Are we stuck?

[sam4731]

Lots of threads recently about how to develop the game but they all seem to come to a consensus that everything is too expensive, unsustainable or just pointless. 

We seem to have kept up with innovation in sport (more or less) up to now but it really feels like we are completely stagnant at the moment.

Are we stuck and will we start to fall behind now?

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Are we stuck and will we start to fall behind now?

I don't think so. Nor will we race ahead.

Most sports are pretty much embedded within their local, national and international space now and I suspect that if we could look forward 50 years the sporting landscape would be almost identical to what it is now.

Where we will get traction is more nations seeing grass roots Rugby League grow but I don't think we will see our game rise to the top anywhere it isn't already established.

[17 stone giant]

Yes, it's stuck. The question is are you happy with where it is stuck . If you are, there's nothing to worry about, just enjoy what you've got.

But if you want more for the sport, what are you prepared to change and what sacrifices are you prepared to make in order to achieve the progress you desire?

Because one thing is pretty much certain, if you do the same things you've always done, you'll get the same results you've always got.

[Barley Mow]

Not stuck, but only developing at the speed we can afford.

The game can't afford the structures/competitions/developments that we might think are ideal and we have to cut our cloth accordingly.

We can't do everything we want and have to be selective. I think the issue is that different people would select different things to pursue and get disenchanted when their preferences don't get priority.

[Big Picture]

48 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Lots of threads recently about how to develop the game but they all seem to come to a consensus that everything is too expensive, unsustainable or just pointless. 

We seem to have kept up with innovation in sport (more or less) up to now but it really feels like we are completely stagnant at the moment.

Are we stuck and will we start to fall behind now?

What do you mean "start to fall behind"?  It's plainly evident that the sport has already fallen well behind its competitors in Britain. 

[17 stone giant]

28 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Most sports are pretty much embedded within their local, national and international space now and I suspect that if we could look forward 50 years the sporting landscape would be almost identical to what it is now.

I'm not so sure about that. Granted there might not be enormous changes constantly taking place in every sport, but is it true that things stay identical to what they've always been? 50 years is a long time and I think there's probably quite a few examples to challenge that assumption.

Women's football? The NFL playing games in the UK and, who knows, a UK franchise at some point? The NRL creating a team in Melbourne, perhaps one day Perth, or PNG? Italy being added to the RU six nations, maybe more to be added at some point.

I will readily agree that you're not going to have football drop down to 5th in the popularity list, or Snooker suddenly become the most popular sport, but over time I think there will be very noticeable increases or declines in different sports.

[GUBRATS]

20 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Yes, it's stuck. The question is are you happy with where it is stuck . If you are, there's nothing to worry about, just enjoy what you've got.

But if you want more for the sport, what are you prepared to change and what sacrifices are you prepared to make in order to achieve the progress you desire?

Because one thing is pretty much certain, if you do the same things you've always done, you'll get the same results you've always got.

Your suggestion is ? 

[17 stone giant]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Your suggestion is ? 

My first step would be a rugby league equivalent of The Hundred in cricket. Big city teams for a month long competition. I'd get the NRL to invest in it, or at least be partners in it.

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I'm not so sure about that. Granted there might not be enormous changes constantly taking place in every sport, but is it true that things stay identical to what they've always been? 50 years is a long time and I think there's probably quite a few examples to challenge that assumption.

Women's football? The NFL playing games in the UK and, who knows, a UK franchise at some point? The NRL creating a team in Melbourne, perhaps one day Perth, or PNG? Italy being added to the RU six nations, maybe more to be added at some point.

I will readily agree that you're not going to have football drop down to 5th in the popularity list, or Snooker suddenly become the most popular sport, but over time I think there will be very noticeable increases or declines in different sports.

I can't really agree with your examples. 

Women's sport is not really relevant here as it is expansion of already established sports into a wider female playing base.  And pretty much growing in popularity along the same lines as the male equivalents. 

As for NFL.  Three decades ago there was an NFL Europe professional league that has disappeared so 2 or 3 games a year is a retreat rather than a growth of that sport.

And Rugby League in Paua New Guinea? The only country where it is the national sport!

Some new clubs pop up and some sports take advantage of a global market (as the NRL is doing in Vegas) but these are tiny examples in the big picture. 

[17 stone giant]

24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I can't really agree with your examples. 

But if you're correct, the logical conclusion of what you're saying is surely that it won't make any difference what any sport does - they will all still be at the same level in 50 years time that they're at now?

I just don't agree with that. I think at least for some sports, the choices they make today will very much affect where they are in 50 years time.

