England v Tonga series

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Bamboozle said:

That was great but just over a decade earlier the game for me in this country reached its zenith with the 2nd test in 1990 ashes series.

 

 

Yeah I know that. However as I pointed out I was referring to 2003 because that was the size of stadiums, crowds and type of events we should be aiming for against Tonga. With the best will in the world we are way off playing Tonga at Wembley and Old Trafford.

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

If anything, wouldn't the Americans most likely compare it to NFL? If they do, rugby league will appear fast and flowing as a result, even if it's less so than 20 years ago.

Compared to gridiron today's RL will appear simplistic, one-dimensional and boring, and also much too fast-paced.  Usonians* will only need one look at teams making 7 or 8 metres per play with ridiculous ease to be turned off.

* The correct English word for the US national identity. 

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

If you look on the ticketing website, the tickets for standing areas are allocated by number. You can see in each stand how many have been sold, therefore. 

Actually, it'll be a bit better than that. When the map was up you could select standing tickets 'at random'. Some higher numbers will therefore have been bought already. 

[Northern Eel]

21 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Actually, it'll be a bit better than that. When the map was up you could select standing tickets 'at random'. Some higher numbers will therefore have been bought already. 

I am just assuming that having taken that down, they have 'reallocated' and renumbered tickets accordingly as I don't think any had been sent out by then. Let's see!

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

I am just assuming that having taken that down, they have 'reallocated' and renumbered tickets accordingly as I don't think any had been sent out by then. Let's see!

Weren’t they digital tickets?

[Northern Eel]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Weren’t they digital tickets?

Even some digital tickets haven't been sent out yet. Still waiting for mine, for example.

[meast]

4 hours ago, M j M said:

This is in the scenario of playing one game in Yorkshire.

Time after time we've seen international games in Leeds perform well attendance-wise. It's simply a fact that you would get a bigger attendance at Elland Road than you would playing the same game in Sheffield.

I wouldn't be looking to play at Leeds and Sheffield, but Sheffield would definitely be worth looking at as an alternative.

[meast]

1 hour ago, Gomersall said:

We were nithered.

We were F***** Frozen, dunno about nithered

[Gomersall]

1 hour ago, meast said:

 dunno about nithered

There’s them that know and them that don’t.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, Bamboozle said:

That was great but just over a decade earlier the game for me in this country reached its zenith with the 2nd test in 1990 ashes series.

 

 

I was at all 3 games as a 16 year old. Even then the rugby league media were all doom and gloom about how long it had been since we’d beaten the Aussies in a series. How little perspective we had then!

Crowds like that are still achievable if the game was run and promoted properly in this country. Club crowds, and especially memberships (where you know precisely who and where the customer is), are larger than they were back then. The audience exists. 

[Odsal Outlaw]

7 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

#1 daft idea.

Playing two games in W. Yorkshire is a daft idea. But if you make that daft decision then why is two at Headingley daft? What would your suggestion be?

[The Rocket]

7 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Compared to gridiron today's RL will appear simplistic, one-dimensional and boring, and also much too fast-paced.  Usonians* will only need one look at teams making 7 or 8 metres per play with ridiculous ease to be turned off.

* The correct English word for the US national identity. 

 I`ll bet my bottom dollar that your average boof-head American football fan wouldn`t give a rats-###### about the so-called intricacies that we hear from a tiny proportion of NFL knobs who like to use that to explain that game`s popularity in the US.

You can bet that your averaqe American football fan is interested in exactly what we are: collisions/defending, passing/catching, running/athleticism and scoring, any so-called intricacies are a bonus and nice to think about a little, but likely play only a small part in the enjoyment of the sport. Just like the majority of League fans, myself included, when we watch Rugby League.

Now selling another sport to a country that has its` own tried and true products, that`s another matter, but telling me that your average NFL fan watches that game because of its` technical wizardry I think is nonsense. They watch because it is sport and it`s a high-octane macho collision sport.

Edited October 31, 2023 by The Rocket

[Big Picture]

46 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 I`ll bet my bottom dollar that your average boof-head American football fan wouldn`t give a rats-###### about the so-called intricacies that we hear from a tiny proportion of NFL knobs who like to use that to explain that game`s popularity in the US.

