Worst of the Codes?

[Mint Condition]

lol Parra, why did you not include the Currie Cup, Super 14, Heineken Cup, 6 Nations, Tri-Nations, World Sevens circuit etc?? I like the eye rolls as well over some of the attendance figures, when the NRL have been inflating attendance figures for years.

And there are many more rugby union competitions in minor markets then there are in rugby league. I mean if you are so interested in the total figures for RL in Russia and PNG you must also be very interested in rugby union numbers in Italy, Argentina, Georgia, Romania, Canada, Uruguay, Morrocco and dozens and dozens of other countries where there are rugby union competitions.

As for the "google fights" post...well thanks for proving me right about the whole chip on the shoulder thing.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Parra, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

To suggest the Super League alone comes close to competing with RU overall in Europe is ridiculous. The SL had attendances of 1.5 million, which is only 200,000 or so more than the Guinness Premiership (and I believe the GP average attendance is higher than the SL average is it not??), then add the French Top 14 and the European Cup, which in its latter rounds draws huge attendances and it's an annihilation. That's no sleight on RL it's just fact.

You bring up the point that league is growing in London, and I'm sure it is. But have you ever been to London? Have you ever read a London newspaper or watched a sports news broadcast? Everytime I've been there during an English winter, the amount of media coverage given to rugby union hugely outweighs the coverage given to league. Now you can talk conspiracy theories all you like, but it highlights comparative interest.

Then think about international games, which is rugby union's strength and even the world sevens circuit, and there's just no comparison. Think of the money generated from both games and there's no comparison. Yes, RL is played in a large amount of the countries RU is played in...but RU is a major or semi-major sport in more countries!

In NZ, rugby union dominates rugby league far more than which rugby league dominates rugby union here. I'm not sure of what the current participation figures are, but I know a few years ago it was something like 140,000 to 30,000...that difference is generally reflected in other measures such as aggregate attendances, media coverage, sponsorship revenues etc.

Then you said something about the NZ thing not really meaning much because PNG is bigger than it and the 3 main RU playing pacific nations combined anyway. While that might be true in terms of population (just), the NZ economy is almost twice as large as the PNG economy, and in terms of per capita income, it is 12 times richer. Even Samoa, Tonga and Fiji are roughly 3 times richer per capita. NZ is the far greater market and that's indisputable...and even Samoa, Tonga and Fiji have far greater potential to compete on an international stage because of that greater prosperity (as well as the considerable support those nations are now receiving from the IRB).

RL's a great sport and is doing very well both in its "home" markets and in a handful of places around the world...but it's just not nearly as big as rugby union. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

This is sense. I respect Parra's work in collating figures and don't dismiss him but you really have to spend time there to understand the disparity between Union and League in England and even more so Europe. 6 Nations is as big as soccer whilst it's on. It pushes soccer off the back pages on several Sundays. League never does that. International League is nowhere near the back pages. No insult just fact.

Contrast coverage of League tri nations and Union 6 nations and there is no comparison as all. Have people actually seen English papers? and as for Ireland, Wales, Scotland League is basically non existent whereas Union is a Big spoort in each market.

One point Parra. On Celtic League not getting the average crowd national League Div 1 get that is simply false. Check on wiki. Celtic League average in 5,000 plus whereas nat Lge is below 2,000. Outside ESL English pro League is withering.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Europes top drawing rugby comps on avearge per match

1. 6 Nations 15 games at 56,084 ( Union )
2 European Cup 79 games at 11,649 ( Union )
3 GP 132 games at 10,271 ( Union )
4 Top 14 182 games at 9,799 ( Union )
5 ESL 168 games at 9,026 ( League )
6 Celtic 110 games at 5,194 ( Union )
7 D2 240 games at 3,107 ( Union )
8 Nat League 1 96 games at 2,351 ( League )

All the top 4 an 6 of the top 8 are Union.

Querying Union figures whilst accepting League figures is simple prejudice.

6 nations Tri Nations and RWC ALL draw far greater crowds than League Tri nations and indeed equal soccer attendances.

The best supported non international rugby comp by avearge attendance is super 12.

Avearge union attendance in Japan is higher than League in PNG.


