Starting Again

[sam4731]

If you could strip down the whole of rugby league and start again, where would you start, what would you do differently and how would you see things progress?

[Man of Kent]

Great question. I think the rules of rugby league are just about perfect now but if you could start over from 1895, you’d probably want to bring the rule changes forward, ie a six-tackle, 13-a-side game with play-the-balls and no lineouts from year zero.

You’d then throw the kitchen sink at Midlands clubs like Leicester to join the Northern Union (nearly happened).  

You’d expand to London sooner.

You’d also encourage the women’s game earlier, as well as other variants. 

You’d want to somehow make sure the French government didn’t steal RL assets and give them to the other lot.

[DI Keith Fowler]

3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

You’d want to somehow make sure the French government didn’t steal RL assets and give them to the other lot.

I love theoreticals but prevent WW2 is probably outside the scope of this. 

[Damien]

The game should have certainly encouraged the Welsh to come across to RL and in particular the early Welsh clubs and league, rather than put obstacles in their way.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Damien

[Pulga]

Probably not England. Imagine starting it in India or China.

[The Rocket]

There`s an article in the Totalrl news Forum of the 10 biggest crowds in Challenge Cup history, many from the 60`s through to the 80`s. Capitalising on the popularity of the game during that era could have made a big difference. Let`s hope we don`t say the same thing about broadcast viewing numbers in forty years time.

[Rolymole]

Just go back to 1995 and stick with a free to air national broadcaster when every other sport was going to Sky.  With no other sport to show the BBC would have put RL in every home every weekend for years.  A strategy that would have underpinned grass roots nationally and achieved some long term aims to grow the game sustainably.

[Sports Prophet]

I would definitely start by getting Nigel and Ralph at the top table. Only success will follow.

[Adelaide Tiger]

Simple.  If it was to start again in 1895 I would send the RL officials down to South Wales with a bigger stash of money than what the RU lot took to persuade them to stay playing Union.

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, sam4731 said:

If you could strip down the whole of rugby league and start again, where would you start, what would you do differently and how would you see things progress?

I'd execute every single person associated with every club who ever voted to either block entry or to kick out a team because it was too far from their town.

It's the only language they understand.

[Damien]

7 hours ago, Rolymole said:

Just go back to 1995 and stick with a free to air national broadcaster when every other sport was going to Sky.  With no other sport to show the BBC would have put RL in every home every weekend for years.  A strategy that would have underpinned grass roots nationally and achieved some long term aims to grow the game sustainably.

The BBC never showed league games anyway.

[Tommygilf]

9 hours ago, Pulga said:

Probably not England. Imagine starting it in India or China.

Neither of those countries have exported a sport to the rest of the world to a commercially successful degree. Either you go domestic and go North America, or you go global and follow the European empires and their emigrés.

[Damien]

9 hours ago, Pulga said:

Probably not England. Imagine starting it in India or China.

Like something like Kabaddi?

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Like something like Kabaddi?

Exactly. You go to the cultural influencers. Population is important, but that is also balanced by GDP per capita and vice versa. The NFL is one of the most commercially lucrative sports competitions in the world despite it only being played to a serious professional level in one country. 

Likewise football hasn't needed to be popular in China, India or the USA to become the global sport it is.

[Sitona]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

The BBC never showed league games anyway.

I remember Grandstand on the BBC showing the second half of a match nearly every Saturday in the late 60s early 7Os. Everyone knew Eddie Waring, Up and Under and Hull Kingston Rovers!

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Sitona said:

I remember Grandstand on the BBC showing the second half of a match nearly every Saturday in the late 60s early 7Os. Everyone knew Eddie Waring, Up and Under and Hull Kingston Rovers!

League as in league competition not league as in rugby league. It was Regal Trophy, Challenge Cup and Premiership.

[HawkMan]

Interesting thread, but let's turn this on its head. What would happen if the Rugby split was happening now?

Suppose Union was still amateur in 2023, but still as popular as it is , and nationwide. Now the Northern clubs go professional,  split and form Super League. Would that be a good idea? Would it damage Union ? Would a M62 predominantly orientated league be a vehicle capable of driving this new pro game of RL ? 

The League set up in  1895 was designed to create a competition for Northern clubs, fantastic,  it succeeded. The Super League now, in real life, is a competition for Northern clubs, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Whether it started in 1895 or hypothetically started now, is it a suitable vehicle for expansion? 

Edited August 11, 2023 by HawkMan

[Eddie]

Expand the Northern Union quickly to take in Union clubs in places like South Yorkshire, Liverpool, Central Lancashire, Cheshire, North Linc’s and North Yorkshire. It would have doubled the population size of the Heartlands and we’d have a much stronger game today. 

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Interesting thread, but let's turn this on its head. What would happen if the Rugby split was happening now?

Suppose Union was still amateur in 2023, but still as popular as it is , and nationwide. Now the Northern clubs go professional,  split and form Super League. Would that be a good idea? Would it damage Union ? Would a M62 predominantly orientated league be a vehicle capable of driving this new pro game of RL ? 

