2007 Crowd Watch

[ByRd]

No, he is right, i remember reading that there might be a bit more focus on derby games where possible, it could be good as long as it doesnt disadvantage sides eg. last years Dogs/Dragons drew crowds of 32k and 18k but this year we only played once and it wasnt until rnd 19 and it drew 18k, this is the types of crowds that the nrl misses out on.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Well there you go. But then, they're only talking about investigating it there is nothing to indicate that a decision has been made to implement the system. Personally I don't see how it can be achieved whilst also maintaining the integrity of the draw. If they come up with something that can do that I guess I would support it though.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Media Release as of the 19/07/08

Thank god for that, I thought I was losing my mind.

 

[Quidgybo]

They announced a bias towards derby games in the draw? I don't remember that. Leigh will be happy.

Although accurate, I don't think "bias" is the correct word for this discussion. That implies an unbalancing of the draw which gives some teams an inherently and persistently easier or harder draw than other teams. As I have pointed out on several occasions it is perfectly possible to favour (introduce a bias towards) high interest derby games while still providing a balanced draw based on the previous years results (as it is now) where each side plays an even spread of top, middle and bottom table clubs. As long as that even spread is maintained, I don't have any issues with tweaking the draw to maximise crowds, ratings and general fan interest. In fact, I'm 100% in favour of it and it strikes me as stupid to deliberately not to in the face of such intense competition for fans, sponsors and junior players in the modern pro sports market. It's one thing for Nein and News Ltd to shaft us when they are supposedly partners in building the game, it is quite another for the game not to help itself in any and every way possible.

As for what has been announced, Annesley has reiterated several times over the past couple of months that they are seriously looking at accommodating more derbys in the draw for next year, nothing more.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Well there you go. But then, they're only talking about investigating it there is nothing to indicate that a decision has been made to implement the system. Personally I don't see how it can be achieved whilst also maintaining the integrity of the draw. If they come up with something that can do that I guess I would support it though.

The problem with the suggestions in every thread on the subject of regional or derby pooling or conferencing is that they take no account of performance in determining the pools. With either fixed pools, pools drawn out of hat, pools based strictly on geography or rivalry, it is possibly to totally unbalance the draw with the strong teams all in one pool and the weak ones all together in the other (ie. the top 8 from the previous year all in one pool and the bottom 8 in the other). This can have the effect of making it relatively easier for any one weak team to make the finals because they may play the 7 or 8 weakest teams twice and strongest teams only once. Likewise it can make the draw relatively tougher for a strong team. This is exactly the concern the NRL has in moving away from a system based on the previous season's final placings - ie. performance.

Of course the strength of teams can and does change from one season to the next so the previous season's placings are not necessarily ideal for constructing an even draw. But short of moving to a 15 round or 30 round season, there is little option with 16 teams for producing a guaranteed even draw. At least by using the previous season's ladder the draw is constructed using a deterministic or non-subjective method based on each team's most recent performance. It may still end up slightly unbalanced due to player movement and changes in form but it is unlikely to end up drastically unbalanced with all the good teams in one pool suddenly dropping through the floor and all the weak teams in the other pool suddenly becoming giants (at least not all in the space of one off season).

That said, it is perfectly possible to construct a draw based on pools derived from the previous year's placings while still favouring derby clashes and other high interest combinations. The structure I would suggest is as follows...

* 2 pools of 8 teams with every team playing every other side once (15 games) and the 7 sides in its own pool a second time (22 games)
* Each pool of 8 consists of two teams from the previous year's top 4 (1-4), two from the second 4 (5-8), two from the third four (9-12), and two from the bottom four (13-16)

The key to the flexibility of this system is the second point. Instead of a fixed allocation of clubs to the respective pools (eg. if you finish 1st you must be in pool A), each pool gets a flexible choice of any two of the four clubs from each quarter of the previous year's ladder (top 4, upper middle 4, lower middle 4 and bottom 4). This system allows a huge number of pool combinations (1296) while still maintaining an even spread of top, middle and bottom sides in each pool.

The flexibility to choose *any* two sides from each quarter of the previous year's ladder allows certain high interest match ups to be guaranteed to occur twice in a season and other combinations of three or four teams to be favoured to occur twice. For example if both the Broncos and Cowboys finish in the top four and the Titans finish in the bottom 4, then all three could be placed in the same pool thus ensuring that there are six Queensland derby matches for that season (unlike this year where the Titans and Cowboys only play once).

Combinations that could be favoured...