League is loved by many, is a fine code and good luck to it but to argue by spinning some stats that it even approaches Union is simply not on.

 

[Exe Gesis]

IMO, all the codes are inferior to American Football. They all have their dead-spots in them, all have their stupid rules, their softness, flaws in the game. I can only watch Port Adelaide play AR, otherwise it's boring. I don't have a League team that I follow so therefore any league game is boring. Union I don't have a team but I find I can watch it from time to time. Whereas American Football, I have a team, but I can't STOP watching it - no matter who's playing, or even College football.

Given that watchability factor, to me...

Gridiron > AFL > Rugby > League > Soccer. But a huge distance between Rugby and League/Soccer.

 

[Mint Condition]

G'day g.g, I don't think it's right to say gridiron has no flaws while the other sports do. Gridiron is obviously the most tactical of all the football codes...it's almost like a chess game using people, but the dominance of tv in that game (moreso than any other) can be annoying. It is very stop start, which is okay if you're in the mood for it because I mean it always gets you thinking, but well sometimes you just want to watch a 2 hour, fast paced match. The biggest problem I have though is that I just think it's too specialised. I've never liked the whole separate defensive and offensive team thing. It's the only football code that does that, and I would really prefer it if players had to do both. I mean someone like Dan Carter or Stephen Larkham in rugby is the rough equivilent of a quarterback in the NFL. They have to remember dozens of different plays and organise their backlines in attack, plus they have to run a lot more and be a lot more innovative in broken play...yet they also have to defend.

The other thing that annoys me in gridiron is the lack of lateral passing once a break is made, or a catch is taken by a receiver from the quarterback. I see so many times when a guy with the ball is in open space and has maybe one defender in front of him, but instead of passing it laterally to a supporting player on his own team who might score or at least gain greater yardage, will just either run it out or take the tackle. The thing they could learn from rugby and rugby league is how to draw a man, and how to think on their feet! Finally, just like rugby league, gridiron is a contest for territory only - possession is achieved only through limiting the oppositions territorial gain or through an opposition error. I like to see more of a direct contest for possession...it creates unpredictability.

Rugby union obviously has a few "soft areas" and bad rules that need to be fixed up, but I think once that happens (and it's a matter or just 2 or 3 changes) it'll be the perfect middle ground between say the fast paced, free flowing open football of Aussie Rules and the tactical, chess like football of gridiron. It's also a contest, equally for both territory AND possession where you have to work to achieve both (other than at kickoffs). Again, it's the middle ground. Soccer and AFL are primarily contests for possession, Gridiron and rugby league are primarily contests for territory, while rugby union is smack in the middle.

Each to their own though really. I mean no matter what our opinions are, soccer dominates it all!

 

[Exe Gesis]

G'day g.g, I don't think it's right to say gridiron has no flaws while the other sports do. Gridiron is obviously the most tactical of all the football codes...it's almost like a chess game using people, but the dominance of tv in that game (moreso than any other) can be annoying. It is very stop start, which is okay if you're in the mood for it because I mean it always gets you thinking, but well sometimes you just want to watch a 2 hour, fast paced match. The biggest problem I have though is that I just think it's too specialised. I've never liked the whole separate defensive and offensive team thing. It's the only football code that does that, and I would really prefer it if players had to do both. I mean someone like Dan Carter or Stephen Larkham in rugby is the rough equivilent of a quarterback in the NFL. They have to remember dozens of different plays and organise their backlines in attack, plus they have to run a lot more and be a lot more innovative in broken play...yet they also have to defend.

The other thing that annoys me in gridiron is the lack of lateral passing once a break is made, or a catch is taken by a receiver from the quarterback. I see so many times when a guy with the ball is in open space and has maybe one defender in front of him, but instead of passing it laterally to a supporting player on his own team who might score or at least gain greater yardage, will just either run it out or take the tackle. The thing they could learn from rugby and rugby league is how to draw a man, and how to think on their feet! Finally, just like rugby league, gridiron is a contest for territory only - possession is achieved only through limiting the oppositions territorial gain or through an opposition error. I like to see more of a direct contest for possession...it creates unpredictability.

