Pro14 Season 2019-2020

awec

MarinersBlues wrote: »

In the Top14 many if the clubs send their second string for every away game - half of their season is thrown games.

In the premiership Saracans have been at least as dominant as Leinster for the last 3 years and have shown zero "respect" for the competition.

The other leagues are just not that much better, if they are better at all, and are not financially sustainable in the long term, so I wouldn't be aspiring to that.

The only way to have games that are 100% competitive all of the time is to have a knock out tournament or a league with 12 fixtures max.
The nature of the sport means that you need 2 full teams to be rotate if you want to keep competitive for 9 months. There are only 4 or 5 teams in Europe that can do that. Demanding the other teams have this is just not reasonable.

Someone made this point before, but this is totally different to what happens in the Pro14. There is no comparison. A Top14 side can pick whatever team they want. If they wanted to send a full strength team away, they can. Each team is independent, integrity and credibility is maintained. Fixtures are not gerrymandered so that certain fixtures come up at convenient times for the owners.

We don't need to drop to a 12 fixture calendar. We just need to find the happy medium between one extreme of playing the strongest team every single week, and what we have now which is the opposite extreme of pretty much playing the best players as little as possible.

jacothelad

awec wrote: »

I for one am getting fed up explaining to those who don’t understand the setup of Pro14 rugby why Ulster, for example, did not send their strongest team to play against the best team in the league, or why teams are effectively told to throw fixtures (and not only is this allowed, is practically encouraged).

The concept is just baffling. As a competition there just isn’t a whole lot of credibility or integrity.

Yes, the concept of limiting player game minutes in order to protect them is lovely but in reality it's nonsense. Players by and large get injured as a consequence of what happens in a millisecond on the pitch. Some guys get through their careers playing hundreds of games with no major injuries. Some get repeatedly injured getting their kit on -metaphorically. i.e. the injury prone.



What teams need to do is develop squads that have depth and interchangeability. Develop the Academy systems and use the players with talent in the AIL. Expand the breadth and quality of coaching and coaches and support this system with cash. There are plenty of players out there who have never had opportunity or the coaching who might make it. You can see them every weekend. Guys who didn't go to the right school or were late developers or were passed over without any scrutiny or were victims of inept and poor selection procedures.

I really don't think it's nonsense to say your chance of injury increases with minutes played, that's just common sense. I don't play anymore therefore my chance of getting injured playing rugby is 0. If I started to play that would be non-zero. There is clearly an element of chance involved too. It's also about keeping players fresh and fit as well as just not injured.

As for this:

What teams need to do is develop squads that have depth and interchangeability. Develop the Academy systems and use the players with talent in the AIL. Expand the breadth and quality of coaching and coaches and support this system with cash. There are plenty of players out there who have never had opportunity or the coaching who might make it. You can see them every weekend. Guys who didn't go to the right school or were late developers or were passed over without any scrutiny or were victims of inept and poor selection procedures.

Leinster have done it this season. There's not a huge difference between the first XV and the rest and there's depth in basically every position.

stephen_n

awec wrote: »

Nowhere near to the same extent. Players are rested, but since there’s no nonsense like one owner controlling multiple clubs you don’t get this daft fixture scheduling so that teams with the same owner can be forced to play each other minus their best players.

French teams send weakend teams away all the time, especially against stronger opposition. They accept there will be a loss and reserve their strength for home games. Teams in the premiership do it all the time too, especially away to the likes of Saracens and Exeter.

The reality is even if there was no mandated rest for players, Ulster wouldn’t have sent a strong side to Dublin. They would have focused on the two home games. With the upcoming European fixtures in mind. What happens over Christmas is pure pragmatism and a bit of respect for the players needs and welfare.

sydthebeat

You might be confusing "sending weakened" sides with "not giving a **** on the road"

Yes they obviously rest players over the season, but they do it in a much more consistent spread out manner... Than the complete second strings we see in the Pro14.

Just look at that clermont team yesterday that went down to racing. Or the racing team that went to brive last week.

You just simply do not get the wholesale resting of firsts that you get in the pro 14.

