Super League GF. Sky Sports coverage

[Copa]

An average of 10,000 isnt that great. NRL averages 16 thousand and everyone thinks that is pretty low here.

The point being, you all love the Superleague when you see two matches a week. Its like English people seeing state of origin and thinking the NRL has that standard week to week.

I've been to 3 live games in the UK... the quality wasn't as high as the NRL for one of them... but the atmosphere actually made it more fun to attend than an nrl game

A 10,000 (and rising) SL crowd has more atmosphere and excitement than a 30000 NRL crowd. It's amazing over there to actually see it.

Despite what many soccer fans say 16,000 is actually a higher crowd average than many european national soccer leagues (except the biggies of course)

 

[Crippler]

loved the countdown

plus the english are lucky to get all their games in High Definition.

hopefully channels 9s new boss wont be as tight as eddie and spend some more money on league coverage. e.g. High Defination and 5.1 sound.

 

[eels_fan_01]

Still, we are debating the style of competition. If you can't see the difference, then there is no point in furthering the discussion.

I can see the difference mate, its just not better quality. I still think its stupid to compare 2 main games to every game in the NRL.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Despite what many soccer fans say 16,000 is actually a higher crowd average than many european national soccer leagues (except the biggies of course)

which leagues?

 

[Copa]

which leagues?

ALso added a few non-European leagues... Portugal, Belgium, Scotland, Switzerland, NOrway, Ukraine, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Greece, Turkey, Russia... even the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A in Brazil.. all have smaler average crowds than the NRL.

There are more.

The netherlands get about 18,000 plus a few more soccer leagues only just beat the NRL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Liga

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

ALso added a few non-European leagues... Portugal, Belgium, Scotland, Switzerland, NOrway, Ukraine, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Greece, Turkey, Russia... even the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A in Brazil.. all have smaler average crowds than the NRL.

There are more.

The netherlands get about 18,000 plus a few more soccer leagues only just beat the NRL.

and only ukraine, turkey and russia of the above mentioned in europe have a larger population and brazil is a third world nation struck with poverty and all their best talent is drained into europe - would the NRL sustain 16,000 crowd average if ALL the best talent in the NRL was swept away to the ESL? - and only portugal and belgium crack 10 million people which is half of this country some of them have the same population as sydney does. oh and none of those leagues are considered anywhere near the top tier of european football which is an excuse that used to get thrown alot around this country

let's not forget that football league's have promotion/relegation and some leagues go down 4/5 deep so obviously there is a sh*t load more teams. the NRL wouldn't sustain a 16k average if it had 40/50 teams in the country

 

[Copa]

and only ukraine, turkey and russia of the above mentioned in europe have a larger population and brazil is a third world nation struck with poverty and all their best talent is drained into europe - would the NRL sustain 16,000 crowd average if ALL the best talent in the NRL was swept away to the ESL? - and only portugal and belgium crack 10 million people which is half of this country some of them have the same population as sydney does. oh and none of those leagues are considered anywhere near the top tier of european football which is an excuse that used to get thrown alot around this country

let's not forget that football league's have promotion/relegation and some leagues go down 4/5 deep so obviously there is a sh*t load more teams. the NRL wouldn't sustain a 16k average if it had 40/50 teams in the country

3rd world nations have 3rd world ticket prices... I've been to soccer in Indonesia and they packed out the stadium at really cheap prices.



why so defensive? I was just pointing out a fact.

RL is popular in half of Oz... 10 million.

I"ve heard heaps of soccer folk point out that ALL of europe get massive mega super dooper fantabulistic crowds compared to the NRL. THat is wrong. NRL holds its own quite well.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

sometimes fact isn't always clear cut.

RL here is popular in half the country - 10m. some of those countries populations are smaller than that

 

[Copa]

oh look... a defensive soccer fan trying to put RL in its place.

 

[Ari Gold]

sometimes fact isn't always clear cut.

RL here is popular in half the country - 10m. some of those countries populations are smaller than that

Most of those countries only have 1 sporting code

 

[babyg]

I reckon channel 9 deliberately try to make our coverage less appealing. They focus way too much time on the ruck which is the most boring aspect of our game. Up to 5 men lying on top of each other. With all the camera options they should be cutting to either the attacking team trying to set up the next play or the defensive team recouping. Super league pan back a bit so you can see the next play setting up. NRL want to catch someone doing something illegal.

 

[Razor]

There was more hype and atmosphere than you get here in Oz.

Because for some ridiculous reason the NRL go after a family atmosphere, rather than a sporting atmosphere. It is so totally stupid, and if the NRL looks at every other sporting competition in the world, except for the AFL they'll see how wrong they are.

 

[gurl_child]

I believe after watching the Super League GF,the Sky Sports coverage absolutely sh*ts all over Channel 9.From the Commentators to the camera angles and pre match talk Sky sports have left Channel 9 for dead.Sterlo and Gould :shock: is the only one's who has any cred,The sooner M.Johns and Ikin are punted the better.

But what about us girls. Sterlo/Gould are not all that great to look at y'know

 

[Big-Hitter]

Speaking as a Pom who watches an equal amount of NRL/ESL on Setanta/Sky Sports (on average about two games from each comp per week), I reckon there are pros and cons on both sides.