Rugby union obviously has a few "soft areas" and bad rules that need to be fixed up, but I think once that happens (and it's a matter or just 2 or 3 changes) it'll be the perfect middle ground between say the fast paced, free flowing open football of Aussie Rules and the tactical, chess like football of gridiron. It's also a contest, equally for both territory AND possession where you have to work to achieve both (other than at kickoffs). Again, it's the middle ground. Soccer and AFL are primarily contests for possession, Gridiron and rugby league are primarily contests for territory, while rugby union is smack in the middle.

Each to their own though really. I mean no matter what our opinions are, soccer dominates it all!

Cheers for the thoughtful reply.

Probably the bad way I wrote it, but I actually said "all have their dead-spots, their flaws, etc"...meaning gridiron as well. That, given all the pros/cons of those four football codes, purely personal preference, IMO, I put them in the order that I think are better sports.

Probably get a few people misreading my post and assuming I'm talking universally.

Also, very good points/analysis from your pov all the pros/cons you notice about the sports. For instance, laterals in Gridiron. They only tend to come out when time is over. Tho you occasionally see it when WR's catch a ball and lateral to another one - as a trick play. Actually, 'the lateral' is still used behind the line of scrimmage for trick plays like the End Around, the Flea Flicker, etc. Most of the required bluffing is done behind the scrimmage in setting up a long pass down-field....because Rugby/League lack forward passes that can gain huge territory, the only way for the Rugby games is to 'lateral' like a hot-potato until a gap might appear. While for Gridiron, a simple play-action fake or flea-flicker is often all that's required to fake out a DB and get a long forward pass gain as a result. That extra dimension (forward passing) is a safer route to long gains than lateraling the ball around a la Rugby. Just one pass and catch as opposed to 10+ laterals and possible fumbles.

Other than that, rest of your post is spot on.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Gridirons biggest floor is that is is possibly the least eventful sport in the world. You can sit down and watch it for 5 mins and see them standing around talking for 4 and in the other 1min you may not even see a play completed. Mind you i went to a College game about four years ago with about 40,000 people there and it was absolutely fantastic.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I always hear the complaint about Gridiron being stop-start from mainly australians accustomed to fast-paced AR etc, and even tho it's a different sport, i always use the analogy of cricket. Cricket is much loved, followed here, yet is even less eventful on a play-by-play basis. A ball bowled can sometimes take a couple mins with all the field placings etc, and finally all that happens is a ball left outside off-stump etc. It also goes for 6 hrs for 5 days, yet the australian captivation hardly wanes.

Also, gridiron plays have to be done per 30 odd seconds, often even no-huddle offense. Seeing big guys hit each other often easier for excitement than a ball bowled and batter letting it go.

I hate ODI cricket tho. Loving gridiron for tactics = loving cricket the same, for me.

Quickly, about specialist players, i actually prefer this. SAme as cricket. Players arent literally separated tho. You do see a lot more trick plays in College football where the QB becomes a WR etc. Also, many offensive/defensive players do also get involved in special teams play and even for situational plays - like a DE used as a running back trick play for 1 yrd TD etc. Just the way the game's set up to make the most of tactics and strategy in practically every way....including red flags for coaches and time outs etc.

I also agree with the analysis that Rugby Union is perhaps the better game among all for being a mix of them all - fast, free-flowing, yet tactical and methodical, etc.

 

[Mint Condition]

Hey g.g, just letting you know that your posts have inspired me to watch a bit more NFL when I get the chance (I watch it occasionally as it is, but you've given me an idea of more things to look out for). Most of the Americans I know tell me that College Football is better to watch though, so maybe I should try watching that.

As for the lateral passing point, I was talking more as a continuation of play once a gain is made. Obviously a long forward pass is a better option to make initial yardage, but I just think if a receiver gets the ball in a bit of space he should look for support more often, because a lot of the time it's there...there's so many 2 on 1 situations that get ignored by these guys just because it's not part of the play book. I also hate it when the quarterback is really determined not to run the ball. Some guys will stand around looking for a pass that just isn't there until they get sacked, when there's been 10 yards right in front of them the majority of the time! Though I suppose the same can be said of some rugby union halfbacks...*cough* George Gregan *cough*

The specialisation thing doesn't really bother me that much, I mean it's not like you think about it when you watch the game...except for maybe when the kicker, whose probably paid more than any footballer in Australia, comes on for 5 seconds just to kick the ball up in the air as high as he can for an ideal yardage and then runs off again, not to be seen for another 30 minutes. And then some different guy comes on to kick the field goals and conversions!!

