The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

The ELV debate is a sideshow distracting us from more important questions

Roar Guru
18th May, 2008
4
1156 Reads

The Super 14 rounds are now complete, and there’s been much debate about the new rules. We’ve also seen the question start to polarise a Northern/Southern hemisphere divide.

From the South, it’s easy to say that the variations have made the Super 14 more exciting, have been mostly a success, and therefore the North are a conservative bunch who love the 10 man game and are holding back world rugby. Is this perspective correct, or are we looking in the wrong places and spending time on the wrong debate?

We in the South want to change rules because we’re worried about declining audiences and stiff competition from other codes. We think we can make the game more exciting, and that the ELVs will help achieve this. Wrong, I say, because…

a) In effect we’ve run a global experiment this year – Super 14 using ELVs, the North not. The result – the North has had a good season this year, described as ‘vintage’ by several UK writers, the English and European tournaments have drawn record crowds and record TV audiences. The top 4 sides in the English competition each score an average of about 25 points per game – reasonably high by any standard. The rules simply do not look ‘broken’ to the North, and they’ve achieved better ratings than us without them. Whereas in the South the ELVs don’t seem to have achieved any great change to rugby crowds (probably slightly reduced). Conclusion – ELVs have had a neutral or if anything negative impact on rugby popularity this year.

b) The Super 14 is a pitifully short tournament. It’s not yet the end of May, the winter hasn’t officially started, and this winter sport is over at this level until next year. In contrast, taking the English as an example, the Northern clubs play 22 matches in the league, then play finals, and the better teams play in the European cup as well. That’s 30-35 games per year for the top clubs. The Brumbies and Force will play 13, the Tahs 14 or 15. Result – the crowds barely get into rugby and then have to find something else to watch. And the players need another job for 8 months every year – no surprise they go to other codes and countries as well. The ELVs are a distraction from this far more crucial factor in the sport’s Australian success.

c) More points does not mean a more exciting game. Rules that create more points will not necessarily make it more compelling. The biggest global sport by far is soccer – this game commands huge revenues and crowds, but does so with very low scores. (Perhaps an average goal count of 2 per match.) Points do not make games more exciting, in fact it seems that the opposite can be true – it is tension, suspense and occasional flashes of brilliances that win our hearts and have us coming back to watch again. Do we dare try some alternative ELVs that make points harder to score?

d) And lastly – the Southern game is already more exciting and speedy that the North. Southern talent is generally superior. A few more minutes game time and a bit more pace is all well and good but it really is not the problem.

And so, whilst many of the ELVs are improvements and worth adopting, we should not for a moment think that they are either that important to us or to world rugby. The problems, lessons and cures are elsewhere.

Advertisement
close