The reason? The Pro14 isn't competitve for a lot of teams, and there's no risk of regulation.

stephen_n

Bridge93 wrote: »

The Pro14 is quite comfortably the worst product of the 3 big leagues. This is undeniable. Yes there are a number of factors that contribute to this but at a base level it really isn’t good enough. The competition makes up over 50% of our rugby consumption in any given year. It just isn’t acceptable to me that it is for the most part rubbish played by second XV’s and teams woefully out of their depth.

I don’t know what the solution is as it’s as much a mindset thing as others have alluded to. But the Pro14 in its current form can not be allowed to limp along as it is. Give me the perceived dull premiership or top14 over the crap we have. At least there is the hint of a competitive league and respect for it by the teams who participate

There is a lot of dross in the Premiership and to a lesser extent in the Top 14. The biggest difference being money. The dross in the premiership have budgets that allow marque signings like OH’s on £500K a year. Where as Zebre, Kings and Dragons probably have about 7 or 8 players on that combined wage. The Pro 14 will never have that sort of money involved.

awec

Resting players is inevitable, even in a competitive, proper Pro14 we would still be required to rest players. Nobody can play their strongest side every single week, and nobody wants that. Young players do need time as well.

But it needs to be done with integrity. We cannot have the glorified A fixtures that we have today. We cannot have the IRFU insisting on 3 interpros back to back at Christmas so they can force all their teams to send all their best players off on holiday.

2 interpros at Christmas is more than enough, maybe even just 1. Teams should be allowed to select whoever they want. Throughout the season, teams should be free to rest their players when it suits them, rather than when it suits someone else. There's no shortage of dud fixtures in this league that you can rotate in, rather than doing it in the few fixtures that actually might be half decent. Top of the table derby clashes should be at the pinnacle of the league, but with the disdain that is shown toward the competition by those that run it they are instead relegated to what we have today.

And it goes without saying, unions should be forbidden from taking players outside of test windows. I am looking at you especially WRU, though the IRFU are fond of it at Christmas too.

Squidgy Black

Hate to say it, but I have to agree with awec. I'm normally in the other camp saying the Pro14 isn't a bad league and the player welfare is a key element, but this year it's been terrible.

The Welsh made an absolute mockery of it and really set the tone with how they held back their internationals, and then for the BaaBaas game, most of them didn't return until round 8 of the league.

The IRFU's mandated rest over the interpros was a joke as well, enforcing two weeks rest for players who barely played and then leaving the likes of Connacht struggling for numbers in training, and the worst interpro series we've seen to date.

I think there needs to be a fair balance between the unions having control, and not completely ignoring the league. For all of the talk about how great the player welfare is with the IRFU, our marquee players haven't been performing great the last couple of seasons, compared to the Premiership and the RFU where their top names are playing more regular and are flying.

From a Leinster point of view it's obviously great that we get to see younger players coming through, but I'd much rather see full strength teams with one or two young lads brought in as rotation etc than a 15 full of our second strings and then the younger players.

c.p.w.g.w

Former Former wrote: »

It's a rugby issue. It's the nature of the sport. If you don't want ambiguous decisions, you're watching the wrong game.

It just seems to be getting worse and worse. A few weeks back in the champions cup I watched 4 games. It was like watching 4 games with 4 different sets of rules.

The Lost Sheep

jacothelad wrote: »

Yes, the concept of limiting player game minutes in order to protect them is lovely but in reality it's nonsense. Players by and large get injured as a consequence of what happens in a millisecond on the pitch. Some guys get through their careers playing hundreds of games with no major injuries. Some get repeatedly injured getting their kit on -metaphorically. i.e. the injury prone.

is it?
Dont a lot of unions limit their players minutes? Players do and can get injured in a second but management of game time is needed especially to keep players longer....