* Broncos, Cowboys, Titans - Queensland Derby
* Souths, Easts, Wests - Inner City
* Saints, Cronulla - Southern Sydney
* Penrith, Parramatta - West Sydney
* Bulldogs, Saints, Parra - Mid West / 1980s Derby
* Bulldogs, Wests, Souths - Telstra Stadium Tennants
* Manly, Newcastle - North Shore / Central Coast
* Canberra, Melbourne - Southern NSW / Victoria
* Melbourne, Auckland - Kiwi expat
* Broncos, Melbourne - Grand Final 2006 rematch

and any other appropriate grudge games that develop from time to time. Of course with the nature of the draw dictating an even spread of top middle and bottom sides, it is inevitable that in some year's certain combinations will not be able to be accommodated. But that does not prevent the NRL from making maximum use of the derby, traditional and grudge matches that can be accommodated in each season.

Taking last year's ladder and distributing the teams into two pools based on this system...

1. Storm (Pool B)
2. Bulldogs (Pool A)
3. Broncos (Pool A)
4. Knights (Pool B)

5. Sea Eagles (Pool B)
6. Dragons (Pool A)
7. Raiders (Pool B)
8. Eels (Pool A)

9. Cowboys (Pool A)
10. Warriors (Pool B)
11. Tigers (Pool A)
12. Panthers (Pool B)

13. Sharks (Pool A)
14. Roosters (Pool B)
15. Rabbits (Pool B)
16. Titans (Pool A)

giving the following pools...

POOL A

Broncos
Bulldogs
Dragons
Eels
Cowboys
Tigers
Sharks
Titans

POOL B

Storm
Knights
Sea Eagles
Raiders
Warriors
Panthers
Rabbits
Roosters

So comparing the above pools and the previously identified "high interest" combinations with the current draw for 2007 we get the following...

* Broncos, Cowboys, Titans - 6 matches vs 5 matches this year
* Souths, Easts, Wests - 4 matches vs 4 matches this year
* Saints, Cronulla - 2 matches vs 2 matches this year
* Penrith, Parramatta - 1 match vs 1 match this year
* Bulldogs, Saints, Parra - 6 matches vs 5 matches this year
* Bulldogs, Wests, Souths - 4 matches vs 3 matches this year
* Manly, Newcastle - 2 matches vs 1 match this year
* Canberra, Melbourne - 2 matches vs 2 matches this year
* Melbourne, Auckland - 2 matches vs 2 matches this year
* Broncos, Melbourne - 1 match vs 2 matches this year

(note: Souths/Wests occurs in two combinations)

So for the cost of losing a second meeting between the Broncos and the Storm we gain 4 extra derby matches - Cowboys/Titans, Bulldogs/Saints, Newcastle/Manly, Wests/Bulldogs. And that's in only 22 rounds. If we extend this draw to 24 rounds (plus bye) then every team has two extra games and those matches can be used to extend the number of derby clashes even further. We can maintain the balance of the draw by ensuring that each team plays one top eight and one bottom eight side in their two extra games. This would allow the Broncos to keep their second meeting with the Storm (and play one other match against a bottom 8 side), the Tigers could play an extra match against either Souths or the Roosters (but not both), Souths could play the Bulldogs a second time, and Parra could play Penrith a second time.

So out of the 36 possible home and away derby, traditional and grudge clashes I've identified (still counting Souths/Wests twice because my head is starting to hurt too much), the current draw for 2007 accommodates 27 of these "high interest" matches in 24 rounds. The flexible pool system would allow 30 out of 36 such games in just 22 rounds, and with 24 rounds it would allow as many as 34 out of the 36 "high interest" matches. And that's while still maintaining a balanced draw where every team plays an even spread of top, middle and bottom strength sides based on the previous season's ladder. With just a bit of flexibility in developing the draw, the NRL would be able to maximise the high interest clashes while maintaining the draw's integrity.

Leigh.

 

[nqboy]

Suggest it to Gallop.

 

[Quidgybo]

And now we've finished the regular season, we could do the same based on the 2007 ladder.

