Dartsifying Rugby League

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yeah massive.

Sorry I should have added to my previous post that you were spot on about clubs doing more to create personalities. Obviously not everyone wants to be one, or is cut out for it, but if every club helped push their most marketable players and that also fed into the RFL and SL doing so then it can only benefit the game.

As you say Bradford did that well but in the last decade or so I can only really think of a strong push around Sam Tomkins, by both the RFL and Sky, and that was to keep him in the game as much as anything. I know the game is doing more and more players are being used as pundits etc but we need far more being promoted as Tomkins was. The flair players too as they are the ones that inspire youngsters. Even now the whole lineup is full of retired old forwards whose outlook isn't really the most positive or inspiring, and that's being polite.

Absolutely. Jack Welsby is an obvious one, but there's a lot of players in SL who are exciting - if they can project 'character' on to Tony Meo and Terry Griffiths, then it shouldn't be too difficult to create some personalities around the likes of Liam Marshall or Jason Qareqare or whoever. They put far too much emphasis on one player in Tomkins, and then he left and went to the NRL! They need to be doing that with at least a couple of players from each club.

[Wakefield Ram]

Darts doesn't require attending 20-30 times a season. It's basically an enlarged stag night with some blokes throwing darts 

[Mumby Magic]

Yet has a large Sky contract and more channels to view on than RL. This is almost the point tbh.

[gingerjon]

Probably worth pointing out that Snooker Loopy heralded the era of snooker being less visible on our screens with fewer tournaments shown and the players becoming less known.

Still, when the fact becomes legend, print the legend ...

[Gomersall]

5 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

There's a story to publish almost every game if not every day at the big events and it makes the big sports headlines. How many do we create a year? 

Marketability of the players. Some are standard lads and dare I say boring. Each has a nickname and adopts it, market's it and dare I say becomes it. Now I'm not saying everyplace should have a nickname now to market the sport but 1. How many a nickname at all in SL? 2. Before I get slated 3 if most marketable players and recognised nationally from the 90s/SL Ellery Hanley, Martin Offiah and Jason Robinson all had nicknames. Plus didn't Offiah do a marketing campaign with a worldwide sports company? Just saying.

Loved watching Ellery but he’s as dull as ditch water to listen to. Offiah comes across as arrogant to me. Robinson is the best of the three IMO. Do we have any players with a personality we could market? Come back Jake Mamo.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Probably worth pointing out that Snooker Loopy heralded the era of snooker being less visible on our screens with fewer tournaments shown and the players becoming less known.

Might be my memory playing tricks, but that was a fair bit later wasn't it? Would that not have been when Sky got involved in the 90s?

[RigbyLuger]

19 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Loved watching Ellery but he’s as dull as ditch water to listen to. Offiah comes across as arrogant to me. Robinson is the best of the three IMO. Do we have any players with a personality we could market? Come back Jake Mamo.

The main problem with Robinson is all those stories about how union saved him from the life of debauchery in RL!

[gingerjon]

51 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Might be my memory playing tricks, but that was a fair bit later wasn't it? Would that not have been when Sky got involved in the 90s?

The high point was the run to 1985, after that it was less and less. By 1990, it was already *much* less. Snooker Loopy (and then probably Big Break) did a good job of convincing people that snooker wasn't a real sport, much less one to be followed seriously.

Incidentally, in terms of characters and bringing it back to the darts thing, I remember watching a reasonably popular BBC daytime quiz a few years ago and one of the challenges was for contestants to believe or not believe the person in front of them. A portly bloke said he was a world champion and not one of the contestants believed that it was possible for Phil Taylor to be world champion of anything.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Probably worth pointing out that Snooker Loopy heralded the era of snooker being less visible on our screens with fewer tournaments shown and the players becoming less known.

Still, when the fact becomes legend, print the legend ...

Snooker Loopy was 1986, only 1 year after the Davis Taylor final that saw 18 million viewers. It was absolutely when Snooker was booming.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Snooker Loopy was 1986, only 1 year after the Davis Taylor final that saw 18 million viewers. It was absolutely when Snooker was booming.

