England vs Samoa Series

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

@Dave T

I think we’ve taken our conversation as far as it is going to go.

We appear to be having two conversations. I'm directly addressing you saying people are less interested in internationals these days and that is reflected in attendances. Nothing more than that. 

Happy to leave it there if you want to discuss other things, no probs mate. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We appear to be having two conversations. I'm directly addressing you saying people are less interested in internationals these days and that is reflected in attendances. Nothing more than that. 

Happy to leave it there if you want to discuss other things, no probs mate. 

I’m saying ‘younger’ people perhaps have less affinity with country compared to club and this is reflected in international attendance which I agree are hobbled by poor marketing, venue choices and not the opponents we might choose.  I feel this all then might become a vicious circle if it hasn’t already.

I take your points though and support your view we shouldn’t be cancelling things or see doing England RL well as a concept as too hard for our administration.

The biggest problem I think with the argument I am making, is I can’t back it up with any hard evidence and neither of us are young enough to know if what I’m saying really is true (sorry we’re getting old mate).

Anyway let’s enjoy the bank holidays!

Edited March 29 by Gerrumonside ref

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

51 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

So is the opposition the sell then or England given your caveats here?

I think in the heartlands it's the opposition that's the sell - educated fans know if they're being sold a substandard product. As evidenced by the poor crowds whenever they play a mid-season international in Warrington. For the uninitiated, it's England that is the sell. This is why internationals are so important. Wigan v Penrith was fantastic, but the wider public neither knew nor cared about it.

56 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

The biggest issue we have is who to play and where?

I’m fairly convinced that England vs France on these shores does neither side much good and makes little money either.

All other candidate opponents are prisoners to the NRL schedule.

Honestly I think we need to beat Australia in Australia preferably in a final to kickstart a change in the way our game up here is viewed.

The international game is the best tool to capture the wider public's imagination (barring football, that's pretty much the case with every other sport in this country). I think the RFL fell asleep at the wheel in this regard. If it was up to me I'd have made certain decisions years ago to help avoid the current situation (e.g. After GB split have the home nations play annual games against each other, annual games v France, ringfence a Welsh team and 2 French teams in SL, establish player pathways in home nations etc etc). But these would all require strategic planning, money and effort. And unfortunately the RFL hasn't given us evidence of any of these in recent memory.

Edited March 29 by RugbyLeagueGeek

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think in the heartlands it's the opposition that's the sell - educated fans know if they're being sold a substandard product. As evidenced by the poor crowds whenever they play a mid-season international in Warrington. For the uninitiated, it's England that is the sell. This is why internationals are so important. Wigan v Penrith was fantastic, but the wider neither knew nor cared about it.

The international game is the best tool to capture the wider public's imagination (barring football, that's pretty much the case with every other sport in this country). I think the RFL fell asleep at the wheel in this regard. If it was up to me I'd have made certain decisions years ago to help avoid the current situation (e.g. After GB split have the home nations play annual games against each other, annual games v France, ringfence a Welsh team and 2 French teams in SL, establish player pathways in home nations etc etc). But these would all require strategic planning, money and effort. And unfortunately the RFL hasn't given us evidence of any of these in recent memory.

I agree broadly with a lot of that and wouldn’t give up on England RL.

It is chicken and egg with the money aspect right now though as you know.

Maybe a forum member will finally land the lottery jackpot and we can seed some of your ideas.

 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I’m saying ‘younger’ people perhaps have less affinity with country compared to club and this is reflected in international attendance which I agree are hobbled by poor marketing, venue choices and not the opponents we might choose.  I feel this all then might become a vicious circle if it hasn’t already.

I take your points though and support your view we shouldn’t be cancelling things or see doing England RL well as a concept as too hard for our administration.

The biggest problem I think with the argument I am making, is I can’t back it up with any hard evidence and neither of us are young enough to know if what I’m saying really is true (sorry we’re getting old mate).

Anyway let’s enjoy the bank holidays!

This post was all going so well until you called me old

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

47 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

How long ago was that and how often were GB playing then, compared to England playing now?

Early 90s is when I got hooked. Between 1990-92 GB played 23 full internationals, plus numerous tour games. Plus there seemed to be a consistent calendar, so you knew years in advance when we would be playing an Ashes series (and that it would definitely happen).

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

This post was all going so well until you called me old

Haha, I’m sorry!   We’ll call it ‘less young’!

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

7 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I agree broadly with a lot of that and wouldn’t give up on England RL.

It is chicken and egg with the money aspect right now though as you know.

Maybe a forum member will finally land the lottery jackpot and we can seed some of your ideas.

 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Haha, I’m sorry!   We’ll call it ‘less young’!