What teams need to do is develop squads that have depth and interchangeability. Develop the Academy systems and use the players with talent in the AIL. Expand the breadth and quality of coaching and coaches and support this system with cash. There are plenty of players out there who have never had opportunity or the coaching who might make it. You can see them every weekend. Guys who didn't go to the right school or were late developers or were passed over without any scrutiny or were victims of inept and poor selection procedures.

when you say develop academy system what do you propose? Players are used in the AIL. Attend games or look at team sheets and you will regularly see academy, contracted players. To improve coaching you need improve the coaches. That requires a lot of time. You are correct about old school ties and not attending the right school etc...

awec wrote: »

Resting players is inevitable, even in a competitive, proper Pro14 we would still be required to rest players. Nobody can play their strongest side every single week, and nobody wants that. Young players do need time as well.

But it needs to be done with integrity. We cannot have the glorified A fixtures that we have today. We cannot have the IRFU insisting on 3 interpros back to back at Christmas so they can force all their teams to send all their best players off on holiday.

2 interpros at Christmas is more than enough, maybe even just 1. Teams should be allowed to select whoever they want. Throughout the season, teams should be free to rest their players when it suits them, rather than when it suits someone else. There's no shortage of dud fixtures in this league that you can rotate in, rather than doing it in the few fixtures that actually might be half decent. Top of the table derby clashes should be at the pinnacle of the league, but with the disdain that is shown toward the competition by those that run it they are instead relegated to what we have today.

And it goes without saying, unions should be forbidden from taking players outside of test windows. I am looking at you especially WRU, though the IRFU are fond of it at Christmas too.

nobody wants to travel overseas over Christmas though so hoe do you deal with that?
All sides take players outside test windows for camps. New Zealand and plenty others do.
If you have more senior players playing in the league what do you have rest of contracted players play? AIL alone just isnt going to be good enough..

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Hate to say it, but I have to agree with awec. I'm normally in the other camp saying the Pro14 isn't a bad league and the player welfare is a key element, but this year it's been terrible.

The Welsh made an absolute mockery of it and really set the tone with how they held back their internationals, and then for the BaaBaas game, most of them didn't return until round 8 of the league.

The IRFU's mandated rest over the interpros was a joke as well, enforcing two weeks rest for players who barely played and then leaving the likes of Connacht struggling for numbers in training, and the worst interpro series we've seen to date.

I think there needs to be a fair balance between the unions having control, and not completely ignoring the league. For all of the talk about how great the player welfare is with the IRFU, our marquee players haven't been performing great the last couple of seasons, compared to the Premiership and the RFU where their top names are playing more regular and are flying.

From a Leinster point of view it's obviously great that we get to see younger players coming through, but I'd much rather see full strength teams with one or two young lads brought in as rotation etc than a 15 full of our second strings and then the younger players.

it has to be a fair balance and needs to be somewhere quite far between what happens now and what awec proposes.
Irfu wont change unless they are forced to by sides elsewhere being more competitive and forcing provinces to have to play more senior players more often.

awec

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

nobody wants to travel overseas over Christmas though so hoe do you deal with that?
All sides take players outside test windows for camps. New Zealand and plenty others do.
If you have more senior players playing in the league what do you have rest of contracted players play? AIL alone just isnt going to be good enough..

Well, for one thing, it needs to be recognised that players are very highly paid professional sports stars, and have all the perks that comes along with this, so them having to make a short trip in the 2/3 weeks around Christmas is not going to earn them much sympathy from anyone.

But it's pretty straightforward. The game that's close to Christmas (26/27/28) is a derby.

The rest are fair game. If someone has to travel away from home for New Years, so be it. They're well compensated for it.

Eod100

Former Former wrote: »

It's a rugby issue. It's the nature of the sport. If you don't want ambiguous decisions, you're watching the wrong game.

Think issue is around consistency in decisions.

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

Well, for one thing, it needs to be recognised that players are very highly paid professional sports stars, and have all the perks that comes along with this, so them having to make a short trip in the 2/3 weeks around Christmas is not going to earn them much sympathy from anyone.

But it's pretty straightforward. The game that's close to Christmas (26/27/28) is a derby.

