War of the Roses (Again)

[Wellsy4HullFC]

When people can saying WotR "failed", what measure are we using here? 

Crowd-wise, it did ok with very little promotion. 

The result wasn't predictable. 

It gave lots of players a run-out in a rep environment. 

It produced some great merchandise (I'm literally sat with my Yorkshire shirt on from 2003).

 

Currently, any mid-season international ends up either being predictable, doesn't bring in the best players available, or has such a poor turnout that it damages international RL's credibility.

Either do it properly, or if you can't then do something else. We can't, so do something else until we can. (At least we're finally playing the mid-season game in France).

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

51 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Either do it properly, or if you can't then do something else. 

Unfortunately they won't do the 'something else' properly either

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

52 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

When people can saying WotR "failed", what measure are we using here? 

I went to watch some of the games and wanted them to be successful. They were trumpeted as a genuine trial for GB and our equivalent of State of Origin (even called it County of Origin IIRC, which was a much poorer name than Wars of the Roses). But David Waite - then GB Coach and Director of Performance or whatever his title was - oversaw selection for both teams, and the two teams were therefore not wholly independent. And then when Yorkshire thrashed Lancashire in the last game between the teams in 2003, the GB team at the end of the season was still full of the Lancashire players anyway. So Waite managed to completely undermine both elements of the concept IMO - it was neither a full-blooded rivalry because he oversaw both teams, and it didn't act as a GB trial either, because he just picked his favourite players at the end of the year anyway. So for me it failed dismally on both those counts. But the shirts were nice!

[sam4731]

I tell you what. Despite a lot of the same negative responses that we get for this topic year on year, a lot more are starting to warm to the idea. Maybe, like me, people are getting really sick of the organisation of internationals and the lack of respect that they get and are desperate for any kind of change.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

When people can saying WotR "failed", what measure are we using here? 

Crowd-wise, it did ok with very little promotion. 

The result wasn't predictable. 

It gave lots of players a run-out in a rep environment. 

It produced some great merchandise (I'm literally sat with my Yorkshire shirt on from 2003).

 

Currently, any mid-season international ends up either being predictable, doesn't bring in the best players available, or has such a poor turnout that it damages international RL's credibility.

Either do it properly, or if you can't then do something else. We can't, so do something else until we can. (At least we're finally playing the mid-season game in France).

A fair set of questions.

I think we can say that 'ceasing to exist' is a kind of failure. No one really noticing that it ceased to exist speaks to a wider failure.

The crowds were okay. They were fine. But never more than that. We would also kill for the level of marketing they got - for example, Sky trailed it for ages in advance, like they did with the Exiles, like they don't really do now.

The players may have got a run out in a rep environment but what did that translate to for England performances (that's a genuine Q - I can't remember which years and series it fitted into).

In my view, we should note just how badly the mid season internationals (and, indeed, end of season ones) are done and realise that the Roses will be done by the same people, in the same way. They won't magically have more money or more commitment.

The solution to one thing being done badly is not to come up with another thing done badly.

[Hopie]

5 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

When people can saying WotR "failed", what measure are we using here? 

Crowd-wise, it did ok with very little promotion. 

The result wasn't predictable. 

It gave lots of players a run-out in a rep environment. 

It produced some great merchandise (I'm literally sat with my Yorkshire shirt on from 2003).

 

Currently, any mid-season international ends up either being predictable, doesn't bring in the best players available, or has such a poor turnout that it damages international RL's credibility.

Either do it properly, or if you can't then do something else. We can't, so do something else until we can. (At least we're finally playing the mid-season game in France).

As I semi-seriously pointed out earlier in the thread, most people's definition of failed is that they don't like it. If it doesn't achieve what we need to achieve then fair enough, but what are those things we want to achieve, and how is a game against France/Wales/Other Nationalities doing them better?

I remember going to County of Origin at Headingley and there was a great atmosphere, and a huge roar from the South stand when Yorkshire looked to be coming back into the game. Later that year we beat the Aussies in the first test (I choose to forget the other two).