Even for a sport like football, which let's face it has the world at its feet (no pun intended), it still has to push at the open doors. Women's football will grow whatever, but if the football administrators make the right decisions, it will grow faster and bigger than if you just let it muddle along.

 

[Gerrumonside ref]

40 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I can't really agree with your examples. 

Women's sport is not really relevant here as it is expansion of already established sports into a wider female playing base.  And pretty much growing in popularity along the same lines as the male equivalents. 

As for NFL.  Three decades ago there was an NFL Europe professional league that has disappeared so 2 or 3 games a year is a retreat rather than a growth of that sport.

And Rugby League in Paua New Guinea? The only country where it is the national sport!

Some new clubs pop up and some sports take advantage of a global market (as the NRL is doing in Vegas) but these are tiny examples in the big picture. 

The NFL playing 2-3 regular season games involving NFL teams with talk of 1-2 London franchises of top players is very significant progress.

NFL Europe at best was a ‘reserves’ league (with a handful achieving later success) that had very poor TV audiences in the USA for that reason and only really achieved lasting public affinity in Germany.

They too in Germany are now getting NFL regular season games and the demand is extremely high to watch the ‘real deal’.

Add in TV audience, merchandise sales etc and it’s just factually incorrect to say the NFL has declined in the UK.

[StandOffHalf]

I think RL in the UK could be a semi-pro game without a TV presence in 50 years.

Things can change, and sometimes quite rapidly!

[Hopie]

Not stuck, because that would imply no growth and no decline, and the game is in decline.

The solutions are all long term though, and most of the game in this country is pretty much hand to mouth, so won't or can't invest in the future. Instead we have slowly but surely ever decreasing circles.

[Gerrumonside ref]

2 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Lots of threads recently about how to develop the game but they all seem to come to a consensus that everything is too expensive, unsustainable or just pointless. 

We seem to have kept up with innovation in sport (more or less) up to now but it really feels like we are completely stagnant at the moment.

Are we stuck and will we start to fall behind now?

I think we are reaching a broad consensus that we are competing against a lot of other leisure pursuits so it isn’t just a case of money, but also time (which is a commodity in itself).

Therefore is ‘ the sporting contest’ in itself enough to attract enough people?  Or does there need to be something extra?  If so, what can we afford to do to create an event?

I often think that well intentioned people are trying hard with limited resource to create events/new traditions, but there just isn’t the seed money to sustain things for long enough to build a tradition for people to follow.

The sport is often in a chicken and egg situation with regards innovation and risk/reward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Gerrumonside ref

[17 stone giant]

5 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

The NFL playing 2-3 regular season games involving NFL teams with talk of 1-2 London franchises of top players is very significant progress.

Plus there's the investment they're making in providing opportunities to play the sport, such as the academy in Loughborough. If they see a demand for people wanting to give the sport a try, they've got the money to create more and more academies. There's only a finite number of kids, and every sport is vying for their attention. I don't think any sport can be complacent about things.

[GUBRATS]

13 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Plus there's the investment they're making in providing opportunities to play the sport, such as the academy in Loughborough. If they see a demand for people wanting to give the sport a try, they've got the money to create more and more academies. There's only a finite number of kids, and every sport is vying for their attention. I don't think any sport can be complacent about things.

They also apparently gave shed loads of free tickets for the game last weekend , interest is waning 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

My first step would be a rugby league equivalent of The Hundred in cricket. Big city teams for a month long competition. I'd get the NRL to invest in it, or at least be partners in it.

So a shorter game ? , and yet a RL game lasts around 2 hours in total , a Hundred cricket match lasts almost 4 hours 

Bonkers 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

I'm not so sure about that. Granted there might not be enormous changes constantly taking place in every sport, but is it true that things stay identical to what they've always been? 50 years is a long time and I think there's probably quite a few examples to challenge that assumption.

Women's football? The NFL playing games in the UK and, who knows, a UK franchise at some point? The NRL creating a team in Melbourne, perhaps one day Perth, or PNG? Italy being added to the RU six nations, maybe more to be added at some point.

I will readily agree that you're not going to have football drop down to 5th in the popularity list, or Snooker suddenly become the most popular sport, but over time I think there will be very noticeable increases or declines in different sports.

It just shows that sports with financial clout can still push into new markets.

[17 stone giant]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So a shorter game ? , and yet a RL game lasts around 2 hours in total , a Hundred cricket match lasts almost 4 hours 

Bonkers 

No, I wasn't clear. The Hundred element was simply a reference to a small number of teams located in the big cities, for a short competition of a month or so. Still 13 players and 80 minutes matches, and no cricket bats on the field.

