Wests both knew they were at deaths door, Wests despite some successful seasons in the 90's had been on deaths door since the 80's when they were booted out with Newtown.  They moved to Campbelltown which was a good move for them but their 98/99 teams were the worst ever assembled in the NRL. 

Balmain had a really good support base but had been awful on the field since 1990. Had a stupid name change to the Sydney Tigers and moved to Parramatta stadium which was also a dumb move. 

Instead of merging two clubs which were 40-50 km apart where with other clubs stuck between them they should have seen the change in demographics of Sydney and merged them with other clubs. 

 

The most obvious merger in that whole period was the merger of Canterbury and Western Suburbs.

Canterbury were talking about relocating to Liverpool which had junior club sides in Western Suburbs district, the NRL should have helped relocate them and build their 30,000 seat stadium.  

Balmain and the Leichhardt area was becoming hugely gentrified in the 80's and 90's. Leichhardt oval was 5km from Henson Park and only 8km to the Sydney Football Stadium. 

They also had a good fanbase they were more supported than the Roosters were when I was growing up and had a decent junior base. 

Basically this merger makes sense Nick Politis could run the club, Balmain bring across their fan base and actual junior base, the roosters only have 4 junior clubs.  

They could play 3 games a year at Leichhardt.It just made sense. 

Balmain would have fixed the Roosters weaknesses and the Roosters fixed Balmain's. With both clubs being within 10km of each other and not being massive rivals. 

It would then require 2 more mergers one would have been reasonably tough and the other also makes some sense. 

Souths & St George merger makes sense from a geographical perspective. It wouldn't be the easiest sell but again they could have become a monster club. 

That leaves Cronulla who were never in danger in the criteria despite the fact since then they were always mentioned as the relocation club and Illawarra which also makes more sense than St George & Illawarra. Both relatively small clubs but would have a huge junior base basically another Penrith. 

 

Those moves leave the NRL looking like this. 

2 Part Time Sydney teams. 

Central Coast Bears - play 3 games out of NSO. They only didn't get to move to the central coast due to non stop rain in 1998. 

South Coast Sharks - Mainly based in Wollongong. 3-5 games in Cronulla. 

Full-time Sydney teams. 

South Sydney Dragons - Based mainly in the inner city but stretches from Redfern/Mascot to the start of the shire. (SFS)

Easts Tigers - Inner city based club you can chuck Newtown in too if you want they represent the inner city to Bondi. (SFS)

South-West Bulldogs - Bankstown to Campbelltown represents the whole south West with their Stadium in the middle. (Liverpool)

Parramatta (City in it's own right, should be the strongest club in Sydney)

Manly (Unique area difficult to merge with anyone but add value)

Penrith (Huge junior base can only realistically merge with Parramatta but that would affect the balance of the competition)

 

Basically this ensures every Sydney team is represented geographically correct. All have large catchment areas and you can still maintain a rivalry. The key was not forcing bitter rivals to merge like Norths and Manly. 

I think under this system everyone is fairly even and many clubs are stronger we don't disillusion too many supporters. 

I genuinely believe if we went down this route we would be getting over 20,000 people per game and selling out games. SFS I believe would have close to a sell out every week under this system.

It would also help with expansion

10 NSW clubs (including Canberra)

5 Queensland clubs 

Brisbane X2 

Gold Coast

Sunshine Coast

North Queensland 

2 New Zealand teams 

Auckland

Wellington.

Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide. 

From their your expansion is looking at Christchurch, Port Moresby or something crazier. 

One of the great strengths of Rugby League is  that it should be easy to expand. 

They could have used the under 20's competition as a way to help expansion too. Bringing in future expansion teams in this competition and allowing players who become to old to be loaned to NRL clubs until they are in the competition. 

What they have now doesn't work too many clubs based at Homebush, the tigers don't know what area they represent, the roosters the only club at the SFS which is a disaster. 

Those mergers would have covered each other's weaknesses, made sense geographically and made the weaker clubs stronger and every club would have a geographical identity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you are presenting is a utopian setup with eyes wide open to the present, not the past. I am sure you have a very good understanding why there are the number of Sydney teams there are. For anyone else, it’s because the old Sydney dominated NSWRL competition revolved to become the NRL.

I hear the argument often, if you were to start the NRL today, with an entirety of new clubs, you would only have 4-6 in Sydney.

That may be so… especially if you weren’t thinking of the vast population growth Sydney is due in the next 30 years. By which stage, people will be thinking, “damn, why did we ever get rid of all those Sydney clubs, each of them could serve their own areas”.