Yes, a reaction to it. A cash-in, in fact.

Not a driver of anything further as snooker fell very quickly from that high point until it was basically just Jim Davison, John Virgo and Jimmy White failing to win.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The high point was the run to 1985, after that it was less and less. By 1990, it was already *much* less. Snooker Loopy (and then probably Big Break) did a good job of convincing people that snooker wasn't a real sport, much less one to be followed seriously.

I appreciate your points, but that's not how I remember it to be honest with you. I don't remember snooker ever becoming a joke sport that people didn't take seriously.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I appreciate your points, but that's not how I remember it to be honest with you. I don't remember snooker ever becoming a joke sport that people didn't take seriously.

We'll agree to disagree, it's not a big deal.

All I would say though is that a focus on characters leads to the characters being the thing. They don't necessarily do anything to enhance or promote the sport. And the period that followed the promotion of characters in snooker was one where the game lost visibility, sponsors and money.

[Damien]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Yes, a reaction to it. A cash-in, in fact.

Not a driver of anything further as snooker fell very quickly from that high point until it was basically just Jim Davison, John Virgo and Jimmy White failing to win.

On your point here I never said otherwise and have already said it was released on the back of snooker booming, not the cause.

That wasn't your point though, which was Snooker Loopy heralding the era of Snooker being less visible with less tournaments shown and players being less known.

More tournaments were actually shown after Snooker Loopy and TV coverage actually increased in the late 1980s with the BBC uping their coverage of the UK Championship and ITV starting to show the World Matchplay Championship. Big Break didnt even start until 1991. Coverage began to decline in 1993 when ITV dropped Snooker.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

On your point here I never said otherwise and have already said it was released on the back of snooker booming, not the cause.

That wasn't your point though, which was Snooker Loopy heralding the era of Snooker being less visible with less tournaments shown and players being less known.

More tournaments were actually shown after Snooker Loopy and TV coverage actually increased in the late 1980s with the BBC uping their coverage of the UK Championship and ITV starting to show the World Matchplay Championship. Big Break didnt even start until 1991. Coverage began to decline in 1993 when ITV dropped Snooker.

Poor wording on my part. I didn't mean that Snooker Loopy caused the decline, although I think a focus on characters over the game played a massive part, rather, if you were writing a snooker history, you'd end one period on that night in 1985, and then begin the next chapter, that of massive decline that didn't have to happen, with a few choice lines from the song and some words about hubris.

To go back to the topic: rugby league has, essentially, naff all to learn from anything Matchroom have ever touched.

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@Dave Tabsolutely- which is why RL is bigger than darts. 

And as shown by values of tv deal- thousands of people have a deep connection with RL. Lots of darts fans are casual. Hence why RL gets more. 

Add together the combined turnover of RL clubs- it's bigger than darts. 

However 

For world championship- PDC sell 3,000 tickets for 28 session- so around 90k tickets- all sell out 

Challenge cup final- rfl can shift up to 90k but can't. 

Darts other main sell- premier league- has about about 140,000 tickets on sale. This is comparable to Super league final and internationals combined. 

(Other darts events have much smaller attendances) 

So while they are different- and darts more spread- overall PDC is far better at getting casual fans interested, and wider sponsorship

 

The other way that reinforces my point is tv figures. 

Early rounds of pdc worlds and most darts on sky gets under 150k viewers, lower than RL. 

But Sky limit for RL is about 650k ish, darts is over 3 million. 

Key is how RL builds a strong sustainable base (on balance takes preference) but if RL got a slice of casual sports fan- that would greatly help 

I think this analysis is very muddled. By focusing on the RFL, you are ignoring assets like the Grand Final and Magic weekend etc. as well as RL's top level weekly comp. 

Where darts put-performs us is in TV viewers, but their value is less, I assume because they provide far less content. 

