A few things I missed previously. It was great news that we were able to secure the 2013 Rugby League World Cup to be hosted away from Australia. While it was a massive success, the same ingredients need to be applied on this side of the world to develop expansion.
The news that the 2013 tournament will consist of twelve teams, an increase of two on the 2008 World Cup, was greeted warmly by senior member of the trade press. Twelve teams will eliminate the need of a "super pool" in the early stages of the tournament, but I feel this is the wrong option for the RLIF to go in keeping every single game as competitive as possible. The presumed format of four groups of three will mean the big three of New Zealand, Australia and England are separated along with whoever the fourth ranked team are in the RLIF Rankings. Qualifiers will then be dispersed or drawn into the four pools containing one of the major teams.
While the planning is in its very early stage, the news of the possibility that certain games may be used as double headers to attract audiences is very good news. Attendance figures was one of several key factors in the 2008 tournament, with more fans turning up than what was expected to make it a successful tournament. Double headers means that fans will be more inclined to attend, as they will be watching two games instead of one big game in the early stages of the tournament. The like of Australia V Scotland at Warrington might not seem attractive as a contest, but double it up with New Zealand V Fiji no the same day at the same venue, for example, and the punters are getting value for money.
Showing posts with label RLIF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RLIF. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
The Rugby League World Cup 2008 - Was it worth it?
From an English point of view, the RL World Cup was without a doubt, a big disappointment. We sent our team off thinking we had a squad capable of beating Australia on their day. As it turns out, we struggled to perform in every game. But overall how was the tournament for the rest of the competing nations? Was New Zealand's shock victory in the final the best thing that could have happened to the international game post-Super League? Did Fiji's excellent run over France and Ireland show there is talent outside the three big competing nations? Was the much anticipated match between Samoa and Tonga in Penrith resurrect the idea of a Pacific Nations Cup for good? What are the implications of the tournament and how will be benifits be seen in the future?
Financially the World Cup was a huge success, making (IIRC) a profit of five million Australian dollars. Many critics at the time said this was largely down to TV money and not ticket sales or merchandising. Frankly, who cares? We now know there is a huge international audience out there and that TV companies are willing to splash the cash in order to show Rugby League. As a result, future international TV deals in the UK and Australia will no longer be sold by the domestic governing bodies. The RLIF, and rightly so, will begin the sell the international game so the money can go straight into the their pocket as soon as the current domestic deals are re-spawned. This is something that FIFA, IRB and ICC have been doing for years for their major international tournaments respectively.
On the playing side, the majority of games were very competitive with only six games where one team really ran away with the games. Thats less than in the 2000 tournament (14 one sided games) and 10 games less than in the pool stages of the 2007 Rugby Union World Cup. The highest winning margin of any game was 52-0 in the second semi final between Australia and Fiji. Australia also scored 52 points against England. There were also a few shock scorelines outside the "big three" nations. Papua New Guinea gave England a fright while few predicted Fiji to beat France in the manner in which they did. As a result, Fiji progressed on points difference despite a close and exciting game against Scotland while France lay at the bottom of Group B. Arguably they were the most disappointing team to come away from the World Cup especially as they are competing in the 2009 Four Nations. Ireland did the British Isles proud after topping their group, again on points difference, and competing well against a good Fijian side in the semi final qualifier. Scotland also earned their first ever World Cup win over Fiji. Papua New Guinea were also earnt the RL world's respect after challenging all the "big three" nations and never showing remorse despite the lack of hight profile experience. Overall, whatever the score line I believe the neutral fan was never let down with the product offered.
So overall the World Cup was a success. Commercially, people in Australia were made aware there was a World Cup on their door step despite their supposd poor attutude to any sort of sport beyond October (unless its Cricket) with the total attendance being short of 300K at precisly 293, 965. Thats a average attendance of 16, 331 which is pretty much equel to an average NRL attendance last season (16, 317). In which case no one can complain they're wern't any eager supporters to watch a thrilling and excitable World Cup.
Financially the World Cup was a huge success, making (IIRC) a profit of five million Australian dollars. Many critics at the time said this was largely down to TV money and not ticket sales or merchandising. Frankly, who cares? We now know there is a huge international audience out there and that TV companies are willing to splash the cash in order to show Rugby League. As a result, future international TV deals in the UK and Australia will no longer be sold by the domestic governing bodies. The RLIF, and rightly so, will begin the sell the international game so the money can go straight into the their pocket as soon as the current domestic deals are re-spawned. This is something that FIFA, IRB and ICC have been doing for years for their major international tournaments respectively.
On the playing side, the majority of games were very competitive with only six games where one team really ran away with the games. Thats less than in the 2000 tournament (14 one sided games) and 10 games less than in the pool stages of the 2007 Rugby Union World Cup. The highest winning margin of any game was 52-0 in the second semi final between Australia and Fiji. Australia also scored 52 points against England. There were also a few shock scorelines outside the "big three" nations. Papua New Guinea gave England a fright while few predicted Fiji to beat France in the manner in which they did. As a result, Fiji progressed on points difference despite a close and exciting game against Scotland while France lay at the bottom of Group B. Arguably they were the most disappointing team to come away from the World Cup especially as they are competing in the 2009 Four Nations. Ireland did the British Isles proud after topping their group, again on points difference, and competing well against a good Fijian side in the semi final qualifier. Scotland also earned their first ever World Cup win over Fiji. Papua New Guinea were also earnt the RL world's respect after challenging all the "big three" nations and never showing remorse despite the lack of hight profile experience. Overall, whatever the score line I believe the neutral fan was never let down with the product offered.
