WCC attendance will be embarrasing

[langpark]

I have a strong feeling that there is going to be a shocker of an attendance at this year's World Club Challenge in Bolton. I hope I'm wrong, but here's the reasons why i think so:

* There have been no updates on ticket sales, and there's only 13 days til kick off
* St Helens got 7500 to their first match against the Harlequins
* Tickets went on sale way too late (mid-Jan i think). When Leeds got 37k against Bulldogs in 2005 they went on sale well before Christmas and they were able to give regular updates on ticket sales when they'd reached 5k, 10k, 15k and so on; giving the match a bigger build up meaning the anticipation and excitement for the match grew enormously.

Maybe Broncos should have hosted it, they would have drawn a minimum 30,000. It could be possible in the future by giving the English club a Friday match, then they can fly out for the WCC, and return the following week to play a Sunday match back in England. That way i think they could cope.

 

[Quidgybo]

That way i think they could cope.

Cope perhaps, but it ain't exactly going to help their premiership campaign. In this age of fully professional teams spending multiple millions every year, the whole aim of the exercise is to be successful in the premiership competition. The results of those 24 matches (or whatever number) and any finals is what will dictate how much money they make and how healthy the club is for future seasons. Anything that distracts from that, especially mid campaign, risks being the difference between a successful season financially and an unsuccessful one. The simple fact IMHO is that the WCC is being played at the wrong time year. It should be played at least two weeks after the GF as part of the larger post season Tri-Nations program.

Leigh.

 

[ozbash]

It should be played at least two weeks after the GF as part of the larger post season Tri-Nations program.

agree, its just a glorified trial in its present format.

 

[JasonE]

I have a strong feeling that there is going to be a shocker of an attendance at this year's World Club Challenge in Bolton. I hope I'm wrong, but here's the reasons why i think so:

* There have been no updates on ticket sales, and there's only 13 days til kick off
* St Helens got 7500 to their first match against the Harlequins
* Tickets went on sale way too late (mid-Jan i think). When Leeds got 37k against Bulldogs in 2005 they went on sale well before Christmas and they were able to give regular updates on ticket sales when they'd reached 5k, 10k, 15k and so on; giving the match a bigger build up meaning the anticipation and excitement for the match grew enormously.

Maybe Broncos should have hosted it, they would have drawn a minimum 30,000. It could be possible in the future by giving the English club a Friday match, then they can fly out for the WCC, and return the following week to play a Sunday match back in England. That way i think they could cope.

Yeah i don't think it will be a big crowd but just on the crowd v Harlequins, my mate was at the game and he said that was a decent crowd under the circumstances. Heavy snow fell throughout and it was an awful night to play RL.

 

[deluded pom?]

Saints and a few others have chosen to play their home games on a Friday night. 'Quins don't have much support so won't have had many people travelling up on a Friday afternoon. I've been to watch Hull play at Knowsley road on a Friday and it means taking at least the afternoon off work and getting home at past midnight. If you don't leave early enough you get caught in the rush hour traffic on the Pennines. Not conducive to families travelling. The fixture organiser also threw up Wigan against Warrington in direct competition to Saints and 'Quins. Most floating spectators would have been at the JJB. The gate of 21,000+ testifies to this. Friday night's are ok if you're playing another local team but financial suicide if you are playing one that has to travel a fair distance. Friday night TV games are obviously a contractual oblgation. As you sow so shall you reap.

 

[bartman]

The weather has been horrific recently, Knowsley Road is not renowned as the most comfortable of viewing grounds, so I wouldn't be too worried by the 7,500.

To put the WCC in perspective, I have a work colleague (female) who knows her league but doesn't normally attend superleague matches, bought her ticket for the WCC on the basis that she thinks Karmichael Hunt is attractive... she and her dragged along husband are taking a 2.5 hour train ride and making a weekend out of it just for this game.

Don't underestimate the casual pull of the Broncos. I don't think it will be anywhere near 37,000 crowd, more closer to 20,000 which still justifies a move away from Knowsley Road. As long as the crowd is above the break even point for the costs etc, that's the main thing.

