It's a rugby town

Please someone tell me the 8,662 quoted by the BBC for tonight's game in the premier competition in the sport is accurate.

Can you imagine the press outcry if we got an attendance like that in the second tier nevermind the very top level?

Edit - ah balls, can you change the header please mod? (done - DMD)

 

Biggest game of the season. £5 to get in.

 

It's actually a rugby CITY (apparently)

 

Devils advocate.

It was a non season ticket match so all had to pay for tickets. But if it was just a fiver...

They'll take a big following to Warrington though.

 

I know NOTHING about rugby so what's the average attendance of KR and the attendance on FC at a regular season match? Because surely if they both add up to more then 15-20k it will be a rugby city.

 

They don't.

 

For those who follow Rugby League it's a rugby town, for those who follow football, it's a football town. Each to their own and plenty of room for everyone...get it over it! Or perhaps do as I do: enjoy the fact that Hull has three pro teams at least playing in the second tier or above! Frankly, I hope the RU sides rise up the ranks and join them.

 

WIGAN always has been.

 

11k average + 7k average =more than 15k average.

This whole rugby town football town is bollocks anyway, why people can't enjoy more than one sport I'll never know.

 

They can, just not football and that **** 'sport'. It's like saying why cant Muslims pray to Allah and the Jew god (sorry to bring up religion but only way I could describe it)

 

That's wrong for a number of reasons.

Amongst them; using the average isn't comparing like for like as there are a different number of RL games and the price and local media hype differ. It also ignores football fans that don't follow the Tigers or that do follow them while exiled.

Interestingly, it tends to be FC fans that want the comparison. Rovers fans seem confident enough to just enjoy their chosen hobby for itself.

 

You're completely missing my point which wasnt about the fans or the relevant merits of the 2 sports but the media. If FC had yesterday had an attendance over 14,000 for the most important game of the season against a local rival it wouldve been described as 'bumper', whereas City getting that crowd for a 2nd tier match against a southern team bringing 150 fans is 'worrying'. Indeed my point has been proven with the fall in City's attendances dominating talk this morning on Humberside.

 

Just for the record it was £5 for kids, £18 was the cheapest adult price.

Rugby League is a smaller game on the whole, attendances should be and are lower than football, they are different sports with different demographics and it is of no benefit to compare them (in fact only the football fans do).

Hull is considered a rugby city because we have achieved far more in the sport of rugby league than we ever have/will in football. It is an outsiders view that we are a rugby city, this isn't a slur on football, it's just a perception of the city as a whole.

Whatever your view is on either sport you should be proud that our (relatively) small, working class city can sustain three elite sports clubs, four if you include the ice hockey.

There shouldn't be this 'us vs them' mentality (I can assure you rugby fans do not feel the same way), I'm not saying you need to enjoy both sports, just appreciate that others do and that it reflects positively on the city.

You could look at it that both clubs got relatively poor attendances this weekend or you could say nearly 10% of the city turned out to watch their local teams compete in elite level sport, depends how miserable you are I suppose!

 

Oh and without wanting to wind people up, I went to both games this weekend and the rugby atmosphere proved there's nothing wrong with the KC when it comes to making noise, even when it's a third full.

Something worth considering when we blame the KC for the lack of atmosphere at city games.

 

Im sorry but that is just absolute bollocks. Ive heard more local people say to me that Hull is a 'rugby town, always has been always will be' and referring to football as 'Nancyball' than attended the match yesterday.

 

Airlie, most people outside of rugby league don't think of rugby league full stop never mind associating it with Hull. The odd one that's heard of it thinks of Mike Yarwood copying Eddie Waring trying to say Hull Kingston Rovers, because it's an odd name.

Rugby tends to mean union. As for 'success'. In RL it only takes a couple of wins to get to Wembley. In which case Batley have had more success than the combined might of FC and KR combined.

My pub darts team have more 'success'.

As for the atmosphere, all I can say to that is, even allowing for the extra reverberation time from the empty stands, it certainly doesn't come over on the odd bits of it I've caught on TV.

And...this whole debate is fuelled by the comments of (mainly FC) nuggets. I'm sat listening to a couple of them now trying to work out the pecularities of the play off system.

 

Your exaggeration aside that may be your personal experience and I can only speak of mine. I don't doubt that some are of that opinion, however there are never threads on the rugby board such as this one, in fact football is never mentioned.

 

In the first place, yes there are. In the second place, they tend to get locked or deleted as the mods know the rl fans lose the debate every time. They live too much in a bubble to see the bigger picture.

 

Rugby league is **** anyway, uncompetitive, no relegation or promotion, soft as ****, they should all just play union there's no need to have two league systems for such a minor sport. How many countries play the rugby league world cup? I'd guess there's probably about the same amount that play the American football world cup.

 

Agreed, I've already said it's a much smaller sport, however people do associate it with Hull otherwise this thread wouldn't exist and people wouldn't be getting their knickers in a twist over it all.

Completely agree again, but it's double standards, you can't slag off rugby attendances as if they should be equal to football but then say the sports are miles apart when it comes to measuring success. I made the point the two shouldn't be compared and you've just proved it.

Hull Vikings (speedway) are actually the most success Hull sports team if were going to go down that route, but I'm pretty sure speedway trophies are easier to win than rugby ones.

Until you've attended both you can't really comment, I don't expect you to agree either, it was probably an inflammatory statement that I shouldn't have made, it was only going to cause arguments on here.

To a non-rugby fan (and indeed a rugby fan) the play-off system is complicated and ridiculous, I don't envy you having to work it out for the first time!