1. Storm (Pool A)
2. Sea Eagles (Pool B)
3. Cowboys (Pool B)
4. Warriors (Pool A)

5. Eels (Pool A)
6. Bulldogs (Pool A)
7. Rabbitohs (Pool B)
8. Broncos (Pool B)

9. Tigers (Pool B)
10. Roosters (Pool A)
11. Sharks (Pool A)
12. Titans (Pool B)

13. Dragons (Pool A)
14. Raiders (Pool A)
15. Knights (Pool B)
16. Panthers (Pool B)

The ladder for this year immediately throws up a few problems. The Eels and Bulldogs; and the Tigers and Roosters finishing in the same quarter of the ladder immediately limits some of our options for combining teams. This is especially true for a 22 round season where the middle half of the 2007 ladder means we could no longer ensure that the Eels and Bulldogs meet twice while also ensuring that the Rabbits, Roosters, Tigers all meet twice and the Broncos and Titans meet twice.
One of those three combinations would have to broken to accommodate the other two. A 24 round season that allows each team to play two more games (one against a top eight and one against a bottom eight) allows us to pick up a couple of those lost combinations. So every team plays every other team once (15 games), the seven teams in their pool a second time (7 games) for a total of 22 games, and then two teams from the opposite pool a second time for 24 games.

So with that in mind, I am going to move the Roosters into the opposite pool from Souths and the Tigers (and keep the Titans with the Broncos) knowing that the Roosters two extra games can be made up against those two clubs (Souths being a top eight and the Tigers a bottom eight club). So for now we end up with the following pools...

POOL A

Storm
Warriors
Eels
Bulldogs
Roosters
Sharks
Dragons
Raiders

POOL B
Sea Eagles
Cowboys
Rabbitohs
Broncos
Tigers
Titans
Knights
Panthers

With these two pools we have ensured the following combinations play twice...

* Storm, Warriors and Raiders (Southern NSW/Vic derby and as much of a local derby as Melbourne will get plus derby for Kiwi expat Rugby audience in Melbourne)
* Eels, Bulldogs, Dragons (1980s derby)
* Dragons, Sharks (southern Sydney derby)
* Raiders, Dragons (Wollongong - Canberra derby)
* Sea Eagles, Wests (Fibros v Silvertails)
* Tigers, Rabbits (inner city derby)
* Broncos, Cowboys, Titans (Queensland derby)
* Sea Eagles, Knights (northern derby)

The most obvious omission from the above is Eels vs Panthers (the western derby) and the aforementioned Roosters, Tigers, Rabbits problem. As with the Roosters this can be picked up in the 24 round extension with the Panthers (bottom eight) playing the Eels (top eight) as one of their two extra games and one of Sharks, Dragons or Raiders (all bottom eight) for their other game. Meanwhile the Eels would play one of Sea Eagles, Cowboys, Rabbitohs or Broncos (all top eight) for their other extra game. For the Rabbitohs and Tigers, after playing the Roosters (bottom eight), they would play one each of the Storm, Warriors, Eels, Bulldogs (all top eight). Because the Eels are already playing the lowly Panthers, the Tigers as a bottom eight side can't play them. So we can place the Tigers against the Bulldogs for a Telstra Stadium derby and place the Rabbits against the Eels which would still provide a high interest all Sydney game. So with a 24 round season we can add the following...

* Eels, Panthers (western derby)
* Tigers, Bulldogs (Telstra Stadium derby)
* Rabbits, Roosters, Tigers (inner city derby)

Anyway, that's my best effort in under an hour. I'm sure (cough) that the brains actually tasked with developing next year's draw could do better with a few weeks to examine the possible combinations. Anyone else care to have a go at coming up with balanced pools for next year that maximise local derbys and other high interest matches?

Leigh.

 

[nqboy]

Parra and the Dogs in the same group sounds good but H&A for both clubs v the Broncos would probably draw more overall. That took me about 10 seconds and closer scrutiny would probably throw up more anomalies. Just goes to show how difficult it is.

 

[Quidgybo]

Parra and the Dogs in the same group sounds good but H&A for both clubs v the Broncos would probably draw more overall.

Why would either club be worried about maximising their away gate? If Parra hosting the Dogs draws more than Parra hosting Brisbane then that'd be their preference. Same for Dogs hosting Parra compared to Dogs hosting Brisbane. In an ideal world every team would host the Broncos and no team would ever have to host the Storm. But this is the real world where we have to make tradeoffs to keep a balance. By basing the draw on the previous year's ladder, some combinations just won't be possible in some years. But that doesn't mean we haven't got room to move and play to our strengths. Either way I question your logic of taking just two possible matches and holding them up in isolation as an example of why the system doesn't work. If accommodating that one good drawing match means we lose two or three medium-good matches (remembering it isn't just Dogs and Parra but Dogs, Parra and Dragons together in a triple derby) in favour of low drawing matches, what have we achieved? If the choice is Broncos to lose one of their home derby games against Titans or Cowboys or host one of Parra and Bulldogs, which do you choose? Throughout all the above the guiding rule has been to maximise the number of high interest matches while maintaining a balanced draw, not just ensure that one or two very high interest matches are accommodated or that we throw balance out the window.

