England vs Samoa Series

[Tommygilf]

I 110% believe that for England vs anyone, we would draw a larger crowd in London than for a game at a regular RL venue in the north for a 2nd/3rd test.

My only logical conclusion then to why we aren't doing that with Tonga, Samoa, or France, is because the RFL both don't have the finances to "risk" a venture, and have received exceptionally friendly terms from Leeds Rhinos, Wigan, St Helens etc for hosting the matches.

[Damien]

I don't buy into the let's discount two 40k games against Samoa because they were the World Cup. Neither do I buy the we can only get good crowds for games in London against Australia and New Zealand. This seems very selective to me.

Sure there are a lot of variables involved but they extend to far more than just opposition or tournament. What we do know is that these World Cup games were played in big venues and sold as events. They also had a large build up time and more marketing than normal internationals, such as last year. The pretty obvious lesson from this is to treat all our internationals the same way as those World Cup games. Treat games as big events, in big stadiums, with hype and marketing over many months, and you reap the results.

We also know that people across the country will attend because of the England brand. We see it in all sports and that isn't a RL specific thing, people simply like to watch their home country in international sport. It is clear people in the heartlands are more snobbish when it comes to opposition but I don't think that is the case elsewhere. We have seen that for World Cup games in Newcastle and London, obviously internationals in London and also Coventry with 21k for England v Scotland. Therefore the obvious lesson is not to play 3 games in a narrow area or play the likes of France in the heartlands were few seem to care.

I absolutely believe we can and should be doing far better than we are on this.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I don't buy into the let's discount two 40k games against Samoa because they were the World Cup. Neither do I buy the we can only get good crowds for games in London against Australia and New Zealand. This seems very selective to me.

Sure there are a lot of variables involved but they extend to far more than just opposition or tournament. What we do know is that these World Cup games were played in big venues and sold as events. They also had a large build up time and more marketing than normal internationals, such as last year. The pretty obvious lesson from this is to treat all our internationals the same way as those World Cup games. Treat games as big events, in big stadiums, with hype and marketing over many months, and you reap the results.

We also know that people across the country will attend because of the England brand. We see it in all sports and that isn't a RL specific thing, people simply like to watch their home country in international sport. It is clear people in the heartlands are more snobbish when it comes to opposition but I don't think that is the case elsewhere. We have seen that for World Cup games in Newcastle and London, obviously internationals in London and also Coventry with 21k for England v Scotland. Therefore the obvious lesson is not to play 3 games in a narrow area or play the likes of France in the heartlands were few seem to care.

I absolutely believe we can and should be doing far better than we are on this.

Totally agree. To come to the conclusion that we would do worse in London, you have to pretty much ignore every bit of evidence there is, and make tge most negative assumptions possible. 

Which would put you in line for working at the RFL. 

Edited June 21, 2024 by Dave T
Typos

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Neither do I buy the we can only get good crowds for games in London against Australia and New Zealand. This seems very selective to me.

Has anybody said that?

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Totally agree. To come to the conclusion that we would do worse in London, you have to pretty much ignore every bit of evidence there is, and make tge most negative assumptions possible. 

Which would put you in line for working at the RFL. 

I was highlighting the lack of some evidence and the danger of making assumptions. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I was highlighting the lack of some evidence and the danger of making assumptions. 

We have zero evidence of England v Samoa at Wigan or Leeds crowds. We have to make assumptions. 

[Dunbar]

Just now, Dave T said:

We have zero evidence of England v Samoa at Wigan or Leeds crowds. We have to make assumptions. 

If that's a line you want to take then fair enough.

My point is that we have only played games in London against other tier 1 nations with the exception of a single World Cup semi final.

If you don't accept my premise that there is not enough evidence to show that tier 2 nations will be a draw in London then I don't know what else to add.

We can all make sensible guesses but I am talking about the lack of evidence.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If that's a line you want to take then fair enough.

My point is that we have only played games in London against other tier 1 nations with the exception of a single World Cup semi final.

If you don't accept my premise that there is not enough evidence to show that tier 2 nations will be a draw in London then I don't know what else to add.

We can all make sensible guesses but I am talking about the lack of evidence.

I'm not sure of your point though. Because all the evidence is that these games in the North attract low crowds. 

You can't challenge lack of evidence and not accept that there is also no evidence for the North. 

Edited June 21, 2024 by Dave T

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Has anybody said that?

Yes, have you not read the thread?

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Totally agree. To come to the conclusion that we would do worse in London, you have to pretty much ignore every bit of evidence there is, and make tge most negative assumptions possible. 

Which would put you in line for working at the RFL. 

Yes, indeed. We can all draw our own conclusions, and some will naturally be different, but that line of thinking takes the most negative approach in every area.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure of your point though. Because all the evidence is that these games in the North attract low crowds. 

You can't challenge lack of evidence and not accept that there is also no evidence for the North. 

That's not right.  There is evidence of the crowds we get for tier 2 nations in the North.  We don't have evidence of the draw for tier 2 nations in London.

