War of the Roses (Again)

[Sports Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

In what way?

See above edit note.

Edited September 3, 2024 by Sports Prophet

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

SOO concepts in both AFL and RU were successful but each ceased for their own reasons.

RL SOO is a success. That success will have no impact on the success or failure of a WOTR. All I was demonstrating is one long standing representative sporting event turning from being a failure to an all encompassing success which has turned the governing body which runs it, into the biggest Rugby National Governing Body in the world.

With that, I have demonstrated how the previous failings of an event are not an assurance of failure in the future.

I don't disagree with the general principle that just because something failed previously it will fail again. History can be useful, but it certainly isn't guaranteed.

However, my challenge on this one is I don't see anything at all that has changed that would suggest there a) is a demand for this that wasn't there previously or b) that this would be done any differently to previous.

Because for this to be a success it would need to be done differently to how it's been done previously (and that also goes for England v France as well to be fair).

[Martyn Sadler]

What's the point of reviving a concept that merely illustrates Rugby League's failure to achieve a significant degree of expansion throughout the country?

[Sports Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree with the general principle that just because something failed previously it will fail again. History can be useful, but it certainly isn't guaranteed.

However, my challenge on this one is I don't see anything at all that has changed that would suggest there a) is a demand for this that wasn't there previously or b) that this would be done any differently to previous.

Because for this to be a success it would need to be done differently to how it's been done previously (and that also goes for England v France as well to be fair).

The last paragraph is pertinent. It’s my belief failures of WOTR and the England v France internationals in the past have predominantly been down to poor administration and stakeholder buy in.

I agree with your earlier comment. The English SL clubs have usually been pretty good with supporting mid season representative fixtures. I believe they see the value representative football can bring to their individual clubs.

The one key differentiator between pushing on with France is that the RFL cannot control the actions of the French. At least with WOTR, the RFL will have autonomy. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What's the point of reviving a concept that merely illustrates Rugby League's failure to achieve a significant degree of expansion throughout the country?

Not to derail this thread, but has any UK sport ever truly achieved expansion in the way we now talk about it - i.e a hotbed in one concentrated area expanded into new regions? RL is unique. I'm not saying the sport shouldn't continue to have ambition in that respect, but let's not use that as a stick to beat RL with, when it feels like no other sport has done this either. 

[Martyn Sadler]

3 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Not to derail this thread, but has any UK sport ever truly achieved expansion in the way we now talk about it - i.e a hotbed in one concentrated area expanded into new regions? RL is unique. I'm not saying the sport shouldn't continue to have ambition in that respect, but let's not use that as a stick to beat RL with, when it feels like no other sport has done this either. 

Most other sports have expanded geographically over time, with the possible exception of crown green bowls.

[Sports Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What's the point of reviving a concept that merely illustrates Rugby League's failure to achieve a significant degree of expansion throughout the country?

why draw the line to that argument at expansion through the country?

Why do the NFL bother with anything when there is demonstrated failure to see the sport achieve a significant degree of expansion outside one nation in North America?

The English heartlands is something to be proud of and certainly is something unique to RL and what success the sport has seen in England is almost exclusively down to the performance of the sport in the heartlands.

There is still a lot of growth the sport needs to achieve in the heartlands and WOTR is as good a concept as any to exhibit the sport at its highest standard nationally before selecting a national side.

England v England A or any other version you want to call it will never get the buy in of the public because there is no obvious team for the public to individually barrack for.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

I've highlighted the bit which I think is somewhat downplaying what actually happened.

I suppose if we had the following then a minor tweak may do it:

• 2 states that encompass half the nations population
• 2 states in which RL was dominant
• 2 separate state competitions, as was the case at the dawn of SOO with the Brisbane Cup and NSWRL, with a fair share of resentment over the status of each and because of player poaching by NSW clubs.
• Decades of Queensland resentment from other various issues whether that be Australia selection or resentment from previous iterations of interstate representative games that saw Queenslanders playing for NSW.
• 1 state having an underdog mentality of one state with less players to choose from, and who had lost their best players for decades, giving it to their richer and more powerful rival.
• Then that underdog winning the first match against a completely disinterested NSW to help ignite the whole thing.
• Oh and a fair bit of biff to add edge that we just won't get now

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What's the point of reviving a concept that merely illustrates Rugby League's failure to achieve a significant degree of expansion throughout the country?

