RL Attitudes to other football codes

[Father Gascoigne]

On 27/10/2024 at 09:40, Sports Prophet said:

I believe there is only one “Allianz Stadium” and that is in Sydney. All the other Allianz branded stadiums use a different term like “Arena” in Munich, or “Park” in Twickers.

There are four Allianz Stadiums (including the German version of word stadium) in Sydney, Turin, Vienna and now London. 

Allianz Arena, Munich (Bayern Munich)

Allianz Stadium, Sydney (Sydney Roosters, Sydney FC, NSW Waratahs)

Allianz Field, St. Paul, MN (Minnesota United)

Allianz Riviera, Nice (OGC Nice)

Allianz Parque, São Paulo (Palmeiras)

Allianz Stadion, Vienna (Rapid Wien)

Allianz Stadium, Turin (Juventus)

Edited October 28, 2024 by Father Gascoigne

[Father Gascoigne]

On 25/10/2024 at 19:46, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

Based on my interactions/observations/knowledge the relationship between RL and the XV man game was tense to say the least with rugby union authorities undermining RL in various ways around the world. Not sure what the exact nature is now.

In some posts on this forum I have noticed AFL has been mockingly referred to as 'fumbleball'. 

In that regard what is the attitude of RL fans/authorities towards association football and the gridiron codes across the Atlantic?

 

That's solely down to Australian posters. Can't imagine there are British posters calling it fumbleball. The sport means nothing to them.

Australia is split down the middle in terms of winter sporting preference. It would be equal to everything north of Birmingham following one code and everything south of it following another. You would get an equal split in population that champions their chosen sport, and animosity would follow as it does in Australia. 

As it happens the domination of football in Britain ensures that there are no sports of equal standing, so you get a lot less aggression. To be sure I've come across plenty of antagonism in British sport, but there's an acknowledged hierarchy in sporting interests that means it looks nothing like in Australia, where rugby league and Aussie rules both act like they can consume and overtake each other. 

At the end of the day one's sporting interests will be influenced by what they grew up on and who they spent their time around, including family and friends. When you look at it like this, you realise you're a product of your environment, rather than having any objective view of why one thing is better than another. 

My primary interest is football, but if I'd have grown up in Philadelphia, I'd probably follow gridiron. 

What I would add that I don't see in these types of discussions is this: A massive part of what makes a sport enjoyable is understanding context.  

If I watch a football match from Spain, say Leganes against Cadiz, I get very little out of it. It's the same sport I watch elsewhere, but it struggles to hold my attention. The reason for this is that I don't know any of the players, despite having an innate knowledge of the sport. Having knowledge of who the players are (what they're called, being able to identify which two players are squaring off at any one time, what positions they're playing, how they've performed over the past couple of years, and how their level of performance stacks up against other players, clubs and leagues) is the difference that makes a sport go from uninteresting to engaging. I enjoyed Barca x Real yesterday but that's because I know every player on both teams very well, and frankly that's one of the only La Liga fixtures I'll watch as apart from Atletico they're the only teams I know inside out.

Now imagine you're new to football or rugby league. Not only do you not know any of this, you also don't know the nuances of the sport as a whole. 

I think back to people who have suggested watching ice hockey as it's fast, exciting, and has lots of goal-mouth action. Objectively, it has all those things. Yet I've tried watching on a couple of occasions, and it's like pulling teeth. No matter how fast everything is moving, none of it means anything to me. That's not the sport's fault. It's a fault of mine for not having grown up around it and understanding all this context that makes sport interesting. I don't know why what this guy did with a stick is amazing because I have nothing to compare it with. I have no personal experience wielding a stick while flying on skates. I don't know what all these people are called, and I don't know how what they're doing is any different to any one of the other teams in the league. 

With the commitment necessary to follow football, rugby league, cricket, and a number of other sports I follow, do I have any interest in getting to the point where I do have all this context? Not really. 

I think that's where most people find themselves. They assume that this or that sport is dull and boring because they're trying to view it from an objective standpoint. But sports fandom is purely a subjective and emotional pursuit. And without context, it's utterly boring. 

This is why football is so hard to dislodge, despite frequently throwing up a measly 8 shots on target across 90 minutes. It lends itself to high participation, which fosters an initial interest that leads to developing a strong knowledge base of players/clubs. As adults, people can flick on any match and be decently entertained even if the match lacks goal-mouth action, because every action taken by any player can be measured and judged against the internal database they've built up during their life. A random misplaced pass isn't meaningless anymore, rather it confirms what you've always believed about this player, and so on. 