That took me about 10 seconds and closer scrutiny would probably throw up more anomalies. Just goes to show how difficult it is.

No doubt there are anomalies as there are in any system, and as there are plenty in the current system. Doesn't mean we can't improve on the current system. How would you improve the current draw to maximise crowds and fan interest while maintaining balance?

Leigh.

 

[bobmar28]

Yep. Two byes next year. Back to the 26 round competition. I hate bye weekends. They feel so empty.

Why? You will still have seven games to watch won't you?

 

[Quidgybo]

Why? You will still have seven games to watch won't you?

I think Cheesie is referring to the fact that *his* club is not playing.

Beside which based on the news reports I've read I think it could be a lot fewer than seven games. My understanding is that each club will have two byes and that all byes will be allocated the weekend *after* Origin matches. It doesn't take much time to realise the implications if this is true. With no byes on the weekends prior to Origin, three of the 26 rounds will involve all eight clubs playing without their Origin players. And with 16 "bye matches" to accommodate, another three rounds will each include only *three* matches (with the sixteenth bye probably including the Warriors after the Anzac Test).

You read it here first.

Leigh.

 

[nqboy]

Why would either club be worried about maximising their away gate? If Parra hosting the Dogs draws more than Parra hosting Brisbane then that'd be their preference. Same for Dogs hosting Parra compared to Dogs hosting Brisbane. In an ideal world every team would host the Broncos and no team would ever have to host the Storm. But this is the real world where we have to make tradeoffs to keep a balance. By basing the draw on the previous year's ladder, some combinations just won't be possible in some years. But that doesn't mean we haven't got room to move and play to our strengths. Either way I question your logic of taking just two possible matches and holding them up in isolation as an example of why the system doesn't work. If accommodating that one good drawing match means we lose two or three medium-good matches (remembering it isn't just Dogs and Parra but Dogs, Parra and Dragons together in a triple derby) in favour of low drawing matches, what have we achieved? If the choice is Broncos to lose one of their home derby games against Titans or Cowboys or host one of Parra and Bulldogs, which do you choose? Throughout all the above the guiding rule has been to maximise the number of high interest matches while maintaining a balanced draw, not just ensure that one or two very high interest matches are accommodated or that we throw balance out the window.

My point is that Brisbane H&A v Parra and Dogs + Parra HorA v Dogs would probably draw more on average than Parra H&A v Dogs + both HorA v Brisbane.

No doubt there are anomalies as there are in any system, and as there are plenty in the current system. Doesn't mean we can't improve on the current system. How would you improve the current draw to maximise crowds and fan interest while maintaining balance?

Don't be so precious. I support your view and think it is superior to what we have now. I was just drawing attention to how difficult it is to please everyone.

 

[International RL]

So, all up, how do we rate this season in terms of crowds?

I think if not for that ridiculous rainy period we would of had all time totals and averages.

 

[nqboy]

So, all up, how do we rate this season in terms of crowds?

I think if not for that ridiculous rainy period we would of had all time totals and averages.

I was thinking that as well.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Warriors game just sold out. They think about 29,000.

 

[JW]

So, all up, how do we rate this season in terms of crowds?

I think if not for that ridiculous rainy period we would of had all time totals and averages.

2nd highest average on record, behind 2005.

 

[eels_fan_01]

2nd highest average on record, behind 2005.

If you considering the month we had in Sydney with the terrible weather and the crowds that got about 5 thousand, i think without that month we would have beaten 2005.

 

[yobbo84]

Souths finished 2007 with a home crowd average of 15,702, up from 10,612 in 2006. Thats at 68% increase in one year. Great to see, and hope that in the not-too-distant future we can push 20k averages.

 

[eels_fan_01]

Souths finished 2007 with a home crowd average of 15,702, up from 10,612 in 2006. Thats at 68% increase in one year. Great to see, and hope that in the not-too-distant future we can push 20k averages.

If Souths have can get past Manly this week and maybe even futher u'd have to think they could get atleast a 17-18 thousand average.

 

[c_eagle]

I hope Souths go back to the SFS when their contract is up. I'm sure they can negotiate a better deal these days.