 

[Guest]

Depends on where you want the sport to grow. I think the limited resources should be directed towards preserving the game in its heartlands but also countries where there is a realistic chance to grow the sport. Not Ireland or Scotland. I can't see them ever taking to league. Serbia and Greece on the other hand is different. Certainly if you want a WC which is treated with more respect.

[Futtocks]

We're not stuck, but have to use our resources cannily as has been the case since the sport came into existence in 1895.

People with uncosted and/or unrealistic plans are always going to feel like it's terribly unfair that the sport won't implement their whim of the week. And if we had a hundred times the money, they'd just come up with plans that cost a hundred times more.

[Copa]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think so. Nor will we race ahead.

Most sports are pretty much embedded within their local, national and international space now and I suspect that if we could look forward 50 years the sporting landscape would be almost identical to what it is now.

Where we will get traction is more nations seeing grass roots Rugby League grow but I don't think we will see our game rise to the top anywhere it isn't already established.

Rugby union in Australia has been going backwards significantly.

A 2006 news article states that Brisbane and Sydney lost 800 tennis courts in 8 years ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-06-26/loss-of-courts-crippling-australian-tennis/1787038 ). It is no doubt even worse now.

Sydney alone has lost around 160 squash centres (https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/where-have-all-the-squash-courts-gone-lost-to-developers-every-one-20220816-p5ba89.html ). 

Vigoro was a well known sport in Sydney schools around 60 years ago. Now there’s only a few teams in NSW.

There are other activities I remember being huge that are now on the periphery.

Millions of Australians have no idea how popular these sports were back in the day. The older you are the more likely you’ve seen sports fade away and new sports take their place.

Sports can, and do fade away, for a whole range of reasons.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Copa

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

No, I wasn't clear. The Hundred element was simply a reference to a small number of teams located in the big cities, for a short competition of a month or so. Still 13 players and 80 minutes matches, and no cricket bats on the field.

 

So you suggest playing games in places where nobody really knows or cares about the sport ? , and this would require renting hugely expensive stadiums and players already contracted to existing clubs risking injury ? 

I'll tell you what , get the super efficient NRL send over their best 200 players and arrange it all , and pay for it

[The Masked Poster]

5 hours ago, Copa said:

Rugby union in Australia has been going backwards significantly.

A 2006 news article states that Brisbane and Sydney lost 800 tennis courts in 8 years ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-06-26/loss-of-courts-crippling-australian-tennis/1787038 ). It is no doubt even worse now.

Sydney alone has lost around 160 squash centres (https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/where-have-all-the-squash-courts-gone-lost-to-developers-every-one-20220816-p5ba89.html ). 

Vigoro was a well known sport in Sydney schools around 60 years ago. Now there’s only a few teams in NSW.

There are other activities I remember being huge that are now on the periphery.

Millions of Australians have no idea how popular these sports were back in the day. The older you are the more likely you’ve seen sports fade away and new sports take their place.

Sports can, and do fade away, for a whole range of reasons.

 

They really can. As incredible as it might seem today, Football in the UK was on a downer in the mid 80's - up to the PL formation. Stadium disasters, crowd violence and bans from European competition added to declining attendances left it in not that great a place.

Pop stars and celebrities were definitely not falling over themselves to be associated with it. If you see some matches from the now fabled Italia 90, you will see swathes of empty seats, including England games. This would never happen today. 

Ok, you might argue that "that's football" but if they hadn't taken action and done something, who knows what it would look like today? Obviously it would still exist and probably still be #1 sport but would it be the behemoth it is now? Not guaranteed, nothing is. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by The Masked Poster

[whatmichaelsays]

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Most sports are pretty much embedded within their local, national and international space now and I suspect that if we could look forward 50 years the sporting landscape would be almost identical to what it is now.

I suppose the key difference is that whilst the sporting landscape might be identical to what it was 50 years ago, are those communities where the sports are embedded? And in RL, given the narrow geographic footprint, I think that is a big challenge. 

In RL, we talk about the heartlands being "former mining towns", but the makeup of those towns the clubs represent is so different now to what it was even just a generation ago. These "former pit towns", where people probably spent their entire working lives, are are now commuter towns that pull in people from other cities (place like Huddersfield, for example, are popular with couples where one works in Leeds and the other in Manchester). These towns now have much more diverse communities, higher immigrant populations and many young people from these places go on to leave for study or career opportunities - many never coming back. And I think that people just don't have that same attachment to their local town than they once did. 

So the question then is whether RL and RL clubs, which pride themselves on being key parts of their community, actually have adapted to reflect those communities as they are today? And I'm not sure you can confidently claim that they have. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by whatmichaelsays