Discussions on this thread show that it is not the only thing that reviving the concept will do, so you have made a false/highly hyperbolic statement, and like those others who have done so in this thread I am not sure what that adds to the discussion. 

What fixture that is realistically going to put on would show that we have expanded significantly? Recent mid season rep games have shown that France have not reached a competitive level, and nobody else is available.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Hopie said:

Discussions on this thread show that it is not the only thing that reviving the concept will do, so you have made a false/highly hyperbolic statement, and like those others who have done so in this thread I am not sure what that adds to the discussion. 

What fixture that is realistically going to put on would show that we have expanded significantly? Recent mid season rep games have shown that France have not reached a competitive level, and nobody else is available.

I know as part of their initial recommendations IMG suggested new events to add some variety - and it'd be good if this was a demonstration of that. I'll be disappointed if this was just seen as a game to support the England team. If we are going down this route I think we need to have a bold vision for it. It needs to be launched with a swagger. I think we need to use non-standard grounds, we need to maybe get big names in the coaching roles - big names as captains etc. Work hard and be creative with the media - basically rip up the template for all of our other attempts at these mid-season matches. 

I do think we need also be careful of overstating our opinions on this too. I've already said it's not necessarily my thing, it's not something I'd be pushing if I was in charge. That said, if this launches, I'll watch it on TV, and if it was an event that was staged well (not Headingly on a Weds) then I'd be open to attending too - and I think that's important. Preferences are interesting, but behaviours are the most important thing. 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree with the general principle that just because something failed previously it will fail again. History can be useful, but it certainly isn't guaranteed.

However, my challenge on this one is I don't see anything at all that has changed that would suggest there a) is a demand for this that wasn't there previously or b) that this would be done any differently to previous.

Because for this to be a success it would need to be done differently to how it's been done previously (and that also goes for England v France as well to be fair).

if "b" comes before "a" then "a" may change.. 

much of the conversation is stuck on what they game is.. rather than the fact that if we dont change "b" then it doesnt matter what game we put on "a" wont change.. 

i'm pretty torn between the options mainly becuase of this. 

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That said, if this launches, I'll watch it on TV

Likewise.

I think I watched every England v Exiles game despite thinking the concept badly thought out and realised.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

I suppose if we had the following then a minor tweak may do it:

• 2 states that encompass half the nations population
• 2 states in which RL was dominant
• 2 separate state competitions, as was the case at the dawn of SOO with the Brisbane Cup and NSWRL, with a fair share of resentment over the status of each and because of player poaching by NSW clubs.
• Decades of Queensland resentment from other various issues whether that be Australia selection or resentment from previous iterations of interstate representative games that saw Queenslanders playing for NSW.
• 1 state having an underdog mentality of one state with less players to choose from, and who had lost their best players for decades, giving it to their richer and more powerful rival.
• Then that underdog winning the first match against a completely disinterested NSW to help ignite the whole thing.
• Oh and a fair bit of biff to add edge that we just won't get now

Interestingly Yorkshire and Lancashire (inc. G.Manchester and Merseyside) have a combined population of over 13 million.....which is almost identical to the combined population of Qld and NSW. I don't have much for the rest of your points...

[Damien]

Just now, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Interestingly Yorkshire and Lancashire (inc. G.Manchester and Merseyside) have a combined population of over 13 million.....which is almost identical to the combined population of Qld and NSW. I don't have much for the rest of your points...

And we'd probably be luckily if 1 million cared about Rugby League, never mind this fixture!

[hunsletgreenandgold]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Most other sports have expanded geographically over time, with the possible exception of crown green bowls.

Exactly and yet for a plethora of reasons RL hasn't - it's almost like an inter-county game should mean more than anything else! Again, expansion should still be the ambition, but 140 years of being a predominantly northern sport says it's not going national, in the truest sense, any time soon. 