You can bet that your averaqe American football fan is interested in exactly what we are: collisions/defending, passing/catching, running/athleticism and scoring, any so-called intricacies are a bonus and nice to think about a little, but likely play only a small part in the enjoyment of the sport. Just like the majority of League fans, myself included, when we watch Rugby League.

Now selling another sport to a country that has its` own tried and true products, that`s another matter, but telling me that your average NFL fan watches that game because of its` technical wizardry I think is nonsense. They watch because it is sport and it`s a high-octane macho collision sport.

You totally misunderstood my point.

It's not that they understand all the technicalities, those are distinct from the pace of the game and the ease (or lack theteof) of gaining ground and getting into a position to score points.  And in that respect gridiron and modern RL are very different.

Offensive drives in gridiron are generally long and time consuming, with every single yard earned by the offense but that is certainly not the case with modern RL.  That difference will be immediately apparent to anyone who grew up seeing gridiron on TV, and not in a good way.

[gingerjon]

18 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

OKish? What should we be comparing it with?

The very real alternative of 0 because the only option other than "three game series v Tonga" appears to have been "no games at all".

[Dunbar]

13 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Compared to gridiron today's RL will appear simplistic, one-dimensional and boring, and also much too fast-paced.  Usonians* will only need one look at teams making 7 or 8 metres per play with ridiculous ease to be turned off.

* The correct English word for the US national identity. 

Have you played Rugby League as a middle forward?

Actually, scratch that.  Have you even watched Rugby League?

Yes, the 10 metre defensive line allows players to cross the gain line but if you think any of this is done with 'ridiculous ease' then you don't know what you are talking about.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Dunbar

[Blind side johnny]

20 hours ago, meast said:

I still shudder at how ridiculously cold it was that night

And they ran out of food/hot drinks before the second game - not everything was perfect in the old days.

[Blind side johnny]

11 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Playing two games in W. Yorkshire is a daft idea. But if you make that daft decision then why is two at Headingley daft? What would your suggestion be?

No matter where it is, playing two games at the same ground is simply daft. I shouldn't need to explain that.

[Odsal Outlaw]

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

No matter where it is, playing two games at the same ground is simply daft. I shouldn't need to explain that.

England football play every game at the same ground. England RU play every game at the same ground. Are they daft?

But my point was actually if you decide to play two games in such close proximity to one another we’d have been better off playing both at Headingley as likely would have got a better cumulative crowd and potentially low operational costs.

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Have you played Rugby League as a middle forward?

Actually, scratch that.  Have you even watched Rugby League?

Yes, the 10 metre defensive line allows players to cross the gain line but if you think any of this is done with 'ridiculous ease' then you don't know what you are talking about.

My personal collection has about a thousand matches altogether so FYI I've watched hundreds over the years.

In the modern game the combination of the 10 metre rule and the weird obsession with having the game flow as fast as possible means that defenses can't move up to close a play down, they'd never get back onside in time for the next play then.

The result is that teams are basically given 7-8 easy metres per play, just from having one player take the ball forward.  That's not likely to impress many newbies who take the Las Vegas matches in, they're more likely to lose interest in a hurry. 

 

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

My personal collection has about a thousand matches altogether so FYI I've watched hundreds over the years.

In the modern game the combination of the 10 metre rule and the weird obsession with having the game flow as fast as possible means that defenses can't move up to close a play down, they'd never get back onside in time for the next play then.

The result is that teams are basically given 7-8 easy metres per play, just from having one player take the ball forward.  That's not likely to impress many newbies who take the Las Vegas matches in, they're more likely to lose interest in a hurry. 

 

I have spoken on here many times about the fact the game would benefit a little from slowing down, by enforcing a proper play the ball (but to counter that by penalising defenders who slow the ruck).

And I also agree that the 10m defensive line allows ball carriers to meet and surpass the defensive gain line.

But where you are errant is describing this as ridiculously easy.

You are posting this on the England Tonga series thread where England have won two tests so far, not least because of the defensive intensity that they have shown.