RL does tap into the casual market, but it does that through the BBC with its Cup and Internationals. 

It's my view that individual sports like darts, boxing etc are easier to get engaged with and watch. They are made for the casual fan. You dont have to care about clubs who are based in towns or cities. It's where the internationals are key for team sports. 

[Dave T]

I do think RL can do better in creating stars, but I also think that's just a bit of an outcome of not being great at promoting any element of our sport too well. 

When Ellery Hanley was a big name, it wasn't because we were good at marketing players - in fact, we will have had the same complaints back then. 

I think if you get bigger events, with more viewers and fans then you naturally raise awareness of players. I don't think you can just build up players individually. 

I also think we have a couple of issues in our sport in the UK - one is the negative, percentage based game that some Aussie coaches have brought to SL. Many games are lacking in flair and unique plays. 

This is linked to the 2nd point, that I think @MJM raised - our media conferences are boring, boring, boring. Players and coaches just talk about percentages and are like robots. I'd be all up for clubs and the sport trying to shake this up and encouraging far more freedom. 

[Gomersall]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do think RL can do better in creating stars, but I also think that's just a bit of an outcome of not being great at promoting any element of our sport too well. 

When Ellery Hanley was a big name, it wasn't because we were good at marketing players - in fact, we will have had the same complaints back then. 

I think if you get bigger events, with more viewers and fans then you naturally raise awareness of players. I don't think you can just build up players individually. 

I also think we have a couple of issues in our sport in the UK - one is the negative, percentage based game that some Aussie coaches have brought to SL. Many games are lacking in flair and unique plays. 

This is linked to the 2nd point, that I think @MJM raised - our media conferences are boring, boring, boring. Players and coaches just talk about percentages and are like robots. I'd be all up for clubs and the sport trying to shake this up and encouraging far more freedom. 

Maybe some of the Aussie contributors could enlighten us to how the NRL media conferences come across to them as they will have stats and percentages at every turn.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

No @Dave Tpdc darts provides as much content as rugby league. 

Issue why RL gets more is that 80k or so people subscribe to Sky for RL and would leave if Sky cancelled it 

Very few gets Sky just for darts 

By RFL I include RL commercial. 

Club game is key as building committed fans is most important but our big problem is that of the 6 big events (cup final, SL final, magic, 3 internationals)- none of them are really big events. 

Magic half full and overshadowed by football 

Challenge cup half full 

Grand final behind paywall 

Internationals- half full, not played main rival Australia at home since 2016 

[Click]

9 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

No @Dave Tpdc darts provides as much content as rugby league. 

Issue why RL gets more is that 80k or so people subscribe to Sky for RL and would leave if Sky cancelled it 

Very few gets Sky just for darts 

By RFL I include RL commercial. 

Club game is key as building committed fans is most important but our big problem is that of the 6 big events (cup final, SL final, magic, 3 internationals)- none of them are really big events. 

Magic half full and overshadowed by football 

Challenge cup half full 

Grand final behind paywall 

Internationals- half full, not played main rival Australia at home since 2016 

It's not really like for like comparisons. Ally Pally has roughly 10k a night to fill, whereas all of our "events" are at least 3 - 4 times as big for in person attendance. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

No @Dave Tpdc darts provides as much content as rugby league. 

Issue why RL gets more is that 80k or so people subscribe to Sky for RL and would leave if Sky cancelled it 

Very few gets Sky just for darts 

By RFL I include RL commercial. 

Club game is key as building committed fans is most important but our big problem is that of the 6 big events (cup final, SL final, magic, 3 internationals)- none of them are really big events. 

Magic half full and overshadowed by football 

Challenge cup half full 

Grand final behind paywall 

Internationals- half full, not played main rival Australia at home since 2016 

Im not convinced by your conclusions, but I'm not sure why you celebrate the darts 'casual fans' when they are clearly elss valuable? 

It sounds like if our fan base was like the darts one we'd have far less money. 

What you're claiming is muddled. 