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I know as part of their initial recommendations IMG suggested new events to add some variety - and it'd be good if this was a demonstration of that. I'll be disappointed if this was just seen as a game to support the England team. If we are going down this route I think we need to have a bold vision for it. It needs to be launched with a swagger. I think we need to use non-standard grounds, we need to maybe get big names in the coaching roles - big names as captains etc. Work hard and be creative with the media - basically rip up the template for all of our other attempts at these mid-season matches. 

I do think we need also be careful of overstating our opinions on this too. I've already said it's not necessarily my thing, it's not something I'd be pushing if I was in charge. That said, if this launches, I'll watch it on TV, and if it was an event that was staged well (not Headingly on a Weds) then I'd be open to attending too - and I think that's important. Preferences are interesting, but behaviours are the most important thing. 

I support it because I think it would better prepare the England team than current efforts, and I've attended this game in the past so it interests me even as a stand alone fixture more than the alternatives.

However I completely agree that this needs to be done well, and I can think of several ways to market/sell this well. The history of the county championship and how it contributed to the start of Rugby League, the rivalry that actually exists (I remember the crowd getting really involved when I attended, most internationals in this part of the world don't get the same level of passion) the pathway (showing kids in academy county jerseys getting their senior shirt) the stepping stone to the England team and our history of guest players starting the international game going back to the All Golds (interviewing those from outside the counties and what it means to them to play on the game).

[Sports Prophet]

7 hours ago, Hopie said:

I support it because I think it would better prepare the England team than current efforts, and I've attended this game in the past so it interests me even as a stand alone fixture more than the alternatives.

However I completely agree that this needs to be done well, and I can think of several ways to market/sell this well. The history of the county championship and how it contributed to the start of Rugby League, the rivalry that actually exists (I remember the crowd getting really involved when I attended, most internationals in this part of the world don't get the same level of passion) the pathway (showing kids in academy county jerseys getting their senior shirt) the stepping stone to the England team and our history of guest players starting the international game going back to the All Golds (interviewing those from outside the counties and what it means to them to play on the game).

Exactly. There is plenty marketable about this game and I agree with @Dave T, the game needs headline billing at a showcase arena.

On the face of it, there is nothing the NFL has in common with the culture of sports fanaticism in the UK, yet the NFL year on year continue to use what strengths it does have to run what is a huge sporting spectacle. I hazard a guess in isolation, these NFL fixtures may not even be profitable, but every year, fans turn out in the tens of thousands to watch a pretty average on field product, with less cultural significance than a WOTR does to them. 

@Damien, you keep saying that there are no common features or forks in the road between Origin and WOTR, then with a good imagination like you have, my challenge to you is to put your bias away and give some thought and feedback about how WOTR can be a success as if the life of the sport depended on it, rather than focusing on reasons why it wasn’t successful in the past. Especially when by all accounts, in the past it was managed and delivered against a strategy written on a napkin one Sunday night at the Kirkless Hall Inn, which is probably the biggest reason why it failed.

There appear to be many here, but I just can’t fathom how on earth anyone can be so optimistic to think a one off non-WC England v France RL international in London or Midlands can be a success, whilst arguing a relaunched WOTR in the heartlands can’t be. It defies logic.

Edited September 3, 2024 by Sports Prophet

[sam4731]

17 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What's the point of reviving a concept that merely illustrates Rugby League's failure to achieve a significant degree of expansion throughout the country?

There is very little scope to promote expansionism during the mid season international. Don't get me wrong, we should have built on Denver but people were too busy moaning to be optimistic about it.

What you can do with a mid season international is built towards an expansion minded autumn international by having a rep game/series to provide a platform for selection.

A by product of this is that with the right marketing you COULD end up with a high intensity game that people get excites for.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

There is very little scope to promote expansionism during the mid season international. Don't get me wrong, we should have built on Denver but people were too busy moaning to be optimistic about it.

What you can do with a mid season international is built towards an expansion minded autumn international by having a rep game/series to provide a platform for selection.

A by product of this is that with the right marketing you COULD end up with a high intensity game that people get excites for.

Au contraire, mid season seems the ideal time to play less attractive international opposition in places currently starved of top level RL. IE: France/Wales in France, London, South West England, Wales, the Midlands. Where an equivalent crowd in the heartlands would be seen as dismal failure, the message could be massively different elsewhere.