The mergers that took place were the mergers that each of those clubs chose, just as you say. Fortunately one club stood up to the rationing of the Sydney footprint, a club that is now one of the powerhouses of global club Rugby.

Heaven forbid any such future rationing, certainly not at the hands of the governors.

Sydney has the perfect amount of clubs for the NRL to be satisfied the Sydney market is tied up and then focus on expanding in other areas. By 2040, I expect the target should be NRL as the most popular Rugby in the entire Pacific with 24-26 clubs participating to supplement the current 9 in Sydney. If St G wanna move to Illawarra, then so be it. That’s up to them.

[Sports Prophet]

10 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

alternative

Thx, with youre helper, people mite me understand.

[anjado]

25 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

What you are presenting is a utopian setup with eyes wide open to the present, not the past. I am sure you have a very good understanding why there are the number of Sydney teams there are. For anyone else, it’s because the old Sydney dominated NSWRL competition revolved to become the NRL.

I hear the argument often, if you were to start the NRL today, with an entirety of new clubs, you would only have 4-6 in Sydney.

That may be so… especially if you weren’t thinking of the vast population growth Sydney is due in the next 30 years. By which stage, people will be thinking, “damn, why did we ever get rid of all those Sydney clubs, each of them could serve their own areas”.

The mergers that took place were the mergers that each of those clubs chose, just as you say. Fortunately one club stood up to the rationing of the Sydney footprint, a club that is now one of the powerhouses of global club Rugby.

Heaven forbid any such future rationing, certainly not at the hands of the governors.

Sydney has the perfect amount of clubs for the NRL to be satisfied the Sydney market is tied up and then focus on expanding in other areas. By 2040, I expect the target should be NRL as the most popular Rugby in the entire Pacific with 24-26 clubs participating to supplement the current 9 in Sydney. If St G wanna move to Illawarra, then so be it. That’s up to them.

No these mergers made sense in 1998 as well especially the Canterbury and Wests one. 

Ideally there would have been no mergers. 

But clubs also needed a kick up the ###### it's no surprise crowds in Sydney jumped in Sydney at certain clubs in 98/99 when they were under threat. 

[EggFace]

On 10/12/2022 at 08:22, ATLANTISMAN said:

The great thing about any relocation of a Sydney club is that the fans still get the chance to watch their team in Sydney on a regular basis.

Feel sorry for the Bears great club and North Sydney Oval has to be one of the most beautiful rugby league grounds ever.

 

Paul

I'm surprised the Rugby Union side The Waratahs don't use it as their home ground.

[unapologetic pedant]

44 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Thx, with youre helper, people mite me understand.

Wise words, mate.

[unapologetic pedant]

49 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That may be so… especially if you weren’t thinking of the vast population growth Sydney is due in the next 30 years. By which stage, people will be thinking, “damn, why did we ever get rid of all those Sydney clubs, each of them could serve their own areas”.

The mergers that took place were the mergers that each of those clubs chose, just as you say. Fortunately one club stood up to the rationing of the Sydney footprint, a club that is now one of the powerhouses of global club Rugby.

The Rabbitohs have become something of a cultural and demographic phenomenon. Football and geography are elements in their enterprise. They`re definitely one club where memberships are a better measure of popularity than regular season attendances.

The people sticking pins in maps of Sydney today are no more prescient or enlightened than those of 20-odd years ago.

[Damien]

I do think the number of Sydney clubs should be seen as a strength. Its a big city and I see it as similar to the number of London clubs in the Premier League. In a city of 5.5 million people I'm not sure 9 clubs is too outrageous. Sure if you were starting from a blank canvas you may not be doing that by choice but we are were we are.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 09/12/2022 at 15:03, Sports Prophet said:

Commercially, there is no argument. Perth hands down.

Which ought to be the end of the argument. This is professional sport. The number of NRL players South Island might produce is inconsequential set beside the proven political and commercial support for a new franchise in WA. Many of the local Canterbury products will still prefer to live in Sydney or Queensland anyway.

Perth unmistakeably wants an NRL team. Christchurch probably wouldn`t mind one, but they`re not that bothered. That difference will matter in the tough times.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 08/12/2022 at 00:33, Sports Prophet said:

The AFL certainly have far bigger challenges than the NRL in this regard and they appear harder to solve than when the NRL has them.

True, but NRL administrators are adept at making our on-field problems even harder to solve.

It`s a simple game, so solutions should be simple. And the next thing you know...