You were right first time

[Tommygilf]

As a "younger person" I think the national side is our best vehicle for getting new younger people involved in the game. The club game, barring a few exceptions, is regardless what anyone says, incredibly parochial. Cas or St Helens for example are massive deal in Castleford or St Helens, but outside of those places there is very limited reach currently, and arguably limited appeal.

My particular experience attending England games, mainly in the 2010s, has been one that saw good matches at big stadiums followed by a broad range of fans. The worst England matches have been the ones set up to fail with low expectations and lower returns (see the Tonga tour, CNAS etc.)

England RL is a far more attractive brand particularly in the Capital than our club game seems to be. England always get good Crowds in London and for those without club affinity (for the above stated reasons) it offers them a team to get behind. Ideally, I would have England play at least 1 London test each year minimum. 

The complete neglect shown towards the international game by the past 2 leaders of the RFL, who were blinded on a nostalgia trip of 3 match tours, allowed the budding International game to collapse under their watch, is a travesty.

[Mathius Hellwege]

6 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Early 90s is when I got hooked. Between 1990-92 GB played 23 full internationals, plus numerous tour games. Plus there seemed to be a consistent calendar, so you knew years in advance when we would be playing an Ashes series (and that it would definitely happen).

best three years, but to be honest including the tours...

and it were the last ashes due to Uk being incompetitive and the destructive effects of the SL War

[Mathius Hellwege]

56 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As a "younger person" I think the national side is our best vehicle for getting new younger people involved in the game. The club game, barring a few exceptions, is regardless what anyone says, incredibly parochial. Cas or St Helens for example are massive deal in Castleford or St Helens, but outside of those places there is very limited reach currently, and arguably limited appeal.

My particular experience attending England games, mainly in the 2010s, has been one that saw good matches at big stadiums followed by a broad range of fans. The worst England matches have been the ones set up to fail with low expectations and lower returns (see the Tonga tour, CNAS etc.)

England RL is a far more attractive brand particularly in the Capital than our club game seems to be. England always get good Crowds in London and for those without club affinity (for the above stated reasons) it offers them a team to get behind. Ideally, I would have England play at least 1 London test each year minimum. 

The complete neglect shown towards the international game by the past 2 leaders of the RFL, who were blinded on a nostalgia trip of 3 match tours, allowed the budding International game to collapse under their watch, is a travesty.

yes, and they had  the perfect world with very succesfull 4N-tournaments

[Hopie]

Covid was the excuse last time, but Australia have been looking for excuses not to come for as long as I can remember watching the games. The ashes, and the England Australia rivalry is still the biggest thing going even if New Zealand are the best or 2nd best team in the world. It can attract new people here, and if we beat them, the Aussies would have to play us again to prove themselves. 

However, the failures of the last tour have nothing to do with Australia. We need to be taking games to places where we have had good crowds, Newcastle, Emirates, Elland Road, Manchester etc. When was the last time we followed up on a good international crowd, when was the last time you walked out of an entertaining international game and knew when the next series would be held, and could buy a ticket?

[stookie]

On 29/03/2024 at 23:52, Dave T said:

I think we put too much onus on this. The Kiwis have a decent record vs the Aussies, besting them semi-regularly in finals, yet it hasn't really translated into huge Tests and the Aussies being more interested. 

Of course a win or two would be lovely, but as we see with the WCC and the tests they've lost against NZ and Tonga - they just don't really care. They have their own plan. 

I don't agree with this Dave. UTK gave a pretty good summary, showing when the Kiwis are consistently playing well and beating Aus, interest jumps significantly:

I mean, surely it stands to reason, if a team has beaten all comers for decades (Aus 1980-2008), then it's not beyond comprehension that interest will fall off.

But when it becomes genuinely competitive, and not just a series of close victories, but actual series losses, interest jumps again.

I agree with others, the quickest way out of this (albeit not the easiest) is for England to beat Aus once or especially more in a tournament. Then you'll quickly see ashes-level (cricket) interest build.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, stookie said:

I don't agree with this Dave. UTK gave a pretty good summary, showing when the Kiwis are consistently playing well and beating Aus, interest jumps significantly:

I mean, surely it stands to reason, if a team has beaten all comers for decades (Aus 1980-2008), then it's not beyond comprehension that interest will fall off.

But when it becomes genuinely competitive, and not just a series of close victories, but actual series losses, interest jumps again.

I agree with others, the quickest way out of this (albeit not the easiest) is for England to beat Aus once or especially more in a tournament. Then you'll quickly see ashes-level (cricket) interest build.

In an era where the Kiwis have beaten the Aussies with a decent level fo regularity, there is still a lack of positive change I. E. The Aussies are still not particularly interested in internationals. 

People for years gave them a pass because nobody could beat them, yet the Kiwis have beaten them in plenty of finals, in Tri-Nations, Four Nations and a World Cup, as well as one-off tests, yet this hasn't changed anything. 