The rest are fair game. If someone has to travel away from home for New Years, so be it. They're well compensated for it.

none of the sides would want this either. These games attract some of the best crowds of season and it's far better to have at least a second interpro around now. By all means dont have a third in between the two sets of European games

Former Former

Eod100 wrote: »

Think issue is around consistency in decisions.

Again, it's a function of the game. If the laws themselves are open to referee interpretation, you'll never get total consistency. In fact, every time World Rugby try to remove some of the ref's discretion, the complaints get louder.

Exclamation Marc

Former Former wrote: »

Again, it's a function of the game. If the laws themselves are open to referee interpretation, you'll never get total consistency. In fact, every time World Rugby try to remove some of the ref's discretion, the complaints get louder.

Additionally, look at the complete mess is that VAR is in the football Premier League because discretion has been completely removed when it comes to goals.

Having some discretion is good for the game.

stephen_n

awec wrote: »

We cannot have the IRFU insisting on 3 interpros back to back at Christmas so they can force all their teams to send all their best players off on holiday.
.

I’m sorry but this is just completely and utterly wrong. All the nations involved agree on having no foreign games over Christmas. The IRFU aren’t forcing anybody to do anything. I know you like to paint the IRFU as this big dark force ruining everyone’s fun. It’s just not true though and especially not about this.

The players need to be rested especially in a World Cup year, where most of them went straight from their provinces to World Cup squads training and the World Cup, then back to their provinces after a few weeks. Yes they’ve got rests but that doesn’t mean holidays, time off with family etc. Player welfare extends beyond just minutes played. The massive difference between the English and the Irish after the Lions tour highlights that player welfare is important. How many weeks holidays do you get a year?

thomond2006

Many weeks holidays can be achieved by cutting the number of games.

troyzer

thomond2006 wrote: »

Many weeks holidays can be achieved by cutting the number of games.

Less games = less money.

Richie_Rich89

awec wrote: »

Nowhere near to the same extent. Players are rested, but since there’s no nonsense like one owner controlling multiple clubs you don’t get this daft fixture scheduling so that teams with the same owner can be forced to play each other minus their best players.

Yeah, and then you have stuff like Alex Corbisiero taking a year out of rugby because of burnout, or Billy Vunipola coming out and saying he'd be willing to take a pay cut to play less rugby. It's not all rosy in the English system.

Neil3030

The only theory that makes sense to me is that Awec is heavily in debt after investing in a catering business that only has rights to set up vans at Pro14 matches.

awec

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

Yeah, and then you have stuff like Alex Corbisiero taking a year out of rugby because of burnout, or Billy Vunipola coming out and saying he'd be willing to take a pay cut to play less rugby. It's not all rosy in the English system.

Haha, I’m sure Billy Vunipola will be shopping around for a smaller contract. If you believe that, I’ve some snake oil I’d like to sell you.

In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever, not a single shred of it, that the Irish system has any impact on the longevity or injury profile of a player. There is no evidence whatsoever that it has any impact on the performance of players.

But anyway, the point isn’t that the English system is perfect. The point is our system is rubbish. There is a happy medium to be found between flogging players and playing them as little as you can possibly get away with.

Richie_Rich89

Bridge93 wrote: »

The Pro14 is quite comfortably the worst product of the 3 big leagues. This is undeniable. Yes there are a number of factors that contribute to this but at a base level it really isn’t good enough. The competition makes up over 50% of our rugby consumption in any given year. It just isn’t acceptable to me that it is for the most part rubbish played by second XV’s and teams woefully out of their depth.

I don’t know what the solution is as it’s as much a mindset thing as others have alluded to. But the Pro14 in its current form can not be allowed to limp along as it is. Give me the perceived dull premiership or top14 over the crap we have. At least there is the hint of a competitive league and respect for it by the teams who participate

It is what it is. A lot of these perceived problems are simply down to the set-up of rugby in Ireland versus what it's like in England.

There are four teams here, compared with 12 in England. That means there has to be more rotation because there are generally more internationals per team. There's no getting around that fact. If there was a B&I League the Irish internationals would still be pulled for some games. Perhaps we'd even have exactly the same situation as now, with interpros played over Christmas and internationals rested for some games.

