Another piece of trash from Buzz

[mike]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

What if everyone’s perception is different? How do we get to what is real?

 

[Needaname]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

What if everyone’s perception is different? How do we get to what is real?

I guess those that are bothered and have the time will research fact from fiction. Those that don’t, won’t be bothered and will just look for a better or easier option.

 

[JRDee]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Yes I know the history of rugby league. This journalist is relatively new to our game only just living in Sydney recently.
So he is taking things at face value and **you can’t deny that to any new fan of Rugby League that our club can be perceived as confusing and lacking a vision.**
Without the Tiger mascot what is the drawing both fans and players to our club?

I don't really think that many new people to league choose their team by research carried out prior to selecting. I think generally speaking, its a location thing, a particular player, favourite colours, friends team etc.

Sure so let’s put that to the pub test.
Location;
anywhere in the south west corridor of Sydney, oh minus Canterbury to Liverpool oh and include the Northern Suburbs as a lot of Balmain fans come from the affiliation with Holy across College and Ryde suburbs.
Clear as mud.
Players;
Future Marquee Daine Laurie would be getting some attention but outside of him I don’t see a whole heap of attraction.
We have a list of probably the most maligned players in the NRL
Brooks
Noffa
MBye
Garner
Lucy
Talau
BJ
Jet
Chee Kam
Colours;
Black, Orange and White.

We are black, gold and white

 

[Needaname]

Since this is the propaganda thread I’m linking this. Re Tamou.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-league/tigers-nrl-woes-start-with-me-tamou-c-3584505.amp

 

[rustycage]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Yes I know the history of rugby league. This journalist is relatively new to our game only just living in Sydney recently.
So he is taking things at face value and **you can’t deny that to any new fan of Rugby League that our club can be perceived as confusing and lacking a vision.**
Without the Tiger mascot what is the drawing both fans and players to our club?

I don't really think that many new people to league choose their team by research carried out prior to selecting. I think generally speaking, its a location thing, a particular player, favourite colours, friends team etc.

Sure so let’s put that to the pub test.
Location;
anywhere in the south west corridor of Sydney, oh minus Canterbury to Liverpool oh and include the Northern Suburbs as a lot of Balmain fans come from the affiliation with Holy across College and Ryde suburbs.
Clear as mud.
Players;
Future Marquee Daine Laurie would be getting some attention but outside of him I don’t see a whole heap of attraction.
We have a list of probably the most maligned players in the NRL
Brooks
Noffa
MBye
Garner
Lucy
Talau
BJ
Jet
Chee Kam
Colours;
Black, Orange and White.
Because we are the tigers our mascot is Black and Orange but because we are run by Wests our Team jerseys are mostly black and white (granted Orange jerseys were included this year).
Friends team I wouldn’t know about;
However I do believe a lot of our fans are casual and probably love the nostalgia component of our suburban grounds more so than watching the tigers play.

What on earth are you on about?
I chose Balmain as a 5 year old because I liked Orange.
Lots of kids like the Souths because the mascot is a bunny.
Some follow follow a team their dad might like.
It's not rocket science - don't try to make it more than it is.

 

[jirskyr]

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.

Who breaks apart opinions that they agree with?

If it can be broken apart, I question its value.

 

[jirskyr]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.

 

[jadtiger]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.

Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

 

[Needaname]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.

Come on even you would agree that there are instances where that is a positive.

On to the other topic
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. At this stage in time. This writer shares similar thoughts of my own on not on how I feel myself about the Tigers but how others in the general Australia Rugby League world feels about the Tigers.
And be it an over saturation of click bait media at the moment but I unfortunately don’t have the inside club updates that some others, yourself included are lucky enough to receive to alter my opinion.

 

[Needaname]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Yes I know the history of rugby league. This journalist is relatively new to our game only just living in Sydney recently.
So he is taking things at face value and **you can’t deny that to any new fan of Rugby League that our club can be perceived as confusing and lacking a vision.**
Without the Tiger mascot what is the drawing both fans and players to our club?

I don't really think that many new people to league choose their team by research carried out prior to selecting. I think generally speaking, its a location thing, a particular player, favourite colours, friends team etc.

Sure so let’s put that to the pub test.
Location;
anywhere in the south west corridor of Sydney, oh minus Canterbury to Liverpool oh and include the Northern Suburbs as a lot of Balmain fans come from the affiliation with Holy across College and Ryde suburbs.
Clear as mud.
Players;
Future Marquee Daine Laurie would be getting some attention but outside of him I don’t see a whole heap of attraction.
We have a list of probably the most maligned players in the NRL
Brooks
Noffa
MBye
Garner
Lucy
Talau
BJ
Jet
Chee Kam
Colours;
Black, Orange and White.
Because we are the tigers our mascot is Black and Orange but because we are run by Wests our Team jerseys are mostly black and white (granted Orange jerseys were included this year).
Friends team I wouldn’t know about;
However I do believe a lot of our fans are casual and probably love the nostalgia component of our suburban grounds more so than watching the tigers play.