Rugby League games are massive physical challenges and one of the key indicators to success (if not the indicator) is running metres (including post contact metres) provided by backs at the start of a set and middle forwards.  They are hit hard and often by multiple defenders with punishing defence.

It is not easy to make yards in Rugby League and the teams that do make yards tend to win.

I'm sure that the discerning US viewer will recognise this even if you don't.

[Barley Mow]

17 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

My personal collection has about a thousand matches altogether so FYI I've watched hundreds over the years.

In the modern game the combination of the 10 metre rule and the weird obsession with having the game flow as fast as possible means that defenses can't move up to close a play down, they'd never get back onside in time for the next play then.

The result is that teams are basically given 7-8 easy metres per play, just from having one player take the ball forward.  That's not likely to impress many newbies who take the Las Vegas matches in, they're more likely to lose interest in a hurry. 

 

That's an interesting take.

The converse might explain why I've never been able to get into gridiron - I suppose from my British perspective I prefer a sport where (although the players are trying to gain/restrict yardage), the play moves to different parts of the field quicker, leading (to my mind) to opportunities to score points for both teams.

How does this concept of North American newbies losing interest and not being impressed, factor into your plan for a trans-continental elite competition? As a stand alone statement your comments seem to suggest that many people who are into gridiron are unlikely to take to rugby league.

If that comment was coming from someone living in a smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged town in northern England, I would conclude they were anti-expansion.

[Damien]

19 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Compared to gridiron today's RL will appear simplistic, one-dimensional and boring, and also much too fast-paced.  Usonians* will only need one look at teams making 7 or 8 metres per play with ridiculous ease to be turned off.

* The correct English word for the US national identity. 

You could make those arguments and comparisons with Basketball though and the NBA seems rather popular in the US.

[Big Picture]

44 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

That's an interesting take.

The converse might explain why I've never been able to get into gridiron - I suppose from my British perspective I prefer a sport where (although the players are trying to gain/restrict yardage), the play moves to different parts of the field quicker, leading (to my mind) to opportunities to score points for both teams.

How does this concept of North American newbies losing interest and not being impressed, factor into your plan for a trans-continental elite competition? As a stand alone statement your comments seem to suggest that many people who are into gridiron are unlikely to take to rugby league.

If that comment was coming from someone living in a smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged town in northern England, I would conclude they were anti-expansion.

Obviously changes to improve the balance between offense and defense and produce more varied play like the game had 30-40 years ago would be needed.

Those changes would also make the transition easier for players coming from RU and gridiron, which is where all the players with transferable skills and game sense who are also marketable enough to make headlines and help sell tickets are playing now.

[Click]

45 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

That's an interesting take.

The converse might explain why I've never been able to get into gridiron - I suppose from my British perspective I prefer a sport where (although the players are trying to gain/restrict yardage), the play moves to different parts of the field quicker, leading (to my mind) to opportunities to score points for both teams.

How does this concept of North American newbies losing interest and not being impressed, factor into your plan for a trans-continental elite competition? As a stand alone statement your comments seem to suggest that many people who are into gridiron are unlikely to take to rugby league.

If that comment was coming from someone living in a smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged town in northern England, I would conclude they were anti-expansion.

It's just another variation of the same old story.

"Rugby League fans hate Rugby League" 

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

Obviously changes to improve the balance between offense and defense and produce more varied play like the game had 30-40 years ago would be needed.

Those changes would also make the transition easier for players coming from RU and gridiron, which is where all the players with transferable skills and game sense who are also marketable enough to make headlines and help sell tickets are playing now.

We're moving off topic here, but in that case is your plan to convince the IRL (NRL, RFL, etc) to change the rules the game is played by or are you intending to form a new code of football/rugby (albeit closely aligned to rugby league)?

I had assumed your 'big picture' rugby league competition would be playing rugby league (as already currently played), but it would be a huge undertaking to convince the governing bodies to change the rules to suit the tastes of North Americans in addition to finding the funding for the whole setup.

Added to that, I fear you could put off large parts of your European market with such a change.