All the Irish teams can qualify for the top Euro cup, versus 6 or 7 out of 12 in England. Historically, I think I'm right in saying, there have been at least three in the Heino every year. Of course it's going to be a bigger part of the rugby psyche in this country than in England if 75% or 100% of the teams are playing in it.

awec

stephen_n wrote: »

I’m sorry but this is just completely and utterly wrong. All the nations involved agree on having no foreign games over Christmas. The IRFU aren’t forcing anybody to do anything. I know you like to paint the IRFU as this big dark force ruining everyone’s fun. It’s just not true though and especially not about this.

The players need to be rested especially in a World Cup year, where most of them went straight from their provinces to World Cup squads training and the World Cup, then back to their provinces after a few weeks. Yes they’ve got rests but that doesn’t mean holidays, time off with family etc. Player welfare extends beyond just minutes played. The massive difference between the English and the Irish after the Lions tour highlights that player welfare is important. How many weeks holidays do you get a year?

The IRFU aren’t forcing anyone to do anything? Really, so teams weren’t told to give internationals two weeks off? They play A teams every Christmas for the craic, because they enjoy losing away matches?

The IRFU are just an example, the blame also lies with the other unions presiding over this charade.

awec

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

It is what it is. A lot of these perceived problems are simply down to the set-up of rugby in Ireland versus what it's like in England.

There are four teams here, compared with 12 in England. That means there has to be more rotation because there are generally more internationals per team. There's no getting around that fact. If there was a B&I League the Irish internationals would still be pulled for some games. Perhaps we'd even have exactly the same situation as now, with interpros played over Christmas and internationals rested for some games.

All the Irish teams can qualify for the top Euro cup, versus 6 or 7 out of 12 in England. Historically, I think I'm right in saying, there have been at least three in the Heino every year. Of course it's going to be a bigger part of the rugby psyche in this country than in England if 75% or 100% of the teams are playing in it.

Yes, there must be some rotation, it's a good thing that absolutely nobody is calling for no rotation. Yes, players need to be rested, it's a good thing nobody is calling for players not to be rested.

We want an end to this bollocks of the most important games of the season being deliberately scheduled in a period when teams are not allowed to have a fair go at them.

Richie_Rich89

awec wrote: »

Resting players is inevitable, even in a competitive, proper Pro14 we would still be required to rest players. Nobody can play their strongest side every single week, and nobody wants that. Young players do need time as well.

But it needs to be done with integrity. We cannot have the glorified A fixtures that we have today. We cannot have the IRFU insisting on 3 interpros back to back at Christmas so they can force all their teams to send all their best players off on holiday.

2 interpros at Christmas is more than enough, maybe even just 1. Teams should be allowed to select whoever they want. Throughout the season, teams should be free to rest their players when it suits them, rather than when it suits someone else. There's no shortage of dud fixtures in this league that you can rotate in, rather than doing it in the few fixtures that actually might be half decent. Top of the table derby clashes should be at the pinnacle of the league, but with the disdain that is shown toward the competition by those that run it they are instead relegated to what we have today.

And it goes without saying, unions should be forbidden from taking players outside of test windows. I am looking at you especially WRU, though the IRFU are fond of it at Christmas too.

Your issue seems to be more with the IRFU, or the Union-led model in general, than specifically with the Pro 14. Who's to say the Union wouldn't take exactly the same approach to insisting on rest for players if the Provinces competed in a B&I league?

Richie_Rich89

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

Your issue seems to be more with the IRFU, or the Union-led model in general, than specifically with the Pro 14. Who's to say the Union wouldn't take exactly the same approach to insisting on rest for players if the Provinces competed in a B&I league?

They would. There is a whole lot of dross in the English league.

awec

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

Your issue seems to be more with the IRFU, or the Union-led model in general, than specifically with the Pro 14. Who's to say the Union wouldn't take exactly the same approach to insisting on rest for players if the Provinces competed in a B&I league?

They probably would, but it would soon get old when they realise they can't force the opposition to rest their players too.