 

[obelix]

The same game at the same venue in 2001 drew 16,041, which is probably 10,000 shy of the capacity at the Reebok Stadium. I don't think we're going to see much, if any, improvement on that depending on the weather on the night.

I bought my tickets a few days ago. We don't have the pax number system so it's difficult to estimate sales, but I asked for tickets in the middle of one of the end stands and got them 8 rows into the upper tier - but then I don't think presales are the best way of judging the attendance for this fixture. You have to pay a credit card charge for booking - which most people don't see the point of when they know there's going to be room for them if they just turn up on the night.

Something which won't help the crowd is the public transport - it takes 90 minutes or more to get from St Helens to Horwich on the train with 1 or 2 changes, which on a weekday night with most people working is quite awkward... bizarrely though there's a direct train back leaving just after the game taking just under an hour :crazy:. Having been to the stadium once before to watch Bolton Wanderers in front of (from memory) a crowd of around 14k, the traffic congestion was horrific too.

The Leeds year was a bit of an anomaly - population wise, Leeds is a few times bigger than St Helens, it was their first WCC final and they had the luxury of being able to move the game to a bigger stadium in the same city. But unless Leeds get to the WCC again, we'll never beat the crowd in England unless someone really starts to hammer the marketing, which requires the Aussie club to take it seriously. It would have been really interesting if Saints had been able to hold the game in Liverpool as they first planned - I think we could have seen 25k with the right promotion.

 

[bartman]

Hope the game itself isn't the embarassment now, after St Helens unexpected loss on the weekend.

Broncos touring squad looks pretty solid, I'd say they're taking it seriously and are there for a win...

 

[langpark]

It would have been good in Liverpool. But JJB would have been ideal IMO, but it would be hard for St's to swallow their pride and play there i guess.

 

[Quidgybo]

Hope the game itself isn't the embarassment now, after St Helens unexpected loss on the weekend.

Which is another reason why the game should be played in the post season after the Grand Finals. Both teams would have their premiership winning squads from which to select (minus injuries only) instead of their possibly signifcantly weaker squads from the following season (retirements, players lost to salary cap pressure, new recruits lacking combination, untried juniors etc etc). And both would be in something approaching the form they were in when they won their premierships instead of in variable stages of pre-season training. It would be a true meeting of Champions (something it has never been because prior post season matches were played when England still had a winter season), as opposed to the hit and miss trial matches we have currently.

Leigh

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So long as the SL season runs two weeks longer than the NRL season a post season WCC is going to be pretty hard to fit into a schedule that also includes internationals. For that reason the pre-season is the only real option, and it's not a bad one. If this game was played in summery Brisbane instead of the dismal Lancastrian winter it could be a huge event with the right promotion. With league in Brisbane back on top at present there's no reason why they couldn't get 40,000 to Lang Park if the clubs treated it as a big event, insetad of just a trial. The reason people think of this game as a trial in Australia is because most Australian clubs have given that impression, especially after losing.

 

[griff]

I agree, I think pre-season works. It should be seen more as a season opener than a trial.

The problem is if it is post-season it cuts into the international window and we can't afford to cut into that any further.

 

[International RL]

So long as the SL season runs two weeks longer than the NRL season a post season WCC is going to be pretty hard to fit into a schedule that also includes internationals. For that reason the pre-season is the only real option, and it's not a bad one. If this game was played in summery Brisbane instead of the dismal Lancastrian winter it could be a huge event with the right promotion. With league in Brisbane back on top at present there's no reason why they couldn't get 40,000 to Lang Park if the clubs treated it as a big event, insetad of just a trial. The reason people think of this game as a trial in Australia is because most Australian clubs have given that impression, especially after losing.

Yeah it is definately an attitudinal thing and the way it is presented to the Australian public. I think we definately need to hold it here in the near future to give it some credibility with the public. But this would require the NRL having the guts to promote it, have both captains at press conferences etc, pictures with the trophy, the whole shebang.