What on earth are you on about?
I chose Balmain as a 5 year old because I liked Orange.
Lots of kids like the Souths because the mascot is a bunny.
Some follow follow a team their dad might like.
It's not rocket science - don't try to make it more than it is.

I know I know, it really could be that simple.
Btw someone corrected me, the colour is gold. Though I’ve never seen anything other than Orange.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.


Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

the Democrats picked a good one with K Harris as VP lol

 

[OzLuke]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.


Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

The Democrats aren't doing too bad themselves....

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.


Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

The Democrats aren't doing too bad themselves....

Control the WH, Senate and House. They’re doing pretty good from where I sit ?

 

[Go_You_Good_Things]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.


Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

The Democrats aren't doing too bad themselves....

How would we know how the democrats are doing ?
They have immunity from the press. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon couldn't burp without it being a 3 day press feeding frenzy, even in the Australian media. We hear virtually nothing ( in comparison ) about Biden or Kamalla. Has she taken over yet ? Is he still alive ?

 

[PJ_]

Sooooo....what's this about buzz?

 

[Russell]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

If you are going to write an article I would say you make time.

If you are going to be a dope and just make stuff up - not so much.

So it depends if you want to be taken seriously or not.

 

[Needaname]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

If you are going to write an article I would say you make time.

If you are going to be a dope and just make stuff up - not so much.

So it depends if you want to be taken seriously or not.

I’ve moved on from this Russell.

 

[Russell]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

If you are going to write an article I would say you make time.

If you are going to be a dope and just make stuff up - not so much.

So it depends if you want to be taken seriously or not.

I’ve moved on from this Russell.

Good for you.

 

[coivtny]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.


Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

the Democrats picked a good one with K Harris as VP lol

Don't laugh, she could be President soon enough.

 

[OzLuke]

Has anyone read this Forbes article below?
Makes some valid points regarding our identity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/mikemeehallwood/2021/05/12/what-is-the-point-of-wests-tigers/amp/

The bloke is English, what would he know?

Yeah I don’t know, seems odd that if he has no idea of our struggles that he would bother to write an article about it all. Thought some of it was rather on point.

He clearly has some ideas about our struggles and summed up the argument as well as anyone else has. In fact, I'd say he's completely right and I'm a Balmain fan, someone who he is suggesting should play NSW Cup.

I really disagree. I read the article a few months ago, it dismisses the history of the club as silly of confusing. You are supposed to respect all club histories for what the fans and people have put into them, not how they seem odd from the outside. I don't follow Dewsbury Rams, for example, but I respect the effort and history of the people that do.

For example:
>They’re owned 90% by Wests, but everyone calls them the Tigers, and by all accounts, they seem to play up the Tigers bit far more than the Wests bit. They are funded by Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, but none of those four stadiums that have hosted any games are anywhere near Ashfield and the other Wests Leagues Club, outside Campbelltown Stadium, isn’t formally linked to the football club at all. If you find this confusing, join the club.

That's no more confusing than why St George merged with Illawarra (on the other side of the Sharks), or why the St George mascot is a Dragon (St George killed the Dragon, right), or why Roosters are sponsored by Steggles (who kill chickens for a living), why the Souths mascot is a Rabbit (Rabbitohs would sell dead rabbits), why the most successful team of the last 20 years hasn't got a single local-born in it (it's full of Queenslanders), why the Brisbane team chose an American mascot (as did the Townsville team), why Sydney still has 9 teams, what happened to the Bears, why Easts call themselves "Sydney City" etc.

The bloke is English; if I pulled apart the history of most of the Super League clubs it would be an embarrassment of idiosyncrasies, mismanagement and niche markets.

Cool.

Do any of your points above make what he says about Wests Tigers less true?

I understand he's new to these parts and the concept of the article is sensational. The idea of what a team stands for is nonsense in 2021.

Yes his arguments are daft, un-researched and have almost no data. Shall I quote and critique examples?

For example my quote above, he asks why the club HQ is at Ashfield and not near the grounds (although Homebush and Leichhardt are close to Ashfield), then he asks why the club at Campbelltown isn't officially linked to the club. These are easily explained with knowledge of the history of the club. Wests Maggies haven't played near Ashfield for 35 years.

>If that exists, it wasn’t in Campbelltown on Saturday when the Tigers played the Gold Coast Titans.
>
>Campbelltown Stadium, home to the Wests bit since 1987, hosted 8,000 or so fans, well down on the number who attended in the last season of records (2019) and slightly less than attended the most recent game at Leichhardt Oval, home to the Balmain bit, a few weeks ago. At the two larger venues, the Tigers have had stronger attendances, but largely due to playing clubs from Sydney that bring their own contingent to boost numbers.