In a league that’s actually competitive teams wouldn’t be able to absolutely stroll to victory playing weak sides throughout the season. There would actually be real consequences.

Richie_Rich89

awec wrote: »

Haha, I’m sure Billy Vunipola will be shopping around for a smaller contract. If you believe that, I’ve some snake oil I’d like to sell you.

In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever, not a single shred of it, that the Irish system has any impact on the longevity or injury profile of a player. There is no evidence whatsoever that it has any impact on the performance of players.

But anyway, the point isn’t that the English system is perfect. The point is our system is rubbish. There is a happy medium to be found between flogging players and playing them as little as you can possibly get away with.

BV has to stay in the English system if he wants to play for England. There's no question of "shopping around for a smaller contract". That option just isn't open to him if he wants to continue playing international rugby.

I actually would be interested to see less pulling of internationals in Ireland. There could be something in the idea that Irish players can't perform three, four, five weeks in a row at World Cups because they have no experience of having to do it.

thomond2006

troyzer wrote: »

Less games = less money.

More people watching the less number of games = more money.

Exclamation Marc

thomond2006 wrote: »

More people watching the less number of games = more money.

That may be so for bigger teams but less games and less gate receipts for smaller teams could very well be terminal for their future or any ambitions of improving/developing.

Bazzo

thomond2006 wrote: »

More people watching the less number of games = more money.

Where do you get the dramatic increase in spectators needed for that?

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

Are attendances not up overall, I seem to remember some marketing blurb at the end of last season suggesting that?

i just had a quick look at this... but heres average attendances over the last 6 years

18/19 8240
17/18 8561
16/17 8771
15/16 8480
14/15 8586
13/14 8205

The last two years might be slightly skewed by the addition of the two SA teams, especially the abysmal Kings attendances, but the trend certainly doesnt show that attendances are in any way significantly up on previous years.

Former Former

The average attendance at Pro14 games is always skewed by the games at the Aviva and Millennium, e.g. technically Dragons got 50,000 people to a home game last year when their "true" home crowd is somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000.

Rigor Mortis

Arguably the Welsh attendances are skewed in comparative terms, but not the overall average. Those people showed and paid an entry fee. They should be counted in the average.
The Aviva does not skew average attendances upward any more than a home fixture v Zebre / Kings skews downward. 40k+ people want to watch a pro14 game.
The Prem also has these big day fixtures in Twickenham. Quinns and Sarries both do this.

Think there was 75k or something at a Premiership game in Twickenham at some point over the Xmas period.

aloooof

Leslie Proud Blob wrote: »

Think there was 75k or something at a Premiership game in Twickenham at some point over the Xmas period.

Yep, Harlequins v Leicester. Didn't the Prem also have a game in the States last season, or something?

errlloyd

aloooof wrote: »

Yep, Harlequins v Leicester. Didn't the Prem also have a game in the States last season, or something?

I think it was a disaster right? Two years ago.

Exclamation Marc

errlloyd wrote: »

I think it was a disaster right? Two years ago.

Newcastle played Sarries in Philadephia in 2017 with an attendance of around 6k in a 18.5k stadium.

The year before, LI played Sarries in New York and I think the stadium was maybe 2/3 full.

Utah_Saint

thomond2006 wrote: »

More people watching the less number of games = more money.

I have pitched this on here before. I believe the Rugby should try to emulate the NFL. Fewer games of much higher quality and a bigger spectacle. The only way this will happen is a euro league or at least a Brtian&Ireland league.

Rugby in its current form is probably at or near its spectator ceiling. There are more and more sports competing for our attention and money. Plus parents are a little more reluctant to allow their kids to play a highly attritional sport where potential earnings; if turning pro across a 10year playing span no better than a Lawyer, banker or Developer.

Cookiemunster

Utah_Saint wrote: »

Plus parents are a little more reluctant to allow their kids to play a highly attritional sport where potential earnings; if turning pro across a 10year playing span no better than a Lawyer, banker or Developer.

I doubt many parents are thinking about earning potential of their child when bringing them along to play underage sport.