Do you disagree with that?

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That's not right.  There is evidence of the crowds we get for tier 2 nations in the North.  We don't have evidence of the draw for tier 2 nations in London.

Do you disagree with that?

My 2nd line states that. The evidence is very low crowds - particularly if we exclude World Cup games, which we have to otherwise London does well too. 

[Dunbar]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yes, have you not read the thread?

I have been back through the thread but I just can't find it.  Can you quote the post that says we can only get good crowds for games in London against Australia and New Zealand.

[Dunbar]

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My 2nd line states that. The evidence is very low crowds - particularly if we exclude World Cup games, which we have to otherwise London does well too. 

It may be me, but I can't work out this one.

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have been back through the thread but I just can't find it.  Can you quote the post that says we can only get good crowds for games in London against Australia and New Zealand.

I'm not searching. If you don't believe me that's fine.

[17 stone giant]

So looking at the world rankings, we have quite a few local-ish European teams among the top 25 in the world:

France 8th, Serbia 11th, Netherlands 12th, Italy 13th, Malta 14th, Greece 15th, Ireland 16th, Wales 17th, Scotland 19th, Ukraine 20th, Czechia 21st, and Germany 22nd.

What's stopping us playing some of those teams in London in 2025?

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It may be me, but I can't work out this one.

England have played Samoa over here 3 times. Once in Salford, once in Newcastle and once in London. 

So the evidence is that London does very well for a Samoa game. But in reality it's a bit of an outlier. But then the other decent 2nd tier games in the North have been outliers too (World Cup games). 

When we've played lower nations outside of WC's in the North then the crowds have been poor. If we want to count good ones like 20k+ for France and PNG etc then we have to count 40k at Arsenal. 

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

So looking at the world rankings, we have quite a few local-ish European teams among the top 25 in the world:

France 8th, Serbia 11th, Netherlands 12th, Italy 13th, Malta 14th, Greece 15th, Ireland 16th, Wales 17th, Scotland 19th, Ukraine 20th, Czechia 21st, and Germany 22nd.

What's stopping us playing some of those teams in London in 2025?

The fact that none of them are any good is a big one. In many of those places the game barely exists and/or is propped up by Union players playing in the off season. They simply aren't credible oponenents for England.

France would be a passable opponent. I have long advocated playing them in London, where they would certainly be more appreciated than when played in the North. Wales similarly as the only other nation that plays RL to a decent standard but I dont think they'd be a sell in London to make it worthwhile.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Damien

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

England have played Samoa over here 3 times. Once in Salford, once in Newcastle and once in London. 

So the evidence is that London does very well for a Samoa game. But in reality it's a bit of an outlier. But then the other decent 2nd tier games in the North have been outliers too (World Cup games). 

When we've played lower nations outside of WC's in the North then the crowds have been poor. If we want to count good ones like 20k+ for France and PNG etc then we have to count 40k at Arsenal. 

Again, I am not sure if I am not articulating myself properly so I will try and be as clear as possible. 

All I am saying is that we do not have sufficient evidence to show what kind of a draw the games against non Kangaroo or Kiwi opposition will be in London as we simply haven't played the games to provide the evidence.

[Hopie]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

England have played Samoa over here 3 times. Once in Salford, once in Newcastle and once in London. 

I think the game at Salford was the Knights, England A also played Samoa in the Federation shield in this country but I don't think that counts as England v Samoa either.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Again, I am not sure if I am not articulating myself properly so I will try and be as clear as possible. 

All I am saying is that we do not have sufficient evidence to show what kind of a draw the games against non Kangaroo or Kiwi opposition will be in London as we simply haven't played the games to provide the evidence.

OK. It's a really specific point to make a big thing of though. 

We do have evidence of the crowds in the North - pretty much rubbish, hence people saying we should go to London. 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I think the game at Salford was the Knights, England A also played Samoa in the Federation shield in this country but I don't think that counts as England v Samoa either.

I may be mis-remembering, I thought it was a World Cup warmup, but was that Italy? 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

OK. It's a really specific point to make a big thing of though. 

We do have evidence of the crowds in the North - pretty much rubbish, hence people saying we should go to London. 

In what way am I making a big thing of it?

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

In what way am I making a big thing of it?

This conversation is taking quite a lot of posts.

And we all know we haven't played these teams in London. 

The evidence that was referred to was that on a like-for-like basis England games pretty much always outperform heartland games. 

It's a reasonable view to think that there could be a flip based on it not being Aus/NZ. 

[17 stone giant]

35 minutes ago, Damien said:

The fact that none of them are any good is a big one.

Oh, I see.

So, if we look at the top 10 teams instead, would all of these be credible opponents?:

Australia 1st, New Zealand 2nd, Samoa 4th, Tonga 5th, Papa New Guinea 6th, Fiji 7th, Lebanon 9th, Cook Islands 10th.

Could we invite, say, Lebanon and Cook Islands over for a summer Tri-nations to be held in London?