* Eddie & Stevo's commentary can be very irritating and consist largely of catchphrases ("surely it's time for the one pointer!" "It's T-R-Y time!" etc). Personally, I think they dumb the game down and insult the intelligence of some of the audience (although to be fair, a bit chunk of their audience are new to the sport and actually enjoy the histrionics).

* IMO the NRL coverage is far superior and much more analytical. Sterling and Gus give a great insight into the tactics etc and don't patronise the audience and I actually like some of what Johns does. However, wtf have they got Ikin on for? The bloke is terrible. Surely they could find someone more interesting?

* Technically, I'd say Sky's coverage is better but I think the quality of analysis swings things in the NRL's favour overall.

As for the standard of the comps, I'd say that the NRL is stronger on a more consistent basis (although I have seen a few poor matches this year and there are certain teams I now tend to avoid watching) but still Super League throws up some absolute classics (particularly during this year's play-offs).

However, when the best teams come head to head (Storm, Cowboys, Eels, Warriors etc) I'd have to say that the NRL swings it, purely because you have a greater depth of genuine world class players (Slater, Folau, Inglis, Bowen, Thurston, Tahu, Hayne, Mckinnon*, Price..... the list goes on).

Anyway, that's my two-bobs worth.



* By the way, really rate McKinnon from what I've seen of him towards the back end of this season and reckon he'd be a shoo-in for the GB Test side if he was British.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

I didn't like the moving camera. When the camera's fixed at halfway, you know where the play is on the field without having to think about it and you get a wider angle that shows more of the play.

Hemmings and Stevo are fine as long as you don't take them seriously. They only get annoying when they are talking sh*t and are serious e.g. Leeds up by 13 and Stevo reckons they should've taken the point at the end of a set.

:lol:

Stevo and his one-pointers. If I had a dollar for every time he thinks the attacking team should take the field goal I'd be a millionaire. He's calling for them after two minutes!

 

[eels_fan_01]

Speaking as a Pom who watches an equal amount of NRL/ESL on Setanta/Sky Sports (on average about two games from each comp per week), I reckon there are pros and cons on both sides.

* Eddie & Stevo's commentary can be very irritating and consist largely of catchphrases ("surely it's time for the one pointer!" "It's T-R-Y time!" etc). Personally, I think they dumb the game down and insult the intelligence of some of the audience (although to be fair, a bit chunk of their audience are new to the sport and actually enjoy the histrionics).

* IMO the NRL coverage is far superior and much more analytical. Sterling and Gus give a great insight into the tactics etc and don't patronise the audience and I actually like some of what Johns does. However, wtf have they got Ikin on for? The bloke is terrible. Surely they could find someone more interesting?

* Technically, I'd say Sky's coverage is better but I think the quality of analysis swings things in the NRL's favour overall.

As for the standard of the comps, I'd say that the NRL is stronger on a more consistent basis (although I have seen a few poor matches this year and there are certain teams I now tend to avoid watching) but still Super League throws up some absolute classics (particularly during this year's play-offs).

However, when the best teams come head to head (Storm, Cowboys, Eels, Warriors etc) I'd have to say that the NRL swings it, purely because you have a greater depth of genuine world class players (Slater, Folau, Inglis, Bowen, Thurston, Tahu, Hayne, Mckinnon*, Price..... the list goes on).

Anyway, that's my two-bobs worth.



* By the way, really rate McKinnon from what I've seen of him towards the back end of this season and reckon he'd be a shoo-in for the GB Test side if he was British.

Very good post, couldnt agree me.

 

[dallymessenger]

An average of 10,000 isnt that great. NRL averages 16 thousand and everyone thinks that is pretty low here.

The point being, you all love the Superleague when you see two matches a week. Its like English people seeing state of origin and thinking the NRL has that standard week to week.

the nrl is better than SL.

but remember soccer is number 1. if RL were behind soccer here, what would our game be like.

english fans are amazing. the atmosphere at derby games beats anything ive seen in RL in australia, be it origins, GF, or club games.

a game beteen saints and wigan at the JJB, or Hull FC vs Hull KR at the KC are things that are amsolutely amazing experiences.

rl is a much bigger sport in england than people who arent fans make out.

 

[eels_fan_01]

the nrl is better than SL.

but remember soccer is number 1. if RL were behind soccer here, what would our game be like.

english fans are amazing. the atmosphere at derby games beats anything ive seen in RL in australia, be it origins, GF, or club games.

a game beteen saints and wigan at the JJB, or Hull FC vs Hull KR at the KC are things that are amsolutely amazing experiences.

rl is a much bigger sport in england than people who arent fans make out.

Some people argue AFL is number one here. 10 thousand averages is nothing to celebrate.

 

[dallymessenger]

What do i have to research i watch exactly the same games as you, two a week...in my opinion both of us dont see even half of superleague action so how can you claim its better than the NRL week to week.

check out skysports.co.uk "boots'n'all" online version.

they show every try from every SL game each week.

 

[dallymessenger]

I dont feel it is considering the Superleague talent isnt as evenly spread. 15th vs 16th in the NRL could have a good as a game as 1st vs 2nd in Superleague.

fair point.

sl only has 2 games covered on tv per week vs all for rl.