That set up leaves the Autumn window for cross Hemisphere tours and competition. 

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Au contraire, mid season seems the ideal time to play less attractive international opposition in places currently starved of top level RL. IE: France/Wales in France, London, South West England, Wales, the Midlands. Where an equivalent crowd in the heartlands would be seen as dismal failure, the message could be massively different elsewhere.

That set up leaves the Autumn window for cross Hemisphere tours and competition. 

Mid-season, you're also more likely to have a vacant football ground to use as well.

[Tommygilf]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Mid-season, you're also more likely to have a vacant football ground to use as well.

Straight after the cup final, 3 or 4 weekends with a bye potentially, gives a mid year break option for clubs too - who knows how inventive they could be with that.

Edited September 4, 2024 by Tommygilf

[Damien]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Exactly. There is plenty marketable about this game and I agree with @Dave T, the game needs headline billing at a showcase arena.

On the face of it, there is nothing the NFL has in common with the culture of sports fanaticism in the UK, yet the NFL year on year continue to use what strengths it does have to run what is a huge sporting spectacle. I hazard a guess in isolation, these NFL fixtures may not even be profitable, but every year, fans turn out in the tens of thousands to watch a pretty average on field product, with less cultural significance than a WOTR does to them. 

@Damien, you keep saying that there are no common features or forks in the road between Origin and WOTR, then with a good imagination like you have, my challenge to you is to put your bias away and give some thought and feedback about how WOTR can be a success as if the life of the sport depended on it, rather than focusing on reasons why it wasn’t successful in the past. Especially when by all accounts, in the past it was managed and delivered against a strategy written on a napkin one Sunday night at the Kirkless Hall Inn, which is probably the biggest reason why it failed.

There appear to be many here, but I just can’t fathom how on earth anyone can be so optimistic to think a one off non-WC England v France RL international in London or Midlands can be a success, whilst arguing a relaunched WOTR in the heartlands can’t be. It defies logic.

I'll split my reply up into two parts as there as two distinct elements to this.

When people talk about success for an England v France match in London or elsewhere it is relative to what the same fixture does in the heartlands. Many people in the heartlands have been shown to be quite snobby regarding this fixture and I think we can take England v France anywhere else in the country and do better. People in the heartlands also have a plethora of matches to choose from, and internationals relatively speaking, and we keep trying to drink from the same well. Many will pick and choose and won't go to a France match and will instead go to an England v Tonga series like last year or Samoa this year. Many will also just say no because of the standard of France.

Elsewhere England v France is an attractive fixture to many in Rugby terms. RL fans up and down the country are starved of seeing top class Rugby League and it can be used as a development tool in areas that don't get to see top class Rugby League. You only need to look at this forum to see how many in the South are crying out to watch England. England playing regularly is what will maintain interest in the England brand, international game and is how we can sell sponsors. France is our only real mid season option for doing that and with the the absence of anyone else then England v France absolutely has a place. As in other sports England fans elsewhere will just want to see an England victory, some great tries and would go home happy with a big England win rather than moaning about how bad France were like more discerning RL fans do.

[Damien]

9 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Exactly. There is plenty marketable about this game and I agree with @Dave T, the game needs headline billing at a showcase arena.

On the face of it, there is nothing the NFL has in common with the culture of sports fanaticism in the UK, yet the NFL year on year continue to use what strengths it does have to run what is a huge sporting spectacle. I hazard a guess in isolation, these NFL fixtures may not even be profitable, but every year, fans turn out in the tens of thousands to watch a pretty average on field product, with less cultural significance than a WOTR does to them. 

@Damien, you keep saying that there are no common features or forks in the road between Origin and WOTR, then with a good imagination like you have, my challenge to you is to put your bias away and give some thought and feedback about how WOTR can be a success as if the life of the sport depended on it, rather than focusing on reasons why it wasn’t successful in the past. Especially when by all accounts, in the past it was managed and delivered against a strategy written on a napkin one Sunday night at the Kirkless Hall Inn, which is probably the biggest reason why it failed.