 

[Exe Gesis]

Hey g.g, just letting you know that your posts have inspired me to watch a bit more NFL when I get the chance (I watch it occasionally as it is, but you've given me an idea of more things to look out for). Most of the Americans I know tell me that College Football is better to watch though, so maybe I should try watching that.

As for the lateral passing point, I was talking more as a continuation of play once a gain is made. Obviously a long forward pass is a better option to make initial yardage, but I just think if a receiver gets the ball in a bit of space he should look for support more often, because a lot of the time it's there...there's so many 2 on 1 situations that get ignored by these guys just because it's not part of the play book. I also hate it when the quarterback is really determined not to run the ball. Some guys will stand around looking for a pass that just isn't there until they get sacked, when there's been 10 yards right in front of them the majority of the time! Though I suppose the same can be said of some rugby union halfbacks...*cough* George Gregan *cough*

The specialisation thing doesn't really bother me that much, I mean it's not like you think about it when you watch the game...except for maybe when the kicker, whose probably paid more than any footballer in Australia, comes on for 5 seconds just to kick the ball up in the air as high as he can for an ideal yardage and then runs off again, not to be seen for another 30 minutes. And then some different guy comes on to kick the field goals and conversions!!

Wow, that's really nice to have a positive influence on someone. Appreciate that. Let me know your thoughts as you get into it again. Any questions etc, post on the American Football board as me and many others there can always help explain something or just chit chat about the issues.

As for the lateral, yep i do agree with you. Sometimes it would be better if Gridiron used more open-field lateralling. I guess the two responses to why it doesn't happen are - Gridiron, like RL is a very territorial game. The emphasis would be on minimizing potential turnovers. Especially if a team is within another's half of the field, if they passed or ran it normally they'd likely get a TD. Also, the emphasis in Gridiron is blocking for your runners not being support players. You'll see that the main corp of blockers are the really big guys, who while still have supple skilled catch-pass skills, are highly skilled blockers. They'd be better off blocking using their bulk for this, and allowing runners to run. Also, teams often do stack one side of a field with WR's. So they could feasibly pass it out to someone, then have those WRs play lateral with each other as the blockers block. I have always thought too that Gridiron could do with this as a more regularly used trick play. Also, another reason why maybe not used as much is this...in the old days (1940s) players had far less protective equipment. Probably having all that armour now increases the difficulty for passing and catching repeatedly in a lateral. Running backs always have to cradle the ball in a special way when making their way thru the mass of bodies at the line of scrimmage because it's really hard to control the ball. The last 4 or so mass-open-field laterals i've seen in the NFL (just this year) have resulted in fumbles because the ball gets difficult to control on ad lib basis with all that armour too. But I'd love to see an offensive scheme where the TE, RB, FB and two WR all actually line up in a RL type line and as one gets tackled they actually offload like a Rugby player, draw and pass, draw and pass. Still, the armour thing. Effective blocking would be better as a large yardage gainer. But it would be cool just to see.

College football is definately more freer. NFL clubs tend to be more cautious, more at stake. In College you'll find a huge amount of trick plays, some even the lateral one you're talking about. I think in fact some coaches back in the early years (1930s onwards) when the game was still close to the Rugby influence, used some multiple lateral plays as stock standard.

 

[Mint Condition]

