: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:53 am  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Rubbish - Storm are a great side to watch - they have/had some of the games greatest attacking players - Slater, Folau, Inglis - and in Slater they have the finest attacking full back in world rugby - on their day they are superb to watch.

Agree re Manley they just have a big pack of forwards - Cronulla are a typical Stuart side dull - same can be said for the vast majority of the NRL sides they are a very disappointing much of a muchness without the skill to breakdown a solid defence - which is why the game is so dull

they have some of the finest attacking players who largely arent used for that purpose.

the storm invariably use a kick to israel folou to score their tries rather than genuine creative play.

slater, inglis, folou - they shouldve been running the ball more.

and on the rest of the nrl being boring, well thats just BS as well.

some teams are defensive, some are very attacking.

have a look at the titans or canberra for pure attacking teams.

the cowobys before injuries destroyed them.

all those teams play an attacking style you guys would cream over.

not the piddling little attack where danny mcguire makes a run in broken play and you think he split the atom.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:55 am  

JB Down Under wrote:

A few things re NRL crowds:

1. EVERY game is on TV live or nearly live. That has an effect on people turning up for games
2. Most of the Sydney clubs play at stadiums that are either too big or too old. Many clubs no longer actually play in their regions. Imagine Leeds deciding to play at Huddersfiled as an example.
3. Sydney clubs have lived off pokies and never really worried about bums on seats until now
4. NRL doesn't have a membership mentality meaning that if teams are doing badly or it is bad weather fans are not inclined to turn up.

Q'land is clealry the home of RL in Australia. It just needs a 80,000 stadium now for big events.

wow i didnt expect you to be able to actually defend the situation like that.

perhaps you are one of us after all.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:55 am  

Alice's Phallus wrote:

Are you suggesting a merger of Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone?

Or perhaps a merger of Hull FC and Hull KR?

Or both?

he doesnt mind mergers as long as it doesnt affect his club

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:01 am  

to be fair to the storm, they average as much as many sydney teams who get considerable help from away fans and derbies in sydney whilst the storms amount of travelling fans would be nill.

all of the sydney teams get at least one derby type game which significantly boosts their crowd average whilst the storms have to rely solely on local support.

for example, roosters vs souths will always get from 20,000 - 30,000 helping the crowd average for whichever club gets it at home. tigers vs souths usually gets 18,000 or so.

roosters vs saints on Anzac day has gotten between 20,000 - 30,000 as well.

the storm dont get 8000 to one game and 30,000 for another like sydney club.

their crowds are always around 11,000 - 14,000 so their fans are more regular in that sense.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:53 am  

dally messenger wrote:

wow i didnt expect you to be able to actually defend the situation like that.

perhaps you are one of us after all.

Not defending, just reality. Just like saying AFL kills RL when it comes to fans or soccer kills RL when it comes to jnrs.

Good to see clubs finally getting the idea of memberships (better late than never!). The stadium issue is a much much tougher problem to solve for Sydney clubs.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:45 am  

JB Down Under wrote:

Not defending, just reality. Just like saying AFL kills RL when it comes to fans or soccer kills RL when it comes to jnrs.

Good to see clubs finally getting the idea of memberships (better late than never!). The stadium issue is a much much tougher problem to solve for Sydney clubs.

sydney grounds have come a long way in the past decade though..

cronulla has had $10 million spent on it. saints have had $20 million at kogarah (seats and extension to grandstand). penrith got $10 million too.

from a historical perspective this is the highest crowds weve ever had in sydney in the history of the game

and homebush isnt bad to allow some clubs to get big crowds

the dogs, tigers and souths have all had crowds over 30,000 there. suburban grounds dont hold that

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:50 am  

dally messenger wrote:

sydney grounds have come a long way in the past decade though..

cronulla has had $10 million spent on it. saints have had $20 million at kogarah (seats and extension to grandstand). penrith got $10 million too.

from a historical perspective this is the highest crowds weve ever had in sydney in the history of the game

and homebush isnt bad to allow some clubs to get big crowds

the dogs, tigers and souths have all had crowds over 30,000 there. suburban grounds dont hold that

I went to a game at Cronulla last season. It was an evening kick off, it rained, freezing wind and there was no undercover seats available (and it wasn't a big crowd!). I paid $26 for this "pleasure" spent 25 minutes queing at the only hot drinks stall at HT and TBH there is no way I would take my family there in inclement weather!

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:55 am  

kogarah will look fantastic when it's finished...and by finished i mean get rid of the hill and put some seats on it..

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:59 am  

Its not easy for the NRL to compete with the "World class" Stadia that Super League has, I mean how do you match..
Odsal
The Jungle
Brewery Field
The GPW Recruitment Stadium
Belle Vue
Some grounds would be condemned in the modern world as a throw back to when you spent your life at Mill from aged 12.

What is the average capacity of most SL grounds?
Plenty are under 15,000

How many are not Rugby league grounds but shared grounds with another sport?

The comparison between the two countries is a joke.
You have a history of playing big Test games at Old Trafford and in heartlands like Wembley

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:10 am  

in the modern world we are'nt allowed to sit on grass banks...