Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the dire reporting of lower grade rugby in the press these days?
Even the much hyped Super 14 is poorly covered by most media, with some outlets not even giving the results of all Australian Super 14 sides, whilst going into great detail on the antics of some league players in the surf the day after a match!
We are approaching the third round of the Shute Shield in Sydney, and apart from desultory team lists and scores, there has barely been a mention.
Unfortunately, much of my spleen will be vented on the Herald (or Fairfax press), because I expect better from them.
Once upon a time, it saw itself as a rugby paper. These days its sports coverage is becoming as insular and one sided as the sports coverage in Melbourne in that it is either league or very little of anything else.
Even the Sunday Telegraph has given some coverage to the Shute Shield and give the impression that they have reporters at some of these club games.
Sometimes I think that some of the Fairfax writers do not even watch all the Super 14 sides.
Instead, the coverage seems to be heavily based around gossip, politics and perceived humour. And then, most galling, the coverage pushes perceived (and unfortunately sometimes real) issues of the game.
While the media has a job to do to inform and highlight possible problems, some of the problems they highlight are self fulfilling.
It makes no sense to say on the one hand that rugby is struggling and there is a lack of interest in the lower levels, when at the same time studiously ignoring any positive aspect of the game below provincial level.
My tirade is directed more at the Fairfax side of things as once upon a time they did a far better job of covering rugby in a much more complete sense. Which is such a shame.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
April 9th 2008 @ 1:32am
westy said | April 9th 2008 @ 1:32am | Report comment
Cameron this is not meant to be nasty as one of my sons plays in the competition. But dear me the Fairfax press has and does give rugby better coverage than its support by crowds, players. ratings would otherwise warrant. I always find it hilarious when they give article space to a GPS game as so many of the 5 million Sydneysiders truly care. This may sound hard to believe but the League NSW state Cup small crowds are generally larger than 1st grade Shute shield. I speak from experience not animosity. Bundy Rum get more bang for their buck at a much cheaper price backing League’s Friday night football than its massive 5 year sponsorship of the ARU. Do not for one minute think their recent displeasure was all about the ARU Chairman being drunk.In advertising circles everyone knows they paid too much for to little exposure. In the Fairfax press Rugby coverage is not No 4 which is where it sadly is in support nationally.
April 9th 2008 @ 10:05am
stillmissit said | April 9th 2008 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Too true unfortunately and Westy has added logic where we didnt need it. This is very painful stuff and combined with Ch7 trying to kill the game we are in a parlous state regarding coverage.
It’s chicken and egg stuff and since the Wallabies disastrous run our general coverage has gone down.
There was a big discussion regarding the rugby media last year and Greg Growden got rather badly mauled by most of the commentators here. On reflection reporting as a profession has been on the downward slope for many years. The reporters job is to stand by the pipes and cut and paste what comes down, according to an ex reporter I used to work with. New local insightful reporting is not welcome thus we have situations going on in our state and federal governments that smells of corruption but there are no reporters investigating.
Our rugby reporters are the same they are told to give the punters what they want and they assume it’s gossip, scandal and smear campaigns. Although in rugby there are enough leaks to the media to keep the reporters going week in and week out. This would be what Dan Vickerman spoke about at the last NSW board meeting.
The media is entertainment and we need to get used to it. The poor bastards who think they are getting the truth should see a shrink.
April 9th 2008 @ 10:55am
Roger said | April 9th 2008 @ 10:55am | Report comment
This littler rant is a bit off topic regarding club footy, (but I think we need to acknowledge that Club footy is akin to the Jim Beam Cup and cant really expect much coverage).
I think rugby purists need to acknowledge that you cant get market share in battle of codes just by changing the laws and playing attractive rugby.
What is needed is coverage. In the NRL, they not only have really crap games between poor sides on Fox, but also now have a youth comp on! Meanwhile S14 is on fox 3 and most pubs cant pick that up, and correct me if I am wrong, but some residential Foxtel plans dont include Fox 3.
The Wallaby brand has, up until 2007, been the most marketable brand in Australian sport, but with a poor year with Wallabies goes Australian rugby. We need to get as much rugby on TV as possible, as well as try and create a different product to AFL and League.
When we look at the NRL and AFL, teams are started up with very poor crowds, and everyone recalls seeing games years ago in Melb where storm only got a couple of thousand (there was even a very small crowd at ANZ last Saturday for ST George game), so League administrators have realised that quality of footy, crowds and memberships dont matter. What matters is market saturation.
Whilst I have a healthy mistrust of John O’Neill and his ego, the ARC (whilst a great conceptual idea) was taking on League and AFL as a national comp, and was too long a project in the making. O’Neill seems to have identified that in order to get market share, get as many teams in s14 as you can, then sell the package to Foxtel and sponsors….we just have to accept that people will watch whatever is on TV at prime time.
