War of the Roses (Again)

[Damien]

8 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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!

People not wanting Lancashire v Yorkshire is not because they are ashamed of our Northern roots. It is because it is not very good. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

"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'.

That makes it very easy for a Roses match to be a success. You've set the bar at "just play it".

[sam4731]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

It's not better but we haven't had a crack at Roses in a generation, whereas we've had a lot of failed mid season international attempts during that time.

Thus is all about experimenting. If it doesn't go well, no harm done, just go back to the drawing board.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

It's not better but we haven't had a crack at Roses in a generation, whereas we've had a lot of failed mid season international attempts during that time.

Thus is all about experimenting. If it doesn't go well, no harm done, just go back to the drawing board.

So what do you think it'd do? 

 

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

If it doesn't go well, no harm done

And this is where we fundamentally disagree.

If it doesn't go well then that's time, money and our limited number of representative windows wasted. That's a big deal given these things are meant to make money, raise the game's profile and improve the players.

[sam4731]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So what do you think it'd do? 

 

Honestly, I have no idea but I know that at the moment we keep flogging the same dead horse. Why not have a go on another horse?

[sam4731]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And this is where we fundamentally disagree.

If it doesn't go well then that's time, money and our limited number of representative windows wasted. That's a big deal given these things are meant to make money, raise the game's profile and improve the players.

Let's be realistic, all of what you described is exactly what we're going to get this year and the next and the next. Fine, maybe we don't do Roses but then what? Because we can't keep going down the same path and expect it to work eventually.

[Damien]

46 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Let's be realistic, all of what you described is exactly what we're going to get this year and the next and the next. Fine, maybe we don't do Roses but then what? Because we can't keep going down the same path and expect it to work eventually.

You mean like playing Lancashire v Yorkshire for the 92nd time?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

59 minutes ago, Damien said:

You mean like playing Lancashire v Yorkshire for the 92nd time?

It's been done 3 seasons in the full time summer era. Only one game was on a Friday/weekend. Rest midweek. And still had better crowds than England v France on a Saturday mid season.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

People not wanting Lancashire v Yorkshire is not because they are ashamed of our Northern roots. It is because it is not very good. 

The vast majority of people I've spoken to would prefer it over a game v France or Exile. 

But admittedly, that's from a Yorkshire perspective.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

Honestly, I have no idea but I know that at the moment we keep flogging the same dead horse. Why not have a go on another horse?

Which same dead horse are we flogging?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

That makes it very easy for a Roses match to be a success. You've set the bar at "just play it".

The bar is "better than what we currently have."

I believe in many areas, it would be. 

An international has the bar of being an international-calibre event, of which none of the mid-season tests have been.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It's been done 3 seasons in the full time summer era. Only one game was on a Friday/weekend. Rest midweek. And still had better crowds than England v France on a Saturday mid season.

And? The point is it's weird to moan about going down the same path for England v France, as an excuse to do county matches, when we have done county matches time and again with no success.

The last Lancashire v Yorkshire iteration had far more marketing than any England V France match gets. The last county game also got slightly less than the last England v France game, which was played at completely the wrong place and with zero effort. England v France matches should not be played in the heartlands and we do everything about that match wrong. For Lancashire v Yorkshire there is no other way and it is just doing it the same as we have done time and again with no success.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

England v France mid-season has never broken 9k, and that's with the luxury of being played on the weekend. 

Roses matches in the summer era broke that twice with midweek fixtures. 

It wouldn't be a proper England camp though. It would be missing many of the top players from NRL, played at the intensity of a game with lower SL opposition. If you're not going to have a proper camp, might as well give more English players a go with a higher intensity.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

The vast majority of people I've spoken to would prefer it over a game v France or Exile. 

But admittedly, that's from a Yorkshire perspective.

The vast majority of people I've spoken to would prefer an international game rather than a poor standard county game in front of a small crowd.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

And? The point is it's weird to moan about going down the same path for England v France, as an excuse to do county matches, when we have done county matches time and again with no success.

The last Lancashire v Yorkshire iteration had far more marketing than any England V France match gets. The last county game also got slightly less than the last England v France game, which was played at completely the wrong place and with zero effort. England v France matches should not be played in the heartlands and we do everything about that match wrong. For Lancashire v Yorkshire there is no other way and it is just doing it the same as we have done time and again with no success.

There's no other way? You mean a Wednesday night in Bradford is better than a Saturday in Leigh or Warrington? 

There's loads of other ways that could have done it better, and I'm not sure where this "had far more marketing" line is coming from. What was this marketing that I missed?

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

England v France mid-season has never broken 9k, and that's with the luxury of being played on the weekend. 

Roses matches in the summer era broke that twice with midweek fixtures. 

It wouldn't be a proper England camp though. It would be missing many of the top players from NRL, played at the intensity of a game with lower SL opposition. If you're not going to have a proper camp, might as well give more English players a go with a higher intensity.

if you are talking of intensity you can't have been to a county game then. The standard was always poor, the intensity was poor and players didn't want to get injured. Every argument you use against England v France can be levelled at these county games with absolutely none of the benefits of a national team playing a rare representative game.

[Dave T]

Genuine question. 

Those that are championing this (and I've already said, i'd certainly watch it on TV and maybe even go if it worked for me) - what do you think good looks like here?