So overall the World Cup was a success. Commercially, people in Australia were made aware there was a World Cup on their door step despite their supposd poor attutude to any sort of sport beyond October (unless its Cricket) with the total attendance being short of 300K at precisly 293, 965. Thats a average attendance of 16, 331 which is pretty much equel to an average NRL attendance last season (16, 317). In which case no one can complain they're wern't any eager supporters to watch a thrilling and excitable World Cup.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Aussie boss in criticising WCC shocker.
Craig Bellamy has done what all the other coaches in the NRL do at this time of year, and that is to criticise the current World Club Challenge format. Wayne Bennett did it last year and Tim Sheens did the year before and rightly so. The WCC is played at the wrong end of the year as many people have said because the start of Super League is five weeks before the start of the NRL. NRL sides are focusing on their domestic competition and not worrying about what is happening outside the eastern coast of Australia. The World Club Challenge has the potential to be a respected competition to find the best club side in the world, but are the RFL, ARL and RLIF actually doing anything about it? The answer is no.
And in fairness there are two sides to this argument. On the one hand the NRL Grand Final winners know they will be competing in the game five months before it actually kicks off so the “we’re unprepared” excuse flies right out of the window. The format was agreed by representatives of the NRL and Super League so when the match is organised these representatives should be echoing the views of the Australian clubs, not sitting in the corner staying silent while the clubs have to battle against the system each and every year. And let’s face it, if the NRL clubs were really unhappy about the format they would just boycott the event all together. It wouldn’t be the first time they Aussies have done things their way even if they weren’t successful at it. (The Australian Super League of 1997 springs to mind)
However there are factors that the Aussies try to blow out of proportion but they are very valid points non-the-less. For starters the match is always played on a bitter cold Friday night in the north of England. Not exactly the most attractive place to play Rugby League but this is because of SKY Television acting as puppeteers and controlling the RFL. However, the English cold is opposed to the Australian heat which isn’t exactly ideal Rugby League playing conditions either. As well as that there is the fact the teams have to travel half way across the world to play just one game and its always the Aussie clubs that have to travel. Why not those in Super League? Well, again the answer to this makes the competition a further farce. You see, despite the calls from Red Hall for the game to be played in Australia the RFL know it’s a good source of income for the match to be played in the UK. The RFL only concede major tournaments and matches that will get them money when common sense takes control. For example, it would be pointless to interrupt the ARL’s Centenary Season celebrations by hosting a World Cup on the other side of the world. Now the World Club Challenge has not been around and played as often for it to be given special celebration any time soon so it seems we could be stuck with it.
The idea that the game should be played at the end of the season is a sensible one. Both teams would be at peak match fitness having just played their Grand Finals. However for this to work, the NRL have to shift their season forward to accommodate this extra match and as not to overlap the international season which is also at the end of the year. But if I haven’t mentioned this already, the ARL and NRL fail to recognise Rugby League outside the eastern coast of Oz. They will run their competition as they like, organising fixtures and dates as they like and working them around Australian holidays if they so wish to do so.
So it seems the NRL won’t take the WCC seriously unless it is played at a different part of the year, but they won’t cooperate with the relevant governing bodies to see out these revolutionary plans of theirs that will finally decide in a fair manner who is the best club side in the world.
Their loss, I suppose.
And in fairness there are two sides to this argument. On the one hand the NRL Grand Final winners know they will be competing in the game five months before it actually kicks off so the “we’re unprepared” excuse flies right out of the window. The format was agreed by representatives of the NRL and Super League so when the match is organised these representatives should be echoing the views of the Australian clubs, not sitting in the corner staying silent while the clubs have to battle against the system each and every year. And let’s face it, if the NRL clubs were really unhappy about the format they would just boycott the event all together. It wouldn’t be the first time they Aussies have done things their way even if they weren’t successful at it. (The Australian Super League of 1997 springs to mind)
However there are factors that the Aussies try to blow out of proportion but they are very valid points non-the-less. For starters the match is always played on a bitter cold Friday night in the north of England. Not exactly the most attractive place to play Rugby League but this is because of SKY Television acting as puppeteers and controlling the RFL. However, the English cold is opposed to the Australian heat which isn’t exactly ideal Rugby League playing conditions either. As well as that there is the fact the teams have to travel half way across the world to play just one game and its always the Aussie clubs that have to travel. Why not those in Super League? Well, again the answer to this makes the competition a further farce. You see, despite the calls from Red Hall for the game to be played in Australia the RFL know it’s a good source of income for the match to be played in the UK. The RFL only concede major tournaments and matches that will get them money when common sense takes control. For example, it would be pointless to interrupt the ARL’s Centenary Season celebrations by hosting a World Cup on the other side of the world. Now the World Club Challenge has not been around and played as often for it to be given special celebration any time soon so it seems we could be stuck with it.
The idea that the game should be played at the end of the season is a sensible one. Both teams would be at peak match fitness having just played their Grand Finals. However for this to work, the NRL have to shift their season forward to accommodate this extra match and as not to overlap the international season which is also at the end of the year. But if I haven’t mentioned this already, the ARL and NRL fail to recognise Rugby League outside the eastern coast of Oz. They will run their competition as they like, organising fixtures and dates as they like and working them around Australian holidays if they so wish to do so.
So it seems the NRL won’t take the WCC seriously unless it is played at a different part of the year, but they won’t cooperate with the relevant governing bodies to see out these revolutionary plans of theirs that will finally decide in a fair manner who is the best club side in the world.
Their loss, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)