I take your point ECt about the super league being 2 weeks too long. At least they are finally starting to realise this and are making noises about easing the strain on players so they can improve their chances in internationals.

I think having it at the end of the year just before internationals might be asking a bit too much of players.

Having it at the start, when everynoe is fresh can be a really good way to launch the season with a bang if it is treated with respect and built into a hyped annual fixture.

 

[Quidgybo]

So long as the SL season runs two weeks longer than the NRL season a post season WCC is going to be pretty hard to fit into a schedule that also includes internationals.

And that is something that must be resolved. But seriously, we managed to get the ARL and SL back together, can a two week difference be that hard to work out?!?

The problem is if it is post-season it cuts into the international window and we can't afford to cut into that any further.

But there's the thing, it's a Championship match between teams from opposite sides of the planet. It shouldn't cut into the international program, it should be an integral part of the international program. Either two weeks after the GF and the week before the first Tri-Nations match (with both the traveling national and the club squads flying together inter-hemisphere), or on a rest weekend halfway through the Tri-Nations, or a rest weekend between the preliminary rounds and the final of the Tri-Nations, or the week after the Tri-Nations final. Whatever the date it should be scheduled on the international calendar and allocated to one hemisphere or the other 12 months out. Not slotted in on an arbitrary date at a couple months notice if the competing teams can agree a date at their whim. The match needs to be a condition of entering the two respective premierships. If you want to play in this year's Premiership comp and you go on to win then your are obliged to compete in the Championship match, on this date, at either your home ground (or suitable alternative) or in the opposite hemisphere. Treat it as a triumphant homecoming (with the Premiership trophy on prominent display) and the chance to be World Champions. Not a season opener, played months after the buzz of winning the premiership has subsided, between two non match fit teams with possibly dramatic changes to their premiership winning squads.

The reason people think of this game as a trial in Australia is because most Australian clubs have given that impression, especially after losing.

But while it is played pre-season there is always the option for clubs to treat it as a trial and either send out a less then full strength squad or an under prepared squad. That makes it a completely hit and miss affair based on the whims of the two coaches. Some years both clubs take it seriously, some years only one does. You'll never build it into anything while that situation continues.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Having it at the start, when everynoe is fresh can be a really good way to launch the season with a bang if it is treated with respect and built into a hyped annual fixture.

But it will never be the Championship contest it could be while it is played between teams who are not match fit and are well past the form they were in when they won their respective Premierships. And it won't be the contest it could be while possible one or both teams have significant squad changes due to retirements, salary cap pressures, new players not yet settled with the team, and juniors being blooded/trialled. It becomes a meeting of champion teams literally in name only. But as part of the post season, played reasonably soon after the respective GFs (IMHO no less than two weeks and no more than five) it could be a true meeting of champion teams. A last chance for home fans to farewell departing champions, and a chance for a triumphant homecoming with the Premiership trophy, not to mention a chance to watch their heroes become world champions. The match should feed off the Grand Final winning buzz of the home town. That is something you really could market the crap out of. And it is something that has never happened in the history of this contest. It has always been played either pre-season or in the middle of the host team's following season. Long after the fairytale was over. This match just has so much wasted potential in its present form.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I just don't see how it can possibly be fit in at the end of a season. Ideally it would be but it's just not possible. We've got a World Cup at the end of next year. How on earth would a WCC fit in between the end of the NRL and SL and the start of the World Cup? If it came to it I'd sooner see the WCC scrapped if it meant further inraods into the international schedule and I don't see how that won't happen if it is played post season. And that's a big deal for me because I love the WCC even though many in Australia don't.

 

[Quidgybo]

I just don't see how it can possibly be fit in at the end of a season. Ideally it would be but it's just not possible. We've got a World Cup at the end of next year. How on earth would a WCC fit in between the end of the NRL and SL and the start of the World Cup? If it came to it I'd sooner see the WCC scrapped if it meant further inraods into the international schedule and I don't see how that won't happen if it is played post season. And that's a big deal for me because I love the WCC even though many in Australia don't.