Is it a one-off game that gets 10k in Warrington/Saints/Leigh/Leeds/Hudds and passes by with little fanfare or is there genuine hope of it doing more than that/

Because in reality, it hasn't really mattered what we've done in that mid-season space - we've done England internationals, Roses games and we've done Exiles - they all pretty much cater for the same crowd I'd argue. I think then it just comes to personal preference - mine is that England should be given every opportunity to play, and I'd spend far more effort on them than this.

I was always disappointed that we didn't capitalise on the Exiles concept (although I hate the name). That first year saw a decent level of promotion, interesting squad selection concept, a lovely kit and a decent first match. True to form we then backed off and half-assed it. My preference would be an England game against whoever - Exiles, France, Wales, possibles etc. before a Roses game.

It shouldn't be ignored that the majority of RL teams have no affinity with Lancashire any more. 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

There's no other way? You mean a Wednesday night in Bradford is better than a Saturday in Leigh or Warrington? 

There's loads of other ways that could have done it better, and I'm not sure where this "had far more marketing" line is coming from. What was this marketing that I missed?

There was loads of marketing for the county games at the time with it being promoted as our SOO.

Oh swapping a day makes all the difference. A Saturday in Bradford and it's the same result. What other ways can Lancashire v Yorkshire be done then to appeal to the masses?

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Genuine question. 

Those that are championing this (and I've already said, i'd certainly watch it on TV and maybe even go if it worked for me) - what do you think good looks like here?

Is it a one-off game that gets 10k in Warrington/Saints/Leigh/Leeds/Hudds and passes by with little fanfare or is there genuine hope of it doing more than that/

Because in reality, it hasn't really mattered what we've done in that mid-season space - we've done England internationals, Roses games and we've done Exiles - they all pretty much cater for the same crowd I'd argue. I think then it just comes to personal preference - mine is that England should be given every opportunity to play, and I'd spend far more effort on them than this.

I was always disappointed that we didn't capitalise on the Exiles concept (although I hate the name). That first year saw a decent level of promotion, interesting squad selection concept, a lovely kit and a decent first match. True to form we then backed off and half-assed it. My preference would be an England game against whoever - Exiles, France, Wales, possibles etc. before a Roses game.

It shouldn't be ignored that the majority of RL teams have no affinity with Lancashire any more. 

The argument that it is slightly better than a poorly done England v France, which is what the people arguing for it keep reverting to in one form or another to justify it, is a really, really poor one.

That shouldn't be the measure of success and certainly is no reason to bring it back.

[sam4731]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

You mean like playing Lancashire v Yorkshire for the 92nd time?

So something that's been done a while ago should never happen again just because it's failed in the past?

[sam4731]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Which same dead horse are we flogging?

Mediocre mid season internationals.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

There was loads of marketing for the county games at the time with it being promoted as our SOO.

Oh swapping a day makes all the difference. A Saturday in Bradford and it's the same result. What other ways can Lancashire v Yorkshire be done then to appeal to the masses?

There's never been "loads of marketing" for anything in rugby league except for finals and end of season internationals. It was marketed as County of Origin, but other than a name and a logo, what else did they do?

Even with the England brand advantage, you can't get anyone to go to a mid-season drubbing with half the team playing at the other side of the world. It's very close to reserve international standard. 

The fact that you think there's not much of a difference between playing on a Wednesday night and playing on a Saturday evening is laughable by the way. You surely don't mean that.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Genuine question. 

Those that are championing this (and I've already said, i'd certainly watch it on TV and maybe even go if it worked for me) - what do you think good looks like here?

Is it a one-off game that gets 10k in Warrington/Saints/Leigh/Leeds/Hudds and passes by with little fanfare or is there genuine hope of it doing more than that/

Because in reality, it hasn't really mattered what we've done in that mid-season space - we've done England internationals, Roses games and we've done Exiles - they all pretty much cater for the same crowd I'd argue. I think then it just comes to personal preference - mine is that England should be given every opportunity to play, and I'd spend far more effort on them than this.

I was always disappointed that we didn't capitalise on the Exiles concept (although I hate the name). That first year saw a decent level of promotion, interesting squad selection concept, a lovely kit and a decent first match. True to form we then backed off and half-assed it. My preference would be an England game against whoever - Exiles, France, Wales, possibles etc. before a Roses game.

It shouldn't be ignored that the majority of RL teams have no affinity with Lancashire any more. 

I would far rather England play in a competitive, meaningful match. If they can't do that, I don't want them to play as it cheapens the brand. That's my biggest issue. England in tinpot matches missing half of their available players in front of a crowd not befitting an international event serves no purpose for the players (of both teams), the sport or the fans.

If this is all we can get mid-season, I'd rather we didn't use the England monicker and saved it for proper internationals at the end of the season.

I want England to be a big deal and it's matches like this that make it less so. If we can't do it right, do something else. I'd rather an All Stars game than a match that damages the viewing of international rugby league.

[Damien]

40 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

So something that's been done a while ago should never happen again just because it's failed in the past?

Your words were as follows. You either stand by them or you don't. If you don't and wish to apply double standards then that's fine:

4 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Because we can't keep going down the same path and expect it to work eventually.