[Mumby Magic]

5 hours ago, Gomersall said:

Loved watching Ellery but he’s as dull as ditch water to listen to. Offiah comes across as arrogant to me. Robinson is the best of the three IMO. Do we have any players with a personality we could market? Come back Jake Mamo.

Does darts? I feel every player is marketable to an extent. Its been said long ago the last known faces nationally within our sport were Sculthorpe, Andy Farrell and Sinfield. Add to that unfortunately Rob Burrow and probably Robbie Paul. That's some time back now. Sam Tomkins could have been the next. The moments gone. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

9 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Does darts? I feel every player is marketable to an extent. Its been said long ago the last known faces nationally within our sport were Sculthorpe, Andy Farrell and Sinfield. Add to that unfortunately Rob Burrow and probably Robbie Paul. That's some time back now. Sam Tomkins could have been the next. The moments gone. 

Living outside the heartlands, I don't think any of those names/faces were known nationally when they were playing. Farrell now because of RU, and Sinfield and Burrow now because of MND. I think you'd have to go way back to Martin Offiah as the last household name unfortunately.

I agree though that every player is potentially marketable. Without wanting to keep dragging Snooker Loopy back up, my point with that, and also with the darts, is that they manage to project 'character/personality' on to what would otherwise be fairly nondescript sports people. As others have pointed out, it's probably a benefit of an individual sport that makes it far easier to do this. But with the best will in the world, Luke Littler doesn't have any more personality than your average SL player. It's just that there's a story around him that has caught the public's imagination, and the PDC are riding that wave.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

@Clickno- ally pally is around 3k a session- so 90k over the whole tournament 

@Dave Tit's not an either or is it!? We have circa 150k really committed fans. Most of these go to club games regularly and form a large part of our main events. I said these were the most important. 

However, in addition what we need is to build casual fans- who will consider going to finals or international on top- or at least watch on TV. We probably have around 2m of these who may watch on tv- but few go to games 

Agree strongly with your formulaic point. When I invite new people along- their major issue is percentage play and routine (compared to football and even an open game of RU) 

Edited January 7 by Rugbyleaguesupporter

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

@Clickno- ally pally is around 3k a session- so 90k over the whole tournament 

@Dave Tit's not an either or is it!? We have circa 150k really committed fans. Most of these go to club games regularly and form a large part of our main events. I said these were the most important. 

However, in addition what we need is to build casual fans- who will consider going to finals or international on top- or at least watch on TV. We probably have around 2m of these who may watch on tv- but few go to games 

Agree strongly with your formulaic point. When I invite new people along- their major issue is percentage play and routine (compared to football and even an open game of RU) 

I think we are broadly agreeing then. I think the main way we can get casual fans engaged is internationals, but we have ballsed that up in recent years (not helped with Covid cancellations). 

I think we can get some along to things like the Cup Final, I've taken some, but just staging a game of Rugby with an average setup isn't going to appeal. The mainstream aren't gonna be that bought in to a game between Warrington and Salford, enough to get themselves off their backside. But, it is. A numbers game and there should be more than we currently get. 

But we do need to accept that individual sports like Darts and team sports like RL are very different and will appeal to quite different fan bases. 

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Does darts? I feel every player is marketable to an extent. Its been said long ago the last known faces nationally within our sport were Sculthorpe, Andy Farrell and Sinfield. Add to that unfortunately Rob Burrow and probably Robbie Paul. That's some time back now. Sam Tomkins could have been the next. The moments gone. 

Sculthorpe was never known nationally. 

Let's be blunt here, many of the biggest names in RL in the years I've been watching have become bigger by being associated with Union. 

I genuinely can't think of any. Maybe, Ellery Hanley, but I think as RL fans we will overstate his profile. 

The biggest stars in my time have been Martin Offiah, Jonathan Davies, Jason Robinson, Vaiga Tuigamala, Sam Burgess, Andy Farrell etc. Every one has an RU link. The likes of Sculthorpe are never featured outside of RL circles.