Meanwhile someone who doesn't have that context will watch the same thing and wish they were jumping off a bridge instead. 

I can appreciate the reason why I don't like a number of other sports is down to not growing up with them. But there's nothing that makes them inherently worse than the ones I do like. 

[iffleyox]

5 hours ago, Father Gascoigne said:

That's solely down to Australian posters. Can't imagine there are British posters calling it fumbleball. The sport means nothing to them.

Australia is split down the middle in terms of winter sporting preference. It would be equal to everything north of Birmingham following one code and everything south of it following another. You would get an equal split in population that champions their chosen sport, and animosity would follow as it does in Australia. 

As it happens the domination of football in Britain ensures that there are no sports of equal standing, so you get a lot less aggression. To be sure I've come across plenty of antagonism in British sport, but there's an acknowledged hierarchy in sporting interests that means it looks nothing like in Australia, where rugby league and Aussie rules both act like they can consume and overtake each other. 

At the end of the day one's sporting interests will be influenced by what they grew up on and who they spent their time around, including family and friends. When you look at it like this, you realise you're a product of your environment, rather than having any objective view of why one thing is better than another. 

My primary interest is football, but if I'd have grown up in Philadelphia, I'd probably follow gridiron. 

What I would add that I don't see in these types of discussions is this: A massive part of what makes a sport enjoyable is understanding context.  

If I watch a football match from Spain, say Leganes against Cadiz, I get very little out of it. It's the same sport I watch elsewhere, but it struggles to hold my attention. The reason for this is that I don't know any of the players, despite having an innate knowledge of the sport. Having knowledge of who the players are (what they're called, being able to identify which two players are squaring off at any one time, what positions they're playing, how they've performed over the past couple of years, and how their level of performance stacks up against other players, clubs and leagues) is the difference that makes a sport go from uninteresting to engaging. I enjoyed Barca x Real yesterday but that's because I know every player on both teams very well, and frankly that's one of the only La Liga fixtures I'll watch as apart from Atletico they're the only teams I know inside out.

Now imagine you're new to football or rugby league. Not only do you not know any of this, you also don't know the nuances of the sport as a whole. 

I think back to people who have suggested watching ice hockey as it's fast, exciting, and has lots of goal-mouth action. Objectively, it has all those things. Yet I've tried watching on a couple of occasions, and it's like pulling teeth. No matter how fast everything is moving, none of it means anything to me. That's not the sport's fault. It's a fault of mine for not having grown up around it and understanding all this context that makes sport interesting. I don't know why what this guy did with a stick is amazing because I have nothing to compare it with. I have no personal experience wielding a stick while flying on skates. I don't know what all these people are called, and I don't know how what they're doing is any different to any one of the other teams in the league. 

With the commitment necessary to follow football, rugby league, cricket, and a number of other sports I follow, do I have any interest in getting to the point where I do have all this context? Not really. 

I think that's where most people find themselves. They assume that this or that sport is dull and boring because they're trying to view it from an objective standpoint. But sports fandom is purely a subjective and emotional pursuit. And without context, it's utterly boring. 

This is why football is so hard to dislodge, despite frequently throwing up a measly 8 shots on target across 90 minutes. It lends itself to high participation, which fosters an initial interest that leads to developing a strong knowledge base of players/clubs. As adults, people can flick on any match and be decently entertained even if the match lacks goal-mouth action, because every action taken by any player can be measured and judged against the internal database they've built up during their life. A random misplaced pass isn't meaningless anymore, rather it confirms what you've always believed about this player, and so on. 

Meanwhile someone who doesn't have that context will watch the same thing and wish they were jumping off a bridge instead. 

I can appreciate the reason why I don't like a number of other sports is down to not growing up with them. But there's nothing that makes them inherently worse than the ones I do like. 

This.

i grew up in RU land and love RU. RL was something I did watch, because it was on Grandstand and the Challenge Cup Final came round every year.

i got into RL because Oxford RL turned up over the road from my then flat, playing a decent standard every other week. I went along and got hooked. The club have gone, but I remain as a marooned league fan with a now extensive collection of the works of Tony Collins and Dave Hadfield, too many posts on here, and a Forty-20 subscription.

but only because for a few years Oxford was an outpost of live League 1 RL, or I’d never have been immersed in it.

[SouthBedfordshireFan]

On 25/10/2024 at 11:39, Tommygilf said:

 the missionaries of the round ball code (they did call them that)

This statement piqued my interest.