The main point of the ARC was to create a pathway for players. Well, here’s an idea, why not just creat more s14 teams, and (like with Force), good players will go across to new teams and standard will be fine. I do like how the NZRU has the power to distribute/loan players between provinces to ensure best players get a run. There is no use developing a good player and then saying, “we have so many good players so we need more teams”, as the player will just go o/s to get more money.
If rugby wants more money to keep players in Southern Hem, it needs to create a market that is based on Pay TV.
Finally, the ARU needs to get rugby on Free to Air TV no matter what else it does. At least one s14 game per week need to be on TV Live. This is crucial.
April 9th 2008 @ 11:53am
Midfielder said | April 9th 2008 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Cameron
Your title tricked me a little as by grassroots I through you meant park rugby and as I have said many times the clash between private schools and local park rugby is so silly and if it was not so serious it would be funny.
However the very clubs yopu speak have allowed the above problem to happen for years. I ask you honestly to compare the management team behind any of the AFL, NRL & A-League clubs and compare them to a Eastwood or Gordon the rugby clubs are not in the same league. Its like comparing a primary school student with a PHD lecturer.
Having mainly a football background I can feel your pain at the lessor press and sometimes the bad press. However in football we have realised we caused it with inept management and all the faults of the old NSL. Your problem at local club level like a Eastwood, Gordon, Manly etc is because of the management at those clubs and the massive local park club problems caused by the schools clashing with the winter comp.
Your starting point is rugby needs to look to what its actual problems are, and fix them. But I wonder do the clubs you speak of have the smarts to do the analysis and make the hard calls.
April 9th 2008 @ 12:40pm
cosmos forever said | April 9th 2008 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Further to roger and midfielder’s points (and without going into the ARC heaven forbid…) I reckon the reason the Shute etc isn’t covered is that is doesn’t speak to enough people.
Clubs in NSW and QLD (I think) confuse Tribalism with Parochialism. Club rugby in these states looks exactly what it is – a competition played out by established players who aren’t open to much else (ask the Vikings).
Rugby League and AFL however have managed to leave behind parochialism and (writely or wrongly) market that as tribalism to a much bigger audience than the respective club audiences.
Flow on is that a journo can write about Tigers players swimming in the surf because people around Australia want to read that – no-one outside of Randwick want to read about Randwick players.
April 9th 2008 @ 12:41pm
El Capitan said | April 9th 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Lets hope with the introduction of the new HD channels, that rugby can find a place on tv to be watched. After all 10 is screening the NFL this year on its HD channel.
April 9th 2008 @ 12:52pm
Frank Ellis said | April 9th 2008 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Cameron,
You description of Rugby Club management vs Rugby League is a bit harsh as Rugby is managed by enthusiastic amateurs not paid employees, like League, and therein lies a part of the problem. The major part is payment of players which creates the haves and the have nots which leads to a huge imbalance of talent swung in the favour of Sydney University, with their scholarship scheme, and the wealthier, or more attractive, Clubs. The result is good players running on in 2nd and 3rd Grade at some Clubs due to the Club warehousing a gang of talent through payments.
The answer, and a big step to producing a level playing field and a competitive Competition, who wants to see the same teams in every Grand Final, is to stop playing players or introduce a sensible payment ceiling that would see a fairer distribution of talent, closer game results, a resurgence of spectator support as their team becomes more competitive and perhaps a greater media recognition as games become closer and more exciting.
The next step is for the S14 Teams and the ARU to reward Clubs who produce for them representative players eg. $5,000.00 for a Super14 and $10,000.00 for a Wallaby. These funds in turn could be used by Clubs to develop their Juniors or Academies or, maybe, pay for some professional management.
April 9th 2008 @ 1:30pm
Norm said | April 9th 2008 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Cameron
the Shute shield is getting the coverage it deserves.
April 9th 2008 @ 3:48pm
DT said | April 9th 2008 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
I love Aussie rugby, have watched and played it most of my life, but I’m not at all interested in club rugby.The standard is poor, even in test season where a number of the professionals from the super 14 are playing. I’d rather watch the NPC or Curry Cup on Foxtel, or obviously the ARC, if they hadn’t killed it.
I’ve been to the odd Rats or Manly game, but despite growing up and living in Manly-Warringah my whole life, I don’t feel any real connection to those clubs. If the replacement for the ARC involves the likes of Randwick, Sydney Uni or Eastwood, I won’t be barracking for them either.
I think there are more Aussie rugby fans like me than those who follow a club. I’ll start watching that level of rugby when the standard is worthy of my attention, and I’m given a team to support who vaguely represents the North side of Sydney.
April 9th 2008 @ 7:07pm
Joe FC said | April 9th 2008 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
DT
I agree to the extent that any ARC replacement competition which affords preference to the likes of Randwick & Sydney Uni will only alienate large sections of the already small Sydney club rugby fan base. The so called centre of excellence model is an act of self-deception perpetuated in order to hide the lack of quality & quantity.