The Lost Sheep

Utah_Saint wrote: »

I have pitched this on here before. I believe the Rugby should try to emulate the NFL. Fewer games of much higher quality and a bigger spectacle. The only way this will happen is a euro league or at least a Brtian&Ireland league.

fewer games will not drive up attendances at other games. If you reduce pro14 games you need to find other games for squad players. A European league wont happen and I dont think B&I will happen for while yet if ever...

Rugby in its current form is probably at or near its spectator ceiling. There are more and more sports competing for our attention and money. Plus parents are a little more reluctant to allow their kids to play a highly attritional sport where potential earnings; if turning pro across a 10year playing span no better than a Lawyer, banker or Developer.

I really dont see it near its ceiling. And you havent a notion if you think there is parents who will not let their kid play rugby because of potential earnings.

OldRio

[QUOTE=Utah_Saint;112176333

Rugby in its current form is probably at or near its spectator ceiling. There are more and more sports competing for our attention and money. Plus parents are a little more reluctant to allow their kids to play a highly attritional sport where potential earnings; if turning pro across a 10year playing span no better than a Lawyer, banker or Developer.[/QUOTE]

I have no such worries about my grandchildren playing rugby. I'd be a damn site more concerned if they became a Lawyer, banker or developer. Criminality does not run in the family 😀

salmocab

Former Former wrote: »

The average attendance at Pro14 games is always skewed by the games at the Aviva and Millennium, e.g. technically Dragons got 50,000 people to a home game last year when their "true" home crowd is somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000.

The Aviva game isn’t really skewing the numbers as those people have paid for a ticket and attended.

Digifriendly

salmocab wrote: »

The Aviva game isn’t really skewing the numbers as those people have paid for a ticket and attended.

But Millennium Stadium is not a 'home' game for Dragons is it? Their ground holds c10,000 afaik. To count the Millenium double header each season in Dragons crowd figures is skewing the numbers IMHO.

salmocab

Digifriendly wrote: »

But Millennium Stadium is not a 'home' game for Dragons is it? Their ground holds c10,000 afaik. To count the Millenium double header each season in Dragons crowd figures is skewing the numbers IMHO.

It’s the double header part that skews the numbers not the stadium

Digifriendly

salmocab wrote: »

It’s the double header part that skews the numbers not the stadium

So if there was a one off game at Millennium Stadium e.g. Dragons vs Cardiff similar to Twickenham's Christmas encounter and 30,000 turned up that wouldn't skew the numbers?

salmocab

Digifriendly wrote: »

So if there was a one off game at Millennium Stadium e.g. Dragons vs Cardiff similar to Twickenham's Christmas encounter and 30,000 turned up that wouldn't skew the numbers?

No because 30,000 people turned up and bought a ticket. It’s how averages work, this argument of the average was x but that’s thrown because of one match in a different stadium doesn’t hold water just like all the other games the punters bought tickets and showed up.

awec

salmocab wrote: »

No because 30,000 people turned up and bought a ticket. It’s how averages work, this argument of the average was x but that’s thrown because of one match in a different stadium doesn’t hold water just like all the other games the punters bought tickets and showed up.

It does skew the number. There are different types of averages. It's like a company saying their average salary is 100k, but the CEO earns millions while most staff earn a lot less than the average.

In this case, one or two fixtures are dragging the average up.

It would be interesting to know how the median pro14 attendance compares to the mean.

Former Former

salmocab wrote: »

No because 30,000 people turned up and bought a ticket. It’s how averages work, this argument of the average was x but that’s thrown because of one match in a different stadium doesn’t hold water just like all the other games the punters bought tickets and showed up.

Yes, that's correct.

The point was that using the average attendance as a gauge of public interest in the league is not really useful.

The Dragons average home crowd is probably 8 or 9,000 - but the median is probably 4,000 and it's the latter which is more representative of how many people care about them. The average is meaningless.

Eod100

With talk around attendances, this is interesting.. https://twitter.com/EsportifIntel/status/1215250021173616642?s=19