It's not like we're changing the workload or number of matches, we're just moving matches around. Instead of potentially playing the GF as their 28th competitive match of 2007, they have to play it as their 29th. Moving the WCC post season, just moves up the GF to their 28th competitive match. Regardless of when it's played the Broncos are still having to fly cross hemisphere and back to play a competitive match. In this case prior to the start of the season. But in a Tri-Nations year or a year with a northern hemisphere World Cup many of them would have to turn around and do it all again in October anyway. With the WCC post-season you could have those players do a single trip cross hemisphere with the national squad, play the WCC and then the rep players stay on for the Tri-Nations or World Cup. You've just halved the most stressed player's cross hemisphere travel in one stroke.

You keep saying it'd make further inroads into the international schedule but why does the WCC change the schedule? Once you sort out the two week discrepancy between NRL and SL, you play the WCC two weeks after the GFs, and the first match of a seven week Tri-Nations starting on the next week = an eight week post season international program. And you make up the length of the off season break at the front end of the season. That said, if you still think of the post season as an extra match (which it isn't over the full length of a season) then in Australia we've already made up the one extra week with the reduction to 25 NRL rounds - net change zero.

As we work to further reduce the season length towards the generally accepted optimal length of 22 matches, that situation will only improve. Yes the season will finish a week later but it will be able to start two and even three weeks later (that's assuming the NRL GF remains on the existing date - you could also move the GF forward by the number of weeks cut). All without touching the international program. Even the English are starting to cotton on to the idea that their club season is too long. And when it comes to the World Cup, how would I work it between the end of NRL/SL and the start of the World Cup? Exactly the same way. WCC two weeks after synchronized GFs, the World Cup starting one or even two weeks after that.

This is a make work sort of problem - ie. it's not really a problem at all. It's just a matter of advance scheduling. Stop trying to slot the WCC into a set calendar at the last minute. Schedule the weekend and host hemisphere up front when you're working out the following year's premiership draws and international programs. And commit the premiership winners to participating as a condition of playing in their respective comps. After that it's just a matter of 22/25/27 weeks + 4 weeks of finals + 1 rest week + 1 WCC + 7 weeks of internationals. It ain't a hard problem to grab a calendar and fill in those numbers.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But even if they can synchronise the NRL and SL seasons, which they don't seem to be too keen to do, a WCC two weeks after the grand final, plus a seven week international schedule, the season will run into December. The Kangaroos complained the 2004 Tri-Nations was too long because it started two weeks after the grand final and went for seven weeks plus the trip to New York. Slotting the WCC in would be exactly the same, especially for the players playing in the WCC and the Tri-Nations. Plus the Tri-Nations players who aren't involved would be waiting three weeks after the grand final to play a game. Plus what if the international series isn't played in the same hemisphere as the WCC? Then its a lot more travel for some players in a short space of time. You could have players from Australia flying to England for WCC a week after the grand final and then flying back to Australia for the Tri-Nations or World Cup which might also include trips to NZ or even further afield.
There's nothing wrong with playing the WCC in the pre-season as long as the clubs take it seriously and it is well promoted. The WCC used to be played post season and that brought problems too, like half drunk players in no condition to play football after celebrating their grand final win for two weeks. Even after the grand final it's an after-thought, not something the players and coaches really think about until after winning the premiership, which is their main goal. To me I think the club season should finish with the grand final and then it's time for internationals.

 

[Quidgybo]

But even if they can synchronise the NRL and SL seasons, which they don't seem to be too keen to do, a WCC two weeks after the grand final, plus a seven week international schedule, the season will run into December.

All assuming the GF remains on the first weekend of October. It hasn't aways been on that weekend and doesn't have to be in the future. But this isn't the real problem.