They will play a half-hearted Pacific Nations this year that hasn't been scheduled yet, their last home game against the Kiwis was 20k at Melbourne, the last final between these was 13k in NZ. Hardly halcyon days. 

People claim things will be good if England won some games, but there is zero evidence that the international game is better when the Kiwis beat the Aussies regularly. Anzac Tests have been cancelled, as has the 4N, World Cups dwindling. No evidence that the Aussies losing will increase interest. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, stookie said:

I don't agree with this Dave. UTK gave a pretty good summary, showing when the Kiwis are consistently playing well and beating Aus, interest jumps significantly:

I mean, surely it stands to reason, if a team has beaten all comers for decades (Aus 1980-2008), then it's not beyond comprehension that interest will fall off.

But when it becomes genuinely competitive, and not just a series of close victories, but actual series losses, interest jumps again.

I agree with others, the quickest way out of this (albeit not the easiest) is for England to beat Aus once or especially more in a tournament. Then you'll quickly see ashes-level (cricket) interest build.

Having read UTK's analysis in there, there are some very selective stats, and quoting 18k crowds as proof of interest peaks is not compelling. 

They quote 2014 when the Kiwis beat the Aussies twice of three Tests that year. In 2014 they got 47k at Brisbane, 12m later it dropped to 32k in the same ground. The actual evidence showed the average crowd dropped that following year. 

[JM2010]

On current form who makes the 17? 
Let’s imagine this series is actually going to happen!

[Hopie]

18 hours ago, Dave T said:

In an era where the Kiwis have beaten the Aussies with a decent level fo regularity, there is still a lack of positive change I. E. The Aussies are still not particularly interested in internationals. 

People for years gave them a pass because nobody could beat them, yet the Kiwis have beaten them in plenty of finals, in Tri-Nations, Four Nations and a World Cup, as well as one-off tests, yet this hasn't changed anything. 

They will play a half-hearted Pacific Nations this year that hasn't been scheduled yet, their last home game against the Kiwis was 20k at Melbourne, the last final between these was 13k in NZ. Hardly halcyon days. 

People claim things will be good if England won some games, but there is zero evidence that the international game is better when the Kiwis beat the Aussies regularly. Anzac Tests have been cancelled, as has the 4N, World Cups dwindling. No evidence that the Aussies losing will increase interest. 

Have you considered the reaction to losing to the Poms would be different to the reaction to losing to the Kiwis?

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Have you considered the reaction to losing to the Poms would be different to the reaction to losing to the Kiwis?

Of course it might be different. But tbh, the conversation doesn't mean anything - whenever we are playing them we are trying to beat them, it's not as if we can drive a change of strategy by actually trying to win. So it's pretty much an irrelevant point that people make. All it does is excuse the Aussies lethargy and puts the blame on the losing team. It does also ignore the fact that there are many, many examples of growth where teams are dominant. 

[Mathius Hellwege]

On 28/03/2024 at 19:30, gingerjon said:

Unless anyone knows better, there are no ERL tournaments planned at any level that I could see earlier.

the World series with the Eurpoean participant are 2025, in 2024 there will be a 4N as there are only 4 IRL members remaining - and only they will be allowed to qualify

[Mathius Hellwege]

On 29/03/2024 at 11:22, gingerjon said:

It had to be used as a shop window to entice countries to want to visit and instead it was yet another example of 'will this do' and on the cheap.

We saw the kind of show the NRL expects with the Vegas event. It could never have been as good as that but it could have headed in that direction.

it was dead when they chose three M62cities....imagine taking Huddersfield ahead of London, Newcastle...

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 28/03/2024 at 16:39, Archie Gordon said:

Del Boy used to announce that this time next year, he'd be a millionaire. 

In fairness he did become one

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

11 minutes ago, Mathius Hellwege said:

it was dead when they chose three M62cities....imagine taking Huddersfield ahead of London, Newcastle...

At least one London venue should have been chosen 

Saints was ok as a Sunday out but Huddy was awful.....even simple stuff like not having the normal burger van outside etc

[BristolDevonCharlie]

4 hours ago, Mathius Hellwege said:

the World series with the Eurpoean participant are 2025, in 2024 there will be a 4N as there are only 4 IRL members remaining - and only they will be allowed to qualify

And last I saw, qualifiers and other 2024 internationals were due to be announced after the IRL's end of March board meeting (which I think was/is in Singapore). 

I assume no news yet then?

(Pleasingly nothing came out on 1st April!)

[Mathius Hellwege]

1 hour ago, BristolDevonCharlie said:

And last I saw, qualifiers and other 2024 internationals were due to be announced after the IRL's end of March board meeting (which I think was/is in Singapore). 

I assume no news yet then?

(Pleasingly nothing came out on 1st April!)

I thought they promised it as a result of their april meeting