I saw they were selling Yorkshire and Lancashire shirts last year (because we still do Roses matches at other levels of the game) and I would have bought one but Yorkshire was sold out in my size. 
 

[Damien]

7 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I went to watch some of the games and wanted them to be successful. They were trumpeted as a genuine trial for GB and our equivalent of State of Origin (even called it County of Origin IIRC, which was a much poorer name than Wars of the Roses). But David Waite - then GB Coach and Director of Performance or whatever his title was - oversaw selection for both teams, and the two teams were therefore not wholly independent. And then when Yorkshire thrashed Lancashire in the last game between the teams in 2003, the GB team at the end of the season was still full of the Lancashire players anyway. So Waite managed to completely undermine both elements of the concept IMO - it was neither a full-blooded rivalry because he oversaw both teams, and it didn't act as a GB trial either, because he just picked his favourite players at the end of the year anyway. So for me it failed dismally on both those counts. But the shirts were nice!

The last game attracted a crowd of 8,258, after 4 years the concept never grew at all. Domestic rep games that are lower standard than a decent SL match serve absolutely no purpose.

This concept has been tried time and again with the same results.

Edited April 21 by Damien

[Hopie]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

The last game attracted a crowd of 8,258, after 4 years the concept never grew at all. Domestic rep games that are lower standard than a decent SL match serve absolutely no purpose.

This concept has been tried time and again with the same results.

Correction, June 2001 to July 2003 was four games not four years.

If we were just using crowds to say the concept works, that would mean dropping England v France, and County of Origin would be a higher standard of game than England v France too.

[Damien]

34 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Correction, June 2001 to July 2003 was four games not four years.

If we were just using crowds to say the concept works, that would mean dropping England v France, and County of Origin would be a higher standard of game than England v France too.

Makes no difference to the point. The final crowd was 8,258 and it declined through the latest incarnation.

If being a little better than England v France is your measure for success then it's a poor argument. It is also very subjective, the last England v France crowd was slightly bigger than the last Origin crowd with far less marketing. Plenty of Lancashire v Yorkshire matches were also of an appalling standard played by people that looked like they didn't want to get injured.

That is before the fact that England v France should be about much bigger goals to grow the international game and the game in France. There is absolutely no growth in Lancashire v Yorkshire playing or the concept.

 

[Damien]

This discussion always boils down to people wanting an English SOO even though none of the things that make SOO a success exist here. If it wasn't for SOO people wouldn't even call for it.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

In my view, we should note just how badly the mid season internationals (and, indeed, end of season ones) are done and realise that the Roses will be done by the same people, in the same way. They won't magically have more money or more commitment.

I don't expect it to have more money for commitment. But at least it will achieve similar (if not more) than the current internationals we put on (i.e. a competitive match, and not an event that is an embarrassment to the idea of international sport).

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

This discussion always boils down to people wanting an English SOO even though none of the things that make SOO a success exist here. If it wasn't for SOO people wouldn't even call for it.

SOO is, as far as I can tell, basically unique in world sport. The curse for us is that it exists in rugby league and rugby league only has two professional set-ups. And because that 'unique in world sport' outlier works in one, the other sometimes thinks it should work for it as well.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I don't expect it to have more money for commitment. But at least it will achieve similar (if not more) than the current internationals we put on (i.e. a competitive match, and not an event that is an embarrassment to the idea of international sport).

Replacing doing one thing badly with doing another badly doesn't really feel like progress.

[Anita Bath]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

SOO is, as far as I can tell, basically unique in world sport. The curse for us is that it exists in rugby league and rugby league only has two professional set-ups. And because that 'unique in world sport' outlier works in one, the other sometimes thinks it should work for it as well.

Its the NRL equivalent of the long gone cricket contest between Gentlemen and Players. Real hatred between the teams

[17 stone giant]

Was the Roses game ever shown live on BBC?

If not, maybe that's something worth doing if it's tried again.

[17 stone giant]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Replacing doing one thing badly with doing another badly doesn't really feel like progress.

The problem seems to be though that the choice is between doing something badly or doing nothing at all.