The League set up in  1895 was designed to create a competition for Northern clubs, fantastic,  it succeeded. The Super League now, in real life, is a competition for Northern clubs, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Whether it started in 1895 or hypothetically started now, is it a suitable vehicle for expansion? 

I think that the difference is that the common misconception is that the authorities wanted to go professional back then when in reality they were very opposed to professionalism and were very strict on broken time payments to ensure that players weren't paid to play but only compensated fir the work they missed.

 

Translate that to today. Would we want to go full time immediately? If so, surely that would propel us so far ahead of Union if they were fully, truly amateur and had no thoughts of anything else.

[HawkMan]

6 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I think that the difference is that the common misconception is that the authorities wanted to go professional back then when in reality they were very opposed to professionalism and were very strict on broken time payments to ensure that players weren't paid to play but only compensated fir the work they missed.

 

Translate that to today. Would we want to go full time immediately? If so, surely that would propel us so far ahead of Union if they were fully, truly amateur and had no thoughts of anything else.

The point being would a pro league formed now, succeed if it was primarily M62 based. If the answer is no, it wouldn't dent Union and become National,  then why expect it to expand to any serious degree in reality.

[Dunbar]

How about this:

Don't split from Rugby Union in 1895 and stay a single unified sport.

As there would not be an amateur and (nominally at the elite level) professional code, the motivations and drivers to keep the sports distinct in this facet would not exist.

The single sport of ‘Rugby’ would therefore evolve differently over the last 135 years.

Professionalism would arrive much much earlier than it did for the Union code as there would not be the resistance to keep one version of the sport amateur – probably around the time that it was vying with Association Football to be the most popular football code.

Due to the new found professionalism and need to attract audiences, the singe code of Rugby would need to evolve the laws of the game to attract fans – such as reducing to 13 men and limiting the phases of possession to promote attacking.

I personally believe that if we did not see the split between Rugby Union and the Northern Union in 1895 then we would have a single code of Rugby and it would look more like Rugby League than Rugby Union.

My question is – as a fan would you rather the world look like it is today with our own identity as a sport, or would you rather the whole Rugby world were playing one code of Rugby that was Rugby League (HQ at Twickers etc).

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

How about this:

Don't split from Rugby Union in 1895 and stay a single unified sport.

As there would not be an amateur and (nominally at the elite level) professional code, the motivations and drivers to keep the sports distinct in this facet would not exist.

The single sport of ‘Rugby’ would therefore evolve differently over the last 135 years.

Professionalism would arrive much much earlier than it did for the Union code as there would not be the resistance to keep one version of the sport amateur – probably around the time that it was vying with Association Football to be the most popular football code.

Due to the new found professionalism and need to attract audiences, the singe code of Rugby would need to evolve the laws of the game to attract fans – such as reducing to 13 men and limiting the phases of possession to promote attacking.

I personally believe that if we did not see the split between Rugby Union and the Northern Union in 1895 then we would have a single code of Rugby and it would look more like Rugby League than Rugby Union.

My question is – as a fan would you rather the world look like it is today with our own identity as a sport, or would you rather the whole Rugby world were playing one code of Rugby that was Rugby League (HQ at Twickers etc).

I've always said this. If there had been no split then Rugby would have evolved into what is now Rugby League because of all the reasons Rugby League did. The same discussions would have reached the same conclusions.

The only reason that Rugby Union hasn't (although it does its upmost to copy what it can) is because Rugby League has already done it and is much further along that evolutionary path.

[LeeF]

12 hours ago, The Rocket said:

There`s an article in the Totalrl news Forum of the 10 biggest crowds in Challenge Cup history, many from the 60`s through to the 80`s. Capitalising on the popularity of the game during that era could have made a big difference. Let`s hope we don`t say the same thing about broadcast viewing numbers in forty years time.

I bet you guessed who was at number 5 on that list

[Man of Kent]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

My question is – as a fan would you rather the world look like it is today with our own identity as a sport, or would you rather the whole Rugby world were playing one code of Rugby that was Rugby League (HQ at Twickers etc).

English RU is a bit like cricket without the Yorkshire and Lancashire players. If there was one code, England would be hugely stronger and the Six Nations - or whatever 'Euros' comp there might be - would be very different, effectively a two-horse race with France. Ireland, Scotland and Wales would barely get a look-in, let alone Italy. 

Similarly, Australia would probably be dominant in the Southern Hemisphere. New Zealand would be competitive with Australia but ultimately struggle vis a vis its smaller population (same as now in international RL), and the giant Afrikaners of South Africa wouldn't really have a place in a 13-a-side running game.

I'd keep it as it is. League is a good place, albeit the British game hasn't fulfilled its potential to anything like the extent it has Down Under. We still could though.

[sam4731]

23 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've always said this. If there had been no split then Rugby would have evolved into what is now Rugby League because of all the reasons Rugby League did. The same discussions would have reached the same conclusions.

The only reason that Rugby Union hasn't (although it does its upmost to copy what it can) is because Rugby League has already done it and is much further along that evolutionary path.

Look at 7s. Rugby Union is a game desperately trying to evolve to be faster and more exciting without offending the traditionalists. Sound familiar?