There appear to be many here, but I just can’t fathom how on earth anyone can be so optimistic to think a one off non-WC England v France RL international in London or Midlands can be a success, whilst arguing a relaunched WOTR in the heartlands can’t be. It defies logic.

As for a Roses series it in many ways faces many of the same challenges that England v France does while not appealing to anyone anywhere else in the country. More importantly it does nothing to help the international game or France. To answer your challenge I think there are many valid ideas on here and I wouldn't do too much different than what has already been suggested so am not going to repeat them. These ideas are perfectly reasonable and they are basically the same ones we suggest on every topic like this, like internationals, the Challenge Cup Final etc.

When I look at this my main thoughts are what are the goals or reasons for wanting this and what is the selling point. I think it always boils down to these:

To help the England team - I really don't see how it does this as the standard is less than a top SL game, there are always too many players missing and intensity is not good enough to do so. Neither is a France game but there are other reasons for doing that too. It does not even provide an England training camp and runout as a team like a France game.

I think others have mentioned it but I think an England v Probables type match is a much better way of doing this if that was the goal. We then get the whole England camp going on and a real battle for places.

To get a big crowd and event going - I am a lot more sympathetic to this as a reason but just dont see it. I don't think the interest is there or that the games are of a good enough level to entice people no matter what promotion is given. We may get a good initial bounce but I think that would be it then it will be the inevitable decline.

I think there are other ways we should be looking at big events, and as I've said before if that was the goal we could get Lancashire and Yorkshire Magic style double headers going and do stuff that way either side of the Pennines with what does sell i.e SL.

The whole Lancashire v Yorkshire rivalry - Very few care about a Roses series, the Lancashire debate has been done to death but after living in Yorkshire for 4 years, and while the previous iteration was played, I'm not convinced of this huge appetite there either. Sure people have banter etc but I certainly don't think the whole Lancashire/Yorkshire rivalry is even anything like I remember as a kid in the 1980s even. That goes way beyond RL too.

So if it happened I would watch on TV, as I would watch most RL if I'm at home to do so, but there is nothing about a Roses match that would entice me to go and actually fork out money. I think many will be in the same boat. I've been there and done that and remember coming away from the couple I have been to thinking what was the point of that.

[crashmon]

19 hours ago, Hopie said:

Discussions on this thread show that it is not the only thing that reviving the concept will do, so you have made a false/highly hyperbolic statement, and like those others who have done so in this thread I am not sure what that adds to the discussion. 

What fixture that is realistically going to put on would show that we have expanded significantly? Recent mid season rep games have shown that France have not reached a competitive level, and nobody else is available.

Thats exactly what Australia say

We beat England all the time, so as England have not reached a competitive level, we dont need to play them, so instead we make the club game the pinancle and not bother much with Internationals.

Every single person who posts here that we should not play France there is no point, should also never moan that Australia refuse to enegage and play England or bother to visit england

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I'll split my reply up into two parts as there as two distinct elements to this.

When people talk about success for an England v France match in London or elsewhere it is relative to what the same fixture does in the heartlands. Many people in the heartlands have been shown to be quite snobby regarding this fixture and I think we can take England v France anywhere else in the country and do better. People in the heartlands also have a plethora of matches to choose from, and internationals relatively speaking, and we keep trying to drink from the same well. Many will pick and choose and won't go to a France match and will instead go to an England v Tonga series like last year or Samoa this year. Many will also just say no because of the standard of France.

Elsewhere England v France is an attractive fixture to many in Rugby terms. RL fans up and down the country are starved of seeing top class Rugby League and it can be used as a development tool in areas that don't get to see top class Rugby League. You only need to look at this forum to see how many in the South are crying out to watch England. England playing regularly is what will maintain interest in the England brand, international game and is how we can sell sponsors. France is our only real mid season option for doing that and with the the absence of anyone else then England v France absolutely has a place. As in other sports England fans elsewhere will just want to see an England victory, some great tries and would go home happy with a big England win rather than moaning about how bad France were like more discerning RL fans do.

All makes good sense, but I wouldn’t say contrary to my point. More so, it would be great if there was a fortnight off and WATR was an England trial for a match the following week against France.