The Kangaroos complained the 2004 Tri-Nations was too long because it started two weeks after the grand final and went for seven weeks plus the trip to New York. Slotting the WCC in would be exactly the same, especially for the players playing in the WCC and the Tri-Nations. Plus the Tri-Nations players who aren't involved would be waiting three weeks after the grand final to play a game. Plus what if the international series isn't played in the same hemisphere as the WCC?

So always play it in the same hemisphere as the first Tri-Nations match and rotate it each year along with the Tri-Nations. Again not a problem. The only real problem is the length of the season. The number of weeks/matches played between the first weekend of competitive matches and the last. Whether the WCC is played pre club season or post club season makes not the slightest difference. If it's played at all then it pushes the season out a week somewhere. Neither does it matter whether the first match is played on a warmer February weekend and the last on a slightly cooler November one, or whether the first match is on a slightly cooler March weekend and the last on a slightly warmer December one (or vice versa in the northern hemisphere). Either way the weather is going to be a complaint at one end of the season or the other. The only thing that will help that is shortening the season - ie. lose matches from the season completely. IMHO rounds 23 and up of the respective premierships, which add to the collective workload of all 28 professional first division RL clubs worldwide, should be in the firing line before the WCC which adds to the workload of just two clubs.

There's nothing wrong with playing the WCC in the pre-season as long as the clubs take it seriously and it is well promoted.

But there is plenty wrong with it in the pre-season as I've explained in the last three posts. Club's can take it as seriously as a GF but that won't change the fact that in the pre-season the match is played between two teams with limited match fitness, two teams well past the form that won them their respective premierships, and where one or both teams may have significantly different (ie. weaker) squads from which to select. Not to mention the fact the premiership winning buzz has long since subsided among the respective fanbases. You can market the concept as much as you like but those inherent problems will always undermine it as a pre-season concept. So yes, there is something wrong with the WCC in the pre-season.

The WCC used to be played post season and that brought problems too, like half drunk players in no condition to play football after celebrating their grand final win for two weeks.

To be strictly accurate it has *never* been played as a true post season event. It has been played as an Australian post season and English mid-season event (and vice versa). The two teams always had dramatically different preparations. One team was coming off a GF, the other was mid campaign with the following season's squad. Since England moved to a summer season it has only been played pre-season (excluding the SL joke of '97). It certainly has never been played in the host team's post season in front of a crowd celebrating the home coming a GF winning heroes.

Even after the grand final it's an after-thought, not something the players and coaches really think about until after winning the premiership, which is their main goal.

To be sure, but it doesn't help if the match is organized at two minutes notice and you don't know exactly when or even if it's coming. The biggest farce was sending Penrith to play the weekend straight after the GF. They were on a hiding to nothing. But that doesn't make the post season unworkable. The '92 WCC was played more than four weeks after the GF, the weekend after the '92 World Cup final at Wembley. The Broncos had their usual 7-8 Kangaroos fly out, play two (?) warm up tour matches prior to the World Cup final, the remaining Broncos flew out in time to be spectators at the World Cup and then the next weekend they played Wigan at Central Park. And the Broncos won a hard fought contest filled with passion.

So why did that match work post season? Because it wasn't played too soon after the GF, every one had time to get over their hang overs. And being part of a tour with the other non premiership celebrating Kangaroos focused their minds back on football. We can debate whether two weeks after or five weeks after on a rest weekend between round 1 and round 2 of the Tri-Nations is better, but the point is that the post season can work. It's been proved. And that's without the marketing advantage of playing it as a premiership homecoming for the host team. Wigan were more than six months past their premiership win and well into their next season.

To me I think the club season should finish with the grand final and then it's time for internationals.

What's the WCC if not an international? It's hardly a domestic clash. To me if you're going to play a meeting of champions then you do so while you've still got the two championship winning squads to choose teams from. Pushing it to the following pre-season forever relegates it to a glorified trial and pushing to the next year at all ensures it is a meeting of champions in name only. And it means you can't market it on the back of the GF winning buzz. No matter how you look at it you're stealing half the concept's thunder before you even sell a ticket.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Duplicate