Were there ever missionaries of the oval ball code especially RL doing the same? Especially in the post-Victorian prewar period where all codes are all growing and finding their footing in the sports hierarchy of Britain and I guess the world.

[daz39]

10 hours ago, Father Gascoigne said:

That's solely down to Australian posters. Can't imagine there are British posters calling it fumbleball. The sport means nothing to them.

Australia is split down the middle in terms of winter sporting preference. It would be equal to everything north of Birmingham following one code and everything south of it following another. You would get an equal split in population that champions their chosen sport, and animosity would follow as it does in Australia. 

As it happens the domination of football in Britain ensures that there are no sports of equal standing, so you get a lot less aggression. To be sure I've come across plenty of antagonism in British sport, but there's an acknowledged hierarchy in sporting interests that means it looks nothing like in Australia, where rugby league and Aussie rules both act like they can consume and overtake each other. 

At the end of the day one's sporting interests will be influenced by what they grew up on and who they spent their time around, including family and friends. When you look at it like this, you realise you're a product of your environment, rather than having any objective view of why one thing is better than another. 

My primary interest is football, but if I'd have grown up in Philadelphia, I'd probably follow gridiron. 

What I would add that I don't see in these types of discussions is this: A massive part of what makes a sport enjoyable is understanding context.  

If I watch a football match from Spain, say Leganes against Cadiz, I get very little out of it. It's the same sport I watch elsewhere, but it struggles to hold my attention. The reason for this is that I don't know any of the players, despite having an innate knowledge of the sport. Having knowledge of who the players are (what they're called, being able to identify which two players are squaring off at any one time, what positions they're playing, how they've performed over the past couple of years, and how their level of performance stacks up against other players, clubs and leagues) is the difference that makes a sport go from uninteresting to engaging. I enjoyed Barca x Real yesterday but that's because I know every player on both teams very well, and frankly that's one of the only La Liga fixtures I'll watch as apart from Atletico they're the only teams I know inside out.

Now imagine you're new to football or rugby league. Not only do you not know any of this, you also don't know the nuances of the sport as a whole. 

I think back to people who have suggested watching ice hockey as it's fast, exciting, and has lots of goal-mouth action. Objectively, it has all those things. Yet I've tried watching on a couple of occasions, and it's like pulling teeth. No matter how fast everything is moving, none of it means anything to me. That's not the sport's fault. It's a fault of mine for not having grown up around it and understanding all this context that makes sport interesting. I don't know why what this guy did with a stick is amazing because I have nothing to compare it with. I have no personal experience wielding a stick while flying on skates. I don't know what all these people are called, and I don't know how what they're doing is any different to any one of the other teams in the league. 

With the commitment necessary to follow football, rugby league, cricket, and a number of other sports I follow, do I have any interest in getting to the point where I do have all this context? Not really. 

I think that's where most people find themselves. They assume that this or that sport is dull and boring because they're trying to view it from an objective standpoint. But sports fandom is purely a subjective and emotional pursuit. And without context, it's utterly boring. 

This is why football is so hard to dislodge, despite frequently throwing up a measly 8 shots on target across 90 minutes. It lends itself to high participation, which fosters an initial interest that leads to developing a strong knowledge base of players/clubs. As adults, people can flick on any match and be decently entertained even if the match lacks goal-mouth action, because every action taken by any player can be measured and judged against the internal database they've built up during their life. A random misplaced pass isn't meaningless anymore, rather it confirms what you've always believed about this player, and so on. 

Meanwhile someone who doesn't have that context will watch the same thing and wish they were jumping off a bridge instead. 

I can appreciate the reason why I don't like a number of other sports is down to not growing up with them. But there's nothing that makes them inherently worse than the ones I do like. 

8 shots on target??? Jeez, that's an exciting match by today's standards of passing around the back 5.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, SouthBedfordshireFan said:

This statement piqued my interest.

Were there ever missionaries of the oval ball code especially RL doing the same? Especially in the post-Victorian prewar period where all codes are all growing and finding their footing in the sports hierarchy of Britain and I guess the world.

RU had the armed forces, civil service and public schools doing this. RL had those same institutions working against it or blocking it.

[JDR]

On 28/10/2024 at 13:09, Damien said:

RU had the armed forces, civil service and public schools doing this. RL had those same institutions working against it or blocking it.

The Forces definitely supported 'traditional' sports. My father in-law did his national service after WW2 and spent the whole time either playing cricket, or travelling to and from matches. As a keeper-batsman he was lucky enough to make the main Army team.