Thirty minutes into the Warrington / Leeds game & all I’ve heard from Eddie & Stevo is how good a game it is, am I watching a different game?

I don’t think I’ve seen as much spilled ball all season. Why is it that when two of the “Big Four” play each other the commentary team go off like this?

So far it’s been very poor, quick yes, errors loads.

Excellent game so far, mistakes are from hi intensity of defence on both sides, on the hottest day of year. Mired the same in second half

any game that includes the likes of leeds, wigan or warrington have to be classed as classics for some reason, last weeks wire v wigan can be classed as that, but not tonight or a few past fixture, just the two idiots over doing it again!

More like this being a classic nonsense rlfans post. No it wasn't perfect but it was exciting and full of entertainment, we've a far better product than the game that will be played tomorrow morning as well as the 'national game', I'd rather Eddie and Stevo go over the top than the constant doing down of the game on here.

So we're complaining that they aren't complaining?

that match was as exciting as the first origin game and i wasn't impressed tonight. but i agree with wellsy that the commentators should over hype and talk positive about the game neutrals and new comers wont like to hear negative commentary.

whilst I don't disagree, it seems that the vast majority of the paying public in the UK do.

that game was an average one....neither classic nor rubbish and isn't worthy of its own thread.....

Without going over much already covered ground, the reason for its popularity with the paying UK public has far less to do with the product on the field. The character shown by Leeds in adversity was great to see, though I'd agree not the best game ever I am pretty confident more entertaining than the kick-athon/penalty fest tomorrow going by last week's scrappy affair.

Take a look at all 'popular culture' from fast food, pop music, football, reality tv, social networking, does any of it scream good taste?! I'd take what the majority of the UK public like and their reasons with a bag of salt!

first half was pretty bobbins second halfs was damn good,thats sport isnt it.

there's no accounting for taste, but there is accounting involved!

majority of people in the uk would have played a little bit of union at some point in their life and can relate to it even if they don't follow it religiously like a lot of rugby league fans and it makes the international games an event rather than a game. The RFL should be working every day to get rugby league it to more schools through out Britain and maybe in 20 years we might be able to get 60-80k for a international match.

Lots of mistakes tonight, and not from exceptional defence, so the question is ,if Wakey and Widnes serve up something similar on Monday, will that be a ' Classic ' ? , or poor play?

Also, surely Leeds can find a better kicker than Hardacre, that did cost them the game, and kicking goals is still a major part of RL

Aaaaaaahhhh, one of my pet hates right there.

You mean you agree, no need for the double negative.


Sorry rant over

We're f*cked big time if that's the best two sides in Super League.

Plus, it's a good point about 'lesser' so called teams serving up a game. There was no difference tonight between Cas and Hull the other Friday yet that was billed as a 'hot-potatoe' risk everything, no control type of game.

Just how many knock-ons from both sides in perfect weather conditions, really?!

Yep. RL is rubbish at developing a "low level" interest. You're either hooked, play and watch it or you don't. Whereas with other sports, especially Union, there is an interest developed. Often through playing it at school, then continued at an amateur club where "casual" players are welcomed. The atmosphere is less intense and intimidating and there is a place for everyone. The result isn't as important and so they attract more people.
Those amateur clubs then have very good ties with the national team and organise trips and sell tickets for Twickers games.

Sadly the same cant be said of many RL amateur clubs, where the result and the club are more important, certainly than the national team and in some cases they don't care about the sport as a whole.

As you say, schools are vital to gaining an initial interest in kids, but that then has to be developed by "better" amateur clubs, and there is very little opportunity for adults to play the game at the moment. It's either a fairly aggressive open age amateur game or nothing.
Union have colts and Cavaliers teams, and again the result isn't that important, it's 30 people enjoying themselves playing rugby.
For instance in York, York RUFC have 4 senior teams. 1st XV, 2nd XV, 3rd XV and a 4th/Cavaliers team which has guys as old as 70 playing contact, because its played with the right attitude. York Railway Institute also has 4 senior teams. RL can only manage 4 senior amateur teams in York total, or 5 if you include the City Knights. But despite the City Knights, RU generates more interest. Because of the fact the schools play it and there is a friendly, welcoming amateur club ready to carry on the interest.

So after 18yrs of professional rugby league its the fault of the amateurs that the sport is still going nowhere

The analysis of why the ' Mother Sport ' is watched and supported by the numbers it is, is a conundrum of the highest order , it is in most cases completely boring and highly complicated, whereas RL is generally a simple game that can be very exciting

Personally I wouldnt even use it in comparison, to me RL has to find its own way

Partly, yes. They aren't doing enough to keep people interested and are often too introverted to think about anything beyond the next committee meeting. It's not just the amateur clubs fault, the pro and semi-pro clubs have been rubbish at developing links both with the amateur clubs in their area and with their local communities in general. But the amateur clubs need to accept their share of the blame. Of course there are exceptions within these groups, I'm obviously generalising.
Though during those years of course attendances at the pro clubs have risen significantly. But that hasn't led to a similar rise in international attendances, showing that there is a disconnect between domestic and international RL that doesn't exist in Union.
There is a desperate need for the amateur game to realise that it has a dual role. Yes it has to produce players for further up the pyramid, but it also has a duty to those who either can't or don't want to progress any further up. In my opinion the amateur game is about average at the former, and pretty bloody awful at the latter. The amateur game is/can be the entry point for people into RL, especially kids, and too often that entry point is introvert, aggressive and intimidating. In direct contrast to rugby union.

Eddie and Stevo bigging up our game? Never
RLFans criticizing Eddie and Stevo? Never
RLFans moaning? Never

Really?

So you want Eddie and Stevo to whinge and moan all night about how crap the game is? Jesus wept.

As was pointed out earlier, RL is ' Competive ' ,union is ' passive ' ,completely different sports at the level you are highlighting, thats why we follow it

You cannot make RL ' friendly ' , as I said, we have to follow a different path

On your average weekend, between 50,000 and 80,000 fans will watch 7 SL matches. Before anyone blames anyone else for the sad state of affairs that is international attendances and media recognition, it might be an idea to find out why England RL struggle to attract 10,000 to games.

It's a damn sight easier to sell International RL to a RL fan that it is to anyone else.....the fans and the amateur players are where the responsibility lies IMHO. The RFL should market through the amateur and lower level clubs and through their fans. If everyone who attended round 10 SL fixtures was given a book of 10 RLWC tickets and told sell 9 and you get the last one free, the RLWC would have been sold out within a week......Rugby League isn't a complicated game and neither is marketing it!

I would reckon around 60% of the attendees for England RU home internationals don't even go to club RU games regularly if at all.
It is the general occasion/social aspect that draws people first & formost to RU Int.
The 'rugby' might well be dire in comparison to RL but the occasion is pretty impressive, that's something the bods at the RFL have failed to conjure/encourage for over 20 years

That's an interesting analogy. I've been to a few clubs where people who, with a passive interest, have dropped out because it's too focused on winning rather than the social side. But how do we accommodate for this? Is there a social league? Is there a modified version of the game that allows for a bit if a doss about?

There's masters rugby for the oldies.