It's a bit of a predicament for the sport.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Its the NRL equivalent of the long gone cricket contest between Gentlemen and Players. Real hatred between the teams

We should try that.

Now, just need to find some Gentlemen.

[Anita Bath]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We should try that.

Now, just need to find some Gentlemen.

Well it would rule out any Australians I suppose.

[Dave T]

If your results are broadly similar (crowds, commercials, tv etc) then international RL should be a far higher priority than trying to bring something that's died a few times back to life. 

The Challenge should be making a mid-season international work rather than looking at something like this imo. 

Let's be blunt, if we stage a Roses match it'll be similar to an international versus France, but it'll reinforce that our sport is for Northerners and others should turn away. 

If this would draw 20k and big viewing figures you can ride that, but not when it doesn't bring the tangible benefits. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Replacing doing one thing badly with doing another badly doesn't really feel like progress.

"Badly" is subjective, and both the parameters used to measure what badly is are different for an international fixture and a non-international rep fixture. 

The international is done badly when compared to other international competition. 

The Roses fixture has no comparison here. It's its own entity. 

That's my point really. One is 'done badly' and harms the building of interest for the international brand rather than adds to it. The other is just 'done'.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

6 hours ago, Hopie said:

I would have bought one but Yorkshire was sold out in my size. 

 

The always run out of Muscle fit Large very quickly and 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

The problem seems to be though that the choice is between doing something badly or doing nothing at all.

It's a bit of a predicament for the sport.

One harms the brand we're trying to develop for international fixtures. The other doesn't. That's why I'm more inclined to go for the Roses.

The only credible England international fixture we could arrange would have to be Down Under due to the logistics of having credible opposition (not getting it over here mid-season). I reckon you could send a small group Down Under (we've got a lot of NRL talent now) and have enough hungry fringe players left here to have a Roses match trying to fight their way into selection for the end of the season if we needed to host something here every year.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

If your results are broadly similar (crowds, commercials, tv etc) then international RL should be a far higher priority than trying to bring something that's died a few times back to life. 

If they can't do it in a credible way due to matters out of their control (releasing of NRL players, credible competition, etc), I don't think they should prioritise it at all. It's not a proper international, and those that perceive it as being one are more likely to be put off future internationals.

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

The Challenge should be making a mid-season international work rather than looking at something like this imo. 

Beyond our control due to the NRL. Only way it would work would be over there. You ain't getting them to send a team, their English-based NRL players won't come for a nothing fixture, there's no credible competition over here except France and they can't put out a decent side due to players being pulled. 

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Let's be blunt, if we stage a Roses match it'll be similar to an international versus France, but it'll reinforce that our sport is for Northerners and others should turn away. 

If this would draw 20k and big viewing figures you can ride that, but not when it doesn't bring the tangible benefits. 

I think it would be supported better than a nothing fixture against France personally. Also, we need to stop being ashamed of our Northern roots. There's nothing wrong with specifically celebrating them at least once!

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

If they can't do it in a credible way due to matters out of their control (releasing of NRL players, credible competition, etc), I don't think they should prioritise it at all. It's not a proper international, and those that perceive it as being one are more likely to be put off future internationals.

Beyond our control due to the NRL. Only way it would work would be over there. You ain't getting them to send a team, their English-based NRL players won't come for a nothing fixture, there's no credible competition over here except France and they can't put out a decent side due to players being pulled. 

I think it would be supported better than a nothing fixture against France personally. Also, we need to stop being ashamed of our Northern roots. There's nothing wrong with specifically celebrating them at least once!

I'm not sure why Lancs v Yorks with 8 to 10k is any better than Eng v France with similar? 

Surely an England game with a proper England camp is better than 2 x Lancs /Yorks camps? 

I'm not ashamed of Northern roots, but most of us aren't from Lancashire nor have any link to it. 

[Barley Mow]

8 hours ago, Hopie said:

I saw they were selling Yorkshire and Lancashire shirts last year (because we still do Roses matches at other levels of the game) and I would have bought one but Yorkshire was sold out in my size. 

 

I got one myself. Nice shirt with a proper collar.