[emesssea]

I don't think either code can ever claim to be the definite most popular one, so as long as fandom is broken down by geography. If one has X more fans than the other, its most likely because the states they reside in have X more residents. When one code can say they control their heartland and say 40% of non-heartland residents prefer their code over the other, then I'll start believing one code is more popular than the other. I don't think that will ever happen.

I think its a bit silly this constant AFL v NRL zero sum game where fan of one code feel the need to denigrate the other code in order to feel good about their own. I always wondered if your everyday Australian, regardless of their preferred code shrugs their shoulder at this debate, and its relegated to typical message board back and forth arguing. 

If anything, I think Australians should be proud that their nation of ~26 million can support 34 high level football clubs (plus union and soccer clubs, plus all the other professional teams in other sports) 

[Oxford]

5 hours ago, emesssea said:

I don't think either code can ever claim to be the definite most popular one

Apart from the fact that it's a complete irrelevance which one is the most popular and the whole thread redundant its saving grace is the Aussies get to discuss the insular importance of several sports.

It's as much use as asking was Lizzie Fiddler's off licence the best in Ordsall or the one further down the road.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

On 08/12/2022 at 00:33, Sports Prophet said:

I can tell you there are tens of thousands of AFL fans that may not be turning off, but equally dissatisfied with how the sport is played and officiated these days. Me being one of them. A steady decline over the last ten years which has steepened in my opinion in the last five. 

Last AFLW GF finished 19-15, (2 goals, 7 misses) v (2 goals, 3 misses).

Genuine request for information -

I could mount a cogent argument in favour of close-run low-scoring women`s RL games. Central contention would be a richer tactical and strategic form due to the inability of women to gain as much territory and apply as much pressure as the men do through the kick-chase.

Are there any AFL pundits who prefer lower-scoring games and is a similar advocacy plausible in the game of Aussie Rules? The only retorts I`ve seen to criticism of scores like the one above take the form of bespoke rules speculation and thin-skinned evasive allegations of misogyny.

[Dirkgee]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Last AFLW GF finished 19-15, (2 goals, 7 misses) v (2 goals, 3 misses).

Genuine request for information -

I could mount a cogent argument in favour of close-run low-scoring women`s RL games. Central contention would be a richer tactical and strategic form due to the inability of women to gain as much territory and apply as much pressure as the men do through the kick-chase.

Are there any AFL pundits who prefer lower-scoring games and is a similar advocacy plausible in the game of Aussie Rules? The only retorts I`ve seen to criticism of scores like the one above take the form of bespoke rules speculation and thin-skinned evasive allegations of misogyny.

Only defence I think that holds any water is that this is a long term strategic investment.

The games will get better as the sport gets more and more professional no doubt. But the big thing is participation growth.

This is an anecdote but in my area quite a few girls soccer clubs have had to merge because lots of the girls left to play junior AFL.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, emesssea said:

I think its a bit silly this constant AFL v NRL zero sum game where fan of one code feel the need to denigrate the other code in order to feel good about their own.

If anything, I think Australians should be proud that their nation of ~26 million can support 34 high level football clubs (plus union and soccer clubs, plus all the other professional teams in other sports) 

The Australian winter sport scene is unique. In a time of numbing globalized homogeneity, the NRL/AFL duopoly succeeds in bucking the trends. Rivalry and tension between the two is an integral part thereof.

[EggFace]

42 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The Australian winter sport scene is unique. In a time of numbing globalized homogeneity, the NRL/AFL duopoly succeeds in bucking the trends. Rivalry and tension between the two is an integral part thereof.

I would love the AFL and NRL to have some sort of harmonious relationship as they are 2 different games but could work with each other.

Always remember a licensed CIU club in Queensland which had Aussie Rules as it's main code and Touch Rugby/Footy as the Summer code.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

Apart from the fact that it's a complete irrelevance which one is the most popular and the whole thread redundant  

Early signs are promising.

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

get to discuss the insular importance 

Now we`re feeling right at home.

 

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

It's as much use as asking was Lizzie Fiddler's off licence the best in Ordsall or the one further down the road.

That never comes up on the doorstep. The real issue for ordinary people is which was the best Chip Shop. 

[unapologetic pedant]

12 minutes ago, EggFace said:

I would love the AFL and NRL to have some sort of harmonious relationship as they are 2 different games but could work with each other.

Howick Hornets RL have a team in the Auckland AFL. The seasons are not concurrent and they have no reason to view it as a threat.

Very different for RL in most parts of NSW and QLD. - "This Town Ain`t Big Enough for Both of Us".