So he quotes one match as evidence of fandom or attendances. He goes on to say "the Tigers have had stronger attendances". This has no meaning, the Tigers have attendances at all grounds, there is only one Tigers. He means Balmain, he means the historical Balmain home, which hasn't hosted a Balmain game in 22 seasons.

He actually makes a final argument that Tigers need to play more in Campbelltown, which is contradiction to the paltry data he presents here.

>The anecdotal evidence is more damning: the jersey split seemed to be about 50% Wests Tigers, 25% old school Wests and 25% old school Balmain. When the bloke on the PA tried to start up chants of “Tigers”, a significant portion of the crowd seemed more than reluctant to join in with singing in favor of their partner.

He introduces anecdotal evidence, the biggest no-no in building an argument. The crowd "seemed" to something something. The jersey split "seemed".

>The obvious answer to why that might be is because nobody does. The Balmain Tigers, as a brand, resonate far more than Western Suburbs. I doubt even the most myopic Magpies fan would contest that, for the bulk of the living memory of both sets of fans, Balmain were the superior team.

He contests, without any data, that Balmain resonates more than Wests. I am an old Balmain supporter but I'm not going to assert that I have any idea how much Wests Magpies do (or did) resonate with other folks. I wouldn't have a clue. I was too invested in Balmain and I didn't really know Magpies people.

He says even Wests fans would concede "Living memory Balmain were superior" - I wouldn't even begin to assert such a thing. Yes in the late 80s but definitely no in the late 90s. Both teams struggled against he might of St George for a decade. It belittles the history of the Magpies without even bothering to research it.

>Balmain was different. They were from the inner city, they had glamor, they played in big games and everyone knew their jerseys. Now, they’re not really anything: they’re three afternoons a year on the hill at Leichhardt, reminiscing about old times and the old team. They’re a heritage brand, and an incredibly strong one at that. If you’ve read previous columns, you’ll know that I think they should be playing in the NSW Cup and drawing a crowd like Newtown and North Sydney do.

The glamour (sp) of Balmain? Knows nothing of the old history of Balmain, the working-class of dock builders, shipwrights and boiler makers. Even when I was a kid, no so long ago, Balmain wasn't nearly as gentrified as it is now. He reckons Balmain should join two defunct clubs in NSW Cup - Newtown and the Bears. That's dandy except Balmain are still technically part of the merger and Newtown and Bears are not - they both went broke.

>The Penrith Panthers, currently unbeaten at the top of the NRL, don’t seem to struggle getting corporate support despite also being on the outer fringes of Sydney.

Well I'm pretty sure Panthers actually have fairly modest corporate support, but that doesn't matter when they are run by a behemoth pokie den and entertainment venue. There are some reserve-grade and regional clubs (Mounties, Seagulls etc.) that are propped up by VERY profitable clubs and the corporate support is less relevant.

Staying at Concord would suit the consensus opinion that their recruitment potential is lifted by being based in the sort of place where players want to live, rather than the outskirts.

Who said that is the consensus? Who is making the argument that training at Concord suits players living arrangements? Players own cars, right?

>The name is here to stay, and is essentially a blank canvas to be built on because at the moment, it doesn’t mean anything.

Doesn't mean anything to him, he's not from Sydney. He couldn't begin to understand what it means, especially without even trying to research the history or find data to support his broad generalisations.

If I was to break down all clubs in Australia or England, even in other sports, I would find similar idiosyncrasies about every organisation, and I could write articles about it.

I’m not surprised I find you here again breaking apart another journalist’s opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Just facts back up your statement that’s great but as they say games aren’t one on paper it’s clear to me that you have no visceral sense of a topic.

And frankly this is one guys opinion and how he feels what is problematic.
You’ll find most journalism is composed from that perspective it makes a far more interesting read then being force fed statistics within print.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Yes and no. Sure the facts say that this guy might be wrong in some areas of his assessment.
But perception is key here.
Does everyone have the time to do as much research as Jirskyr does?

Hold on are you cricising me for doing "too much research"? The alternative is, what, less research?

I'm waiting for the argument where "less thinking" is also a positive.


Have a look at the Republican party in the USA,less thinking is a prerequisite

The Democrats aren't doing too bad themselves....

How would we know how the democrats are doing ?
They have immunity from the press. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon couldn't burp without it being a 3 day press feeding frenzy, even in the Australian media. We hear virtually nothing ( in comparison ) about Biden or Kamalla. Has she taken over yet ? Is he still alive ?

AOC would be the worst of them.....