As for the lateral, yep i do agree with you. Sometimes it would be better if Gridiron used more open-field lateralling. I guess the two responses to why it doesn't happen are - Gridiron, like RL is a very territorial game. The emphasis would be on minimizing potential turnovers. Especially if a team is within another's half of the field, if they passed or ran it normally they'd likely get a TD. Also, the emphasis in Gridiron is blocking for your runners not being support players. You'll see that the main corp of blockers are the really big guys, who while still have supple skilled catch-pass skills, are highly skilled blockers. They'd be better off blocking using their bulk for this, and allowing runners to run. Also, teams often do stack one side of a field with WR's. So they could feasibly pass it out to someone, then have those WRs play lateral with each other as the blockers block. I have always thought too that Gridiron could do with this as a more regularly used trick play. Also, another reason why maybe not used as much is this...in the old days (1940s) players had far less protective equipment. Probably having all that armour now increases the difficulty for passing and catching repeatedly in a lateral. Running backs always have to cradle the ball in a special way when making their way thru the mass of bodies at the line of scrimmage because it's really hard to control the ball. The last 4 or so mass-open-field laterals i've seen in the NFL (just this year) have resulted in fumbles because the ball gets difficult to control on ad lib basis with all that armour too. But I'd love to see an offensive scheme where the TE, RB, FB and two WR all actually line up in a RL type line and as one gets tackled they actually offload like a Rugby player, draw and pass, draw and pass. Still, the armour thing. Effective blocking would be better as a large yardage gainer. But it would be cool just to see.

Those are all excellent points. I'd probably only really thought about the first point you made about minimising turnovers as a possible reason, but the thing about protective equipment hindering the ability to control the ball seems so logical now that you mention it.

I'll definately watch a lot more now to see what I can pick up on. I think I need a team to support as well, that always helps. Which NFL side right now has the best running quarterback? ...that sounds like as good a criteria to pick a team as any. I'll support them unless you give me strong advice I shouldn't!!

 

[Exe Gesis]

Those are all excellent points. I'd probably only really thought about the first point you made about minimising turnovers as a possible reason, but the thing about protective equipment hindering the ability to control the ball seems so logical now that you mention it.

I'll definately watch a lot more now to see what I can pick up on. I think I need a team to support as well, that always helps. Which NFL side right now has the best running quarterback? ...that sounds like as good a criteria to pick a team as any. I'll support them unless you give me strong advice I shouldn't!!

I think you should find your own team, waiting for a player or quality about a team, even colors or mascot to take your fancy. But best running QB's would have to be Vick for Atlanta (amazing runner and cool colors) and Vince Young for Titans (rookie with huge talent). Titans are a pretty cool team because their coach has heaps of trick plays, they've got nice colors and are looking set to make a return to being one of the better teams next year. They've currently won like 4 in a row or something, getting their act together after a couple years savaged by salary cap. Maybe them? But still, take them all in and find what appeals to you.

 

[Mint Condition]

lol well I'll have a look. From your description the Titans sound pretty good. Remember the Titans was on tv the other day as well...a sign perhaps!

 

[Pykie]

Michael Vick is a God, he would be insanely good in RU as a centre.

In regards too crowds, no-one really goes to Super 14 games, or the Guiness Cup games, just as no-one really cares about state cricket, its all about the countries international games, look at the average crowds for international rugby union, and its huge.

 

[Dipper]

On the Union crowd thing, dunno if anyone's mentioned it but in the French league last year Stade Francais got 80,000 crowds at least twice, against Toulouse & I think Biarritz.

That's bigger than any crowds in French league soccer or in fact English league soccer.

I would guesd that it might only have been exceeded by games involving Real Madrid & Barcelona in the whole of Europe, probably only when they played one another.

Think about it 80,000 for a league game, that's huge.


I think also the average attendances are a bit scewed by the fact that a lot of the grounds are pretty small & for big matches they're getting sell out crowds but with a heap of people locked out who wanted to see the game.

 

[akazie]

I think also the average attendances are a bit scewed by the fact that a lot of the grounds are pretty small & for big matches they're getting sell out crowds but with a heap of people locked out who wanted to see the game.

Happens in alot of sports.

 

[Ancient and Loyal]

You can limit that problem to Stade Francais, USAP and Leicester. Sellouts are rare in European Union.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

On the Union crowd thing, dunno if anyone's mentioned it but in the French league last year Stade Francais got 80,000 crowds at least twice, against Toulouse & I think Biarritz.

That's bigger than any crowds in French league soccer or in fact English league soccer.

I would guesd that it might only have been exceeded by games involving Real Madrid & Barcelona in the whole of Europe, probably only when they played one another.

Think about it 80,000 for a league game, that's huge.


I think also the average attendances are a bit scewed by the fact that a lot of the grounds are pretty small & for big matches they're getting sell out crowds but with a heap of people locked out who wanted to see the game.

England's biggest soccer ground fits 76,000